President Peter Mutharika Faces Protests in Malawi

President Peter Mutharika faces protests from the opposition in Malawi. The May 21st elections left many in the Malawi Congress Party enraged and supporters  have refused to acknowledge results. Mutharika has been president since 2014 and it seemed that his victory was predicted. Allegations of electoral fraud have been made. The electoral system is designed for the candidate with the most votes wins the presidency. Some have voiced their discontent with such a system saying that it is time for a change. Mutharika responded by saying that the opposition are attempting to instigate armed rebellion against his presidency. According to reports from SABC News, the MPs from the Malawi Congress Party voted against electoral reform. It seems that Africa needs a political system that is not based on a western model, rather one that based on the internal  culture and politics of the continent. The pattern that keeps occurring is that of a longtime leader saying president for years or decades, while discord slowly grows. Opposition may get vexed at losses even when a candidate wins legitimately. Kenya was an example of this in which President Uhuru Kenyatta had to win a run off election and the opposition still vociferously rejected the results. The president for life model seems to be the image of the African leader. The opposition parties in various states have become so entrenched in political factionalism, that violence follows elections. There is no indication that President Peter Mutharika wants to be president for an extended period of time like Paul Kagame or Yoweri Musevini. Power transition seems to be the most difficult task for African democracies. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has so far made a relatively smooth transition to a post-Kabila era. Malawi has to find a procedure that can handle both public unrest, power transition, and enforcement of  presidential term limits to have an effective government.    

The Dangers of an Iran-US War

When the Donald Trump administration decided to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, tensions with Iran increased. What followed after this decision was more sanctions on Iran. Another provocation was designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The United States has escalated the situation further by sending more troops to the Middle East. President Donald Trump has stated he does not want war with Iran. Actions and policies indicate that the United States is intending to ignite  a large conflict. The neoconservatives present in Donald Trump's cabinet have made it clear that Iran could be the next target for regime change. If more attempts at instigation are made, there could be a US-Iran War. The repercussions of such a confrontation could be devastating on multiple levels. War creates refugees which could result in a large humanitarian crisis. Instability would spread to Central Asia. The loss of human life would be immense for both civilians and soldiers. A war between the United States and Iran would generate a response from other world powers. Russia and China would most likely have to act, in response to a critical situation. Russia would seem more willing to get involved considering their investments in Syria. The European Union countries may be forced to fight with the US simply as a measure to prevent more refugee traffic from previous conflicts. The influx of refugees and migrants from economic devastation as well as war creates an unmanageable situation. That would mean a humanitarian crisis could spread to three continents of Asia, Europe, and possibly Africa. The Iranian Revolution that occurred in 1979 was the point in which Iran and the United States become enemies. When the Iran-Iraq War broke out in 1980, the US decided to favor Saddam Hussein in hopes that a military victory would bring an end to the Islamic Republic. A more complicated reality existed with the Iran-Contra affair, which revealed the US was technically arming both nations in the conflict.  The use of chemical weapons and arms provided by the United States inflicted much devastation on Iran. The war ended with a cease-fire in 1988 and by that time, international politics was changing. Decline in Soviet power and a Middle East going through transition to new era was occurring. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 altering the balance of power in the region. The reason Iraq was not occupied in the 1991 war was that it would have increased Iran's regional power. When Iraq was invaded and occupied in 2003, Iran's influence expanded. The removal of the Baathist government created a power void in which Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel would compete to have dominance. Past events have created an atmosphere for eventual confrontation. This can be prevented, but it requires a revision of US Middle Eastern policy.
          The amount of death  that would occur in a US-Iran war would be astronomical. The highest amount of casualties normally tend to be the nation that is being invaded by the United States. Civilians are the first victims of aggressive warfare. The same method of attack the US could use would be to use the aircraft to bomb select targets. Similar to the Iraq War, a ground invasion could happen. There should be an expectation that the majority of the Iranian civilian population will arm themselves. Very few countries in the world welcome invasion or occupation by a foreign military. The error and arrogance of the United States was the assumption the US would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq. Iran's population only may think the US means harm to them collectively. Sanctions do not harm the leadership rather the population as a whole. If an invasion or some form of strike happens, it only encourages more support for the Islamic Republic. A large portion of the population would be willing to die for their nation who are not in the military. If the Iranian government were to collapse under the strains of warfare, fighting would not stop. Some Iranian citizens will never accept the rule of  an occupying force. More death would come from US attempts to pacify an armed civilian resistance. Conventional warfare contributes to the loss of human life, but what comes afterwards only adds more violence. The United States with much effort could win the war, but it would be another one that follows afterwards. The desire of neoconservatives would be the full use of army, navy, and air forces directed at Iran. The Islamic  Republic of Iran does not have the same military capacity of the United States. The development of missile systems would at least cause some trouble for the US Air Force. The best chance Iran has at fighting the United States is through asymmetric based warfare or prolonged guerrilla warfare tactics. If this happens Iranian resistance could continue indefinitely. This conflict may not even be confined to the Middle East itself.
        The era of globalization and international politics demonstrates that war can hardly be contained between two nations. One of the biggest fears is that a conflict with Iran would ignite a regional war leading to a much larger global confrontation. There are three major power blocks operating in contemporary international politics. There is the US and EU block which is conflict with a Russia-China alliance. The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and South America are caught in the middle of these world powers and subject to their geopolitical designs. Developing nations either have the strategy of allying with one block or another as well as resistance to violations of national sovereignty. Iran has moved closer to Russia ever since the Syrian Civil War. Both Syria and  Iran are important to Russia's foreign policy in the Middle East. This is similar to the relationship that the United States has with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. The diplomatic issues with Qatar and other Gulf states could harm this coalition with the purpose to either isolate or attack Iran. Oman would be the least likely to engage in conflict with Iran seeing as it maintains good relations with the country. Oman may remain neutral, unless forced or convinced to change its Iran policy.

      
Seeing as there is a delicate balance of new alliances emerging along with older ones, Middle Eastern nations will have to select sides. A network of rival alliance systems appears to be present. A major factor is Turkey's growing power and desire to have more influence in the Arab world.Which faction it would chose to side with seems unclear, but its actions in Syria puts it indirect conflict with Iran . A large regional conflict would involve Russia, America, the UK, France, and China. The trade war with China, if it lasts long enough may force it to be more active in other regions of the world to reduce economic strain.  There has already been a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen's military struggle. Iran has been supporting the Houthi rebels in response to armed groups in Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia has attempted to reinstate Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as president, even though he resigned and fled the country during when Houthi rebels were gaining control of certain sections of Yemen. Smaller armed conflicts would merge into a larger one based around the rival alliance systems both regionally and internationally. Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been more belligerent in its political position in relation to Iran. Israel would be part of a US-Iran war, or either the initiator of it. The reason Israel has not engaged in warfare with Iran has do with the factor of US support. Hezbollah also could be a concern in regards to Israel's northern border and the military intervention in Syria. Israel has conducted airstrikes since the conflict broke out in Syria in 2011. Iraq as well as  Syria,  would be encircled between both a hostile Israel and Iran.  One mystery remains in possible outcomes is how Egypt or Jordan would respond in such an event of a massive regional multiple nation war. Depending on which side Egypt chooses Israel could be fighting a war on multiple fronts, if the treaty between the two nations were to suddenly be terminated. Jordan has come to terms with Israel's existence. Both countries would not be fighting for Israel or any other Arab nation. Any collaboration that would occur would be the result of a common fear of Persian power in the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia could fight one another first, followed by external allies getting involved directly. Russia and  the United States forces would come to assist fighting one another directly. Thus, smaller conflicts escalate int bigger ones, while simultaneously attracting world powers and neighboring countries.
     War between Iran and the United States would mean some form of fall out into Central Asia. Iran's neighbor to the north Turkmenistan could see either an influx of refugees or an increase in terrorism. Afghanistan, which has been in a state of war since 2001, which seems to have no end in sight. The war with the Taliban remains a conflict that cannot be won through battles. Attempts for peace have been made by both Iran and Qatar. Talks of peace have failed multiple times. President Hassan Rouhani and President Asharf Ghani  have agreed to bilateral cooperation related to fighting terrorism from ISIL or ISIS active in their region. The reason Iran wants to maintain a friendly relationship with Afghanistan for two reasons. It prevents the US waging a two front war from both Iraq and Afghanistan. It also prevents the Taliban rising again becoming a possible Sunni Muslim competitor. What complicates the situation further is Iran's relations with both India and Pakistan.

India wanted greater access to global markets so it decided to agree with both Iran and Afghanistan for the establishment of the Chabahar Port. The transport and trade corridor was agreed to by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2016. US military action would cause more instability in Afghanistan and ruin India's attempts to expand in global markets through economic projects in Central Asia. Pakistan and India seeing as they would be the most stable countries would try to gain more influence in a post-war Iran.  The Central Asian leaders who are either presidents for life or have an authoritarian style of governance under a region with a war torn Iran will find their governments struggling for survival. The two most powerful  leaders President Gurbanguly Berdimudamedow and President  Emomali Rahmon could face Sunni Muslim radical political Islamist insurgencies. Iran's relations with Tajikistan have been less than spectacular with accusations of inference relative to internal affairs. This fragile relationship can be broken with a sudden regime change in Tehran. Relations with Turkmenistan are significantly better with bilateral collaboration in the energy sector. The destruction or collapse of Iran would mean these two countries would lose a trading partner. As a result Turkmenistan and Tajikistan would become more reliant on China and its former colonizer Russia. From this perspective a regime change in Iran would be an economic disadvantage to the United States. The only way the United States could out maneuver both Russia and China would be through India. Pulling India away from Iran would in effect undermine both powers. Gradually, this may be happening with the Trump administration's Indo-Pacific policy. The United States does not have as much influence in Central Asia in comparison to Iran, Russia, and China. The United States attempted to expand influence during the early 2000s  in Central Asia. The argument of the Bush administration is that the Central Asian states were needed in the War on Terror. Therefore allying with longtime authoritarian leaders was justified in the name of fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The US involvement in Central Asia has not established a positive or long term relationship. Growing resentment over US occupation and military presence in Afghanistan only generates negative images with the people of the Central Asian states.Removal of a large Shia Muslim nation would create some form of power void, which would reverberate across a struggling region.

            
There are attempts by Central Asian nations to increase  economic development. Iran although a difficult partner in terms of trade and the energy sector, it somewhat gives them less dependence on their former colonizer Russia. If Iran was no longer a functioning state, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan will lose a pivotal source of trade. The risk of  the whole region being destabilized become even more frightening, with the end of the Nursultan Nazabayev presidency in Kazakhstan. Power transition in the country may not be as simple, which adds to the complexus of regional affairs in relation to Iran.  These states have been held together by authoritarian leaders attempting nation building out of the former Soviet Union. The sudden collapse of the former super power created new complications and political challenges. The deterioration of economic conditions from loss of a trading partner would lead to events similar in North Africa and the Middle East. Rapid regime changes induced by economic turmoil and inequality may follow from a large scale war with Iran. Long term conflict would inevitably put Central Asia in peril of being a series of failed states. The US-Iran war would spill over from the Middle East and has the potential to spark mass global conflict.
         When the fighting stops what arises is the question of refugees and resettlement. The section of the Iranian population that has the ability to flee will seek safety in other countries. Leaving so many people in a horrid condition if a massive war is waged generates global condemnation. The United States, France, Germany, or the UK would have to provide refuge for civilians of Iran. Otherwise, there will be large populations of internally displaced people. The refugee traffic could be so enormous, it light require United Nations assistance. The burden of so many people to aid may require more nations to take Iranian refugees from a war. Australia or New Zealand are possible options. The European and North American countries have to consider what happens afterwards. Refugees may want to stay permanently and if so there must be a means to obtain citizenship. Governments will have to provide jobs, healthcare, education, and adequate facilities for the large amounts of people they let enter their countries. If the economic situation is in a state of deterioration in Europe or America, this will on cause more hardship for refugees who do not have citizenship in host countries or stable employment. A US-Iran war would only exacerbate a refugee crisis that has been a around since the Arab Spring. Programs of resettlement and assistance should be in place prior to any large scale military action. If not, such programs do not exist another humanitarian crisis would be the final product. Iranian citizens who flee and resettle will face serious trauma and psychological shock from the wave of violence as well as the long journey to a new country. The option for a route would be to enter Turkey and then make it to either Bulgaria or Greece. Assuming Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are not disturbed too much by the war, that would be a destination for Iranian refugees. Africa would also be effected by a US-Iran conflict. Sudan still remains active in the war with Yemen being allied to both the UAE and Suadi Arabia. Even with the fall of Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese government wants to remain in the Yemen War. Sudanese troops remain in Yemen and active in the Saudi led coalition. Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE would not take refugees after a US-Iran war. The burden and planning would fall mostly to the US-EU block.
         President Donald Trump when he withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, my have triggered a collision course for war. Unlike North Korea, Iran has not launched or conducted nuclear tests. So far, the country has been compliant with the measures of the agreement. The real issue is that there is a policy that has become more belligerent since the Bush administration. National Security Advisor John Bolton served in both the Reagan White House and the George W. Bush administration. He continues to pursue what some view as a bellicose and hostile approach to Iran. On his current visit to US allies in the Middle East John Bolton had accused Iran for the oil tanker attacks and it engaged in a region wide conspiracy of sabotage. There is little evidence that Iran has orchestrated acts of terrorism.However, there is the possibility that the Sunni Muslim armed groups fighting in Syria will turn against the Gulf monarchies. The Soviet-Afghan War was an example of the lethal nature of blowback and how it later caused more violence. Groups that are armed by furtive means will not disband when fighting stops. Only with  proper investigation can it be determined what caused damage to the Saudi oil tankers. Excuses are being made for a war, but so far it appears Iran has not been responsive to US demands. The death and disorder that follows an US-Iran war would be a series of failed states and a region falling backward. The economic consequences could last beyond the conflict itself. Markets may panic at the prospect of a long term war. The United States would have to increase taxes even more to keep its war machine going. Combined with the occupation and reconstruction of a war torn Iran the cost would increase to enormous sums . The United States has accumulated so much debt from wars and military spending it is impossible to pay off.  The fall of Iran can result in a drastic change in the world map. Instability could swing between the Middle East and Central Asia. One factor that should be considered is how the Kurdish population would react. The desire for independence has not come to fruition, but it become more in reach with a weakened Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Turkey is the only state that could prevent the formation of a Kurdistan. Without Iran, there would be another regional power void in which the stronger states would fill. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey would be the strongest states. It would only be a matter of time before these countries would be in conflict with one another. War is not a rational or safe solution to disputes with Iran. The only way to prevent war and maintain peace is to reenter the nuclear agreement. A peace plan must happen in Yemen with simultaneous withdraw of  the Saudi coalition and Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. Intervention in Syria must come to an end by both Gulf states and Iran, so that Syrians can determine the future of their country. The United States must halt attempts at nation building or spreading its paradigm of liberal democracy. If  US and Iranian tensions are not solved diplomatically the world may witness of the worst mass global conflicts spanning multiple continents.       
              

Former President Blaise Compaore Offers to Return to Broker a Peace Deal

It was in 2014 that Blaise Compaore fled Burkina Faso. Now he is offering to comeback to the country to negotiate a peace deal with armed groups fighting the government. To an astute observer, this is not about making peace, rather Compore's attempt to return to power after five years in exile. He came to power in a coup in 1987, which resulted in the murder of Thomas Sankara. Now it appears he once more wants to seize power by extralegal means. This may not be the most successful plan, yet there is another alternative he is using. Writing a letter to President Roch Marc Christian Kabore he offered to help with reconciliation efforts among warring parties. President Kabore and hsi government have no intention of making peace with armed groups. Allegedly the Islamic State of the Greater Sahara is active in the country and other bordering states. This may explain terrorist attacks that have occurred recently in Burkina Faso. Dicko Oumar  a Burkinabe politician, makes the statement that when Compaore was in power such problems did not exist. The challenge of removing a longtime leader is what happens afterwards. The negative effect of deposing authoritarian presidents is that instability and insurrection occur in a power struggle. Compaore has connections and negotiation skills which did allow for the release of hostages in Mali. So far, there is no plan for securing his return to Burkina Faso. Others want him to return for another reason. Some desire to see Blaise Compaore stand trial for his human rights abuses during his presidency. With elections only a year away and growing violence politicians are going to struggle to gain support of the citizens of Burkina Faso.      

Theresa May Resigns

After failing to get an agreement on terms of EU exit, Theresa May decided to resign. She promised that she would remain until some consensus was reached, but the political conditions proved to be more challenging. Fall out from the referendum has created a UK struggling to confront both economic and social challenges. It is possible there could be another extension to the deadline for complete withdraw from the European Union once more. The UK's attempt to leave the European Union shows that Europe is becoming more divided due to the financial crisis, refugee migration, and the nature of supranationalism. There have been claims that the international markets have reached a state of recovery, but the middle class and poor still struggle. The public has little understanding of the international financial banking system and the neoliberal foundation in which it is based. Brexit is a revolt against neoliberal capitalism, immigration, and globalization. Failure of establishment politicians to recognize the frustration of a public that feels governments are not responsive has made people turn to far right xenophobic nativist  nationalism as an alternative. Theresa May became Prime Minister in a time of confusion and political transformation. A government under such strains involving the question of passports, Ireland, and tariffs was unlikely to survive. Her resignation now has caused more political factionalism as members of government seek the premiership. The Conservative Party could see a rapid decline in public support, if they cannot successfully reach an agreement on leaving the European Union. Some are even calling for another referendum. Even with a new Prime Minister an agreement being reached soon still remains out of reach. Theresa May leaves behind a UK stuck in political factionalism and an uncertain future.      

Engineered State Destruction

The collapse of  states can occur to multiple factors. Historically, many of the world's most powerful civilizations have either fallen due to warfare, corruption, and over expansion of territory that is governed. There is a  phenomenon in which world powers target smaller states that do not comply with their geopolitical objectives. Engineered state destruction is the deliberate attempt to harm the political, social, and economic foundation of a country. This method of conquest can be disguised in the contemporary era as humanitarian intervention, democracy promotion, or the concept of the responsibility to protect. Such arguments tend to hide more malevolent purposes. World powers compete with one another for global control. Currently, there exists a Russia and China block opposing a US-EU block. States that do not have enough military or economic strength find themselves either involved in proxy wars or in the middle of this large world power competition. If  weaker states cannot resist they will find themselves victim of engineered state destruction. The tools of the process involve economic pressure, military strikes, acts of sabotage or the encouragement of insurgency. There also is the element of exacerbating ethnic and social tensions within a state. Regime change has in particular been a symbol of engineered state destruction. Creating or inducing more violence around the world does not form global stability. It mostly empowers the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, while simultaneously imposing a system of neocolonial  imperialism. The aftermath of  engineered state destruction has negative long term effects. Broken societies cannot create stable nation states. As a result, this induces mass migration. European nations are having difficulty accommodating African and Arab refugees from the events of the Arab Spring. Following this, it give the far-right credibility that manipulate the population's fear and hatreds of other races or religions. Entire regions descend into war zones creating even more humanitarian crisis in the world. Engineered state destruction goes beyond exploiting other countries, rather it seeks to wage war on the populations that reside in those countries.
      Economic pressure can be a means of inducing engineered state destruction. Employed in a number of ways it has the ability to dismantle the stability of  society. Sanctions have become nothing more than a method of more powerful nations to bully weaker states. Targeted sanctions against government officials is a legitimate means of voicing discontent or condemnation with a country's actions. However, sanctions that target industries or the country's economy in general is designed to cause the maximum amount of turmoil to the population. The argument is that as conditions worsen, the citizens will associate it with the current regime and therefore overthrow it. Such a theory that has been promoted by neoconservative circles has not proven to be effective. General sanctions inflict damage on the population and targeted sanctions stop the leadership. Yet, it appears that mostly general sanctions are used. Under such strain, nations  are put on the brink of collapse. The sanctions on Iran are designed to put financial burden on the citizen. Not only do sanctions effect nations that are victims of them, but other countries that engage in trade.Nations that choose to purchase Iranian oil could face certain penalties. China if it wanted to make a purchase of Iranian oil could face sanctions itself. Sanctions are being used to make certain countries compliant with the US-EU international political vision. Russia since the Obama administration has remained under sanctions since Ukraine's political crisis. When seeing the contradictory use of sanctions, it becomes clear that it is not about human rights promotion. The fact that Israel has never face strict sanctions for it role in civilian deaths in the West Bank and Gaza Strip demonstrates hypocrisy in terms of international law. Another means of exerting economic pressure is excluding nations from international commerce. Blockades and embargoes stifle a state's economic security. Cuba has been subject to such measures since 1962. Russian and Chinese assistance prevented conditions from getting worse. Imports and exports are effected by these measures. If too much economic pressure is applied, it will evolve into economic warfare. Cutting off nations from international commerce and prevent other nations from bilateral business ties can result in social problems. Unemployment and at worse extremes food shortages can cause public discord. If there is a embargo on a particular product such as agricultural goods, this would negatively effect farmers. Blockades can be either used to prevent imports arriving or to halt nations from exporting commodities all together. A situation like that can become lethal when medicine is withheld. Financial aid can also be used to threaten weaker countries with the developed nations using it as leverage. Sanctions, embargoes, and blockades are forms of economic pressure that can decimate a country socially.
        Military strikes and warfare are the more simplistic forms of engineered state destruction. Aggressive war has been waged against the developing world since the end of World War II. Acts of violence are disguised are democracy promotion, nation building, or a just humanitarian cause. There are ulterior motives, but the public is presented with a distorted image of the political and social conditions. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ivory Coast,  Afghanistan, Mali, Yemen,  and Somalia  have been subject to Western interference and aggression. The Iraq War was a demonstration of engineered state destruction through military force. The US invaded decimated infrastructure through bombings and ground invasion. The arguments were that Iraq was producing chemical and biological weapons. The claim was that the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussein had to be removed on humanitarian grounds. Although collaboration from local residents is helpful to military designs, there will always be resistance to an occupying force. The fall of Saddam Hussein did not bring the Iraq War to a close in 2003. An insurgency grew from former Baathist and a population that did not want to submit to a US created provisional government. The disorder allowed terrorist organizations to easily enter the country as well as encourage new one to emerge locally. The US response was to have a surge of troops. Promises of reconstruction have for  the past decades gone nowhere. When invading a country the intent is to do as much demolition of  public space as possible. The Geneva Convention forbids attacks on civilians, yet this is not adhered to. Military strikes are not just to eradicate armies; they also plan on eliminating potential resistance. Pacification requires the elimination of the population that seeks to arm themselves against occupation. War devastates land, infrastructure, and causes an immense loss of life. Rebuilding a country after war could take decades. Afghanistan was subject to engineered state destruction by two major superpowers. Russia invaded to support the failing Marxist regime and prior to that the US was collaborating with radical political Islamists. Russia's objective was to keep Afghanistan in its sphere of influence and the US policy was to undermine the Soviet Union. As a result, Afghanistan became a war of proxy in the Cold War. From 1979 to 1989 the operations in Afghanistan would be the largest in the CIA's history. The United States would invade in 2001 using the common tactic of  bombing with aircraft and having a ground invasion. The use of drones does not recuse civilian casualties. Somalia has been subject to drone strikes and there is little evidence that such measures have reduced terrorism. A country ravaged by war cannot fully function and afterwards may remain dependent on financial aid and reconstruction assistance. The problem with military intervention as a method is that it puts the invader at risk. The burden of soldier deaths and finance make long term engagements not feasible. The least amount of effort involved in engineered state destruction ensures a greater chance of success. Indirect methods can be employed to achieve an objective.
        Fomenting insurrection or use of sabotage has been used as a method of state destruction. Providing assistance to armed groups, terrorist organizations, or encouraging coups has been a means to induce regime change. Unlike military strikes, this process takes more time. Causing disturbances in other states and countries may take decades. The advantage is that certain countries could be struggling with internal ethnic and political conflict, which enable larger powers to interfere. Yugoslavia rapidly began to descend into civil war and ethnic conflict with the death of Broz Tito in 1980. Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia,  Bosnia and Herzegovina began to declare independence in 1991. War soon followed and European powers too notice. Germany and the United States sided with Croatia. Russia became closer to Serbia during the conflict. There was an interest in seeing Yugoslavia dismantled mainly because the Balkans throughout history had been subject to external influence western Europe, the German states, and was at a time colonized by the Ottoman Empire. A socialist model of economy and politics was not acceptable to a new Europe no longer divided by communism. Even though Yugoslavia did not ascribe to Soviet communism, it would have been unacceptable of it to remain is a neoliberal capitalist economic system. Although the disintegration was an internal matter of the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, other European countries became involved and contributed to the process.The engineered state destruction did not end with the Dayton Accords, but reached a new level with the bombing of Kosovo. Serbia was blamed for the entire collapse of  Yugoslavia, even though there were multiple factors contributing to its demise. NATO engaged in an aggressive campaign on the basis of protecting Albanians from ethnic strife. The whole nation was at war with itself and the Yugoslav Army fighting the various republics. Civilians became caught in the crossfire and NATO aggression only mad the humanitarian situation worse. Kosovo still remains a disputed territory. Syria has been victim to a similar fate. Since 2011 Syria has been in a violent civil war, which has attracted both Russia and the United States to get more involved in regional conflicts. The United States has been aiding the Democratic Forces of Syria and possibly other armed groups. Russia has come to counter the US, but supporting the Baathist government. Syria gradually has gone through Balkanization in which Kurdish areas and Sunni Muslim areas have defacto  independence. The plan of engineered state destruction relies on internal discord, religious division, and ethnic strife. ISIS and the Islamic State have not been fully defeated yet there are other Arab states that are assisting in the Syrian civil war. The Gulf monarchies also are attempting to remove the Bashir Al-Assad presidency. For countries that cannot be invaded or be a place of covert action sabotage can be utilized. Cyber warfare will become common place in the future. Acts of sabotage will not even require agents in a certain area. Technology can enable attacks from a distance. Uprisings and armed insurrection can also be induced by foreign entities funding political opposition. USA Aid did this in Ukraine, which the effects only occurred decades later. Venezuela has come under attack from the US, which seeks to remove the Maduro presidency. Recognizing the opposition as the legitimate government is a way to exacerbate internal protests and a coup. Encouraging disorder and disturbance is a method of  engineered state destruction that appears to have the least amount of risk.
         Engineered state destruction has been used effectively against various developing countries. The economic system of neoliberal capitalist free markets remains intact. Neocolonial imperialism remains the main system of operation for the platform of international politics. Using the methods of engineered state destruction ensures that the US-EU block remains dominant. However, for its success, there are irreversible consequences. The use of military strikes, inducing rebellion, or perpetual warfare causes mass immigration, economic uncertainty, and more erratic regions. Refugees from the aftermath of conflict and upheaval will flee either to Europe, North America, New Zealand, or Australia. If numerous crisis like situations happen around Africa, Asia, and the Middle East refugees may dramatically increase beyond what the West can accommodate. Numerous questions of assimilation, integration, and citizenship are debated. More immigration only encourages the xenophobic nativist nationalists on the far-right to be more politically active. This only continues the cycle of economic and political exploitation  by European countries and the United States. Nations and empires have collapsed on their own through out history and many times events that came afterward were devastating. The end of the Ottoman Empire left Arab states under a mandate system with borders they did not create. Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon's borders were creations of the French as well as the British. Combined with the dedication to the establishment of Israel, this would be a source of conflict for half a century. Too often large powers use state or empire collapse to advance their own interest.  The manipulation of regions and states has become a method of foreign policy and international relations. The United Nations when established to ensure the protection of international law and human rights. Now it has become part of designs for engineered state destruction through UN Security Council Resolutions. An international body targets states that do not comply with geopolitical designs of western nations. The problem is that the general public cannot recognize engineered state destruction when it used by their leaders. Either it is presented as humanitarian assistance, protection of civilian life, or ensuring a world safe for democracy.The error from foreign policy circles is the notion that chaos can be directed and produce a desirable result. It may appear illogical  yet there are motivations to this model of thought. Gaining as much power in the global political landscape has been an objective for most countries. Economics and business becomes a factor when discussing natural resources of interest. The ideological vision has come to prominence with the idea that liberal democracy should forcefully be imposed around the world. So far the goals have not been reached in certain continents because neocolonial imperialism is being rejected by the global south. Engineered state destruction has become a weapon to impose hegemony on those were once subjugated by the former European colonial empires.                                               

US Imposes More Tariffs on China

Trade negotiations collapsed between the US and China. It appears that the trade war that was started by the Trump administration may not be ending soon. Failure to reach an agreement will have a negative impact on the stock market. Investors become nervous at the prospect of uncertainty. The US public may also see increasing prices on goods from China. The retaliation from China has been to go after the agricultural sector. This could harm the base that elected Donald Trump to office. Farmers have felt the effects of trade war, however the Trump administration has sought to counter this. China is the world's second largest economy and trying to have a trade war would be deleterious to America's economic health. President Donald Trump has constantly blamed China for some of America's economic challenges during the 2016 election and has continued to show open hostility. If a trade war continues it may evolve into some form of economic warfare. Disputes over intellectual property theft and tariffs must be addressed by the two nations. President Xi Jingping has expressed that China will not accept  any agreement that undermines China's economic interest.Economic competition can also influence relations between other Asian nations. North Korea may be used to harass China, which has substantial investments in that country. Attempts at diplomacy have failed and in an indirect way are related to the US-China trade war. The United States may get more aggressive with North Korea as a means to harass China. The total estimate of US tariffs on Chinese imports is $200 billion. The measure will soon go into effect and there is a level of uncertainty how drastically this will effect global markets.     

South Africa Votes

South Africa will be holding its general election on Wednesday May 8, 2019. The ANC may be having its biggest challenge yet, with a public dissatisfied with corruption, economic struggle, and a general lack of equality for all citizens. Poverty, xenophobia, and the need for land distribution are issue that can no longer be ignored. Cyril Ramaphosa president of South Africa and ANC  candidate has attempted to address corruption, but he may be blocked by the remaining Jacob Zuma faction. President Zuma's fall from grace had badly damaged the image of the ANC. Mmusi Maimane  of the Democratic Alliance hopes to gain the presidency and get his party more seats in Parliament. Julius Malema of the Economic Freedom Fighters has the most progressive  agenda calling for redistribution of wealth. It seems that South Africa has capable leaders who are eager to make changes. However, the question remains who among them are willing to confront the problem of white ownership of farmland and industry in South Africa. The black majority needs economic power, which they were deprived of under Afrikaner rule.   Which ever party or candidate South Africa votes for, it should be a person who meets their needs. Above all it should be a leader will to do what is required to reverse half a century of Apartheid and injustice. Sustainable economic growth should be a priority as well as improving South Africa influence in BRICS.