Young Diplomats

Almost no one in our connected world is alien to the ideas of social media addiction, fake news and the nightmares that are most probably coming to life in front of our very own eyes. Researches shared by both mainstream and other popular media outlets have provided enough evidence and convinced us of the Orwellian future that’s about to unfold. But its rarely mentioned so as to how does an addiction lead to a state of real Fascism and its implications for politics, both internal and global. This we shall try looking into.
But firstly, we shall establish that societies are, in fact, in real decline.
Are we really in cognitive decline?
A simple google search shall provide enough research publications on the issue of smart phone addiction leading to a decline in attention spans, increase in anxiety, depression and restlessness levels. There are 3 steps our brains follows for proper cognition. Attention, memory, recall. If they are affected negatively, then we can state the decline correct.
Attention and encoding. Abundance of choices(Netflix, YouTube Videos etc.) results in the choice dilemma and the Fear Of Missing Out(FOMO). Leading to the reduction of attention span. A nice article for reference here. Even questioning voices such as here, here and here do not count in various professions like that of a farmer, student etc. but still agree to the dilemma people face and what most probably drives them for non focusing.
Memory encoding. Storage in the brain is adversely affected as showed by this and this .
Recall. We can recall only what we’ve stored. A good read on this is present here and here.
For the sake of being precise no details have been mentioned but a thorough read of the above shall be convincing enough to learn the true impact of social media.
Social impacts of the above factors on the individual.
Apart from the above studies focused on the brain, supporting studies which explain factors leading to anxiety, depression, self esteem  in people showcase the growing number of desperate, insecure and damaged individuals(especially teens) in our society.
Connecting the cases with the current scenario
The obvious implications of reduced brain functioning compounded with incomplete information from all sorts of media results in an anxious, insecure individual uncertain about his/her future, living in forced mental world of doom and dystopia and thus treads only on getting more dopamine hits unknowingly, is very frightening and saddening.
This results in fragmentation in the official narrative or ideology of the nation and society as a whole, creating a void. As an example, modern day western European societies while drenching in political correctness and moral policing rule out and silence god fearing individuals and sections of society and as this grows, so does the void which was earlier filled by national values and even before, Christianity. Canada’s Prime Minister Mr. Justin Trudeau declaring Canada a ‘post national’ country has declared that nothing except this void exists.
And SOMETHING has to be there to fill the void.
What fills the void?
Anything that predicates upon these same new founded values and can at least be provide an immediate sense of relief. And thus the collective actions are motivated accordingly followed by the political actions being motivated by the same.
Popular examples include rise of Antifa, London’s anti Trump rallies, far right activism, nationalism, anti immigrant narratives,  in many countries are a direct reaction of the new founded or discovered values by the masses stemming from their insecurity or things discussed above.
BUT the real consequence?
If the society and its elements stay course on the same path and stay connected on these newly discovered collective interests, whatever power they choose bring in will definitely at all times be superior to them because their own insecurities etc. brought it in power thus giving an upper hand for unregulated activities. Compound this with the ever swayed and polarised media feeding only to-be-made-popular opinion in place of putting up plain facts, the food supply to these insecurities increases ultimately consuming the masses to give in their rights and controls to their elected rulers.
Potential examples? Any nation state closing in to become a dictatorship or a surveillance state. Be it Mr. Bolsonaro in Brazil, Mr. Modi in India among others.

Trump plans to permanently freeze WHO funding has raised high alarm in the COVID-19 saga. As the biggest donator, it will have huge financial gaps to cover by World Health Organizations. Many global leaders have criticized Trump’s move. Bill gates, the world-renowned figure has said in his twitter that halting WHO funding is dangerous as it sounds. It will only make things worse as COVID-19 has brought devastating impact to the world economy and countries still striving to revitalize.

It doesn’t seem that COVID-19 is under Trump’s head. As he constantly criticizes the WHO effort, one thing he always did is to link his critic to China. On April 7th, Trump criticized WHO by saying that the organization is china-centric. The statement seems really awkward. Why did he say that WHO funded largely by the US? There are several WHO donors who contribute significant such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (12,12%), Gavi Alliance (8,18%), UK (7,91%), Japan (2,59%), and Germany (5,33%). I agree that the US is the biggest donor, yet WHO is not belong to anyone. WHO is belong to the world and have the vision to promote global health and also trying to cure infectious disease.

The fact has shown that China is the first country that suffers from COVID-19. Its origins belong there in the Huinan market. That’s the reason why WHO is continuously cooperating with China. China is also shown a great degree of collaboration. They opened the information about genetics sequence and many more. It doesn’t have to do with China-centric, yet it has to do with Trump’s political agenda with China.

Regarding China, in 2017, US defense policy has clearly stated that China is one of the main enemies of the US. Rising power from Asia has threatened the US global position with its tremendous economic power. In 2014, China’s PPP has overlapped the US in the first place. The reason that China overlapped them has to do with their comparative advantage of one billion populations. China is also expanding its influence in many countries with his Belt and Road Initiatives.

The fact that justifies what Trump trying to do to China. It wants to delegitimize them. On April 30th, cited from Reuters, Trump blamed them for lack of ability to contain the virus. He said that “It could have been stopped in China before it started and it wasn’t, and the whole world is suffering because of it,” Trump wants to lead opinion that blames China for the global pandemic that occurs today. However, it doesn’t have any impact on other’s behaviors so Trump changes his approach by freeze WHO funding who’s accused by him as china-centric.

In his letter addressed directly to Tedros, citing NBC News, Trump has said: “It is clear the repeated missteps by you and your organization in responding to the pandemic have been extremely costly for the world,”. The only way forward for the World Health Organization is if it can actually demonstrate independence from China.” What independence from China if WHO just try to work together with China? He only makes false reasoning to justify his action. It is shown that in this pandemic, Trump only cares about how to delegitimize China’s position in international politics. China is one of the most fearful enemies that have to be taken down by any means necessary.

To Trump, don’t turn COVID-19 into political games as coronavirus death cases still growing. The only focus now is to save humanity from this pandemic. Our civilization has many experiences with this kind of pandemic; from Spanish Flu, Ebola, Influenza, measles in the 14th century. As a global power, the US supposed to lead the world to get out of this crisis. I agree with Bill that the world is waiting for the US to lead the charge.

However, Trump doesn’t aware of how important the US position and its policy in the midst of the pandemic. He is busy to delegitimize its arch enemy. Also, Trump’s strategy to delegitimize China is counter-productive because it only bounce-back to him with his lack of leadership skills for handling crises. The US now has most active-cases around the world with over one million cases, when China, on the other hand, not reaching a hundred thousand.

If Trump wants to delegitimize China, one thing they need to do is become the first country to produce a reliable COVID-19 vaccine. The world right now is having a race which side produces good vaccines that affordable for global people. According to the Gavi Alliance, China is leading vaccine production while they entering phase-two vaccine developments. Meanwhile, the US is still in phase-one. In other words, while the US busy to criticize China, they are still lacking behind in the production race.

Vaccine production race is important because it will project international politics in the time it comes. The Health System and technologies will become one of the power indicators in the geopolitics perspective. Once one country is successful in producing the vaccine, it will gain international recognition which elevates his position in international politics. China is aiming to become the first country which success to make vaccine globally affordable.

Also, US behavior to WHO is like leaving the open positions for China to take the mantle in global politics, at least in health issues. Crises nowadays need a leader. Although China’s contribution to WHO pales in comparison to the US, politically speaking, with the current condition, China will be up to the task to lead the world to exit this pandemic. They will look up to China if the US still behaves like that!

The current border skirmshes along LAC (Line of Actual Control) reported in Eastern Ladakh sector and Northern Sikkim, injuring a dozen of soldiers in physical clashes, followed by increased troop positioning and increased boat-patrolling by PLA in Galwan River valley is a worrying trend for India.

This all amid a time when India is still struggling to contain the COVID Pandemic, all these incidents taking place seems insensitive now. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian stated: “Chinese border troops have always been upholding peace and tranquility along our border areas. China and India stay in close communication and coordination concerning our border affairs within existing channels”.  The statements from The COAS of Indian Army Gen. M M Naravane said, “There were two incidents at Eastern Ladakh and North Sikkim where aggressive behaviour by both sides resulted in minor injuries to troops post which both sides disengaged after dialogue and interaction at local level”, both these statements helped to downplay the flare-up in the current situation.
An unprecedented Act?

The disputes between Indian military and PLA (People’s Liberation Army) on border areas of LAC has been the issue since the past, but the recent development on the border is different from what we have seen in the past, where in the past the tensions used to de-escalate after the meetings by local military leaders, this time however, the chinese troops are alleged to build camps near Galwan Valley with increased boat patrols in Galwan river, with no sign of abatement even after the continuous meetings between military leaders of both sides. Equally new is the vociferous act by PLA and the frequency with which these incidents happened.

Another unprecedented act is the silence of Chinese media and Chinese officials who are adopting a Silence Diplomacy, a rare show, on this issue unlike the Doklam Crisis where daily on-ground reporting was used to uplift the sentiments of the local population against India. This time, it is different with everything happening silently and with more force.
The Reasons for Dispute
China seems to be upping the ante against India. What can be the possible reasons behind it, is it a perception of boundary problem, or is it problem of taking away of special status from J&K by The GOI, or is it the recent road development by India on the Indian side of LAC, or is it the move to draw a red line for India by China over India’s changing state by supporting the Taiwan issue and an independent investigation into the origin of the Pandemic. There are several possibilities one can think of, and several analysts and experts are offering different perceptions in this regard.

India and China have a real issue of perception of boundaries, what game theorists refer to as the “Commitment problem.” In game theory, a commitment problem arises when two actors would be better off in the present by committing themselves to a cooperative relationship in the future. But, if the actors know that they will prefer to renege on their agreement in the future, the benefits of cooperation in the present cannot be realized, and even a mutually beneficial agreement cannot be struck. Simply put, if “Rising” India assumes that her material power and leverage vis-a-vis China is likely to improve, India has no incentive on accepting a China’s “benign hegemony” and a negotiated settlement at a time when India cannot realise the advantage of this increased leverage. This is also true in China’s case, with an aspiration of future “Global power”, China considers to be getting more out of India in the future. A status quo agreement that seeks to formalize the existing LAC becomes difficult to accept.

Now to understand why it is happening on Indian borders, we also have to look at the development in Chinese politics. Recently the 13th National People’s Congress (NPC) and 3rd session of 13th China People’s Political consultative Congress  (CPPCC) have concluded, which are considered to be the biggest events for the political class in China. The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) who is under severe criticism from Chinese citizens due to the Economic crisis and the handling of COVID, has opted a strategy to flex its muscles in this time to strengthen its position. The simmering tension inside CCP has made Mr. Xi do the things with alacrity and whenever an autocratic regime finds itself in danger of coup or oust, it acts vociferously inside and outside, to strengthen its position, that is what we are now seeing from Mr. Jinping’s side.

Another area to look upon is recent development in global politics, where allegations on China’s role in the contagion (COVID) has strengthened worldwide, which has prompted China to look for ways to shut the voices, be it sanctioning Australia or drawing red lines for India through border dispute or Employing the show of Power Politics in the South China Sea to shut the voices in neighbouring states. The issue of Taiwan’s inclusion into WHO and the increasing voice against Chinese action in Hongkong (where PRC has recently passed a National security bill taking away the sovereignty of Hongkong), are the issues which China has perceived as an attack to her One-China policy, which prompted China to act violently.
The recent development of Road (DSDBO) by India on the India side of LAC upto Galwan Valley is something which China wants India to avoid. China has good infrastructure near Border areas, but this is not the case for India, however, India has made strides in the recent past. The latest skirmishes on LAC is an excuse China is giving for her actions which is a red sign from Chinese side to India. Here, China is opting for a Pakistani strategy of blaming India for escalations on borders and justifying her actions against India.
All these amalgamate to make the current issue more serious. Now looking behind closed doors, what we don’t know is the big aspirations of current Chinese leader Mr. Jinping, to be the best leader in the Chinese history vis-a-vis his predecessors, for that what he needs is a powerful regime both Politically and Economically, which can only be consolidated when CCP looks powerful worldwide and at home, which Mr. Jinping is trying to do through coercion.
Wuhan spirit- A dead concept?
Now what about the Wuhan spirit which helped India and China to de-escalate the tensions in the Doklam area. India and China have signed several agreements, including the Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas (September 1993), the Agreement on Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas (November 1996), and most recently, the Border Defence Cooperation Agreement (2013), none of which appear so far to have helped in the current tensions.
One must question the efficacy of the Wuhan Spirit, that is it really in the Indian interest now, seeing the current Chinese aggression. To answer this, We must also know the fact that Wuhan Spirit, as it is pronounced, was a measure to put-down the pressure during the Doklam crisis, which is very much different from the current situation. We must not get diverged from the fact that the current game of PLA is a long drawn strategy of PRC to capture its lost territory by small and decisive steps be it the Tibetisation of Indian Himalayas or circling India through String of pearls, every action in Chinese book has a hidden meaning and a long-term plan. Wuhan spirit is a hollow agreement by China to show the willingness to work for resolving border issues, which doesn’t reap any results in that direction, so relying on Wuhan spirit is a fallacy today.

The Road Ahead of India
The current situation is somewhat a fait accompli for India if China moves ahead by building more checkposts, then India will have two ways to confront the situation, either face the Chinese face-to-face and escalate the situation, or back-off, same as what Chinese had during the Doklam Crisis. They did back-off, but is it feasible for India.

In Diplomacy, Patience is mostly a virtue, until it is not.

The current situation doesn’t support a backing-off option and a patient approach, India needs to confront the situation with the same force as China, to send a message, at the same time increasing diplomatic pressure through forging relationships with like-minded countries is what is in the best interest of India today.
A Carnegie report highlights, the best way to guarantee “peace and tranquility” on the Sino-Indian border is to focus on military-to-military communication, which would “allow the two sides to immediately clarify any relevant issues at a more senior directive level.” Also building a military deterrence capability to reduce any future possible Chinese provocations on borders is an imperative for India today.
Conclusion
The current situation does not allow China to go on for an all-out war with India, because it will cost them Economically as well as Politically, which they cannot bear. The current geopolitical air is on the Indian side with a strengthening anti-Chinese narrative , so India is in a lead position vis-a-vis China.

The need of the hour is to de-escalate the tensions on LAC and focus on the health and Economic crises prevailing throughout the World. As Henry A. Kissinger once said,

” No foreign policy- No matter how ingenious it is- has any chance of success if it is born in The Minds of a few and carried in the Hearts of none”

The current Chinese actions fits exactly into these words. Unless the Chinese leadership considers how flawed the time they have chosen for these actions without considering its consequences, they will continue to face a dead-hole situation, from which there is no coming back.

It had not been long into 2020 when the world was hit by COVID 19, from Wuhan, China. Italy, and Brazil residents were posting videos on social media portraying what a lockdown looked like, while the rest of the world sending sympathizing.

Not too long after we were all in the same situation. The virus continued to spread, while one continent remained a major concern for health officials — Africa.

It is no news that Africa’s health care sector is not as effective, and this lack was a reason for concern. Senegal in West Africa had only 4 ventilators as of April 2020, while the Central African Republic had only 3; the entire content was ill-equipped with less than 2,000 working ventilators.[1] However the situation has not been as bad as experts predicted it to be. As of May 23, 2020, there were 104,279 cases, 3,185 mortalities, and 41,717 recoveries: a mortality rate of 0.031%.[2] The figure begins to come to light when you compare it with the stats from the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention who has a mortality rate of 0.059% as of May 23, 2020.
The health care sector is already occupied with malaria and other infectious diseases. Statistics from the population pyramid shows that individuals aged 0-50 years make up 92% of the population. [3] It is believed that age is the major factor contributing to the low mortality rate on the continent. Although, that does not control for the incidence rate, and the government officials would need to divert more resources to the health care sector that has been long neglected to prevent mitigate further risks. The issue here resides in trust as many people on the continent believe the pandemic is a hoax and attempt by the foreign officials to gain more control in the continent.
Information sharing from foreign medicals has previously been asymmetric, or withheld from the indigenes, along with unethical experiments carried out within the continent. In 1996, Pfizer conducted an unethical drug trial of Trovafloxacin in Kano, Nigeria on 100 children, 5 who died.[4] This is one of many cases that has contributed to the mistrust of foreign health officials by the people, and this carries on to COVID 19. The president of Tanzania submitted secret samples to be tested for the COVID 19 virus that were expected to be negative, however, the test came back positive. These samples were from a papaya fruit, a goat, and a quail.[5] This sparked further concerns about the legitimacy of the COVID 19 pandemic within the country. The results might be due to an error of false positives, or inefficient testing mechanisms; these do not denote a presence or absence of the virus.
There is doubt of the existence of the coronavirus in some communities, superstitious beliefs, and an inefficient healthcare system. The issue is as complex as it gets, and the impact COVID can have on the continent( despite the seemingly low number) is still substantial.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/world/africa/africa-coronavirus-ventilators.html
[2] https://africacdc.org/covid-19/
[3] https://www.populationpyramid.net/africa/
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/17/world/africa/coronavirus-kano-nigeria-hotspot.html
[5] https://globalnews.ca/news/6910821/coronavirus-papaya-goat-tanzania/

The new coronavirus pandemic has undoubtedly had a huge and negative impact on many industries, ranging from agriculture, international trade and manufacturing to even entertainment and tourism.

As governments worldwide started to implement strict lockdown measures in order to prevent the spread of the disease, people experienced a dramatic change in their daily routine and found themselves stuck inside their homes.

This situation resulted in a significant decrease in mobility, and hence a reduction in driving, travels and general demand of fossil fuels. It is not surprising, therefore, that oil prices fell substantially this year.

Latest data from West Texas Intermediate (WTI), which is a grade known as benchmark for oil pricing, show that in April 2020 its futures contracts dropped below $0 for the first time in history. The Brent crude oil marker, also used as a yardstick to monitor oil’s value globally, plummeted by 71% from the start of the year, currently being around $32 a barrel.

In an attempt to stabilize the market upended by ‘the invisible enemy’, the OPEC+ group – the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries – that includes top oil’s producers such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, has reached an historic agreement to voluntarily cut oil production. These countries and other allied producers will slash 9.7 million barrels a day in May and June, an amount of what is closer to the 10% of the world’s total output. What makes the decision even more remarkable is the fact that this massive cut is more than twice as large the 4.2 million barrel per-day reduction the oil cartel made during the 2008 financial crisis. Even though impressive, whether the deal will contribute to a full rebalance or not remains uncertain. For instance, analysts at Goldman Sachs warn that the resolution may be insufficient to avoid breaching storage capacity, as no cut could be large enough to offset the loss faced in demand. This condition would inevitably lead to a halt in investment, with the danger that stockholders may not see the market as appealing as before, as proven by a steep decline in transactions on the Dow Jones Commodity Index Crude Oil (DJCICL) charts. Despite this prediction, additional efforts have been made by big oil nations that aren’t members of OPEC+, like Canada, Brazil and Norway that, along with the US have already been cutting production. In particular, Donald Trump offered to lessen oil volume in America, an act aimed at helping Mexico to align with the standards set by OPEC+, since President Obrador was initially hesitant to cut production levels in the country.

Other important assumptions about losses in the industry have been made by the International Energy Agency (IEA), that has recently stated that the immense shock following the COVID-19 will translate in a fall in demand by 9.3 million barrels a day compared to 2019, erasing almost a decade of growth. According to the agency, although countries are beginning to ease restrictions as coronavirus cases plunge, the results of a relief will not be immediate. Rather, the process of recovery will be slow and gradual, and time is needed before demand can fully return to its previous status, with an average of 100 million barrels a day. But the relaxation of the containment measures reflects that the negative trend suffered by the oil market during the last months is actually reversing. In fact, as economies reopen and employees are able to come back to work, both consumption and travel are expected to ramp up again soon. In this scenario, a highly volatile market such as the ‘black gold’ one can hope to restore its balance and thus finding stability once more. The sector is strategic not only because it represents the most important source of energy, but also because it allows to carry goods from one corner of the world to another and can provide jobs to ten thousands of people. Supporting the oil market consequently means gaining a mutual benefit both for consuming and production, thus contributing to the health of the global mechanism of demand and supply.

Mexico has endured a ragging war against drug cartels ever since former President Felipe Calderon declared the War on Drugs back in 2006[1]. From then on, violence exploded[2], cartels grew, and others came to be as the government couldn’t effectively stop them from spreading.

“Sexenio” after “sexenio” (the name given to the six-year period that a President remains in office in Mexico), the different ruling governments have been increasingly criticized[3] by the population due to the unceasing increase in violence[4]. This (among other factors that relate to corruption and social inequality) has caused the approval ratings of every presidency to plumber. In fact, according to Consulta Mitofsky (Mistofsky Consulting)[5] and Parametría the popularity of former President Enrique Peña Nieto fell from 53% approval at the beginning of his mandate in 2012 to 18%-28%[6] by the end of his presidency in 2018.

Admittedly, the War on Drugs has been largely considered a “failed war”[7]. The reason being that ever since it started, it had no effect on drug trafficking, on the contrary, Criminal activities such as kidnapping, extortion, and murder increased. In fact, “as of November 2012, an estimate 57,400” murders[8] were “drug-related violence since Calderon deployed the military in 2006”[9]. Today (2020), that number rises above 250,000[10] criminal activity-related homicides. Proportionally, the number of troops deployed by the government grew from approximately 45,000 troops[11] during Calderon’s administration to 100,000 “strong-force”[12] elements of the National Guard[13] by 2020.

This gradual increase of troops can be explained by the high level of weapon availability[14] to drug cartels. As shown by Christopher, Colin, and Chad[15]: “better-armed adversaries require better-armed police and military forces, and such a scenario will increase law-enforcement and military casualties, regardless”. Notably, high-level weapon availability is linked to the gun-related policy of the US. As a matter of fact, 70%[16] of the weapons used by the cartels in Mexico are produced or come from the US, these figures have been consistent for many years according to Bradley Engelbert[17], spokesperson for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the US. Portraying thus, the inefficiency of the measures taken by both the Mexican and the American governments to contain weapons smuggling. In fact, according to the new Estrategia de Seguridad Pública del Gobierno de la República (Public Security Strategy of the Government of the Republic) ESPGR, there are around 200,000[18] weapons smuggled into the country every year (other specialists place this figure as high as 250,000)[19]. While estimates show that only 3% of the population owns a weapon, 72% of the people assassinated in Mexico are killed by firearms.

In this regard, Presidents Felipe Calderon and George W. Bush signed the Mérida Initiative in 2007[20]. This document was an agreement of both governments to allocate more resources, namely in technology, and foster cooperation in counternarcotic and law enforcement agencies to the military and security forces of Mexico to combat opioids trafficking and weapons smuggling[21]. This traditional approach against drug trafficking raised many questions as it emphasized a coercive action[22] and ended up showing ineffective. As a matter of fact, Eric Olson says: “public commitments by U.S. officials to disrupt firearms trafficking (…) in the United States were not tied to specific targets or funding initiatives. As a result, there were doubts about how serious the United States was at addressing its own responsibilities in the struggle against criminal groups”[23]. Whereas in it’s the first phase, the Mérida Initiative was focused on better training and equipping Mexican forces to trump the capabilities of drug cartels, during the Obama administration this approach shifted “toward addressing the weak government institutions and societal problems that have allowed the drug trade to thrive”[24].

With the introduction of the 4 pillar approach to the Mérida Initiative, President Obama refocused (1) on disrupting and dismantling Criminal Organizations, (2) institutionalizing the rule of law, (3) building a 21st-century border, and (4) building strong and resilient communities[25].
However, by 2016 the US Congress had drastically reduced its funding to Mexico and refocused on expanding its agenda by relocating financial aid to the Central American States. Meanwhile in Mexico, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) readjusted respectively 61% and 54% of the funding provided to Mexico in the 2nd pillar of the Mérida Initiative.  As the Peña Nieto administration came into office, the new security strategy redirected the channels of collaboration from decentralized to centralized; the Secretaría de Gobernación (Secretariat of the Interior) became the sole channel by which projects of cooperation between the American and Mexican authorities ought to be approved. Peña Nieto also encouraged the creation of the Bilateral Security Cooperation Group (BSCG) to further expand collaboration at the highest levels. Aside from this, Peña Nieto’s approach to the Mérida Initiative didn’t change much from Calderon’s s[26].
By 2019, the new administration of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (better known as AMLO), faced the hard public stance of President Donald Trump on borderline security[27]. In exchange for avoiding trade tariffs, AMLO recruited and deployed 15,000 elements of the National Guard to the North of Mexico, and 6,000 others to key points along with the country, particularly in the Southern border with Guatemala in order to stop the flow of immigrants to the US[28]. The new Mexican administration also sought to expand its collaboration with the American authorities to help stop weapons smuggling. With the creation of the High-Level Security Working Group, the combat against weapon smuggling was pushed forward in the bilateral security agenda as a priority mainly to the Mexican government. In addition, the Secretaría de Seguridad y Protección Ciudadana (Secretary of Security and Citizens Protection) or SSPS, indicated that the National Guard would participate in joint operatives at multiple key border points, namely between Tijuana-San Diego, Ciudad Juarez-el Paso, Reynosa Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo[29]. The outcome of this joint project is nevertheless yet to be reported to the Congreso de la Unión (Congress of the Union)[30], as it is established that this institution will be responsible for evaluating the results of the ESPGR. The criteria of this assessment remain however unclear, as both the ESPGR and the Plan de Desarrollo Nacional (Plan of National Development) fail to provide detailed information about the allocation of resources, means employed, and provisions by which arms traffic will be tackled.
All in all, cooperation efforts between the US and Mexico have refocused as the agendas of the incoming administrations approach borderline security and drug trafficking differently. There have been successful operatives that stem from the Mérida Initiative like the apprehension of “el Chapo” Guzmán in 2014. However, there have also been major setbacks and security breaches that prove an enduring high level of corruption like the escape of “El Chapo” from a Supermax Security Prison the following year (for the second time).
To put things into perspective, as the first left-wing President to ever govern Mexico, AMLO is among the most popular Presidents in the world. However, he’s facing hard criticism as violence is still on the rise, and corruption hasn’t been effectively dealt with as promised during his campaign. In fact, during his first year of government, his administration engaged in a failed operative to apprehend the son of “El Chapo”, Ovidio Guzmán, where a video of the operative was leaked to the public eye and revealed the (fire) power that Cartels hold over the government.
[1] Keegan Hamilton. Felipe Calderon has no Regrets about his Bloody war against Mexico’s Cartels. New York: Vice News, November 22, 2018, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmdmzx/felipe-calderon-has-no-regrets-about-his-bloody-war-against-mexicos-cartels consulted in December 2, 2019.

[2]Hamilton also highlights that “throughout the Calderón administration” and “according to research from the University of San Diego, no other country in the Western Hemisphere experienced an increase in homicide as large as Mexico’s”. Keegan HAMILTON. Op. Cit.

[3] Hector ALEE. “Violencia quita a AMLO Diez Puntos de Aprobación”. El Universal, November 15, 2019. https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/violencia-quita-amlo-diez-puntos-de-aprobacion-encuesta, consulted in December 2, 2019.

[4] In fact, the approval ratings of the recent administration (2019) of AMLO (Andrés Manuel López Obrador), lost ten points from August to November (from 68.7% to 58.7%), after a failed attempt to arrest the son of “El Chapo”, Ovidio Guzmán, (this operation will be further analyzed in this work); the second event being the murder of 9 U.S. citizens from the Lebaron family in the state of Chihuahua while traveling back to the U.S. on November the 4th. Hector ALEE, Op. Cit.

[5] Ariadna Ortega. #Fin de Sexenio. Peña Nieto Termina su Sexenio Reprobado por la Mayoría, Mexico City: Expansión, November 24th, 2018, https://politica.expansion.mx/presidencia/2018/11/24/findesexenio-pena-nieto-termina-su-gobierno-reprobado-por-la-mayoria, consulted on November 28th, 2019.

[6] An independent private company in México that specializes in public opinion research through quantitative measurement mechanisms. See Annex 1.

[7] Jonathan Daniel ROSEN and Roberto MARTINEZ ZEPEDA. The War on drugs in Mexico: a Lost War. Reflexiones, 2015, https://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1659-28592015000100153&lng=en&nrm=iso, consulted in November 28, 2019.

[8] Andrea SANCHEZ. “Mexico’s Drug “War”: Drawing a Line between Rhetoric and Reality”, 38 Yale Journal International L. 2013, vol. 38, pp.474.

[9] Andrea SANCHEZ. Op. Cit, pp.471.

[10] José Luis PARDO VEIRAS. 13 años y 250,000 muertos: las lecciones no aprendidas en México. Argentina: Infobae, October 26, 2019, https://www.infobae.com/america/wapo/2019/10/29/13-anos-y-250000-muertos-las-lecciones-no-aprendidas-en-mexico/ , consulted on December 3th, 2019.

[11] Andrea SANCHEZ. Op.cit., pp.471.

[12] “Mexico Murder Rates Rises in First Three Months of 2019”, BBC News, April 22, 2019.

[13] Elements of the federal police, the military police and new recruits were absorbed into the National Guard as established by the coming administration of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in late 2018 and 2019.

[14] Paul CHRISTOPHER, Clarke COLIN and Serena CHAD. “Mexico Is Not Colombia: Alternative Historical Analogies for Responding to the Challenge of Violent Drug-Trafficking Organizations”. RAND Corporation, 2014, Santa Monica. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR548z1.html. Also available in print form. Consulted in December 4, 2019.

[15] Paul CHRISTOPHER, Clarke COLIN and Serena CHAD. Op. Cit.

[16] Evan PEREZ. Mexican Guns Tied to the U.S.: American-Sourced Weapons Account for 70% of Seized Fireams in Mexico. Reuters:  June 10, 2011. http //online wsi corn/article /SB10001424052702304259304576375961350290734 html. Consulted on: May 14, 2020.

9mod=WSJilp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNoNsSecond#printMode. Consulted on December 5, 2019.

[17] Gabriela MARTÍNEZ, The Flow of Guns from the U.S. to Mexico is Getting Lost in the Border Debate. PBS: July the 2nd, 2019. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-the-u-s-to-mexico-is-getting-lost-in-the-border-debate. Consulted on: December 9, 2019.

[18] Decreto por el que se aprueba la Estrategia de Seguridad Pública del Gobierno de la Republica, Mexico City: Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2019.

[19] Cuanto Ganan los Traficantes de Armas en México. Mexico City: RT en Español, 2015.

[20] Jonathan Daniel ROSEN and Roberto MARTINEZ ZEPEDA, Op. Cit.

[21] The Merida Initiative expanded under the Obama-Calderón and Obama-Peña Nieto administrations to focus on a wider scope of topics such as Human Rights, reforming the Mexican criminal justice system, among others.

[22] Eric OLSON. “The Mérida Initiative and Shared Responsibility in U.S.- Mexico Security Relations: How a longstanding initiative has shaped cross-border cooperation”, The Wilson Quarterly, 2017, Washington D.C. https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/after-the-storm-in-u-s-mexico-relations/the-m-rida-initiative-and-shared-responsibility-in-u-s-mexico-security-relations/ Consulted on May 15, 2020.

[23] Eric OLSON. Op.Cit.

[24] Clare RIBANDO SELKE, Kristin FLINKEA. U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation: The Merida Initiative and Beyond. Washington: Congressional Research Center, ROW, R41349, May 7, 2015. Pp. 6.

[25] This pillars addressed (1) improving intelligence and intelligence sharing; (2) support of civilian institutions responsible for maintaining the rule of law and reforming the Judicial system into an accusatorial criminal justice system; (3) Changing the concept of geographical line to one of secure flows, risk segregation and prevent flows of illicit goods while allowing legitimate commerce; and (4) addressing the drivers of violence, investment in prevention and violence reduction efforts, and strengthening communities.

[26] Eric OLSON, Op. Cit.

[27] Clare RIBANDO SEELKE. Mexico: Evolution of the Mérida Initiative, 2007-2020. Washington: Congressional Research Center, ROW, IF10578, updated June 28, 2019. Pp. 2

[28] Lidia ARISTA. Guardia Nacional ha desplegado a 21 elementos para contener la migración a Estados Unidos. El Economista, July 20th, 2019.

[29] Jorge MONROY. Guardia Nacional Realizará Operativos en Fronteras Contra Tráfico de Armas. El Economista. August 6th, 2019. https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/politica/Guardia-Nacional-realizara-operativos-en-fronteras-contra-trafico-de-armas-20190806-0101.html

[30] Name given to the Camara de diputados (Chamber of representatives) and the Senado (the Senate) when acting together as a parliamentary institution.

A recent report prepared by the Red Cross and the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) indicates that the production of weaponry systems directed by Artificial Intelligence (autonomous weapons systems, AWS) poses a set of dilemmas related to the ethics of armed conflicts and, of course, for International Humanitarian Law.

A panel within the framework of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Conventional Arms has been meeting for about eight years to discuss the role of this type of weapons; and although they apparently had been useful for maintaining the security of troops abroad and for the early detection of hostile attacks by insurgent groups, they are becoming problematic because of their full autonomy to decide on the life and death of people with no further connection to a decision maker who must always be a human being. Regulations are difficult to implement since the main characteristic of this type of weapons (which can be drones, tanks, mobile machine guns or others), is their ability to react autonomously in the face of the proximity of an individual who can be classified as an enemy combatant / military objective without any prior order, but simply by responding to a previously programmed algorithm.
It is well known that the definition of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the use of AWS continues to be a matter of controversy, due both to the interests of international organizations, which are trying to put limits on this type of system, and by States (mainly Western) who consider them necessary in their respective military campaigns abroad, and, of course, the arms lobbies who press for greater deregulation. Certainly, the report of the Red Cross and SIPRI makes important findings that must be considered: 1). Exercising human control over autonomous weapons systems-AWS is quite difficult to do while maintaining the “autonomy” of the system (precisely what it was designed for). 2). From an ethical and Human Rights perspective, the use of AWS generates a legal limbo where human responsibilities cannot be defined, so it is essential to develop some type of control in the use of force. 3). Even from an operational point of view, while AWS are useful because of their early warning systems for detecting and responding to attacks, these systems still remain unpredictable and can jeopardize the security of any military operation. 4). The controls to be implemented should include: restrictions on the type of military objectives, limitations on operations over time and terrain, remote deactivation systems, parameters for the recognition of civilian personnel and other measures. The States that apply this type of systems will have to define the parameters to apply these measures in practice, while the arms forums within the UN will have to establish stronger controls and clearer rules for the use of AWS.
To conclude, I just want to remember that if politics is always five steps ahead of law, it is notorious that technology is one hundred steps further. It is necessary to reduce the regulatory gap in the use of new technological devices, which when applied to the military field can generate truly disastrous results, as well as serious Human Rights problems for the States that use them.

The new coronavirus pandemic has undoubtedly had a huge and negative impact on many industries, ranging from agriculture, international trade and manufacturing to even entertainment and tourism.

As governments worldwide started to implement strict lockdown measures in order to prevent the spread of the disease, people experienced a dramatic change in their daily routine and found themselves stuck inside their homes. This situation resulted in a significant decrease in mobility, and hence a reduction in driving, travels and general demand of fossil fuels. It is not surprising, therefore, that oil prices fell substantially this year. Latest data from West Texas Intermediate (WTI), which is a grade known as a benchmark for oil pricing, show that in April 2020 its futures contracts dropped below $0 for the first time in history. The Brent crude oil marker, also used as a yardstick to monitor oil’s value globally, plummeted by 71% from the start of the year, currently being at around $32 a barrel.

In an attempt to stabilize the market upended by the ‘invisible enemy’, the OPEC+ group – the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries – that includes top oil’s producers such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, has reached an historic agreement to voluntarily cut oil production. These countries and other allied producers will slash 9.7 million barrels a day in May and June, an amount of what is closer to the 10% of the world’s total output. What makes the decision even more remarkable is the fact that this massive cut is more than twice as large as the 4.2 million barrel per-day reduction the oil cartel made during the 2008 financial crisis. Even though impressive, whether the deal will contribute to a full rebalance or not remain uncertain. For instance, analysts at Goldman Sachs warn that the resolution may be insufficient to avoid breaching storage capacity, as no cut could be large enough to offset the loss faced in demand. This condition would inevitably lead to a halt in investment, with the danger that stockholders may not see the market as appealing as before, as proven by a steep decline in transactions on the Dow Jones Commodity Crude Oil (DJCICL) charts. Despite this prediction, additional efforts have been made by big oil nations that aren’t members of OPEC+, like Canada, Brazil and Norway that, along with the US have already been cutting production. In particular, Donald Trump offered to lessen oil volume in America, an act  aimed at helping Mexico to align with the parameters set by OPEC+, since President Obrador was initially hesitant to cut production levels in the country.
Other important assumptions about losses in the industry have been made by the International Energy Agency (IEA), that has recently stated that the immense shock following the COVID-19 will translate in a fall in demand by 9.3 million barrels a day compared to 2019, erasing almost a decade of growth. According to the agency, although countries are beginning to ease restrictions as coronavirus cases plunge, the results of a relief will not be immediate. Rather, the process of recovery will be slow and gradual, and time is needed before demand can fully return to its previous status, with an average of 100 million barrels a day. But the relaxation of the containment measures reflects that the negative trend suffered by the oil market during the last months is actually reversing. In fact, as economies reopen and employees are able to come back to work, both consumption and travels are expected to ramp up again soon. In this scenario, a highly volatile market such as the ‘black gold’ one can hope to restore its balance and thus finding stability once more. The sector is strategic not only because it represents the most important source of energy, but also because it allows to carry goods from one corner to the planet to another, and provides jobs for ten thousands of people. Supporting the oil market consequently means gaining a mutual benefit both for consuming and production, thus contributing to the health of the global mechanism of demand and supply.

JUSCANZ is a political bloc that any aren’t familiar with. It contains several European countries, but no more European countries will ever join JUSCANZ again…
What is JUSCANZ?I appreciate that for many, this may be the first time you’ve heard of JUSCANZ. You could argue that JUSCANZ is one of, if not the most powerful bloc of countries, perhaps even more so than the UN!

JUSCANZ is an acronym of its founder’s names. It was originally founded by Japan, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. All of JUCANZ’s includes:

Andorra
Australia
Canada
Iceland
Israel
Japan
Liechtenstein
Mexico
Monaco
New Zealand
Norway
Republic of Korea
Singapore
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom*
United States

*The UK is slated to join JUSCANZ but nothing official has come of it yet.

Out of JUSCANZ’s 15/16 members, seven/eight are in Europe. All are major economic powerhouses on their own, but are only minor players in terms of JUSCANZ.

JUCANZ’s membership consists of highly developed, non-EU, NAM or G-77 nations.

Essentially, before and after every major meeting, such as a UN Security Council meeting, UN member meeting, each member country sends a diplomat to a JUSCANZ meeting.

These meetings aren’t recorded and aren’t truly official. It’s more like a meeting of friends than an international meeting of high-ranking diplomats from several countries.

At these meetings, the members discuss what will be/what has been discussed. The members then agree on what needs to be asked at the meeting or what needs to be done after the meeting.
Why won’t any more European countries join JUSCANZ?
Despite the fact that the UK may join in the coming years, after them, no other European country will join them!
No more countries
When you think of it, most countries in Europe are in the EU. Other players that aren’t part of the EU, have since joined JUSCANZ.

Of the countries that are left, most are trying to join the EU.

The only country that is left is Russia, really. And there is absolutely no way Russia will join JUSCANZ. And let’s say that by some miracle Russia would even want to (for whatever reason), it’s unlikely the other members would agree to it.

After all, part of the reason JUSCANZ was founded was to protect the interests of non-EU, non-NAM and non-G-77 nations from the wrath of communism… just on a more diplomatic level than military one.

And Russia hasn’t really changed…

Yes, the USSR is no longer the threat it once was, having broken up in 1991. But Russia hasn’t really moved on since. It is still the West’s adversary, whether it truly wants to or not.
No defense
Many countries, especially those in Europe, join international blocs for some sort of defense reasons. If not for a combined military or peacekeeping operation, then for border security or intelligence sharing.

JUSCANZ doesn’t really offer that. In fact, it believes that the job of defense is down to NATO.

JUSCANZ is more for diplomats from the member countries to come together and talk about a meeting that will take place in the future or ha taken place recently.

Whilst yes, some of these talks may have the implications of national, regional or global defense. Nothing is ever directly focused towards the bloc’s defense of one another.

And for many countries in Europe, this is a complete turn off.

To them, combined with the other reasons on this list, JUSCANZ simply has nothing to offer them!
No economic impact
There’s also the fact that JUSCANZ offers nothing in the way of economic co-operation. It might be a collection of very wealthy and highly developed countries, but it doesn’t offer its members anything more than handshakes in terms of our economy.

And this is quite frustrating for current members, as well as prospective ones. Chiefly the United States.

Despite the frustration, nothing is being done. Nothing can be done really.

And this will cost JUSCANZ members. Prospective JUSCANZ members will want a reason to join- if not for military protection, than one that it economic… something that JUSCANZ still can’t offer…

Still only handshakes and clandestine meetings.

The day of 21 July 2020 is already historical for the European Union and will be remembered for decades ahead. After four days of unremitting negotiations, EU leaders have reached a breakthrough agreement on the Recovery Fund, a € 750 billion package that will help european countries to recover from the disruptive effects that the Covid-19 caused to the economy of the Old Continent.
Yet another time, both Germany and France played a crucial role in advancing the progresses of the deal. Showing further signs of their amitié, they wrote the focal points of the Recovery Fund together, which had to be “ambitious, temporary and targeted”, also highlighting its main purpose, directed at enhancing the “resilience, convergence and competitiveness” of the European economies. All of these Franco-German proposals received a positive feedback from the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. Despite her enthusiasm, however, EU countries formed from the very beginning two sides with very distinctive views on the Fund. On one side, the most hit nations by the pandemic such as Italy and Spain, asked for substantial sums without heavy conditionality in the name of common solidarity. On the other side, the so called ‘Frugal Four’ countries, formed by Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, that are notoriously against excessive and irresponsible spending, could accept only loans with very strict requirements.
Due to these contrasts, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel had to act as the mediators of the summit, which was reported to be one of the most tense in EU’s history. The path to consensus was marked indeed by many obstacles. Firstly, the ‘frugals’ fought relentlessly to reduce the package to € 350 billion in grants along with € 350 billion in loans. Supported also by Finland, the most uncompromising group put rebates to their EU budget contributions as a condition to conclude the deal. Another sign of conflict was represented by Dutch PM Mark Rutte, who arrived in Brussels with a less than helpful attitude towards Italy. In fact, Rutte believed that the country had to learn to face the crisis on its own, with reforms aimed at increasing the productivity of the ‘bel paese’, as well as its fiscal integrity and transparency. In addition, one edition of the Dutch weekly Elsevier Weekblad published in May featured on its cover a depiction of national stereotypes, showing at the top efficient Dutch workers in contrast to some Mediterraneans, relaxing under the sun. This portrait was labelled as ‘outrageous’ by Italians, and raised additional tensions with the Netherlands.
In this frame, Angela Merkel pointed out that it wasn’t right to “talk about the northern countries, the southern countries and the eastern countries”, adding that in planning the Recovery Fund it was essential to taking into account the huge burden that countries like Italy and Spain had to face in economic, emotional and medical terms, and thus it was “right for Germany to think not just about itself”. The position of the german Chancellor has proven to be an astonishing example of the capacity to go beyond national interests for the good of the whole continent. It is also worth to highlight that the Union does not have a common fiscal policy, but it has demonstrated to being able to put in place fiscal coordination when needed, which shows the EU’s readiness of action in case other crisis will rise up in the future.
Having to tackle its deepest recession in history was not an easy task for EU leaders. But the result of sleepless nights was certainly worth the sacrifice. Both Italy and Spain will benefit largely from the contributions, and the ‘frugals’, in addition to a significant increase in rebates to contribute to the EU budget, can also count on a provision which allows any country to trigger an ’emergency brake’ on payments in case of suspicion that a government has not fulfilled its reform promises. Furthermore, the Fund will help the European Green Deal, whose purpose is to create a more clean and low-carbon economy, as well as shaping Europe’s digital future. It can be deduced that citizens of the Union will have a transformed Europe in the years ahead, but as the negotiations for the Fund has showed, its fundamental values of solidarity, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law will remain the same.