Since the beginning of the history of humanity nations established alliances with others to protect temselves from the third parties. There were several great alliances in the history and the most memorable could be the alliances during the WWII. What about current alliances bewteen nations. According to Wikipedia, this is the situation;

Current military-security alliances



Economic Community of Central African States Angola Burundi Cameroon Chad Central African Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Gabon Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea São Tomé and Príncipe



North America


South America


Africa and Asia

  • Arab League Arab League Saudi Arabia Yemen United Arab Emirates Bahrain Oman Iraq Syria Jordan Lebanon Egypt Libya Tunisia Algeria Morocco State of Palestine Sudan Djibouti Somalia Comoros Kuwait Qatar Mauritania
  • Islamic Military Alliance (IMAFT), a 34-member alliance based at a joint command center in RiyadhSaudi Arabia. Its creation was first announced by Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, the Saudi Minister of Defense, on December 14, 2015. Saudi Arabia Egypt Libya Tunisia Morocco Mali Mauritania Sudan Somalia Chad Nigeria Niger United Arab Emirates Yemen Qatar Bahrain Turkey Pakistan Bangladesh Malaysia Djibouti Benin Kuwait Lebanon Maldives Oman State of Palestine Senegal Sierra Leone Togo Gabon Eritrea Comoros Ivory Coast Afghanistan

Africa and South America



North America and Africa

North America and Asia

North America and Europe

  • Flag of NATO.svg NATOEnlarged from 1999 to include eastern European states. North Atlantic Treaty only covers European, North American, and French Algerian (now independent and therefore not in force) territory. United States United Kingdom France Canada Belgium Denmark Iceland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Greece Turkey Germany Spain Czech Republic Hungary Poland Bulgaria Estonia Latvia Lithuania Romania Slovakia Slovenia Albania CroatiaMontenegro

North America and Oceania



Visits: 284


Following the Brexit UK should make new trade deals with EU as EU is the main trade partner of the UK and all types of advantages regarding customs duties and several other issues shall help UK economy a lot. But it seems that EU shall not make the life easy for the UK. Here is an article from regarding the issue.

Brexit: EU Parliament makes tough demands for talks

Visits: 221


There are several countries and regions of the world in which ongoing conflicts contradicts with the policies of United States of America. Here is an analysis of the conflicting areas of the world with a US view. The information has been gathered through (council on foreign relations)

THe following condilcist signifcantly impact US interests;

  • Civil War in Syria
  • Political Instability in Iraq
  • Islamist Militancy in Pakistan
  • Political Instability in Lebanon
  • Instability in Egypt
  • Conflict in Ukraine
  • Conflict Between Turkey and Armed Kurdish Groups
  • Criminal Violance in Mexico
  • ISraeli-Palestinian Conflict
  • Bako Haram in Nigeria
  • Conflict Between India and Pakistan
  • Instability in Venezuela

There are also some conflicting areas which have limited impact on US interests

  • Civil War inLibya
  • War in Yemen
  • Nagarno-Karabakh Conflict
  • Destabilization of Mali
  • Violance in the Central African Republic
  • Violance in the Democratic Republic of Congo
  • Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar
  • Civil War in South Sudan
  • Al Shabab in Somalia


Here are the details why those conflicts are related with US;


Instability in Egypt

Middle East and North Africa

Impact on U.S. Interests
Conflict Status
Type of Conflict
Political Instability

Estimated total youth unemployment

Estimated number of Islamic State fighters in Egypt
U.S. foreign aid in 2019


Recent Developments

In February 2018, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi ordered the Egyptian military to defeat the militant group Wilayat Sinai, a local affiliate of the self-proclaimed Islamic State. The military subsequently announced the launch of wide-ranging counterterrorism measures in the Sinai Peninsula and parts of the Nile Delta and Western Desert. Operations have included the demolition of homes, commercial buildings, and farms, resulting in the displacement of thousands. The military stated in February 2019 that it has killed more than five hundred and fifty militants since operations began in 2018.

After orchestrating the arrests of his primary challenger and dozens of critics, Sisi was re-elected for a second term in March 2018. Sisi has since pushed through new laws to combat extremism, including one in August 2018 that increased government control over the internet, and has consistently extended Egypt’s state of emergency, which was first declared in April 2017 following terrorist attacks on Coptic churches. In February 2019, a proposal to extend Sisi’s presidency and expand his power was put before Egypt’s parliament; despite allegations of bribery, the proposal was approved in a referendum later that month, allowing Sisi to extend his term and run again in 2024.


Wilayat Sinai (formerly known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis) emerged as a terrorist organization in the Sinai Peninsula following the popular uprising and subsequent overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak in 2011. Mubarak’s successor, the democratically elected President Mohammed Morsi, was also ousted from power by the military in July 2013 following widespread anti-Muslim Brotherhood protests. After a year-long interim government, former Defense Minister Abdel Fatah al-Sisi was elected president in May 2014 and vowed to continue crackdowns against the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters.

In November 2014, Wilayat Sinai declared its allegiance to the Islamic State. The group has since claimed responsibility for numerous attacks, including the November 2017 attack on a mosque that killed more than three hundred people, the April 2017 attack on Coptic churches in Tanta and Alexandria that killed at least forty-four people, the December 2016 attack on at a Coptic chapel in Cairo that killed at least twenty-five people, and the October 2015 downing of a Russian airplane that killed all 224 people aboard. Wilayat Sinai has also carried out attacks on Egyptian military and government sites near Egypt’s border with Gaza and Israel, prompting security cooperation between Egypt and Israel.

Egypt also faces a burgeoning terrorist threat in its western desert where al-Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Islam, has begun operating. The group orchestrated an attack on Egyptian security forces in October 2017 and has since operated along Egypt’s border with Libya.

Since assuming office in 2014, Sisi has enacted economic reforms to improve the flagging economy, and counterterrorism laws to combat the threat of insurgency. Critics of Sisi have warned that his government has marginalized poor communities, repressed free speech, and infringed on human rights.


The United States remains concerned that Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and Western Desert could become sanctuaries for the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Terrorist groups could also contribute to political instability in Egypt, which remains a key regional ally for the U.S. military, further destabilize Libya, and threaten Israel.


Conflict in Ukraine

Europe and Eurasia

Impact on U.S. Interests
Conflict Status
Type of Conflict
Territorial Dispute

MORE THAN 10,000
Estimated number of civilian casualties

Estimated number of internally displaced people

Length of front line


Recent Developments

The conflict in eastern Ukraine has transitioned to a stalemate after it first erupted in early 2014, but shelling and skirmishes still occur regularly, including an escalation in violence in the spring of 2018.

Since taking office, the Donald J. Trump administration has continued to pressure Russia over its involvement eastern Ukraine. In January 2018, the United States imposed new sanctions on twenty-one individuals and nine companies linked to the conflict. In March 2018, the State Department approved the sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, the first sale of lethal weaponry since the conflict began, and in July 2018 the Department of Defense announced an additional $200 million in defensive aid to Ukraine, bringing the total amount of aid provided since 2014 to $1 billion.

In October 2018, Ukraine joined the United States and seven other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries in a series of large-scale air exercises in western Ukraine. The exercises came after Russia held its annual military exercises in September 2018, the largest since the fall of the Soviet Union.


The crisis in Ukraine began with protests in the capital city of Kiev in November 2013 against Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to reject a deal for greater economic integration with the European Union. After a violent crackdown by state security forces unintentionally drew an even greater number of protesters and escalated the conflict, President Yanukovych fled the country in February 2014.

In March 2014, Russian troops took control of Ukraine’s Crimean region, before formally annexing the peninsula after Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation in a disputed local referendum. Russian President Vladimir Putin cited the need to protect the rights of Russian citizens and Russian speakers in Crimea and southeast Ukraine. The crisis heightened ethnic divisions, and two months later pro-Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine held a referendum to declare independence from Ukraine.

Violence in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed separatist forces and the Ukrainian military has by conservative estimates killed more than 10,300 people and injured nearly 24,000 since April 2014. Although Moscow has denied its involvement, Ukraine and NATO have reported the buildup of Russian troops and military equipment near Donetsk and Russian cross-border shelling.

In July 2014, the situation in Ukraine escalated into an international crisis and put the United States and the European Union (EU) at odds with Russia when a Malaysian Airlines flight was shot down over Ukrainian airspace, killing all 298 onboard. Dutch air accident investigators concluded in October 2015 that the plane had been downed by a Russian-built surface-to-air missile. In September 2016, investigators said that the missile system was provided by Russia, determining it was moved into eastern Ukraine and then back to Russian territory following the downing of the airplane.

Since February 2015, France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine have attempted to broker a cessation in violence through the Minsk Accords. The agreement includes provisions for a cease-fire, withdrawal of heavy weaponry, and full Ukrainian government control throughout the conflict zone. However, efforts to reach a diplomatic settlement and satisfactory resolution have been unsuccessful.

In April 2016, NATO announced that the alliance would deploy four battalions to Eastern Europe, rotating troops through Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to deter possible future Russian aggression elsewhere in Europe, particularly in the Baltics. These battalions were joined by two U.S. Army tank brigades, deployed to Poland in September 2017 to further bolster the alliance’s deterrence presence.

Ukraine has been the target of a number of cyberattacks since the conflict started in 2014. In December 2015, more than 225,000 people lost power across Ukraine in an attack, and in December 2016 parts of Kiev experienced another power blackout following a similar attack targeting a Ukrainian utility company. In June 2017, government and business computer systems in Ukraine were hit by the NotPetya cyberattack; the crippling attack, attributed to Russia, spread to computer systems worldwide and caused billions of dollars in damages.


The conflict in Ukraine risks further deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations and greater escalation if Russia expands its presence in Ukraine or into NATO countries. Russia’s actions have raised wider concerns about its intentions elsewhere in Eastern Europe, and a Russian incursion into a NATO country would solicit a response from the United States as a NATO ally. The conflict has heightened tensions in Russia’s relations with both the United States and Europe, complicating the prospects for cooperation elsewhere including on issues of terrorism, arms control, and a political solution in Syria.


Al-Shabab in Somalia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Impact on U.S. Interests
Conflict Status
Type of Conflict
Transnational Terrorism

Estimated number of al-Shabab fighters

Number of AMISOM uniformed personnel

$421.8 MILLION
Total U.S. humanitarian assistance to Somalia


Recent Developments

Al-Shabab continues to conduct attacks both within Somalia and in neighboring Kenya, including a January 15, 2019, attack on an upscale Nairobi hotel complex in which at least twenty-one civilians were killed and hundreds held hostage. The militants also continue to target the Somali state and African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) forces.

The United States has significantly increased the tempo of air strikes against al-Shabab since 2016 and broadened its troop presence and involvement in Somalia in 2017. In June 2018, al-Shabab claimed responsibility for an attack that killed one U.S. special operations forces soldier, the first U.S. combat death in Somalia since a member of the Navy SEALs was killed in a raid in May 2017.


Since its inception in 2006, al-Shabab has capitalized on the feebleness of Somalia’s central government, despite the government’s strengthening in recent years, to control large swaths of ungoverned territory. The terrorist group reached its peak in 2011 when it controlled parts of the capital city of Mogadishu and the vital port of Kismayo. Kenyan troops, operating as part of AMISOM, entered Somalia later that year and successfully pushed al-Shabab out of most of its strongholds.

In response to the 2011 intervention, al-Shabab has committed more than 150 attacks in Kenya, a long-time U.S. ally. The most brutal were a January 2016 attack on a Kenyan army camp in El Adde killing 200 soldiers, an April 2015 attack on a Kenyan college campus that killed 148 people, and a September 2013 attack on a mall in Nairobi that killed at least 67.

The United States has pursued a two-pronged approach in Somalia by providing financial and logistical support to AMISOM and conducting counterterrorism operations, including drone strikes and special operations forces raids, against suspected al-Shabab militants. Since 2007, the United States has provided more than half a billion dollars to train and equip African Union forces battling al-Shabab. In September 2014, the United States launched an air strike that killed at least six people, al-Shabab’s leader, Ahmed Abdi Godane, after which the group immediately named Ahmed Umar as his successor. In May 2016, a U.S. strike using both drones and manned aircraft reportedly killed 150 al-Shabab soldiers at a training camp north of Mogadishu.


The primary U.S. objective in Somalia is to minimize the ability of al-Shabab and other violent groups to destabilize Somalia or its neighbors and harm the United States or its allies. Al-Shabab’s continued attacks degrade the Somali government’s ability to both provide security and alleviate the dire humanitarian situation in the country, and its influence in Somalia undermines the United States’ efforts to prevent the use of Somalia as a refuge for international terrorists.

Visits: 230


The oppostion against President Donald Trump is strong since from the first day of his appointment to the office. The Democrats are highly annoyed by most of the Trump’s decisions regardless of the subject. Together with the big portion of the US media, they have done everything in their power to show Trump as a non-trustable person and they have managed to start a dismissal case which ended up the Senate’s decision for the Trump to continue his duties as the President of the US.

There are lot of comments regarding the Senate’s decision. Here are some views from the world press;


Trump acquitted by Senate in impeachment trial  

President Donald Trump has been cleared in his impeachment trial, ending a congressional bid to remove him from office that bitterly divided the US.

The Senate, run by the president’s fellow Republicans, voted to acquit him 52-48 on charges of abuse of power and 53-47 on obstruction of Congress.

Democrats charged Mr Trump in December with pressuring Ukraine to smear a potential White House rival.

He will become the first impeached president to seek re-election.

In its historic vote on Wednesday, the Senate decided not to remove America’s 45th president from office on charges arising from his dealings with Ukraine.

If convicted on either charge, Mr Trump would have had to turn over his office to Vice-President Mike Pence.

The Democratic-led House of Representatives approved the articles of impeachment on 18 December.
How did President Trump react?

Mr Trump, who is seeking a second four-year term in the 3 November election, always denied wrongdoing.

His re-election campaign said in a statement: “President Trump has been totally vindicated and it’s now time to get back to the business of the American people.

“The do-nothing Democrats know they can’t beat him, so they had to impeach him.” It said “this terrible ordeal” and “nonsense” was merely a Democratic campaign tactic.

The statement added: “This impeachment hoax will go down as the worst miscalculation in American political history.”

Mr Trump – whose personal approval rating with American voters hit a personal best of 49% this week, according to Gallup – tweeted that he would speak on Thursday about the case.

How did the impeachment vote play out?
Mitt Romney of Utah was the only Republican senator to cross the aisle and convict Mr Trump, on the first charge of abuse of power.
Despite Democratic hopes, two other moderate Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, did not join Mr Romney in voting to convict the president.

Some Republican senators criticised Mr Trump’s behaviour in recent days, but said it did not rise to the level of impeachment.
Three centrist Democratic senators who Republicans had hoped would side with them instead voted to convict Mr Trump.

They were Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Doug Jones of Alabama.

A two-thirds majority vote was needed to remove Mr Trump, which was always going to be a long shot in a 100-seat chamber controlled by his party.
What was Trump accused of?
The impeachment charges focused on Mr Trump’s request that Kyiv announce a corruption investigation into Joe Biden, a Democratic White House candidate, and his son Hunter Biden.

Mr Trump has argued that the younger Biden improperly held a board position with a Ukrainian natural gas firm while his father was US vice-president and in charge of American-Ukrainian relations.

Democrats accused Mr Trump of abusing his power by withholding $391m (£300m) in security aid to prod Ukraine’s president into digging up dirt on the Bidens.

They also charged Mr Trump with obstruction of Congress after the White House blocked testimony and documents sought by the House impeachment investigators.

The impeachment inquiry stemmed from Mr Trump’s phone call on 25 July this year in which he asked Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky to “do us a favour”.

Following a complaint from an anonymous government whistleblower, Democrats launched their investigation in September, compiling a 28,000-page report.

What is the historical precedent?
Mr Trump is the third US president to have been impeached.

The two others, Bill Clinton in 1999 and Andrew Johnson in 1868, were left in power by the Senate and did not seek re-election.

President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

How did Democrats react?

Democrats expressed concern that acquittal would further embolden a president whom they depict as a demagogue.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Mr Trump remains “an ongoing threat to American democracy” and that Senate Republicans had “normalised lawlessness”
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said there will always be “a giant asterisk next to the president’s acquittal”
“No doubt, the president will boast he received total exoneration,” said the New York senator. “But we know better.”
What did Republican senators say?
Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee warned before he voted to acquit that a guilty verdict would “rip the country apart”
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said the entire case against Mr Trump had been a “circus” and “a colossal political mistake”
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the proceedings were a “sham” designed to destroy a presidency
Mr Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, choked up on the Senate floor as he explained his decision to convict the president
He said Mr Trump had been “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust” and “a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values”.
Is this the end of the matter?
Mr Trump has probably not heard the last of the Ukraine investigation.

Jerry Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said on Wednesday the chamber would “likely” issue a subpoena to Mr Trump’s former National Security Adviser, John Bolton.

Senate Republicans ultimately declined to seek Mr Bolton’s testimony during the president’s impeachment trial, provoking uproar from Democrats.

A manuscript of a forthcoming Bolton memoir reportedly alleges Mr Trump told his former national security adviser to help him pressure Ukraine.


Trump Acquitted of Two Impeachment Charges in Near Party-Line Vote

As Republicans rallied behind President Trump, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, joined Democrats in voting to convict, the only senator to cross party lines.
By Nicholas Fandos

WASHINGTON — After five months of hearings, investigations and revelations about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, a divided United States Senate acquitted him on Wednesday of charges that he abused his power and obstructed Congress to aid his own re-election, bringing an acrimonious impeachment trial to its expected end.

In a pair of votes whose outcome was never in doubt, the Senate fell well short of the two-thirds margin that would have been needed to remove the 45th president. The verdicts came down — after three weeks of debate — almost entirely along party lines, with every Democrat voting “guilty” on both charges and Republicans uniformly voting “not guilty” on the obstruction of Congress charge.

Only one Republican, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, broke with his party to judge Mr. Trump guilty of abuse of power.

It was the third impeachment trial of a president and the third acquittal in American history, and it ended the way it began: with Republicans and Democrats at odds. They disagreed over Mr. Trump’s conduct and his fitness for office, even as some members of his own party conceded the basic allegations that undergirded the charges, that he sought to pressure Ukraine to smear his political rivals.


But in a sign of the widening partisan divide testing the country and its institutions, the verdict did not promise finality, which members of both parties conceded would come only after the November election.

The president himself did not directly address his acquittal, but shortly afterward, he announced on Twitter that he would make a public statement on Thursday at the White House about what he called “our Country’s VICTORY on the Impeachment Hoax.” He then tweeted an attack ad against Mr. Romney that called the senator a “Democrat secret asset.”
At the Capitol earlier in the day, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who presided over the trial, put the question to senators shortly after 4 p.m.: “Senators how say you? Is the respondent, Donald John Trump, president of the United States guilty or not guilty?”

Seated at their mahogany desks, senators stood one by one to answer “guilty” or “not guilty” to each of the two articles of impeachment.


“It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump be, and he is hereby, acquitted of the charges in said articles,” declared Chief Justice Roberts after the second article was defeated.

Democratic leaders immediately insisted the result was illegitimate, the product of a self-interested cover-up by Republicans, and promised to continue their investigations of Mr. Trump.

“The verdict of this kangaroo court will be meaningless,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said moments before the vote. “By refusing the facts — by refusing witnesses and documents — the Republican majority has placed a giant asterisk, the asterisk of a sham trial, next to the acquittal of President Trump, written in permanent ink.”

During a statement to his colleagues, Senator Mitt Romney said he would vote to convict President Trump of abuse of power, becoming the first Republican to break party ranks.
In the last several weeks I’ve received numerous calls and texts. Many demanded in their words that I stand with the team. I can assure you that thought has been very much on my mind. You see, I support a great deal of what the president has done. I’ve voted with him 80 percent of the time. But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me, for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong. So the verdict is ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfill our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did.

“This decision has been made,” Mr. McConnell said curtly. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s in the rearview mirror.”

As expected, the tally in favor of conviction on each article fell far below the 67-vote threshold necessary for removal. The first charge was abuse of power, accusing Mr. Trump of a scheme to use the levers of government to coerce Ukraine to do his political bidding. It did not even garner a majority vote, failing 48 to 52, with Mr. Romney voting with the Democrats. The second article, charging Mr. Trump with obstruction of Congress for an across-the-board blockade of House subpoenas and oversight requests, failed 47 to 53, strictly on party lines.

Like this one, the trials of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton also ended in acquittal — a reflection of the Constitution’s high burden for removing a chief executive.

But in a stinging rebuke of the country’s leader aimed at history, Mr. Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, said that Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine was “the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.” Though he voted against the second article, Mr. Romney became emotional on the Senate floor in the hours before the verdict on Wednesday as he described why he deemed Mr. Trump guilty of abuse of power, calling it a matter of conscience. He was the first senator ever to vote to remove a president of his own party.

“I am sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters,” Mr. Romney said. “Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?”

Mr. Romney’s defection, which he announced a couple of hours before the final vote, was a stark reflection of the sweeping transformation of the Republican Party over the past eight years into one that is now dominated almost entirely by Mr. Trump. And it deprived the president of the monolithic Republican support he had eagerly anticipated.


Still, the White House declared victory.

“Today, the sham impeachment attempt concocted by Democrats ended in the full vindication and exoneration of President Donald J. Trump,” said Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary. “As we have said all along, he is not guilty.”

Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign moved quickly to capitalize on the moment, distributing a fund-raising email declaring, “Sorry haters, I’m not going anywhere.”

Several Republican senators ultimately acknowledged the heart of the House case — that Mr. Trump undertook a concerted pressure campaign on Ukraine to secure politically beneficial investigations into his rivals, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., using nearly $400 million in military aid as leverage.

But most argued that the conduct was not sufficiently dangerous to warrant the Senate removing a president from office for the first time in history — and certainly not with an election so near. Others dismissed Democrats’ arguments altogether, insisting their case was merely an attempt to dress up hatred for Mr. Trump and his policies as a constitutional case.

Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, two Republican swing votes who have tilted against the president in the past, both voted against conviction and removal. And two Democrats from traditionally conservative-leaning states, Senators Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, voted to convict Mr. Trump, denying him the bipartisan acquittal he coveted.

Although the verdict was never in doubt, Democrats lobbied to expand the scope of the Senate trial to include witnesses and documents that the president refused to provide during the House inquiry, working to pressure vulnerable Republicans facing challenging re-election contests, like Ms. Collins, to join them or risk being portrayed as beholden to Mr. Trump. All but two Republicans refused, making the trial the first impeachment proceeding in American history to reach a verdict without calling witnesses.


As they closed their case, the seven Democratic House managers who prosecuted it warned that Mr. Trump would emerge only emboldened in his monarchical tendencies and that those who appeased him would be judged harshly by history. Republicans, they said, had chosen to leave the president’s future up to voters despite evidence that he had tried to cheat in the election, and would continue to do so.

Seldom used in American history, impeachment is the Constitution’s most extreme mechanism for checking a corrupt or out of control officeholder. In unsheathing it, Democrats took on political risk that could backfire in November on their presidential nominee or their incumbents in Congress, including moderates in conservative districts and states where Mr. Trump is popular.

At least one Democrat, Senator Doug Jones of Alabama, glancingly acknowledged that his vote to convict would most likely contribute to his loss this fall in deeply conservative Alabama.

“There will be so many who will simply look at what I am doing today and say it is a profile in courage,” Mr. Jones said before the vote. “It is not. It is simply a matter of right and wrong.”

For now, the impeachment of Mr. Trump appears to have evenly divided the nation. Public opinion polls suggest that even though a growing number of Americans agreed that the president most likely abused his office and acted improperly, more than a slight majority never agreed that he should be removed from office.

If Mr. Trump’s standing among the public has been hurt by the trial, it is not yet evident. To the contrary, the latest Gallup poll, released on Tuesday, showed that 49 percent of Americans approved of his job performance — the highest figure since he took office three years ago. The same survey showed that Republicans’ image has improved markedly, with 51 percent viewing them favorably compared with 43 percent in September.


The possibility of impeachment has hung over Mr. Trump’s presidency virtually since it began, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, initially resisted it. After Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated Russia’s election interference in 2016 and possible collaboration with the Trump campaign, found 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump, she said impeachment was too divisive a remedy to pursue.

Her calculations changed in September with the emergence of an anonymous C.I.A. whistle-blower that accused the president of marshaling the powers of government to press Ukraine to investigate Mr. Biden and a theory that Democrats had colluded with Ukraine in the 2016 election. In authorizing the impeachment inquiry, Ms. Pelosi tasked the House Intelligence Committee to investigate the scheme and build a case.

Mr. Trump issued a blanket directive to all government agencies not to comply with the inquiry, robbing investigators of key witnesses and facts that could have filled out their case, and ultimately giving rise to the obstruction of Congress charge.

Still, more than a dozen administration officials came forward, offering testimony in private and then in scintillating public hearings that confirmed and expanded on the whistle-blower complaint. On Dec. 18, the House impeached Mr. Trump on both counts.

To protect his Senate majority as much as the presidency, Mr. McConnell promised a swift acquittal — and he delivered it. It was just 20 days from the time the articles of impeachment were first read on the Senate floor to Wednesday’s vote. By comparison, the Clinton trial in 1999 lasted five weeks, and in 1868, the Senate took the better part of three months to try Johnson.

The final shift in defenses by all but the most conservative of Mr. Trump’s allies came last week, when The New York Times reported the first in a series of articles revealing that in August, Mr. Trump told John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, that he would not release the military aid for Ukraine until the country helped out with investigations into Mr. Biden and other Democrats.

Impeachment was seriously contemplated for a president only once in the first two centuries of the American republic; it now has been so three times since the 1970s, and two of the past four presidents have been impeached.


Visits: 190


After years of long debates and changing governments UK managed to exit from the EU. All aspects of this exit have been deeply analyzed over the recent years. And the latest thoughts of some respectable journalists are as follows regarding the Brexit;


Brexit: Will it be a Canadian or an Australian ending?

By Laura Kuenssberg (

A large Commons majority will make it easier for the PM to withstand the inevitable trade-offs ahead
First “Brexit meant Brexit”. Then it was the “exact same benefits”. Then it was “frictionless trade”.

Then it was a reluctant acknowledgement that to get a deal done with the EU, there would have to be some friction, some customs checks, but the promise was they would be minimal.

And never fear, there was still the claim during the election that there was “absolutely zero” chance of failing to get a trade deal by the end of the year, that would guard against some of the risks of leaving the EU.

Now today, as the prime minister acknowledged, “we have made a choice”.

With a thumping majority in his back pocket, he wants a Canada-style deal with the EU, a free trade agreement where the two sides – after many years – agree not to charge taxes on imports or to restrict the amount of business that can be done. And, oh, he wants it wrapped up by the end of the year.

It is a significant understatement to say that the Tory Party has been on a journey when it comes to what it wants in the long term from Brexit for how we trade with the EU.

Theresa May was accused by her former chief of staff, Nick Timothy, as always seeing Brexit as a damage limitation exercise.

Whether that’s fair or not, it is certainly the case that for the first couple of years after the referendum, the government’s agony was largely because the then prime minister was on a quest to avoid too much disruption and it drove Brexiteers round the twist.

But Boris Johnson’s team are looking through the other end of the kaleidoscope.

They seem to prioritise the potential, if uncertain, wins of Brexit over protecting against the guessable losses. The ability to do things differently is, for them, the point of having left. And that’s why, at the moment, the prime minister is adamant the UK, newly sovereign at the end of this year, simply would not contemplate letting anyone else tell the country what to do.

This philosophy, which was absolutely obvious during the election, smacks headlong though into the EU’s opening gambit in these vital trade talks.

It’s simple from their point of view as well. The further the UK tacks away from the EU the more complicated it will be to do business, and the less willing they will be to preserve access to their vast market.

Even though Boris Johnson suggested it was outrageous to imagine that the UK was behind the rest of the EU on standards, Brussels does worry about the UK undercutting their businesses, becoming a more nimble competitor ready to grab billions from across the Channel.

So if they’re to play nice in terms of doing a deal, they want the government to give legal guarantees that they will stick to the letter of EU rules. If Boris Johnson sticks and says ‘no’, they might say ‘non’ to a deal altogether.

Of course there is lots of hard bargaining ahead. The kind of deal that is reached or not reached could have an impact on millions of jobs here and across the continent and billions of pounds of business. And yes, it is in both sides’ interests to get a deal done (you’ll have heard that before).

But gone today was Boris Johnson’s previous breezy optimism about there being “zero chance” of there being no deal by the end of the year. In its place a new claim that if there is no “Canada” deal, there could instead be an “Australian” deal.

Let’s be clear about one thing. There is no Australian free trade deal with the EU. Negotiations started on one last year, and at the moment the two sides trade under a decade old much looser partnership while trying to thrash through issues from fuel emissions to what producers on opposite sides of the world should be allowed to call their cheese.

And for Number 10, this sudden reference to an “Australian deal” seems to be an effort to rebrand what the government’s written statement later said was a relationship “based simply on the Withdrawal Agreement deal agreed in October 2019, including the Protocol in Ireland/Northern Ireland”.

In other words, if there isn’t a comprehensive trade deal by the end of the year, the UK would move to a situation trading with the EU on World Trade Organisation terms. This would mean taxes on exports and customs checks which, if it came to pass, could be massively disruptive for businesses and very costly for the economy.

An “Australia-style deal” sounds a lot less scary than the “no deal” circumstance that politicians have talked about for so long. And yes, the issues on paying the EU bill, citizens’ rights and the Irish border were all settled in the last few years and the overall divorce deal agreed before our departure last week.

But when it comes to the trade arrangements, it is not the case that as one government official tried to suggest “no deal is not a concept” .

There is no substantial agreement on how the UK will do business with the EU in the years to come. It will take time. There will be big political rows ahead. Right now it seems like the two sides are very far apart.

But don’t expect either Number 10 or the EU negotiating team to be particularly rattled by the tough talking by their opponents across the table. It’s not surprising that there is a certain amount of chest beating going on. It will be a while before the talks properly begin.

And the EU cannot, this time around, accuse the UK of not being clear about what it wants. That common claim was made repeatedly during the early stages of Theresa May’s negotiation. That can’t be made this time. There is an obvious approach and a tight deadline.

And however definitive the prime minister was today, the Tories’ approach to the kind of deal they will ultimately strike may have more evolutions yet.

With a majority of 80, Mr Johnson doesn’t have to worry, like his predecessor, about being able to cope with trade-offs. But he’ll be all too aware that the kind of deal he can do, and how long it takes to do it, will be a big factor in defining his political success or failure.

P.S. One former minister suggests waspishly that by suggesting we could leave with a relationship just based on the Withdrawal Agreement, that the government has already got its capitulation in early. Under their interpretation, just basing it on the Withdrawal Agreement would mean prolonging the status quo of the transition period, where we pay into the budget and follow the EU rules.

This, of course, is the opposite to what the government says it is after. But these trade talks will go through many, many machinations and on both sides, smoke and mirrors may apply!


Brexit: What will change after Friday, 31 January?

Now that the UK has formally left the European Union, it immediately enters an 11-month transition period.

During the transition the UK will continue to obey EU rules and pay money to the EU. Most things will stay the same but there will be some changes:

1. UK MEPs lose their seats

Nigel Farage celebrating with newly-elected Brexit Party MEPSImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionThe Brexit Party won the most UK seats in the May 2019 European elections

Familiar faces such as Nigel Farage and Ann Widdecombe are among the UK’s 73 MEPs who will automatically lose their seats in the European Parliament.

That’s because, at the moment of Brexit, the UK will leave all of the EU’s political institutions and agencies.

However, in addition to the UK following EU rules during the transition period, the European Court of Justice will continue to have the final say over legal disputes.

2. No more EU summits

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson will have to be specially invited if he wants to join other leaders at EU Council summits in the future.

British ministers will also no longer attend regular EU meetings that decide things such as fishing limits.

3. We will be hearing a lot about trade

The UK will be able to start talking to countries around the world about setting new rules for buying and selling goods and services.

It has not been allowed to hold formal trade negotiations with countries like the US and Australia while it remained an EU member. Brexit supporters argue that having the freedom to set its own trade policy will boost the UK’s economy.

There’s also a lot to be discussed with the EU. Agreeing a UK-EU trade deal is a top priority, so extra charges on goods and other trade barriers aren’t needed when the transition ends.

If any trade deals are reached, they won’t be able to start until the transition period ends.

4. The UK’s passports will change colour

British passports
Image captionBlue passports were replaced in 1988 with the burgundy design

Blue passports will be making a return, more than 30 years after they were replaced by the current burgundy design.

Announcing the change in 2017, then Immigration Minister, Brandon Lewis, praised the return to the “iconic” blue-and-gold design, first used in 1921.

The new colour will be phased in over a number of months, with all new passports issued in blue by the middle of the year.

Existing burgundy passports will continue to be valid.

5. Brexit coins

Sajid Javid with the new coinImage copyrightPA MEDIA
Image captionThe coins had to be re-made after Brexit was delayed

About three million commemorative 50p Brexit coins bearing the date “31 January” and the inscription: “Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations”, will enter circulation on Friday.

The coin has received a mixed reaction, with some Remain supporters saying they will refuse to accept it.

The government had planned to introduce a similar coin on 31 October, the date Brexit was previously meant to happen.

However, those coins had to be melted down and recycled after the deadline was extended.

6. The UK’s Brexit department shuts down

The team that handled the UK-EU negotiations and no-deal preparations will disband on Brexit day.

The Department for Exiting the European Union was set up by former Prime Minister Theresa May in 2016.

For the upcoming talks, the UK’s negotiating team will be based in Downing Street.

7. Germany won’t extradite its citizens to the UK

It won’t be possible for some suspected criminals to be brought back to the UK if they flee to Germany.

Germany’s constitution does not allow its citizens to be extradited, unless it’s to another EU country.

“This exception cannot apply any more after the UK has left EU,” a spokesman from the German Federal Ministry of Justice told BBC News.

It’s unclear if the same restrictions will apply to other countries. Slovenia, for example, says the situation is complicated, while the European Commission was unable to provide comment.

The UK Home Office says the European Arrest Warrant will continue to apply during the transition period. (That means Germany will be able to extradite non-German citizens.)

However, it adds that if a country’s laws prevent extradition to the UK it “will be expected to take over the trial or sentence of the person concerned”.

Seven things that will stay the same…

Because the transition period begins immediately after Brexit, the vast majority of other things remain the same – at least until 31 December 2020 including:

1. Travel

UK nationals will still be treated the same as EU nationals during the transition

Flights, boats and trains will operate as usual.

When it comes to passport control, during the transition period, UK nationals will still be allowed to queue in the areas reserved for EU arrivals only.

2. Driving licences and pet passports

As long as they are valid, these will continue to be accepted.

3. European Health Insurance Card (EHIC)

EHICs will still be valid during the transition

These are the cards that provide UK nationals with state-provided medical treatment in case of illness or accident.

They can be used in any EU country (as well as Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and will continue to be valid during the transition period.

4. Living and working in the EU

Freedom of movement will continue to apply during the transition, so UK nationals will still be able to live and work in the EU as they currently do.

The same applies for EU nationals wanting to live and work in the UK.

5. Pensions

UK nationals living in the EU will continue to receive their state pension and will also receive the annual increase.

6. Budget contributions

The UK will continue to pay into the EU budget during the transition. This means existing schemes, paid for by EU grants, will continue to be funded.

7. Trade

UK-EU trade will continue without any extra charges or checks being introduced.

Visits: 195


At the last week of January 2020, US President Trump announced a plan for bringing permanent peace to the Israel-Palestenian conflict that continues for decades. That plan has been declared, as the deal of the century but many critics claim that it is a one sided plan mainly for the benefit of Israel and Palestinians have nothing to agree within. We have tried to gather information from the respectable sources to deeply analyze that plan.


Jan. 29, 2020;

President Trump stood alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the White House on Tuesday to reveal a long-awaited plan intended to resolve generations of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Noticeably absent from that announcement, though, was any Palestinian representation, and Palestinian leaders have flatly rejected the plan. The proposed settlement strongly favors Israeli priorities rather than having both sides make significant concessions.

Mr. Trump vowed at the start of his presidency that he would negotiate a “bigger and better deal” to broker peace than anyone could imagine. Three years later, experts say that the plan, developed under the supervision of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, falls remarkably short of that goal and is unlikely ever to become the basis for a peace agreement.

Here are some of the plan’s main features.

What does the plan say?

While Mr. Trump’s proposal is the latest in a series of United States-brokered attempts to forge peace between Israelis and Palestinians, his framework was a sharp departure from decades of American policy. The United States has long voiced support for the creation of a Palestinian state with only slight adjustments to the Israeli boundaries that existed before the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, when Israel wrested the West Bank from Jordan, and Gaza from Egypt.

Instead, the 181-page Trump plan proposes a West Bank riddled with interconnected chunks of Israeli territory containing Jewish settlements, many of them largely encircled by Palestinian lands. For the Palestinians, it would mean giving up a claim to large amounts of West Bank land — including places where Israel has built settlements over the past half-century and strategic areas along the Jordanian border. Most of the world regards the settlements as illegal.

 The framework also sets aside the longtime goal of a fully autonomous Palestinian state. Instead, Mr. Trump vaguely promised that Palestinians could “achieve an independent state of their very own” but gave few details, while Mr. Netanyahu said the deal provided a “pathway to a Palestinian state” with significant caveats.

The Palestinians do not subscribe to the plan, though the deal provides for a four-year window for them to engage in renewed settlement talks. During that time, Israel would refrain from constructing settlements in those parts of the West Bank that the plan has designated for Palestinians.

Previous American proposals spoke of uprooting tens of thousands of Israelis from the settlements to return those areas to the Palestinians for inclusion in their state, but the Trump plan promises to leave both settlers and Palestinians in their current homes. Rather, it maps out a series of linked settlements and other areas that would officially become Israeli territory in the midst of the West Bank.

The plan also envisaged a Palestinian capital in “eastern Jerusalem,” on the outer edges of the city beyond Israel’s security barrier, while guaranteeing Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. The city is a holy site for the Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths and has long been a sticking point in peace negotiations.

Mr. Netanyahu later clarified that the proposed Palestinian capital would be in Abu Dis, a Palestinian village on the outskirts of the holy city.

The plan proposes transportation links between the unconnected Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza. But the element of the plan that may prove to be its only lasting effect is American recognition of Israel’s claim over the Jordan Valley and all Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

 How would this redraw the map of Israel?

The proposal gives American approval to Israel’s plan to redefine the country’s borders and formally annex settlements in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley that it has long sought to control.

That would leave the West Bank portion of any potential Palestinian state surrounded on all sides by Israel. Israeli forces seized the West Bank from Jordan during the 1967 war, and Israeli settlements have steadily encroached on the region over the decades since, a move largely condemned internationally.

Mr. Netanyahu caused controversy in September when he vowed, while running for re-election, to annex the Jordan Valley, a strategically critical chunk of the occupied West Bank nestled against the border with Jordan. On Tuesday, he made it clear that he saw President Trump’s plan as giving legitimacy to claiming Israeli settlements and the Jordan Valley as Israeli territory.

“For too long, the very heart of the land of Israel where our patriots prayed, our prophets preached and our kings ruled has been outrageously branded as ‘illegally occupied territory,’” Mr. Netanyahu said. “Well today, Mr. President, you are puncturing this big lie.”

Mr. Netanyahu said that his cabinet could move within days to assert sovereignty over those areas, but the decision could be subject to legal challenges because the current government is an interim administration.

 What has the Palestinian reaction been?

Despite Mr. Trump’s assertion that the deal was “a win-win opportunity” for both sides, Palestinians have largely rejected it.

Mahmoud Abbas, the 84-year-old leader of the Palestinian Authority, condemned the plan in a speech on Tuesday evening, calling it a “conspiracy” not worthy of serious consideration.

“We say a thousand times over: no, no, no,” Mr. Abbas said, speaking from Ramallah in the West Bank.

The Palestinian leadership cut off communication with the Trump administration in 2017 after Washington recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and later moved the American Embassy to the city. On the streets of Gaza and the West Bank, protests against the plan broke out on Tuesday.

The reaction from other Arab governments has been mixed. None of the United States’ Arab allies have formally endorsed the plan or committed to ushering it into reality, though ambassadors from Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates attended the announcement.

 Was the focus peace or politics?

David Friedman, the United States ambassador to Israel, said in a call with reporters after the plan was announced that the big reveal was timed in a “nonpolitical way.”

He said that the plan was “fully baked” before an Israeli election last April but that American officials had held off introducing it then. When that election produced no government, the United States again postponed any announcement until after a second election in September, he said.

Now, as Israel approaches a third election in less than a year, which could also fail to produce a government, Mr. Friedman said that the time had been right to introduce the proposal. He noted that American officials had also discussed the plans with Benny Gantz, the leader of the centrist Blue and White Party and Mr. Netanyahu’s main rival in the March 2 election.

But experts say that the timing of the rollout has more to do with the domestic politics of the United States and Israel than with resolving the conflict, with Mr. Trump facing an impeachment trial and Mr. Netanyahu facing trial on corruption charges.

 William F. Wechsler, director of Middle East programs at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based research organization, said in an emailed statement that the plan was unlikely to have a major impact in the short term.

“The announcement’s chosen timing, specific staging, limited participants, and indeed its substance make clear that it has less to do with a good-faith effort to reach peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” Mr. Wechsler said, “and more to do with the immediate legal and electoral challenges that confront both leaders.”

You can find the original text at:


Nir Hasson from interprets the sitaution as follows;

A bulldozer in a china shop. That’s how the section of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan on Jerusalem feels. The authors of the plan talk about the need to treat the issue of Jerusalem’s holy sites with “utmost sensitivity,” but they are brutally trampling over the sensitive, complex and dangerous problems. It shows a minimal understanding of the city, does not delve into details and is rife with major contradictions.

For example, the plan declares the status quo in the holy sites will be maintained: “In particular the status quo at the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif should continue uninterrupted.” But in the next paragraph it says: “People of every faith should be permitted to pray on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, in a manner that is fully respectful to their religion, taking into account the times of each religion’s prayers and holidays, as well as other religious factors.”

But the most important section of the unwritten status quo on the Temple Mount is that Jews and other non-Muslims have no right to pray there. This status quo was approved by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself, in his own voice, in 2015. So what is the significance of the status quo if everyone has the right to pray on the Temple Mount?

The authors of the American plan totally accept the view that Israel has the right to continue to keep all the holy sites. This right, according to the authors of the peace plan, who base themselves on Netanyahu here, stems not only from Israel’s ties to these holy sites but also because it is the only ruler that safeguarded the freedom of worship for all religions in Jerusalem. As a result, the plan concludes that Israel should continue to maintain the Holy Basin area.

The plan even includes a list of the 35 holy sites in the city, including the City of David, the Pool of Siloam and numerous churches. For the Palestinians: “Licenses shall be provided to Palestinian tour guides to operate tours in the Old City of Jerusalem as well as at sites sacred to Christianity and Islam in other areas of Jerusalem.” In return, they are supposed to give up what is considered to be a religious symbol and the most important center of their nationalism.

According to the Trump peace plan, almost all of Jerusalem will remain in Israeli hands, except for two small corners: The Shoafat refugee camp and Kafr Akeb in the north of the city. These two neighborhoods, which are within Jerusalem’s municipal borders, were cut off from the capital about 15 years ago when the separation barrier was constructed. As a result of this isolation, Israeli authorities almost completely withdrew from these neighborhoods and anarchy reigned.

As a result, huge apartment buildings were constructed there illegally, and today some 120,000 to 140,000 people live there, most of whom have Israeli residency. In other words, one out of every three Palestinians in Jerusalem lives in these two neighborhoods, which will be left outside of the city according to the plan.

The plan proposes that the Palestinians make these two ill-fated neighborhoods – along with Abu Dis in eastern Jerusalem – their capital. The plan is even surprisingly generous to the Palestinians in the way it allows them to call this capital city al-Quds, “or another name selected by the State of Palestine.” To emphasize their generosity, this phrase is even repeated three times in the document.

Residents of these neighborhoods beyond the fence were shocked by this part of the plan. For a long time, they have feared Israel was plotting to cut them off from their city. Environmental Protection Minister Zeev Elkin even promoted such a plan. On Tuesday, residents of the Shoafat refugee camp and Kafr Akeb could be heard panicking and many were asking if they needed to start looking for apartments inside Jerusalem, or somewhere else in Israel, so as not to lose their rights.

These are Palestinians from Jerusalem, who moved to these neighborhoods because of a housing shortage in East Jerusalem. Their work, schools, health clinics, mosques and relatives are in Jerusalem. If a border is established between them and all this, it will be disastrous for them – and for us.

To calm friends of mine from there, I sent them a copy of the Basic Law on Jerusalem. The law was advanced enthusiastically by the right and it is now the strongest legal barrier to implementing the plan in Jerusalem. The Basic Law on Jerusalem is the most entrenched law in Israel’s law books. If the Israeli government does want to transfer the neighborhoods beyond the fence to the Palestinian Authority or Palestinian state, it will need to approve it with a super-majority of at least 80 Knesset members, and also through a referendum. It seems that for now, the Palestinians in the refugee camp can stay calm. Jerusalem city council member Arieh King has already attacked the plan for dividing Jerusalem.

What will happen to the 200,000 Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem, inside the fence? The plan proposes that they choose between remaining residents of Israel, or becoming citizens of the Palestinian state. No, there is no explanation as to how it will work or who will provide them with services. Which police will serve them? For which parliament will they vote and what authority will that parliament will have over their lives? Or they can become Israeli citizens. As of today, Israel says they have the possibility of becoming citizens, but this is an empty declaration, because the process of receiving citizenship is so difficult and long that it is irrelevant for the great majority of the residents of East Jerusalem.

Nowhere is the plan’s disconnect from reality more apparent than in the section addressing a “special tourist area.” This section states that Israel will allow Palestinians to develop a special tourism zone in Atarot in the far north of Jerusalem, but is located on the Israeli side of the separation barrier – and the future border, according to Trump’s peace plan. It is completely clear that whoever wrote this section has never visited Atarot. The neighborhood is made up of an ugly and neglected industrial zone, the Qalandiya checkpoint, a waste separation facility, a huge concrete wall and an abandoned airport. Why would someone want to visit there?

We can continue analyzing the absurdities of the plan, the lacunae and contradictions – but it would be a waste of time. This proposed peace plan needs to be examined according to only one single measure: Today, two babies were born in the Hadassah University Hospital on Mount Scopus in Jerusalem, one Israeli and one Palestinian. Will this peace plan guarantee them that in another 20 years the two young people will have equal rights? Will both of them have a country? Will both of them be able to influence their own lives by voting? Will they have the right of equal access to resources, space, self-determination, freedom of movement, freedom of worship and dignity?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then this is not a peace plan and it is not a solution – it is part of the problem.

For the original text go to:

BBC sees the situation as follows;

Israel’s prime minister called the plan the “opportunity of the century” and said he was willing to endorse it as the basis for negotiations with the Palestinians.

But the Palestinian president dismissed the plan as the “slap of the century”.

So what is Mr Trump proposing on core issues that divide the two sides?

Palestinian statehood

The Palestinians have long sought to establish an independent, sovereign state in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, which were occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War. Israeli prime ministers have previously accepted the notion of a Palestinian state existing alongside Israel.

The White House said Mr Trump’s plan offered “a viable path to Palestinian statehood”. It “designates land reasonably comparable in size to the West Bank and Gaza for the establishment of the State of Palestine” and would “more than double the size of the land currently used by the Palestinians”.

Israel has agreed to a four-year “land freeze” to secure the possibility of a two-state solution, according to the White House. Mr Trump said that during this time, when the land allocated under his plan for a new Palestinian state would “remain open and undeveloped”, the Palestinians would be able to study the deal, negotiate with Israel, and “achieve the criteria for statehood”.

Mr Trump said the criteria included “adopting basic laws enshrining human rights; protecting against financial and political corruption; stopping the malign activities of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other enemies of peace; ending the incitement of hatred against Israel; and permanently halting the financial compensation to terrorists”.

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) said the US plan “recognises Israel’s illegal colonisation and annexation of occupied lands belonging to the State of Palestine”, while Israeli human rights group B’Tselem warned that Palestinians would be “relegated to small, enclosed, isolated enclaves, with no control over their lives”.


Both Israel and the Palestinians hold competing claims to the ancient city. Israel – which occupied the formerly Jordanian-held eastern part in 1967, and effectively annexed it in 1980 in a move not recognised internationally – regards the whole of Jerusalem as its capital.

Palestinian leaders want East Jerusalem – which includes the Old City and major Muslim, Jewish and Christian holy sites, and is home to about 350,000 Palestinians and 200,000 Jewish settlers – to be the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Mr Trump’s plan says: “Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel, and it should remain an undivided city.”

It adds: “The sovereign capital of the State of Palestine should be in the section of East Jerusalem located in all areas east and north” of Israel’s West Bank barrier, including Kafr Aqab, the eastern part of Shuafat, and Abu Dis.

Map of Jerusalem
Presentational white space

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who broke off contacts with the Trump administration in 2017 when it recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, insisted that a Palestinian state without East Jerusalem was impossible. “Jerusalem is not for sale,” he said.

Mr Trump’s plan also says Israel will “continue to safeguard Jerusalem’s holy sites and will guarantee freedom of worship” for people of all faiths.

The plan proposes that the “status quo” at the key holy site in Jerusalem known to Jews as the Temple Mount and al-Haram al-Sharif to Muslims is preserved.


The Palestinians insist on borders based on ceasefire lines which separated Israel and East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza between 1949 and 1967.

Israel says those lines are militarily indefensible and were never intended to be permanent. Its leaders have not previously said where the borders should be, other than making clear that the eastern border should be along the River Jordan.

The White House said it “reached an understanding with Israel regarding a map setting forth borders for a two-state solution”. A joint committee will be formed to “convert the conceptual map into a more detailed and calibrated rendering so that recognition can be immediately achieved”, according to Mr Trump.

The president’s map showed 15 Israeli “enclave communities” – currently Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank – that would be located inside the future Palestinian state and be connected to the rest of Israel by access roads.

Map showing Donald Trump's plan for a State of Palestine
white space

In exchange for letting the settlements remain, the Palestinians would be given territory in what is now Israel that adjoins the West Bank, as well as two large enclaves in the Negev desert, near the border with Egypt, connected by road to Gaza. Gaza itself would be linked to the West Bank by a tunnel.


Since 1967, Israel has built about 140 Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 121 outposts – settlements not authorised by the government. They have become home to some 600,000 people.

The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. Palestinians say all settlements must be removed for a Palestinian state to be viable. Mr Netanyahu has vowed not only to never uproot any settlements but to bring them under Israeli sovereignty.

The White House said that “neither Palestinians nor Israelis will be uprooted from their homes”. Mr Trump said the US would “recognise Israeli sovereignty over the territory that my vision provides to be part of the State of Israel”.

Under Mr Trump’s plan, Israel will “incorporate the vast majority of Israeli settlements into contiguous Israeli territory” and “Israeli enclaves located inside contiguous Palestinian territory will become part of the State of Israel and be connected to it through an effective transportation system”.

Mr Netanyahu told reporters that the Israeli cabinet would vote on Sunday on whether to start the process of applying Israeli sovereignty to the settlements, and to parts of the Jordan Valley allocated to Israel under Mr Trump’s plan.

Map of the West Bank settlements
Presentational white space

Jordan Valley

The Jordan Valley is a fertile strip of land running along the border with Jordan that makes up almost 30% of the West Bank. It is sparsely populated – home to around 65,000 Palestinians and 11,000 Jewish settlers. Palestinians say the valley would form an integral part of the land that they want for a future state.

Israeli leaders see the Jordan Valley as a vital security buffer with the Arab world and have held that Israel would maintain some kind of military control there under any peace deal with the Palestinians. Mr Netanyahu has promised to apply Israeli sovereignty in the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea.

Mr Trump’s plan states: “The Jordan Valley, which is critical for Israel’s national security, will be under Israeli sovereignty.”


The United Nations says it supports 5.5 million Palestinian refugees in the Middle East. Most are the descendants of people who fled or were expelled during the Arab-Israeli war that followed Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948.

Palestinians insist on their right to return to their former homes, but Israel says they are not entitled to, arguing that such a move would overwhelm it demographically and lead to its end as a Jewish state.

The White House said that under Mr Trump’s plan, “Palestinian refugees will be given a choice to live within the future State of Palestine, integrate into the countries where they currently live, or resettle in a third country”.

The US will work with the international community to establish “a generous trust to aid in the process of resettling refugees”, it added.


Israel insists any peace deal must include Palestinian recognition of it as the “nation-state of the Jewish people”. Without this, it argues, Palestinians will continue to press their own claims to the land, causing the conflict to endure.

The Palestinians say that what Israel calls itself is its own business, but that to recognise it as the Jewish state would discriminate against Israel’s Arab population of Palestinian origin, who are Muslims, Christians and Druze.

The White House said Mr Trump’s plan aimed to “achieve mutual recognition of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and the future State of Palestine as the nation-state of the Palestinian people”.


Mr Netanyahu has said any Palestinian state should be demilitarised with the powers to govern itself but not to threaten Israel.

Mr Abbas has expressed support for a demilitarised Palestinian state and proposed that an international force patrol it indefinitely, with troops positioned at all border crossings, and within Jerusalem.

The White House said Mr Trump’s plan provided for “a demilitarised Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel, with Israel retaining security responsibility west of the Jordan river”. The Palestinians would work with the US and Israel to “assume more security responsibility as Israel reduces its security footprint”.

Mr Netanyahu said the plan would give Israel “a permanent eastern border to defend ourselves”.

He stressed that the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and has fought three wars with Israel since 2008, would be disarmed. Hamas said the talk of it disarming was “delusional”.

You may find the original story by this link;



Visits: 235



Nagehan Vatansever

Cyber threat is a relatively new concept in international relations discipline. With the developments in technology, risks in cyberspace are increasing. Not only states or major companies use internet and smart technologies, but also it is a part of daily life now. Because of the increasing usage of smart phones, smart houses or e-state technologies, most of the people use it in their daily life. Although that makes our lives easier and faster, it also causes new and major problems. It increases vulnerability and new kinds of crimes are emerging. This is the new threat of era.

Cyber systems and cyber-crimes do not have a long history but it have damaged a number of people until now. There are several serious examples about how cyber-crimes affect people’s life.

Cyber-crimes were mostly about some hacker activities that did not affect states at the beginning. However, recent developments made cyber-attacks a part of international relations. There are a number of types of cyber-attacks and if those attacks have a political purpose and aim a state or states, these attacks are called as “cyber-terrorism”.

“Cyber”, “Cyber space”, “Cyber-crime” and “Cyber-terrorism”

The word “cyber” is originated from “cybernetics” which means “Any kind of control or communication by any machine or any living form”[1] according to Mehmet Yayla(2013).According to Cambridge’s definition cyber means “using or relating to computers and internet.”[2]

“Cyber space” means the space where cyber networks exist and where is the movement area of cyber actions happen. According to United Nations terminology, cyber space is “A world-wide virtual space, different from real space, with many sub-communities unevenly distributed using a technical environment – first of all the Internet – in which citizens and organizations utilize information and communication technologyfor their social andcommercial interactions.” [3]It should be emphasized that cyber space has no limits or boundaries.

“Cyber-crime” refers to any crime those are committed by using internet and cyber networks. David Weissbrodt(2013) defines cyber-crime as “any crime which is enabled by, or that targets computers.”[4]RohasNagpal(2002) defines it “unlawful act wherein the computer is either a tool or a target or both”[5] in the simplest term.

“Cyber terrorism” refers to any cyber activities that aim to states or international actors and have a political purpose. The difference between other terror activities and cyber terror is, cyber terrorists have remote access to physically damage or to produce an effect. [6]

An Overview to Cyber Attacks

Cyber-attacks may affect people in different ways. According to Havelsan’s report, there are 8 different sphere of influence of cyber terrorism. Those are attacks that targeting real estate properties, aviation, retail sector, construction sector, shipping sector, power and energy infrastructures, health services and telecommunication systems.

Most devastating attacks are those which are targeting critical infrastructure of a state. Critical infrastructure is defined by the US Department of Homeland Security as “physical and cyber systems and assets that are so vital to the United States that their incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on our physical or economic security or public health or safety.”[7] If critical infrastructure is aimed by attacker and critical infrastructure systems lose their functions that would affect society and order for a long time. According to Havelsan’s report, transportation systems, power and energy systems, healthcare services, and telecommunication systems are critical infrastructure systems. In report it is also emphasized that most of the recent cyber-attacks were aiming critical infrastructure. [8]

James A. Lewis(2002) argues that aiming critical infrastructure is not a new tactic in international relations. States used this during World Wars. He emphasizes the fact that states used strategic bombing in order to damage their enemies’ critical infrastructure. Now, aiming critical infrastructure changed and now it is “cyber”. [9]

Cyber-attacks are defined as “cyber terrorism” as long as they have a political aim. These terror activities may be from any independent groups or they might be state sponsored. States and terrorist groups choose cyber-attacks instead of classical terrorism methods because states are vulnerable in cyberspace. Technology is developing from day to day and it is hard to keep up with state-of-the-art.

In order to protect themselves from cyber-attacks, states also work with hackers. At that point, it should be emphasized that there are different types of hackers. White hat hackers are the ones who work with state departments and aim to protect state’s information and critical infrastructure. On contrary, black hat hackers’ aim is to damage companies, states and their critical infrastructure, steal secret information or identities. Grey hat hackers may differ, in some cases they act like black hat hackers, in some cases they act like white hat hackers. Last type is red hat hackers, they are against black hat hackers but they are not white hat hackers, they act in a different way. In addition to those 4 types, there are few others such as blue hat hackers or green hat hackers, they are beginners and mostly they have not much effect in terms of “cyber-attacks”.

Cyber terrorism is a crucial problem because there is not only state sponsored terrorism, but also terrorist group’s activities in cyberspace. The problem is that counterterrorism in terms of cyber-terror is really hard because it is not known where attacks come from.

This is why terrorist groups choose cyber tools recently. It is easier to aim critical infrastructure. States are vulnerable in terms of cyber security rather than other security areas. Even though cyber-attacks come from a computer or from another cyber tool, its outcomes may not be only in cyberspace. If it affects critical infrastructure, it will probably has a physical damage.

The problem in here is, as all terrorist groups do, any terrorist who uses cyber tools will also aim civilians and damage them, because the target and the audiences of terrorist attacks are not the same.

Even though cyber-attacks and cyber-terror activities seem different than classical terrorism understanding, there is no much difference. Only difference is the way to fight against it. States should increase their cyber security. As it has mentioned before, white hat hackers are the best way in counterterrorism in cyberspace.

James A. Lewis (2002) believes that cyber-attacks may cause a change in national security understandings of states.[10]Terrorists aim critical infrastructures of states in cyber-attacks and at that point military security is less important than cyber security. It might have an effect to redefine “security” and “threat”.

How Does Cyber Attacks and Cyber Terrorism Affect International Relations?

In international relations, states act in their territory, where they have sovereignty. However, it is seen that cyber activities can easily affect other states. There is no specific regulation about cyberspace.

Another important point is that cyberspace has no limits. In cyberspace, there are no specific boundaries or limits such as in real life. Physical boundaries are not valid in cyberspace. This also causes problems. Since it is not under any state’s national law, it cannot be regulated. It causes a problem because while a state accept a specific activity as “cyber-crime”, another state may not accept this. There is no specific regulation about cyber-attacks and that causes a problem in international relations.

There is the awareness about cyber-terrorism in international society. There are a number of regulations in different institutions in order to provide cyber-security.

To begin with, there is a United Nations Resolution against cyber-terrorism. Resolution 53/70 is “Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security” and S. Berner(2003) states that this resolution “calls member states to give information about their opinions and evaluations to the Secretary General about cyber-terrorism.” [11]

Secondly, NATO has a cyber-security policy as well. NATO’s middle-term aims to strengthen its role in cyber-security are as following:

  • NATO aims to make cyber security its mainstream policy.
  • NATO supports cooperation between allies by supporting official and unofficial platforms and channels.
  • NATO supports international law and international rules which aimestablish cyber-security in cyberspace.
  • NATO aims to increase information exchange between allies or between allies and other international institutions. Also it is emphasized that to cooperate with international law enforces such as Interpol is crucial in order to provide cybersecurity.
  • NATO believes European Union should be supportive in terms of cyber-security. It is emphasized mutual NATO-EU cooperation is a tradition and while NATO aims to provide cyber-security, EU should support NATO. [12]

Another international organization which has cyber-security policy is the Council of Europe. In 2001, Council of Europe signed a convention named Budapest Convention against cyber-crimes. It is the first international agreement on this issue. Convention emphasizes cyber-crimes’ extent. According to Convention, not only acts which are targeting computers and data are cyber-crimes, but also other actions which are accepted as problems that occurred after the internet became popular are also in the extent of cyber-crimes. [13]

Do Cyber-Terrorism and Cyber Threats Really Exist?

There are a number of examples of cyber-attacks for last few decades. Still, there are a few academicians who believe cyber-attacks are not real threats. They believe cyber-attacks are not real threats since there is no continuity of them and even though they mostly aim damaging critical infrastructure, their damaging capacity is not too much physically.

Cyber threat and cyber-terrorism really exist. As it has mentioned before, most of the international institutions such as Council of Europe and NATO –the larger security alliance in the world- accept cyber-threat’s existence and work on prevent any cyber-attacks. There are initiatives to regulate “cyber-attacks” internationally.

Cyber-attacks are really threatening state’s security. Even the most powerful states in terms of military power, such as the US, have suffered from cyber-attacks.

History of cyber-attacks: What kinds of attacks have been done until today?

  • Estonia: Estonia’s e-state application is very common and it has a system that closely depends on internet and electronical systems. However, Estonia’s cyber-security was not that successful.

In 2007, as a former Soviet country Estonia removed a Soviet War Monument which was called “Red Army Monument” and that caused a tension between Russian Federation and Estonia. Russia believed what Estonia did was disrespect to Soviet army. After removal, there have been protests and thousands of people affected during these protests.

After the removal, Estonia was targeted by cyber-attacks. Estonian officials believed these attacks were coming from Russia. According to BBC News, during attacks Estonia Presidency, political parties and the Parliament became targets. In addition to that most of the banks were also targets. In article it is mentioned central processors have collapsed and that almost caused Estonia’s cut off from outside world. [14]

This was the first example of cyber-attacks which targeting a state. This case showed in international relations, there is a new concept. States are able to attack each other by cyber tools.

After attacks, Estonia asked for help from NATO and EU. [15]That case shaped NATO’s point of view to cyber threats. After attacks, NATO has worked on cyber threats more than before and now, NATO has a broader cyber security understanding. [16]

  • Iran: Since the Islamic Revolution, there has been a tension between the USA and Iran. Last phase of this tension is about Iran’s nuclear operations and uranium enrichment.

In 2010, it was determined a Stuxnet virus in Iran’s nuclear plant’s systems. Its aim was to prevent physical activities. Even though it could not affect Iran’s nuclear systems physically, it affected 30.000 computers. [17]

Iran thought the USA and Israel was responsible for this attack.

This was not the only cyber-attack from the USA to Iran. In 2015, Iran and the USA agreed and signed “Comprehensive Plan of Action” and in 2016, President Donald Trump withdrew from it. That caused a new tension between two states.

On June 2019, a new cyber-attack happened. After Iran’s attacks to tankers in Persian Gulf, the USA attacked Iran again and prevented its access to missile and rocket launchers. [18] Again, the USA attacked by cyber tools.

These two cases also indicate the fact that cyber-attacks are becoming a part of international relations and it is commonly used during conflicts.

  • United States: In 2009, American drone system was attacked by a program named SkyGrabber. It caused a collapse in the system. The crucial point is that this program was only cost $26; however the US spent $45 million to this system. VahitGüntay mentions it is not important which party is more powerful than the other. Even though the US is the most powerful actor in international system, even though attackers had fewer budgets than the US had, they were successful. [19] At that point, it is clearly seen that cyber-attacks cause a change in security perceptions, because traditional security understanding is also changing. Traditionally, more powerful one was able to defend itself better. This “power” was economic and military mostly. However, it has changed now. In terms of cyber-security, what is more important is to defend cyber-systems better.

In fact, the US is the one of the states that is mostly aimed in cyber-attacks. Another example about the US occurred in 2015. ISIS attacked the US by cyber-tools and United States Central Command (CENTCOM)’s website was captured for a while. ISIS published messages from website. [20] This case also indicates there is a transition in terrorism and terrorist groups are using internet and computers to show their power to states.



For centuries, international relations were challenged by different threats and this has changed the nature of relations for years. Now, the new challenge is the “cyber-threats”. These threats might be from one state to another one, or it might be from terrorist groups. Either way, it is threatening states’ security.

Although there are a number of initiatives to form norms about cyber-crimes, there is a problem about that. Since there are no boundaries in cyber-space, it is hard to supervise it by law. It is hard to determine which national law will judge cyber-crimes. International law should do it, but states have not agreed about cyber-crimes yet. It is not clear that which actions will be accepted as “cyber-crimes” and which ones will not.

For now, states try to achieve security against cyber-threats since there is no consensus yet. In addition to that there are institutional initiatives in NATO or Council of Europe and members of these institutions try to have a consensus on cyber-security.

Although there are debates about the reality or seriousness of cyber-threats, one should be aware of the reality of it. Most of the states such as the US, Canada, Germany, Russia, Turkey, United Kingdom, India, Australia or Singapore have regulations about cyber-security.

We are living in a technology era and our lives are getting more dependent on technology from day to day. That makes all of us more open to threats which come from technology. Not all of the people use technology for good causes. Therefore, state leaders should be aware of the new threat and make provisions for their cyber-security.



  • Yayla, M., (2013). HukukiBirTerimOlarak “SiberSavaş”. TBB Dergisi, 104, 177-202
  • Cambridge Dictionary,
  • UN definition,
  • Weissbrodt, D., (2013). Cyber-Conflict, Cyber-Crime, and Cyber-Espionage, Minnesota Journal of International Law, 347-387. Retrieved from
  • Nagpal, R., (2002). Cyber Terrorism in the Context of Globalization, 2nd World Congress on Informatics and Law, Madrid, Spain
  • SST-HavelsanSiberSavunmaTeknolojileri. (2018, December). SiberTerör, Retrieved from
  • Schmitt, M., (2019, June 18). U.S. Cyber Command, Russia and Critical Infrastructure: What Norms and Laws, Apply? Retrieved from
  • Lewis, A. J., (2002). Assessing the Risks of Cyber Terrorism, Cyber War and Other Cyber Threats, Center for International Studies, 1-12, Retrieved from
  • Berner, S., (2003), Cyber-terrorism: Reality or Paranoia?, South African Journal of Information Management, Vol 5, No 1, Retrieved from:
  • NATO Dergisi. (2016). NATO: SiberSavunmadaVitesDeğiştiriyor. Retrieved from:
  • Yayla, M., (2013). HukukiBirTerimOlarak “SiberSavaş”. TBB Dergisi, 104, 177-202
  • BBC Turkish. (May 2007). Estonya’yaSiberSaldırı. Retrieved from:
  • TUİÇ Akademi. (August 2015). İlk Modern Siber-Atak: Estonya Retrieved from:
  • Deutsche Welle. (September 2010). İran’aSiberSaldırıDüzenlendiğiİddiası. Retrieved from:ırı-düzenlediği-iddiası/a-6050644
  • CNN Türk. (June 2019). ABD İran’ınSilahKontrolSistemlerineSaldırıDüzenledi. Retrieved from:
  • Güntay, V., (2018). SiberGüvenliğinUluslararasıPolitikadaEtkiAracınaDönüşmesiveUluslararasıAktörler, GüvenlikStratejileriDergisi, 14/27
  • Deutsche Welle. (January 2015). ABD’yeSiberSaldırı. Retrieved from:

[1]Yayla, M., (2013). Hukuki Bir Terim Olarak “Siber Savaş”.TBB Dergisi, 104, 177-202

[2]Cambridge Dictionary,

[3] UN definition,

[4]Weissbrodt, D., (2013). Cyber-Conflict, Cyber-Crime, and Cyber-Espionage, Minnesota Journal of International Law, 347-387. Retrieved from

[5]Nagpal, R., (2002). Cyber Terrorism in the Context of Globalization, 2nd World Congress on Informatics and Law, Madrid, Spain

[6]SST-HavelsanSiberSavunmaTeknolojileri.(2018, December).SiberTerör, Retrieved from

[7]Schmitt, M., (2019, June 18). U.S. Cyber Command, Russia and Critical Infrastructure: What Norms and Laws,  Apply? Retrieved from

[8]SST-HavelsanSiberSavunmaTeknolojileri.(2018, December).SiberTerör, Retrieved from

[9]Lewis, A. J., (2002). Assessing the Risks of Cyber Terrorism, Cyber War and Other Cyber Threats, Center for International Studies, 1-12, Retrieved from

[10]Lewis, A. J., (2002). Assessing the Risks of Cyber Terrorism, Cyber War and Other Cyber Threats, Center for International Studies, 1-12, Retrieved from

[11]Berner, S., (2003), Cyber-terrorism: RealityorParanoia?, South AfricanJournal of Information Management, Vol 5, No 1, Retrievedfrom:

[12]NATO Dergisi. (2016). NATO: Siber Savunmada Vites Değiştiriyor. Retrievedfrom:

[13] Yayla, M., (2013). Hukuki Bir Terim Olarak “Siber Savaş”. TBB Dergisi, 104, 177-202

[14] BBC Turkish. (May 2007). Estonya’yaSiberSaldırı.Retrieved from:

[15] BBC Turkish. (May 2007). Estonya’yaSiberSaldırı. Retrieved from:

[16]TUİÇ Akademi. (August 2015). İlk Modern Siber-Atak: EstonyaRetrieved from:

[17]DeutscheWelle. (September 2010). İran’a Siber Saldırı Düzenlendiği İddiası. Retrievedfrom:ırı-düzenlediği-iddiası/a-6050644

[18]CNN Türk. (June 2019). ABD İran’ın Silah Kontrol Sistemlerine Saldırı Düzenledi. Retrievedfrom:

[19]Güntay, V., (2018). Siber Güvenliğin Uluslararası Politikada Etki Aracına Dönüşmesi ve Uluslararası Aktörler, Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, 14/27

[20]DeutscheWelle. (January 2015). ABD’ye Siber Saldırı. Retrievedfrom:

Visits: 311

Note of the Month – May 2019

Note of the Month – May 2019

S-400 Crisis

As the timeline of delivery approaches, the tension between US and Turkey increases day by day. In May several US institutions declared their concerns about that matter. US government and military has made several threats including the non delivery of the F-35 fighter jets, interrupting the training of Turkish pilots, a possible suspension of Turkey’s NATO membership and economic sanctions.

The determined position of US about the matter put Turkish Government into trouble as Turkey has already paid for S-400s and the delivery should begin during July. As an independent state Turkey should be buying arms from the country it wishes. However, US’ main concern is the conflict of software of the S-400 missiles with weapons of NATO. They claim that they will cause fatal problems in case they used in the same army. That can be a reality or an excuse to make Turkey cancel its order.

Turkey has some alternatives regarding the issue, first it can cancel the order but that will be very difficult to explain to the Turkish citizens. Second Turkey may suspend the delivery of the missiles and gain more time to make a final decision. Third, the delivery will be made by Russia but Turkey will give its word to US that it will not use these missiles and take them to a storage facility. Fourth, Turkey shall find a way to sell these missiles to a third country but in that case Russia and US most probably will object to that.

Turkey is in a difficult situation about S-400 missiles and it seems there isn’t any feasible solution to satisfy all those three countries.


Resignation of Theresa May

In the last week of May, UK Prime Minister Theresa May declared in tears her resignation from the office. She may be a successful politician but no matter how hard she tried she could not find a solution to the Brexit. As UK’s main problem for the last couple of years is the Brexit process her work could be considered as a failure as the faith of the Brexit is still unknown and very complicated.


Re-election of the Mayor of Istanbul

After several objections and recounting the votes High Election Board of Turkey decided a re-election for Istanbul. The elections will be on 23rd of June and voters shall only vote for the Mayor of Istanbul city.

Visits: 210

Notable Events of April 2019

Notable Events of April 2019

Local Elections of Turkey

The local elections held on 31st of March led to several conclusions and procedures. AKP, the party in power did not significantly decreased its votes but it can be considered the loser of the elections as they lost two main cities namely İstanbul and Ankara to the opposition party CHP. For the first time in 20 years CHP has increased its votes significantly and won the elections in several major cities. AKP won most of the municipalities in the central and eastern Turkey and CHP won most of the coastal cities together with the capital Ankara. The statistics indicates that higher income regions voted for CHP and lower income regions voted for AKP.

At the election night the main information supplier for the media has stopped giving the results for over 10 hours. In the mean time AKP candidate declared that he has won the election of Istanbul and became the mayor of Istanbul. However, that proved to be wrong in the following day and it has been understood that the candidate of CHP has won the elections by approximately 20.000 votes. Such a margin was very small for a city which has more than 8 million voters so AKP has used all means to change that situation. That led to endless recounting of votes and a great stress at the society as Istanbul is without doubt the most important city of Turkey and AKP benefitted from the power of the city for the last 25 years. Following 20 days of recounting the votes the candidate of CHP has officially been declared as the mayor of Istanbul.


S400 Conflict With USA

Turkey is traditionally a country who buys weapons from the western world and pays a substantial percentage of its budget to do that. That means a lot of money and all the weapon seller countries follow Turkey carefully. US is the main supplier of all types of weapons to Turkey. However recent developments, heavy conditions of US for using the weapons, lots of embargo threats and the price of defense missiles directed Turkey to Russia to buy S400 missiles. That was very good for the relations between Russia and Turkey but that affected US-Turkey relations very negatively. During April several high level US officials reflected their positions against this dealing and some of them threatened Turkey for possible economic embargos. Turkey have understood the seriousness of the situation and continuing its efforts to solve that S400 crisis. President Erdoğan, Minister of Economy Albayrak and Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu contacted with Trump and other officials multiple times.

It seems that in order not to attract more attentions Turkey will suspend the delivery of the missiles and shall have more time to find a mutual solution. US implies that deploying those missiles may cause Turkey its NATO membership. Time will show if Turkey shall take a new direction towards east or shall stay at the NATO alliance.


Economic Package of Berat Albayrak

Since the first day in his office Minister of Economy Berat Albayrak has been criticized heavily as he does not have a sound background for such a title and his mere success is the fact that he is the son-in-law of President Erdoğan. Critics have been proved right as Turkey went a very severe economic crisis in the autumn of 2018. Foreign currencies nearly doubled, which means the purchasing power of Turkish Lira decreased to half and interest rates sky rocketed to 25% annually. During that time Minister Albayrak was always positive and telling that things would be good soon, but that did not happen as the economy of Turkey is still seriously in a crisis and the unemployment levels are at record highs. To overcome that crisis Albayrak has opened a new economic package during April but it was not containing specific measures, mainly they were showing the directions of the economy. That new package did not directly affect the markets. The same week he went to US to present the package to the international experts of economy, he also met with Trump in his office. But the results were very disappointing, at Financial Times and several other publications he has been criticized very badly, the main point was that he told nothing noteworthy and told nothing to solve the problems of Turkey. It will be the benefit of Turkey if international experts are wrong.


Sudan – Dictator Omer Al Bashir Has Been Arrested

In Sudan 30 years of Omer al Bashir’s dictatorship has finally came to an end. During his time Sudan became a country of fear, oppression and internal wars. The freedom of press was nonexistent, there were torture houses and an entire generation grew up in terror and fear. He also committed several war crimes and humanity crimes. He was transferred to Kober prison, a maximum-security prison notorious for holding political prisoners during his 30-year dictatorship and millions of dollars have been found in his residence.

Sudan’s military has said that it would prosecute Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), but would not extradite him. The military, which has dissolved the government, has said it would remain in power for up to two years, despite large street protests against their rule. It seems that people of Sudan are now hopeful for the future. Time will show if the new regime shall bring back the democracy or shall create a new dictator in Sudan.


Sri Lanka Bombing Events

In April, On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers killed at least 253 people and injured some 500 at churches and top-end hotels across Sri Lanka. There were foreigners among the victims but most of them were Sri Lankans. The attacks have been held in coordination and 6 bombings have been realized at the same time by suicide killers. As the target was mainly the churches and high end hotels it was easy to identify the attackers and Sri Lankan authorities believe that the attacks have been held by a local islamist group called as National Thowheed Jamat (NTJ). Sri Lankan police has taken severe measurements to prevent possible upcoming attacks and identified the suicide bombers as belonging to middle to high class families.

Sunday’s attacks were the worst ever against Sri Lanka’s small Christian minority, who make up just 7% of the 21 million population. Theravada Buddhism is Sri Lanka’s biggest religion, accounting for about 70% of the population. Hindus and Muslims make up around 12% and 10% of the population respectively.


US Military Aids to YPG

Although not official YPG is the extension of the terrorist group PKK which fights with Turkey for more than 30 years to establish an independent Kurdish Federation on mostly Turkey’s soil. Turkey has lost tens of thousands of civilians and soldiers during those fights. YPG appeared as a handy tool which US used extensively during the conflict in Syria. As things relatively better in Syria, ISIS has been almost removed and peace is slowly coming to the Syrian land, YPG is becoming one of the main figures at the area. US continued to send military aids to YPG in April, as they have declared their intentions to leave the Syria soon and it is obvious that they want to use YPG as their subcontractors at the region. However with all the right reasons Turkey heavily objects to this situation and the relation between Turkey and US is very tense for that matter. As the region is very problematic and parties to this conflict change sides easily, it is very difficult to predict the future of the region and the future of US-YPG relations.

Visits: 258



Trade War and The New World Order: Is it time to say farewell to Neo-liberalism ?

Ali Hacıaliefendioğlu


In 2018, the United States declared a new tariff policy against goods which were being traded the US between China, and the new era of emphasized his trade approaches have begun. When President Donald Trump elected in 2016, he addressed promise to protect American people, workers and domestic manufacturers from unfair trade practices.[1] The main arguement in this approach is the stealing of the US intellectual property by China.[2] Under the direction of these allegations, the US administration made a decision to improve new tariffs against China, and we call this emerging event as ‘Trade War’.

In this article, I will tray to explain ‘What is Trade War ?’, ‘What are expected as consequences’ and ‘Is it End of the Neo-Liberalism ?’ in the light of Karl Polanyi’s double movement theory.

The membership process of China was not an easy case for the US and World Trade Organization (WTO). When the calendars showed 2000, the US , at that time Bill Clinton who was in office, accepted the request for membership of China to WTO.  Given the facts, it was clear that China at that time was not clearly ready to become a member of WTO because of human right issues and state structure. Donald Trump refers to this situation all the time, and says that ‘that war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent people who represented the US’. With this argument, Trump tried to show the unsuccessfulness of the presidents who served before him; Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.[3]  Trump, with his discourses, implies that the former presidents’ administration was incompetent and that the 18 year process brought great economic damage to the US, and in this way, he tries to prove the legitimacy of his own policies.

In this section, it is necessary to understand the accusations of the USA against China and the validity of its claims.

The USA’s views on China

One of the main accusations of the USA is that China has stolen intellectual property of the companies which invested from the USA.[4] These stolen intellectual properties also include secret military technologies, and sort of advanced technologies which can be use of by ordinary people.[5] In fact, Mark Warner who is the US senator and the Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described Huawei a threat to national security.[6] According to some accusations, Huawei is one of the companies which stole intellectual property of the USA and disobeyed the sanction decision against Iran. In 2017, the USA published a formal investigation about these topics and showed that, with cyber attacks and stealing of intellectual properties which belonging to the USA costs 225bn-600bn dollars to the USA in a year.[7]

After this stage, we have to focus on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) regime of China. The Chinese government requires a joint venture principle for foreign companies to invest. In this way, the Chinese FDI rules are forced on the investing companies to create an entity with Chinese partners.[8] According to some experts, this leads to an unfair relationship in the context of the WTO rules. Because, it is claimed that the USA companies had to share their technologies by forcing them to enter the Chinese markets. It is said that this situation should be punished with sanctions under the roof of the WTO.[9]

However, despite all these allegations made by the USA, Clinton’s former Secretary of Treasury and economist Larry Summers stated: ‘China’s technological progress is coming from terrific entrepreneurs who are getting the benefit of huge government investment in basic science. It’s coming from an educational system that’s privileging excellence, concentrating on science and technology. That’s where their leadership in some technologies is coming from, not from taking a stake in some US company.’[10] It is understood from this statement that, in addition to the accusatory attitudes towards China, it is said that China does not need to steal any technologies from the USA, and has an education system, and infrastructure to produce these technologies.

China’s views on the USA

After mentioning the USA grievances the issue is to be discussed from the China perspective. China is very uncomfortable with Trump’s policies and describe him as a ‘bully’.[11] Also, China describe the USA policies against neo-liberal system and  far from dialogue. So, it can be understood easily, China puts Trump’s policies in a revisionist approach, and China struggle with its self-confidence. It can be prove with some analysis; according to UN figures, the USA depends on China to buy only some 8% of all US exports, against it, China has to sell almost 25% of its goods to the US. [12] According to some other approaches, China’s economy is in a downturn and this situation is putting  pressure on President Xi’s policies. Under this political pressure, Mr. Xi is trying to deal with Mr. Trump.[13]

Despite all of this, China prefers to use a moderate language in international relations. As remembered, Mr. Xi stated that China would maintain a dialogue path towards the US protectionist policies and act according to the free market requirements in bilateral relation with other countries. This is also supported with quotes of Wang Qishan, Chinese vice-president who said a week after the summit of Buenos Aires. Mr. Qishan stated that Beijing is ready to talk with Washington to resolve the trade dispute.[14]

The approaches of the two countries can be briefly described in this way. As is known Trump’s administration placed  30% tariff on imported solar panels. (China is the most productive country in this sector.) On the same day, Trump’s administration also put 20% percent tariff on washing machines which were to be imported. China exported 425 million dollars worth of washers to the US.[15] However, the taxes imposed on 1 March 2018 are considered as the beginning of the Trade War. As it is known, the Trump administration has set tariffs 10% on alluminium and 25% on the steel.[16] These two important assets also used in both military technologies and civil technologies that is mentioned above. Also China put new tariffs on 34bn dollars valuable goods import from the USA.

It is not enough to see these news by chance or to evaluate the current political situation from narrow angles. Is this a sign that we have come to an end in the neoliberalism period, or is it that states only want to protect themselves ? Before continuing to search an answer to these questions, I think it would be necessary to state about Karl Polanyi’s Double Movement Theory in this section of my article.

Double Movement Theory

Polanyi describes liberalism as a mechanism that does not correspond to nature. Polanyi says that liberalism is misleading the ideals of economy. Liberalism, which has created a reality where the utopian expectations are achieved more or less at the same time, according to Polanyi the two different results of liberalism emerged as a dream of an imaginary freedom denying the reality of society or accepting this reality and denying idea of freedom. The first result is the liberal opinion and the second is the result of the fascist view.[17] It is not necessary to go into detail in this article why Polanyi did not see liberalism as natural development, but it is helpful in understanding of the source of the Double Movement Theory, so I have to mentioned it in brief. The commodification of labor, land, and money s defined as the beginning of the free market and the collapse of liberalism.

As money is a key element of production in the market economy, its inclusion in the market mechanism will have institutional implication while labor and land will be integrated into the market economy and the essence of society will be dominated by market rules. Because labor and land are nothing more than the natural environment of the people who make up the societies.[18] The most important of these three concepts which Polanyi defines as ‘imaginary commodities’ is labor. Reducing the fate of the market mechanism making people and their natural environment a concept to be bought and sold will result in the collapse of society.[19]

Polanyi’s main arguments came from the 19th century world order. Polanyi found that the liberal market is subject to a bi-directional movement, based on its conclusions. This theory called as ‘Double Movement Theory’ can be said to be a movement against the perception of freedom created in the context of liberal policies and it creates an action that causes breakage in history. On the one hand, the markets spread all over the world, and the commodities they contain have high levels and integrate with the institutions where measures and policies are produced. The international exchange of commodities and the unification of markets brought with it richness and freedom, while also highlighting the importance of prevention policies and control mechanisms. The existence of free market and the increasing security concerns in the same direction will lead to crises when it reaches breakpoint. Therefore, according to Polanyi, ‘unnatural liberalism’ causes a paradoxical structure and crises. While the source of this paradox was defined by double movement, it focused on the fact that markets could not exist freely.[20]

Polanyi actualized social sources of 1st and 2nd World War with the double movement theory. In fact, the free market economy has brought the gold standard and free trade to the point of obstruction over the years, and caused the economic crises with the outbreak of 1929 Great Depression, and in the direction of protectionist demands and policies the losers of 1st World War caused fascism to rise in Italy and Germany. The global expansion of the market encouraged society to protect itself, not only the rise of fascism but also to transform the USSR into Stalinism.[21]

In liberalism society or social relations are adapted within the economic system, but on the other hand it had to be embedded in society. This situation leads to the emergence of the uncontrollable liberalism as an action that is detrimental to the social structure. In this context, Polanyi proposed the view of embedded liberalism. ( Embedded liberalism was first used by the US political scientist John Ruggie as a concept. Ruggies concept stands on the basis of Polanyi’s embedded and dis-embedded economic theories.)[22] After the 2nd World War it has existed in the Bretton Woods System which envisions a controlled economic integration. The main objective of the integration process developed in line with international institutions is to try to realize the states and societies with the determined tariffs and money standards without causing any damage. Embedded liberalism emerged as a reaction to the free market economy which was experienced in the 19th century and resulted in disasters[23]. Shocked by the Oil Crisis in 1973, the Bretton Woods system ended in 1981 and was replaced by dis-embedded neoliberal policies.[24]

A look at the Current Situation

Undoubtedly, it is no coincidence that the USA sees China as the biggest enemy of its economy. Most of the locomotive sectors in the United States started to open their factories in this country for cheap production advantages with the China becoming a member of the WTO. This was a major problem for the middle and low income classes although technological superiority was still existing in the US. Considering the discourses and policies developed under the administration of Trump, it is quite possible to see parallels with Karl Polanyi’s theory. As known, Trump’s campaign motto was ‘Make America Great Again’ and ‘America first’ perception formed a discourse that frequently came to the fore during the election. As I mentioned above when Trump was elected as president, he said that he would protect American workers’ right and increase job opportunities as one of his first action under presidency.

It would not be difficult to say that it is not surprising that Trump was elected president with these discourses. The middle class’s income problems became more evident with the 2008 Economic Crisis, and deepened over time. The middle class which thought liberal policies of the US no longer had any triumph was consolidated under Trump’s rhetoric and decided on the US’s new political orientation. Considering Polanyi’s approach the situation is also striking. Although the uncontrollable Neo-liberalism has enriched the US middle class for a while, but it has also caused the fall of middle class. This situation led to the development of more conservative approaches by the middle and low income classes which make up the majority of the population. Focusing on this political and social conjuncture, it is easy to understand that Trump’s discourses are not coincidental.

The US’s changing domestic political manifestations are what the Trump administration imposes on the world. The US realized that it could not exist as a hegemonic power in the existing system in the world. The founding power of the system has now become an actor trying to change the system around its own interests. In this context, it can be easily analyzed that the US to has taken an isolating attitude in its own region, and then trying to impose on a global scale. The attitude towards Mexico and the revision of NAFTA ( It will be named as United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement UMSCA)[25] could be an example of regional isolation policies. However anti-immigration and xenophobia are increasing in the US, and this social situation is supported by the irrational promises such as ‘the Wall’ project. The point is that the pioneer country of Neo-liberalism develops isolated policies and more conservative and fascist tendencies are observed in the society.

To examine the commercial tension between China and the US in this context would be more useful in terms of recognizing the socio-political infrastructure of the situation. The attitude of the Trump administration toward China was, as I mentioned above, that China stole the US’s intellectual properties. Although the claims on this issue are left open to debate, the US is undoubtedly trying to establish an economic pressure on China over its production advantages. It is confusing to see the unilateral policies pursued by the US cause concerns in the context of bilateral international law while the membership of China the WTO is in a controversial position during the period due to the human rights situation in China.

However although the differences between the US and China’s economic powers are still wide apart, the need for each other is at very high level. While the US has the highest amount of debt in the world, it has invested its power to finance this debt with China. Also China requires good economic relations with the US to protect its investment and realize its economical growth. At the current point the weight of the US economic power has been shown to China and the new economic agreement which is still being talked about is signaled that the interest of the US will be protected.

Unilateral policies developed by the US under Trump administration lead to new problems in the international system, and to deepen the existing problems. The isolated policy of the US also changes its perspective towards the EU. Trump administration wants equalization of capital sharing in NATO and this situation has forced Germany and France in their role in global politics. EU which is open to Russian and Chinese influence in the context of the Trump’s isolation policies, is focusing in developing alternative options for NATO. The Treaty of Aachen signed between Germany and France in the recent months has led to the introduction of the definition of the ‘European Army’, even though it envisions socio-political integrations.[26]

This general framework I have drawn out shows that the policies which give importance to regionalism throughout the world have started to gain effectiveness. However, the current situation of the US has reached a level that would harm the multilateral international world system. Therefore, the US which was the founder of the world system after the World War II, became an actor that reveals a revisionist approach against this system. One thing to be foreseen after this stage is the US will pursue a unilateral international policy under Trump’s administration, and use the political and economic instruments as a ‘power device’ against other rival states.

In conclusion, can we say that the US will destroy the neo-liberal order ? Such a future does not seem very likely. It is possible to explain this situation under two titles. First of all, Trump’s internal policies do not give any sign of this. Second, the US’s production-consumption relations are not ready for a new alternative approach. Although Trump’s criticism of Mexico and China seems to be against liberalization in international markets, in essence, it does not have such an approach in these policies. Trump’s administration has reduced the taxes it receives from companies to open factories in the US. In this way, it aims to create new jobs to American workers by returning companies from abroad. Trump aimed to strengthen the basis of his populist discourse which was advocated in his early years of office, but new regulations do not weaken Neo-liberalism, but rather reinforce it. The recent tax policies show that the Washington administration has lowered tax obligations on the rich and loosened control mechanism.[27] These regulations shows that, although Trump discursively constituted a revisionist and populist pattern in his speeches, but on the other hand, his actions in domestic politics show that the ‘wild face’ of the free market model is supported. Besides, the US is the country with the most debt today. In order to finance this debt, it needs the free market model more than ever. Also, Trumps’s administration has not prepared a new ideological basis or understanding for new economic approach to be established related with the alleged isolated policies. Thus, the US orientation in foreign policy is more conservative with the assumption that it will lose its power in the existing system, but these policies are nothing more than a realist economic approach. While I write these lines, meetings are organized between the US and China to finish Trade War, but it is not possible to predict that the desired result will be reached. On the other hand, it is not difficult to predict that, this process will end in the way of US’s interests.  Finally, the populist approaches of Trump administration are aimed at breaking China’s commercial power, but it will not be able to initiate a sustainable recovery process for the United States. However, these approaches have the potential to make societies more protective and xenophobic.



  • Presidential Executive Order Regarding the Omnibus Report on Significant Trade Deficits, White House, 3/31/2016
  • “These Are the 128 U.S. Products China Is Enacting Tariffs On”. Fortune.
  • Smith, David (April 4, 2018). “Trump plays down US-China trade war concerns: ‘When you’re $500bn down you can’t lose'”. The Guardian.
  • “Strategic Tariffs Against China Are Critical Part of Trade Reform to Create More Jobs and Better Pay”, AFL-CIO press release, March 22, 2018
  • “Huawei faces bill for tens of millions for ‘theft of 4G technology'”. The Telegraph. 2018-10-23.
  • Basically kidnapping’: China’s state media lashes out at Canada over arrest of Huawei executive”. Global News. 7 December 2018.
  • Pham, Sherisse (March 23, 2018). “How much has the US lost from China’s intellectual property theft?”. CNNMoney.
  • Command and control: China’s Communist Party extends reach into foreign companies”, Washington Post, January 28, 2018
  • Why is the U.S. accusing China of stealing intellectual property?”, Marketwatch, April 6, 2018
  • “Larry Summers praises China’s state investment in tech, saying it doesn’t need to steal from US”. CNBC
  • Milton Ezrati Trade War From the Chinese Side. Forbes Oct. 3, 2018
  • Keith Bradsher, Alan Rappeport and Glenn Thrush A Weakened China Tries a Different Approach With the US: Treading Lightly. New York Times,  12,2018
  • Stefania Palma US criticisms China’s empire and aggression in Asia. Financial Times, Nov. 15,2018
  • “President Trump Approves Relief for U.S. Washing Machine and Solar Cell Manufacturers”. Office of the United States Trade Representative. January 2018.
  • Swanson, Ana (2018-03-01). “Trump to Impose Sweeping Steel and Aluminum Tariffs”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
  • The Great Transformation Polanyi Karl p.342 İletişim Yayınları çeviren Ayşe Buğra
  • Ruggie, John Gerard 1982. International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order
  • Johnathan Kirshner 1999, Keynes Capital Mobility and the Crisis of Embedded Liberalism. Review of International Political Economy 6:3 Autumn 313-337
  • John Ruggie 1997. Globalization and the Embedded Liberalism Compromise: The End of an Era ? Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
  • S. and Canada Reach Deal to Salvage Nafta”. The New York Times. September 30, 2018.
  • Niall McCarthy After Historic Franco-German Treaty, How High Is Support for an EU Army? Forbes jan.23 2019
  • Emily Stewart Trump has a 100bn dollars tax cut for the rich he wants to enact without Congress, Vox. Jul 31 2018.

[1] Presidential Executive Order Regarding the Omnibus Report on Significant Trade Deficits, White House, 3/31/2016

[2] “These Are the 128 U.S. Products China Is Enacting Tariffs On”. Fortune.

[3] Smith, David (April 4, 2018). “Trump plays down US-China trade war concerns: ‘When you’re $500bn down you can’t lose'”. The Guardian.

[4] “Strategic Tariffs Against China Are Critical Part of Trade Reform to Create More Jobs and Better Pay”, AFL-CIO press release, March 22, 2018

[5] “Huawei faces bill for tens of millions for ‘theft of 4G technology'”. The Telegraph. 2018-10-23.

[6] Basically kidnapping’: China’s state media lashes out at Canada over arrest of Huawei executive”. Global News. 7 December 2018.

[7] Pham, Sherisse (March 23, 2018). “How much has the US lost from China’s intellectual property theft?”. CNNMoney.

[8] Command and control: China’s Communist Party extends reach into foreign companies”, Washington Post, January 28, 2018

[9] Why is the U.S. accusing China of stealing intellectual property?”, Marketwatch, April 6, 2018

[10] “Larry Summers praises China’s state investment in tech, saying it doesn’t need to steal from US”. CNBC

[11] Milton Ezrati Trade War From the Chinese Side. Forbes Oct. 3, 2018

[12] Ibid.

[13] Keith Bradsher, Alan Rappeport and Glenn Thrush A Weakened China Tries a Different Approach With the US: Treading Lightly. New York Times,  Dec. 12,2018

[14] Stefania Palma US criticisms China’s empire and aggression in Asia. Financial Times, Nov. 15,2018

[15] “President Trump Approves Relief for U.S. Washing Machine and Solar Cell Manufacturers”. Office of the United States Trade Representative. January 2018.

[16] Swanson, Ana (2018-03-01). “Trump to Impose Sweeping Steel and Aluminum Tariffs”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.

[17] The Great Transformation Polanyi Karl p.342 İletişim Yayınları çeviren Ayşe Buğra

[18] Ibid p.118

[19] Ibid. p.120

[20] Ibid p.123

[21] Ibid. p.23

[22] Ruggie, John Gerard 1982. International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order

[23] Johnathan Kirshner 1999, Keynes Capital Mobility and the Crisis of Embedded Liberalism. Review of International Political Economy 6:3 Autumn 313-337

[24] John Ruggie 1997. Globalization and the Embedded Liberalism Compromise: The End of an Era ? Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

[25] U.S. and Canada Reach Deal to Salvage Nafta”. The New York Times. September 30, 2018.

[26] Niall McCarthy After Historic Franco-German Treaty, How High Is Support for an EU Army? Forbes jan.23 2019

[27] Emily Stewart Trump has a 100bn dollars tax cut for the rich he wants to enact without Congress, Vox. Jul 31 2018.

Visits: 235

Note of the Month March 2019

Turkey’s Local Elections of March 2019


Following very intensive and sometimes dirty campaigns Turkey has finally voted for the local administrations. The results are good for both sides. The AKP who currently holds the majority in the parliament won the local elections by 44% of all the votes. AKP established an alliance with MHP, who gethered 7% of the votes. So together they have more than 51% of all the votes. However, that alliance is not completely happy with the results as they have lost the central municipalities in three major cities of Turkey, namely Istanbul, Ankara and İzmir. In all of those cities the main opposition party CHP succeeded to win the elections. CHP gathered 30% of all the votes and this can be considered as a major success as they increased their votes by 7-8% since from the last elections.

For the last two decades the party in power, AKP and President Erdogan appered to be the undisputed winners of all possible elections but in that election the oppostion found a great motivation for the future as winning the major cities were the main goal for all the parties.

The elections were held relatively in peace. There were couple of unwanted events around the country but for a poplulation of 50 million voters this can be considered normal.

During the campaigns President Erdogan again showed a tremendous performance for the good of the party in power. He sometimes held 8 meetings in one day and appeared on live television debates at the same day. The opposition did not like the fact that a President is working with all the facilities and power of the state for the good of AKP. The opposition tried to stay calm and did not want to increase the tension during the campaign and the increase in their votes shows that it was the proper tactic for the opposition parties. Very high unemployment rates and weak economic performance of the last year together with very high inflation rate helped the opposition to win the elections at major cities.

Visits: 132

Note of the Month February 2019

Turkey – Russia: Developing Relations

For the last two decades Turkish-Russian relations were getting better every year. Of course there were major setbacks during that period. Hitting a Russian war plane in 2015 by Turkish air forces and assassination of  Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov by a Turkish police officer were among those setbacks. Later, Turkey related those events by FETÖ (Fetullah Terrorist Organization) and tried its best to normalize the relations. With the developments taking place in Syria and similar views of Putin and Erdoğan relating to the world events, now it seems that Turkey and Russia are becoming close allies. Russia recently removed the strict ban on visas and allowed non- visa entrance for Turkish businessmen and truck drivers. The summit which is held at the midst of Febraury 2019 between Turkey, Russia and Iran also show signs of developing relations between those countries. According to the results of that summit Russia and Turkey have similar thoughts about the developments in Syria and a safe zone in Syria borders can be established. One can expect that, in this direction by the help of Russian government, Turkey-Syria relations can also develop in a positive way. Russia-Turkey trade volume is increasing continuously and it was around 25 billion USD in 2018.


Turkey –Greece Relations: Improving?

Tsipras has visited Turkey in February and welcomed by Turkish authorities and by President Erdoğan. Tsipras has also visited Halki Greek Orthodox Seminary being the first Prime Minister of Greece doing that. The Seminary is closed for 48 years and opening it is in the agenda of both nations and it has a major symbolic value for Greeks. The reason for that warm visit and welcome had two sides. Turkey is going to local elections and it is always important for President  Erdoğan to win the elections as an erosion of his votes may mean a lot to the opposition. Politically Turkey should be seen strong and good with its neighbors to gather the votes of masses. But, may be this visit is more significant for Tsipras as he recently signed an agreement with Macedonia after long debates and called traitor by some of the Greeks for signing such an agreement. Normalizing relations with Turkey and having the Seminary opened will bring a success to him in domestic politics.

Visits: 468

Note of the Month January 2019

The future of Venezuela and its relations with US and Turkey


It is now a well known fact that during the Chavez period (2002-2013) together with the high oil prices around the world, Venezuela found a momentum in its economy. During the same period Chavez acted as the number one rival of the US and supported by a big percentage of the Venezuelan people. Although corruption was always a major issue in Venezuelan political life and bureaucracy, Chavez tried to reflect a big portion of the nation’s oil income to the public.

During that period most of the fundamental needs were supplied to the public by a heavy subvention of the state. Gasoline was much cheaper than water, meat, butter, sugar; all types of fruits and vegetables were really cheap and could be bought easily by most of the people. Alcohol was also very cheap and Venezuelans were spending their time at the beaches at weekends. Roads to the beaches were under heavy traffic for the most of the weekends. In short, most of the Venezuelan people were happy.

Unfortunately that cheap supply of goods and the easy way of living made the Venezuelans lazier and production at all sectors began to decrease. Following the decrease of world oil prices and the death of Chavez, Venezuela became a very problematic country. Today a substantial percentage of Venezuelans have left the country hoping to find jobs at neighboring countries, the crime rate is number one in the world and people feel very unhappy as they have difficulties to find goods at markets and they live with a fear of staying hungry.

The solution for that crisis might be to send the Maduro from the office and bring Guaido to the power. If that happens the first task of Guaido seems very clear; to invite the US to invest in Venezuela. Of course this is the thing what US want and tries to achieve for a very long time. Chavez and Maduro could be considered as a failure but one thing they have succeeded during that period is not giving their oil fields under the control of US. The people of Venezuela know that too and half of the population hates US and support Maduro in this respect. Besides, directly intervening to other nation’s internal matters can be problematic for the people of that nation.

Current situation shows that the western world gives support to Guaido and wants Maduro to leave the office. However, Russia, China, Turkey and some other countries support Maduro. All have their reasons to support him. During the Chavez period Venezuela has started several projects for the good of the people. One of those projects was the living houses project – mision de vivienda – and the projects were given to the four socialist countries, namely; Russia, China, Iran and Belarus. All those countries were actively constructing tens of thousands of living houses until very recently and they were paid by oil by Venezuelan government. During this period US could not get anything from Venezuela and for a country who claims to be the leader of the world, this was an unacceptable situation. Now the US has found the opportunity to reverse the situation and it seems it will get what it wants; the rich oil fields of Venezuela. One can only hope that there will not be big fights and serious tragedies in coming days.

Turkey on the other hand has somehow involved with the situation and became a party at this conflict. Until 2018, trade volume between Turkey and Venezuela was around 100 million USD and just a couple of Turkish construction companies were doing business in Venezuela. However, in 2018 Maduro decided to use Turkey to process and sell some of its gold production. Turkey has accepted this offer and in 2018 the trade volume suddenly boosted to over 1 billion USD.

It seems Venezuela will stay in conflict and in difficult economic situation until Maduro leaves his office and it is clear that he will use all his power not to leave the office and not let the US control the country.

Visits: 157

Note of the Month December 2018

Syrian Front and Turkey’s Relations with US

                Turkish army has made all preperations and is ready to face PYD/YPG in Syria to ensure its security along the Turkis frontier with Syria. US decision to evacuate Syria has been very useful as in case of an action Turkish troops will not face American soldiers. The situation in the Syrian Province of Idlib  is still complex and dangerous. It is becoming more and more difficult to maintain the securityy cordon around Idlib because Syrian Government and Russia are becoming impatient with frequent hit and run attacks by Tahrir us Sham formations.

Meanwhile withdrawal of US forces from Syria is coupled with the decision of the Senate to announce its decision regarding the ban on sale of Patriot missiles to Turkey even though any sale will have to be authorized by the US Congress and payment difficulties must be overcome because of the cost of the purchase under difficult ecoıomic conditions  of Turkey.  Furthermore, the question is whether Turkey can give up the purchase of S-400 missiles from Russia which are already in the production process. According to news reports, it seems that the US Government is changing its attitude towards Fethullah Gülen and the other FETÖ refugees in the US. With these developments onemay legitimately ask whether Turkey-US relations is once again back on the strategic partnership track.

Europe and Turkey

                The “yellow vest” uprising in Paris and Belgium and the uprising in Budapest for press freedom shows that discontent and wealth do not necesarily seem sufficient to placatepeople if and when they  are not happy with how they are treated. In the UK the fate of Theresa May government and the Brexit agreement will be decided by the Parliament in January 2019. It is doubtfull whether UK can throw aside the Brexit agreement reached in Brussels if the alternative is Brexit with no agreement as stated by EU leaders. Meanwhile, German Chancellor Merkel’s decision to resign from the CDU Party leadership is proceeding. Whether this will have an impact on Germany’s attitude on refugees is to be seen.

Visits: 269



Suriye üzerinden İran-İsrail gerilimi


İran İslam Cumhuriyeti kurulduğu günden bu yana Müslüman Devletler arasında İsrail’in varlığına en çok karşı çıkan devlet konumunda  bulunmaktadır. Hatta İran Cumhuriyeti kendi kuruluş ideolojisini İsrail karşıtlığı üzerine  yerleştirdiği söylenebilir. İsrail Devleti de İran’nın bu tutumuna karşı onun            uluslararası alandaki gücünü ve etkinliğini kısıtlamayaçalışmakta  ve Batı Dünyasına İran Devletini özgür dünyanın en büyük düşmanı olarak sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Böylece, iki devlet arasındaki ilişkiler yıllardan beridir çok gergin bir konumda bulunmaktadır. Ancak son birkaç yıldır süren Suriye İç Savaş bu iki ülke arasındaki gerginliğin silahlı çatışmaya dönmesine yol açmıştır.

Özellikle Trump’ın izlediği İran karşıtı politikalardan  biri olan ABD ‘nin İran hükümetiyle yaptığı anlaşmalardan geri çekilmesi , İran- İsrail gerilimini başka bir boyuta taşımıştır. İran tarihinde ilk kez İsrail Devletini direktolarak  hedef almıştır.İran Devrim Muhafızlarına bağlı  Kudüs Gücü, 9 -10 Mayıs gecesi İsrail’in işgali altında bulunan Golon Tepelerine Suriye üzerinden yaklaşık olarak 20 kadar füze fırlattı. İran’nın bu saldırısına İsrail’in tepkisi gecikmedi.İsrail güçleri Suriye’nin güneyinde bulunan  Kuneytra iline bağlı Baas ve Hadar bölgelerine  tank atışları ve hava saldırıları düzenledi.[1]İsrail ordusundan yapılan açıklamaya göre İran’ın attığı füzelerin hiç birinin Demir Kubbe Savunma sistemi sayesinde İsrail topraklarına ulaşamadığı belirtildi.[2]Suriye tarafından yapılan açıklamda ise  İsrail’in  hava saldırıları sebebiyle bir radar istasyonu ve cephaneliğin yok edildiği açıklandı .Ayrıca Suriye yetkilileri İsrail’in saldırıları sebebiyle  3 kişinin öldüğü ve 2 kişinin yaralandığı belirtildi. Ancak ölen veya yaralanan kişilerin İran yetkilileri olup olmadığına yönelik  bir  açıklamada bulunulmadı. İsrail Savunma bakanı Libermanbu saldırılar neticesinde İran’ın Suriye’deki bütün alt yapısının çökertildiğini duyurdu.[3]İran ve İsrail arasında yaşanan bu çatışma dünya medyasının dikkatini Orta Doğuya yöneltmesine sebep oldu. Al Jezeraa İsrail’in saldırısının Suriye İç Savaşında yeni bir cephe açtığını ileri sürdü. [4] BBC ise yaşanan bu gelişmeleri İran’nın Suriye’de askeri olarak konuşlanmasına yönelik şu ana kadarİsrail’in gösterdiği en şiddetli askeri tepki olduğunu belirterek, iki ülkenin savaşa mı sürükleneceği sorusunu akıllara getirdi.[5]






Sutiation in Korea: Towards Unification?


Starting with Kim Dae-Jung government, South Korea used Sunshine Policy that aims to persuade North Korea towards unification by using methods such as engagments, cooperations and exhanges.

And finally, 27 April 2018 marks an incredible day in Korean peninsula. For the first time in history, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un entered the borders of South Korea to meet President Moon Jae-in for peace talks. Now, Panmunjom Border bears the mark of this historic moment.

At the end of the talks, the parties signed ‘’Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula’’ which officially ended war between two countries and started to work towards reducing nuclear arms on Korean Peninsula.

For this important event, I want to argue two points.

Firstly, our experience in history always reminds us the unification of Germany. Though, it should be remembered that the unification of Germany happened because of people that tried to breach the border between two countries. In North Korea-South Korea problem, I firmly believe that the leaders will determine the outcome as Trump administration pressuring North Korea’s leader Kim, China’s cap on oil supplies on North Korea and ban imports of North Korean steel which are the sanctions set by the UN[2], and Moon Jae’in’s utmost attention will play preeminent roles.

Secondly, I think a unification in near future is unlikely but North Korean regime is exhausted because of the UN sanctions and the unpredictable behaviour of its important neighboring ally China.[3] Before a unification, important issues should be solved such as nuclear capabilities and missile tests of North Korea and the UN sanctions. After an agreement is made, I think just like Germany example, the poor party will dissolve itself and join the prosperous party.

While nothing is certain, Korean Peninsula could see a peaceful future and only one country on itself.

Kaynakça,Erişildi 9.05.2018., Erişildi 9.05.2018., Erişildi 9.05.2018.

[1] Taha Acar, Dış Politika Enstitüsü Stajyeri.

[2]Ramani, Samuel, ‘’China’s Approach to North Korea Sanctions’’,  The Diplomat, 10 Ocak 2018.

[3] For a better picture: As mention  above,  China both criticized North Korea for its actions and even applied UN sanctions.





Müslüman halklar için önemli olan Kudüs’ün İsrail’in başkenti ilan edilmesi, Gazze’nin her yıl olduğu gibi Ramazan ayından önce bombalanmasının basit bir tesadüf olmadığı aşikâr. Kudüs, üç semavi din olan İslam, Yahudilik ve Hristiyanlık için çok kutsal yerleri içinde barındırıyor. Kutsal yerlerin önemli bir kısmı Doğu Kudüs’te yer alıyor. Burada Müslüman, Yahudi, Hristiyan ve Ermeni halklara ait yerleşim yerleri bulunmaktadır. Hz. Muhammed’in göğe yükseldiği yer olarak inanılan, Doğu Kudüs’te bulunan Mescidi Aksa Müslümanlar için oldukça önemli. Mescidi Aksa’ya çok yakın bir bölgede bulunan ağlama duvarı ise Yahudiler için önem taşımaktadır. Aynı şekilde Hristiyanlar ve Ermeniler içinde önemli yerler vardır. Bu sebeple paylaşılamayan bir yer olan Kudüs geçtiğimiz günlerde uluslararası kamuoyunun tepkisine yol açan olaylara sahne oldu.

ABD Başkanı Trump’ın dünyayı hiçe sayarak aldığı hukuksuz kararı- ABD büyükelçiliğini Tel-Aviv’den Kudüs’e taşıması olayların fitilini ateşledi. Bu haberin ardından tepki gösteren Filistin halkı, İsrail-Gazze sınırında toplanarak protesto gösterilerine başladılar.  “Kudüs’te coşkulu kutlamaların yapıldığı sırada, Gazze-İsrail sınırında, tüm dünyanın gözü önünde korkunç bir katliam yaşanıyordu. İsrail’in 70’inci yıldönümüne denk getirilen açılış, burada Filistinliler tarafından protesto edildi. İsrail güçlerinin gösterilere silahlı müdahalesi sonucu aralarında çocukların da bulunduğu yaklaşık 60 kişi hayatını kaybetti, 2 bin 700’ü aşkın sivil ise yaralandı.”[1] Keskin nişancılar tarafından vurulan yüzlerce insanın vurulmasına kılıf arayan İsrail’in Belçika büyükelçisi açıklamasında öldürülen kişilerin hepsinin terörist olduğu açıklamasını yaptı. Başka bir açıklamada ise 3 kişinin tel örgülere bomba yerleştirmeye çalıştığını iddia eden İsrail kabahatine mazaret uydurdu.

Uluslararası kamuoyunda büyük tepkilere yol açan bu olayı devlet liderleri de kınadılar. “ABD Başkanı Donald Trump’ın Kudüs’ü İsrail’in başkenti olarak tanıma kararına İsrail’den teşekkür, Filistin’den kınama geldi. Alman hükümeti de Trump’ın kararını desteklemediğini açıkladı.”[2] Türkiye’de ise ulusal yas ilan edildi. “Türkiye Dışişleri Bakanlığı’ndan yapılan açıklamada ise “ABD yönetimini bu yanlış kararı gözden geçirmeye ve hesapsızca adımlardan kaçınmaya çağırıyoruz” ifadelerine yer verildi. Türkiye Dışişleri Bakanı Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu ayrıca Twitter hesabından yaptığı açıklamada, “ABD yönetiminin Kudüs’ü İsrail’in başkenti olarak tanıdığı ve İsrail’deki Büyükelçiliğini Kudüs’e taşıyacağı yönünde yaptığı sorumsuzca açıklamayı büyük endişeyle karşılıyor ve kınıyoruz. Bu karar uluslararası hukukun ve ilgili BM kararlarının açık bir ihlalidir” dedi.”[3]  İran’da Türkiye gibi ABD’nin kararının uluslararası hukukun ve BM’nin bir ihlali olduğunun açıklamasını yaptı. “İran’ın başkenti Tahran’da İran Meclisi Başkanı Ali Laricani’nin başkanlığında, İslam İşbirliği Teşkilatı Üyesi Ülkeleri Parlamento Birliği (İSİPAB) Filistin konulu olağanüstü toplantı düzenledi. Toplantıda konuşan Laricani, “ABD’nin Filistin aleyhindeki girişimleri cevapsız kalmayacaktır. Trump’ın kararını şiddetle kınıyoruz.” ifadelerini kullandı.”[4]  Çin’in yeni devlet başkanı da Trump’a tepki gösteren liderler arasında yerini aldı. “Suudi Arabistan Kralı Selman Bin Abdulaziz’in Arap Birliğini, Filistin halkına yönelik işlenen suçlar karşısında “birleşik bir Arap duruşu ortaya koymak” amacıyla toplantıya çağıracağı bildirildi.”[5]

Karara tepkiler çığ gibi büyürken büyükelçiliğin Kudüs’e taşınması kararının bölgede yeni ayaklanma ve sorunlara yol açacağı düşünülüyor. Uluslararası kamuoyu ve devlet liderleri tarafından tepkilere yol açan bu olayın etkisi gündemi uzun süre düşmeyeceği aşikâr.









Visits: 418