“Fragile - Handle with care”: this very well could be the imaginary bumper sticker for the topic of climate change when it arrives on the G7 table in Taormina. Usually, climate change issues do not lead to serious international frictions (even though they trigger harsh discussions during the annual climate talks under the UNFCCC umbrella), but this time is different. The suspense is high and the actors involved should use all diplomatic means available to bring about some results without losing face.
Global summits have rarely played such an important role as in 2017. In times of political volatility and economic uncertainty summits provide a forum for heads of state to exchange views on eye level contributing to a stabilization of expectations and potentially restoration of international consent. The US under President Trump questions a number of previously defined international commitments, in particular the stance on anti-protectionism and on the mitigation of dangerous climate change.
Get ready folks for a new premiere of slapstick comedy between Korea and China featuring a new actor, Moon Jae-in, elected South Korea’s president on May 9. A Korean president’s slapstick comedy show is a never-ending story. We already watched a couple of episodes featuring former president Park Geun-hye. One was her attendance at China’s military parade in 2015, triggering questions about her diplomatic stance between Washington and Beijing.
Tra il dire e il fare c’è di mezzo il mare, si dice. E se a dire è un politico, e per giunta in campagna elettorale, allora il mare diventa un oceano. In fondo, tutti i benpensanti condividono quest’asserzione perché l’esperienza dice che così accade, con buona pace di chi invece vota sperando che alle parole e alle promesse seguano fatti e adempimenti conseguenti.
There is no doubt that the pro-Kremlin disinformation campaign is an orchestrated strategy, delivering the same disinformation stories in as many languages as possible, through as many channels as possible, and as often as possible.
When Japan experienced a historic power transition in August 2009, as the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party was removed from power by voters for the first time in the LDP’s fifty four years of history, and replaced by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), many observers hailed the arrival of serious inter-party competition and even a two-party political system. Nonetheless, the DPJ was itself then voted out of power in December 2012 in a crushing defeat almost as big as the LDP’s 2009 defeat.
Sono intervenuti: Alessandro COLOMBO, ISPI e Università degli Studi di Milano; Viviana MAZZA, Corriere della Sera; Gianluca PASTORI, Università Cattolica e ISPI; David UNGER, Giornalista e Johns Hopkins University Bologna. (...)
Recent analyses reveal that the vast majority of jihadists come from or have some connections with specific areas or districts within different states. One can describe them as local/regional “hotbeds” of extremism. Molenbeek in Belgium, Gornje Maoče and Ošve in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Minneapolis in the US, Kasserine and Ben Guerdane in Tunisia, Sirte and Derna in Libya, Sinai in Egypt, Pankisi Valley and Dagestan in the Caucasus: each area has unique characteristics that lead to “exporting” fighters or creating new IS-controlled zones.
Starting from the debate on the origin and nature of jihadist militancy that is dividing the most important scholars of Islam, this report outlines a broad spectrum of radicalization factors leading to the emergence of jihadists hotbeds, such as poverty, unemployment, lack of job prospects, juvenile delinquency, trafficking and smuggling, socio-political, economic and physical marginalization, the role of Salafist ideology as well as the influence of brotherhood networks. All these elements have been frequently highlighted as factors or triggers that could contribute to explaining dynamics of radicalization leading to active violent militancy under the ideals of jihadism.
To get a better sense of both the differences and similarities amongst the various hotbeds, the report provides an overview of some of the largest contributors to Islamic extremists and foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq.
Di Matthew Wilson
As President Obama enters his last full year in office, his supporters and critics alike have begun to debate his legacy, seeking to shape the first-draft assessment of “the Obama years.” President Obama has been one of the most polarizing figures in recent American political history, so it is no surprise that judgements of his domestic policy accomplishments diverge sharply along partisan and ideological lines. Even many of his supporters, however, would acknowledge that his domestic policy accomplishments will in many areas fall frustratingly short of the aspirations that they had on his historic election in 2008. (...)
Di Walter Russell Mead
President Obama’s final State of the Union address comes at a time when, for the first time in his administration, the public believes that the nation’s most serious problems involve foreign policy rather than domestic issues, the majority disapproves of the President’s handling of foreign affairs, and 73 percent say they want the next President to take a “different approach” to foreign policy. President Obama, for his part, remains deeply committed to his approach to foreign affairs, is determined to continue on his current course through the end of his mandate, and wants a new kind of foreign policy to be part of the political legacy of his administration. (...)