Bolen C (Page 343)

Israel, which has a 9.3 million-person community, has welcomed 331,000 Israelis back since October7.

There were 43.7 million people living in Ukraine in 2020. &nbsp: About 2.8 million people have left for Russia since the battle began in February of last year, while 6 million have stayed in the West and traveled to Europe, the US, and Canada, making up about 20 % of the country’s population.

Millions of people have been fleeing different Islamic nations, most notably Syria and Yemen, where Sunnis and Shias brutally murder one another. Few Westerners who are at ease returning to any of these nations to engage in combat, and no one has spoken out against the atrocities committed by the two Muslim sects or denounced their financial backers. &nbsp,

What does voting with one’s legs, whether during migrations or protests, reflect, then? &nbsp,

I wo n’t get into comparing religious fervor or patriotism, even though these feelings do reflect some deeply held—or unfelt—hopes for the future. I’ll just think about the effects of dry amounts.

Ukraine had 1.22 reproduction in 2020, which is significantly lower than alternative. Women and children make up nine out of ten migrants in Ukraine. While most Russian men between the ages of 18 and 60 are prohibited from leaving the country, an estimated 25 % of Russian children have. &nbsp,

When hostilities end, did these war refugees return, or does their husbands and fathers follow them to Europe? &nbsp,

Europe has been significantly tightening its immigration from Muslim nations since October 7 and sending brainwashed Muslims back to their home countries. &nbsp, However, Western nations also have extremely low fertility rates, far below the replacement rate of 2.1, with Greece, Finland, and Austria at 1.4, Italy at 1. 2, and Poland at 2.2.

Even if Ukraine and Russia are able to negotiate a cease-fire with Russia sooner rather than later, given that the average of all European nations is 1.53, it would n’t be surprising that Europe would even be eager to let the young Ukrainian diaspora settle within its borders.

By the way, Russia’s fertility rate is 1.5, which is significantly lower than successor, and no one is entirely sure how many of its children have perished in the war and who have survived.

The US, what about it? Although no one is entirely sure how many thousands entered through the southern border with Mexico and what their potential effects on overall demographics may be, its reproduction in 2020 was roughly 1.64, which is also less than the replacement level of 2.1.

Demography and rights were frequently predicted in the 1970s to be a deadly combination financially, historically, and socially. Andnbsp, Citizens made these observations before the fertility of their nations fell and before some places declared themselves” shelter cities,” promising shelter, health, and knowledge to anyone who arrived.

The British concept of the “melting pot” had not been abandoned by those naysayers. Their assessments were based on the idea that the pot may “unmelt” when certain guidelines fast affected a sizable population, fostering traditions and creating customs that were inconsistent with what made the US tick and, more generally, with American principles and institutions. &nbsp,

New pro-Palestinian mobs demonstrate that both the American “melting pot” misconception and Europe’s “multi-culturalism” were scientific abstractions. The majority of participants covered their faces, as crooks have always done, though demonstrators against Hamas do not.

Both fail when a sizable number of immigrants immigrate quickly into the nation—and the election pot, but not the “melting pot,” adhering to customs and practices that do not align with the basic institutions of the West.

The decline in law enforcement over the past few years in both the US and Western Europe, which has been rationalized by a great deal of greatly discounted educational jargon, fully demonstrates Confucius ‘ observation that” Human nature is alike—habits of thought make us various.” In addition, &nbsp,

This article is based on Brenner’s History: The Human Gamble ( 1983 ), Betting on Ideas ( 1985 ), and” How to Relink 7 Billion People” ( American Affairs ).

Continue Reading

Both nations agreed it was crucial to maintain the speed in their gradually warming relationships while also expanding their areas of cooperation as Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese concluded his four-day visit to China.

Both sides emphasized how complement their financial relations were and expressed optimism about exploring fresh areas of collaboration in agriculture, renewable power, and climate change.

Additionally, they pledged to continue their just resumed high-level conversations. These include the yearly summits of the prime minister as well as other political, corporate, and business discussions.

What mattered most to China, while American media coverage concentrated on the trip’s historical significance and significance from a business perspective? How was the visit it covered by the media?

Beijing undoubtedly sees the trip as a significant turning point in diplomatic ties. According to official media coverage, the two nations have no historical ties and have shown in the past how a firm bilateral relationship may be advantageous to both parties.

Albanese’s efforts to bring their relationships back to this level were praised by President Xi Jinping, who referred to the visit as” a new starting point.”

Albanese’s presence at the China International Import Exhibition in Shanghai was likewise cited by the Chinese internet and some Chinese Australians as a representation of the significance of Australia to China. This was interpreted by them as a sign that Australia” did not agree with US attempts to detach from China.”

The major Chinese part takeaways

Albanese’s journey on the Chinese part has taught him a number of significant lessons. Nevertheless, China saw the trip as a chance to re-engage Australia, an important US supporter in the area and business partner.

Beijing has been changing its foreign policy after realizing that its financial pressure on the Scott Morrison administration was ineffective and that it was still being pursued by the US in an effort to restrain its fall.

It has been contacting some US allies and partners, including important member states of the European Union, and inviting them to various political activities set up by China. Additionally, it has been holding diplomatic discussions with senior representatives from these nations on significant economic and political issues.

Chinese leaders acknowledged that the American Labor Party’s standard foreign policy emphasizes working with international organizations like the UN and regional institutions. As a result, they concentrated on China and Australia’s shared interests ( trade, climate change ), as well as their shared identities ( Asia-Pacific nations ).

Depending on which side you look at it, they also subtly ( or bluntly ) reminded Canberra that its alliance commitments with the US and membership in security agreements like AUKUS and the Quad should not be at the expense of Australia-China relations and most definitely not Chinese interests.

Australia is set an example for different US friends in an opinion piece, according to the Communist Party-run Global Times:

After a bloody conflict with China since the US declared China to be its No. 1 alliance, Australia has become the first US allie to clearly alter its stance toward China. 1 business rival. Given the ups and downs of China-Australia relationships, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and yet US allies in Europe may consider themselves.

Given the challenges China is currently facing, Beijing considered the financial plan to be extremely important.

There is a restriction to the harsh sanctions China may impose on Australia given the nature of the trade between Australia and China. In actuality, bilateral trade has increased overall, reaching nearly$ 300 billion in 2022 despite the tensions that existed with Australia during the Morrison administration. This demonstrates the resilience of these economic relations as well as how complement the two markets are in reality.

During Albanese’s visit, Chinese officials and the internet emphasized this, which is why they were so important of the notion of “decoupling” from the Chinese economy.

In fact, Beijing is very concerned about any certain steps that restrict industry in the high-tech sector, such as with semiconductors. They characterized “decoupling” as going against free industry and protectionism. For limitations have been adopted more frequently in recent years by the US and its supporters.

What was n’t said was crucial.

The discrepancy between what Beijing claimed to be a powerful visit and what was really accomplished was n’t much covered in the Chinese internet.

One may argue that both sides discussed clear issues, such as how bilateral relations have largely stabilized since 18 months ago. Albanese was “pushing on an empty door,” as China analyst Richard McGregor adeptly noted.

This is not meant to minimize the advancements made thus far. In “resetting” the relationship, both governments ‘ intentions to continue and improve the numerous conversations between officers from their respective nations are crucial.

In times of crisis, these channels of communication are crucial for managing wars and preventing them from getting out of hand.

Although resetting the marriage was a clear goal in the long run, there were also significant short-term benefits. This is evident in the way the state advertising downplayed the AUKUS and South Pacific wars, where China’s effect has alarmed Canberra and Washington.

China has expressed its displeasure with the AUKUS and continues to view it as a significant barrier to the further development of diplomatic relations. However, Xi told Albanese that they could collaborate on issues relating to regional stability.

Where there are attempts to reason unrest in the Asia-Pacific place, we must first be on the lookout for them and then combat them.

The Chinese part also sees an opportunity for the two nations in the Pacific in terms of local economic development and how both Australia and China can contribute.

Jingdong Yuan teaches as an associate professor of Asia-Pacific Security at the University of Sydney.

Under a Creative Commons license, this essay has been republished from The Conversation. read the article in its entirety.

Continue Reading

For Egypt, the terrible discord between Israel and Hamas could not have come at a worse time. In December, a general election will be held for Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the original military strongman who came to power in 2013 amid the tumultuous consequences of the Arab Spring.

It will be a risky election because of his country’s financial problems and the political and humanitarian disaster that is taking place on its border.

After years of military dictator under Hosni Mubarak, Sisi formally assumed power in July 2013. A short and turbulent interlude that saw a Muslim Brotherhood-backed government led by scientific Mohamed Morsi struggle to maintain order followed Mubarak’s 30-year rule, which came to an end in April 2011 during the Arab Spring.

The following year, in a vote that drew harsh criticism from around the world, Sisi ousted Morsis from office in July 2013 and received 96 % of the vote. Since then, he hasn’t really faced any considerable political opposition, but this can still not account for how unpopular some Egyptians find him to be.

Sisi currently controls what most professionals would say is a candidate for the state’s worst-performing business. The youth unemployment rate is currently at 17 %, and annual inflation reached a historic high of 38 % in September.

Numerous rounds of currency devaluation and an upcoming mandated loan by the International Monetary Fund have added to this financial crisis. Struggling Egyptians may be forced to a degree of poverty not seen since the Ancient bread riots of 1977 by an aggressive austerity program imposed by the IMF.

Sisi will have to run for reelection against this shaky backdrop. Given that Sisi has ruled Egypt with an iron palm since ousting the Muslim Brotherhood in the terrible revolt of July 2013, you could be excused for assuming it would be a simple box-ticking training.

Since then, no vote has been free and fair, and in the intervening years, Egypt’s independent media has all but been destroyed. While civil society, which was once a vibrant social circle, now looks back on Mubarak’s tyranny with some nostalgia, opposition events have either been suppressed or co-opted.

It first appeared as though Sisi would face a reputable opposition, and this was the first time since he assumed power. Previous MP Ahmed Tantawi, a candidate for the Civil Democratic Movement, established himself as an MP by publicly criticizing Sisi in front of the legislature and abstaining from participating in the National Dialogue.

In May 2023, a Sisi-sponsored initiative was introduced. It was marketed by the government as an all-inclusive platform for discussing Egypt’s economic and political difficulties, but detractors have dismissed it as nothing more than a tool for Sisi to further his own plan.

Due to Tantawi’s position on the release of political prisoners, his plan gained support from well-known left-wingers, scholars, and even some Muslim Brotherhood officials who were in captivity. In Egypt’s prisons, there are reportedly 40 000 democratic captives, many of whom belong to the Muslim Brotherhood.

On October 13, however, Tantawi withdrew his election, claiming that pro-government” thugs” were preventing people from registering their help for his campaign.

Tantawi’s recognition represents a fundamental change in Ancient politics, even if his failed campaign wasn’t directly threatening Sisi. Sisi is vulnerable because he has handled Egypt’s financial issues so poorly in recent years.

And his propensity for careless remarks hasn’t helped; once, when questioned about the skyrocketing cost of gumbo, a staple food in ancient Egypt, the man advised them to follow the prophet Muhammad’s example and” eat departs.”

War is about to break out

Sisi’s government must perform a challenging balancing act as the war in Gaza draws near. Israel is determined to protect its boundary, regardless of the repercussions for Egypt. However, Sisi’s home failure might exacerbate home weaknesses. The regime may suffer greatly from the thought of thousands of Gazans perish while Egypt’s Rafah border remains locked.

Given his near ties to the Israeli government, Sisi should exercise caution. Egypt has participated in the 16-year Jewish blockade of Gaza, which has resulted in strict restrictions on the border crossing at Rafah.

But now that an election is approaching, he must satisfy an Iranian populace that is much more friendly to the plight of the Gazans than the Israelis. As the number of Palestinians killed as a result of Israel’s battle in the Gaza Strip rises, he has come under fire from competitors who claim that his administration has staged protests to capitalize on open sympathy.

The threat posed by Egypt’s well-established Islamic movements, however, poses the real threat to his leadership at home. In 2011, Mubarak was overthrown and Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood took control of Tahrir Square thanks to a common rebellion that was sponsored by Muslims.

The army in Egypt is now being strongly cautioned by history to never be careless about the potential danger posed by Islamic movements. Sisi’s government has exerted every effort to obliterate the Brotherhood.

Tens of thousands of people have been subjected to random hold without a test or given lengthy prison term for opposition in military authorities in the ten times since his security forces massacred more than 900 people while violently dismantling large anti-government sit-ins in Rabaa al-Adawiya and al – Nahdo rectangles.

His government’s treatment of Morsi was perhaps the most egregious example of crooked use of energy. After spending six times in solitary confinement, the former president passed away after collapsing inside the plaintiff’s” box” in court in Cairo.

Dealing with the flaws of a faltering business is one factor for an president. It is quite another to host a resentful populace who is witnessing an atrocity against individual freedom just outside its borders. The opposite will have more weapons than they have had in years if the Sisi plan keeps allowing this to happen on its watch.

Gillian Kennedy teaches politics and international relations at the University of Southampton.

Under a Creative Commons license, this essay has been republished from The Conversation. Read the article in its entirety.

Continue Reading

Kim Jong Un, the supreme head of North Korea, traveled to the Russian Far East on a formal basis from September 12 to September 17, 2023. The journey was longer and more intensive than his first one, which was from April 24 to 26, 2019. Kim’s travel plans made it clear that a key goal of his trip was to advance defense and scientific ties with Russia.

In Vostochny, Kim held a one-day mountain with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The main Russian missiles, Soyuz and Angara, were highlighted during the Russian host’s tour of the shuttle with his North Korean visitor. Kim then traveled to a factory in Komsomolsk-on-Amur where some of Russia’s most cutting-edge planes are produced.

Kim spent two full days in Vladivostok, the last stop on his journey across the Russian Far East. He went to an airfield and saw a variety of Russian fighter planes and tactical aircraft. Additionally, the North Korean president was housed on a guided missile ship.

Regarding the content of the Putin-Kim speaks in Vostochny, not much is known. No agreements were signed, and no combined statement was made public. Putin and other Russian authorities made it clear that” all problems” were discussed, including the possibility of diplomatic military cooperation and the nbsp. The visit was hailed as a turning point in” strengthening strategic and tactical cooperation between the two countries” by North Korea & nbsp.

Sergey Lavrov, the Soviet Minister for Foreign Affairs, was sent to Pyongyang in October, which also happened to be the 75th anniversary of the establishment of political relations, as a follow-up to the Kim-Putin mountain. Lavrov spoke with Choe Son-hui, his North Korean rival, and Kim Jong Un was present.

Moscow’s relations with Pyongyang were described as a” strategic, all-encompassing partnership” by the Russian foreign minister & nbsp. The Kremlin reportedly used the term” strategic” to describe bilateral cooperation with North Korea for the first time at this point.

Numerous aspects are bringing North Korea and Russia closer together. North Korea is the only UN part, aside from Syria, to acknowledge Crimea, Donetsk, Luganzhn, Zaporizhzha, and Kherson as Soviet lands. Moscow appreciates North Korea’s willingness to speak out in favor of Russia and openly violate the West.

There is no question that South Korea’s aid for Ukraine also serves as a driving force for Moscow to adopt Pyongyang. Yoon Suk Yeol, the president of South Korea, has become one of Volodymyr Zelensky’s principal foreign supporters. & nbsp,

Despite Seoul’s claims that it only offers non-lethal assistance to Ukraine, it is well known that Russian forces on the Russian frontlines are very likely to be killed by South Korean artillery shells that are formally sent to replenish US weapons depots.

The Moscow-Pyongyang relationship is also the result of economic calculations. The most natural place for a business partnership would be North Korean labor in exchange for Russian goods and cash.

The most interesting feature of Kim’s conference with Putin may have been the potential for North Korean arms sales to Russia, though both North Korea and Russia deny that this was a possibility. In any case, even if North Korean munitions did make it to Russia, they may only serve as a support force there.

Pyongyang might be thinking about receiving Russian money, oil, and food in exchange for labor and weapons for short-term business reasons. However, Kim is probably most drawn to a long-term balance of power analysis.

North Korea can now feel safe in its corporate isolation thanks to nuclear weapons. However, nuclear weapons are subject to technical change, just like all other weapons. Pyongyang runs the serious risk of having its atomic weapons replaced by new, emerging arms. Even its most cutting-edge delivery vehicles are woefully out of date by Russian and US criteria.

The combined power of the US-South Korea alliance is greater than that of North Korea’s standard forces, which are also ill-equipped to handle the new era of very precise weapons, remote sensing, and potent artificial intelligence.

For the time being, nuclear weapons may serve as Pyongyang’s barrier against head-on aggression, but in the majority of another crisis situations, they are useless. Kim Jong-un is unable to utilize his nuclear arms in a conflict that he anticipates winning.

The recent & nbsp trilateral summit at Camp David serves as an example of the US-South Korea-Japan coalition’s emergence, which worries North Korea even more.

North Korea is unable to effectively close the growing gap in contemporary warfighting functions on its own. Finding proper friends is the only way to address the exceedingly precarious balance of military strength.

Moscow might be a willing man, giving the North access to crucial non-nuclear weapons and systems like fighter jets and reconnaissance satellites. Russia and North Korea may also conduct joint military exercises, a possibility that was alluded to perhaps before Kim’s explore.

A transfer to the Cold War era, when Moscow and Beijing served as Pyongyang’s security underwriters, may occur in the years to come. However, the functions may be divided differently this time. & nbsp,

While Russia serves as the North’s principal military ally, China will continue to serve as Pyongyangs primary financial patron and political protector. If only because it has little to gain with Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo, Moscow will be content with such a position.

At Far Eastern Federal University’s Vladivostok School of Regional and International Studies, Artyom Lukin holds the positions of Associate Professor and Deputy Director for Research.

This andnbsp, post, and was originally published by East Asia Forum and are being reprinted with permission from Creative Commons.

This article’s original version was released .38north.org/2023/09/does-kims-visit-to-russia-signal-an-end-to-north-koreas-strategic-solitude/” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>here, in & nbsp, 38 North.

Continue Reading

Bill Clinton joined President Joe Biden in celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act when he arrived at the White House in the early months of 2023. It was difficult to ignore the fact that Clinton had been in business for three years and that, at the age of 77, he is in some ways three years younger than Biden.

The second senior to hold the Oval Office is Biden, who is 80 years old. His main rival, original President Donald Trump, is 77. According to a Monmouth University poll conducted in October 2023, almost three-quarters of voters believe Biden is too old to run for office, and almost half believe Trump is as old as he should be.

President George H. W. Bush, my former boss, wisely decided against challenging Clinton once more in the 1996 vote. He would have been 72 years old at the 1997 inaugural if he had run and won.

Instead, he delighted in a fantastic follow-up that included skydiving, grandkids, and charitable causes. The question of why Biden and Trump, who are more than 15 years older than the typical American retirement age, are reapplying for one of the hardest jobs in the world is raised by Bush’s post-presidential living and American principles of retirement in public.

a preference for older folks

Two of the three oldest presidents to have ever held office are Trump and Biden. Before Ronald Reagan took office, William Henry Harrison held the distinction of being the oldest leader always elected for 140 times. Reagan was 69 years old at his first inaugural in 1981, while Harrison was only 68 when he took office in 1841.

Reagan was the oldest man to have ever held the office of leader when he retired at the age of 77. After Reagan and Biden, Trump left company at the age of 74, making him the third-oldest person to do so.

The median age in America is 38.9 years older, according to the Census Bureau. However, with the House and Senate having typical age of 58 and 64, both, the term” gerontocracy” is frequently used to describe the governing class of the country.

The name” government by the old” is defined by Teen Vogue, which just published a narrative explaining the term to younger citizens. Gerontocracies are more prevalent among spiritual authorities like the Vatican or Iran’s ayatollahs. During the Cold War, they were also prevalent in socialist ruling boards like the Soviet Politburo. Old leaders are less common in democracies.

The White House is beyond.

There are other aging US leaders besides Biden and Trump; there is a nonpartisan tendency among Democrats and Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Democrats Chuck Schumer, both of whom are 72 years old. Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican, was really re-elected and is 90 years old with no plans to retire. 81-year-old separate senator Bernie Sanders has made no mention of retiring.

Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California and former Speaker of the House, only announced that she is seeking reelection for her 19th whole term in office at the age of 83. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat who serves as the nonvoting member from Washington, DC, and Bill Pascrell Jr., both of New Jersey, are 86 years old.

Both California Democrat Maxine Waters and Kentucky Republican Harold Rogers are 85 years old. Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland, is 84. None of these lawmakers have stated they are retiring, and the list goes on.

A few years back, a local doctor from Capitol Hill made headlines when he admitted to filling the treatments for members of Congress’ Alzheimer’s medications. The third-oldest House and Senate since 1789, each of the 20 oldest members of Congress is at least 80 years old.

delayed pension

What’s happening around?

Due to inflation or a lack of benefits, the majority of baby boomers who postpone pensions do so because they cannot afford to stop working. However, each of these social figures has a sizable banks balance; many of them are businessmen. In addition to Medicare, they may also receive state pensions and health care rewards if they retired. Therefore, it’s not possible economic for them.

According to one theory, it’s defense. Nobody enjoys being reminded of their own deaths. I am aware of people who associate retreat with death, frequently because of acquaintances they know who passed away shortly after stepping down. This may help to explain why Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Senator Dianne Feinstein both served for such a long time before passing away at the ages of 90 and 87, both.

Some view it as identity-driven. Many of the top leadership I’ve observed have put in so much effort over such a long period of time that their very identities are entwined with their positions. Additionally, years of hard work prevent them from having habits to pass the time in their later years.

Ego is another idea. Some legislators believe they are essential and the only people who could possibly carry out the task. They don’t specifically seem modest.

In the social sphere, their curiosity is frequently also related to energy. These are the people who ask themselves,” Why wouldn’t I want to stay casting the vote in a House or Senate that is sharply split, or stay giving speeches and flying around on Air Force One as leader?”

Why so few of them want to leave is understandable.

Years restrictions?

Age restrictions for national elected office have been called for. When many, federal law enforcement personnel are required to retire at age 57. The same goes for regional park rangers. However, there is no upper age limit for the most difficult job in the world.

There are other options available to those who believe that compulsory retirement is insensitive and subjective. Democratic candidate Nikki Haley has called for mandatory mental competency tests for elected officials who are 75 years of age and older, though she has stated that passing would not be a requirement for office and that failing wouldn’t be grounds for removal.

A poll conducted in September 2023 reveals that vast majority of Americans support skills assessment. The general public would be able to distinguish between sharpened and unsharp people in this way. To me, it seems like a good idea.

The same goes for being kind enough to pause and consider people. and having the insight to understand that life is short and involves more than just going to work. And having the kindness to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans, as the country’s second-youngest president, John F. Kennedy, previously said.

I’m 70, so I have a lot of sympathy for these people, but 80 seems much younger than it used to, in my opinion, says my partner professor Larry Sabato, chairman of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. But no, it’s absurd. We must resume electing individuals in their 50s and earlier 60s. Additionally, the poll reveals that the majority of Americans do respond,” Amen, nephew.”

Mary Kate Cary is the chairman of Think Once and an adjunct professor of politics at the University of Virginia.

Under a Creative Commons license, this essay has been republished from The Conversation. Read the article in its entirety.

Continue Reading