• Type:
  • Genre:
  • Duration:
  • Average Rating:

KJ Vids

The geopolitics of the Indian Ocean

The Indian Ocean is an immense maritime space of great geopolitical and geoeconomic importance. It is a crossroad for sea trade that connects the advanced economies of the East and the West. At the same time, there are also many factors that threaten its stability. These are often closely related with the international dynamics of the Asia-Pacific, to the point that the two areas can be considered as single reality.

West: Challenges and Opportunities for Africa

On its western part, the Indian Ocean touches the shores of the vast African continent. This creates a peculiar mix of opportunities and challenges for coastal states like South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, Tanzania and Kenya. Thanks to their position, they can easily reach important economic areas such as India, the Middle East, Europe and the Asia-Pacific. Engaging in maritime trade with these regions could provide a major economic boost to these African states and improve the living conditions of their citizens. In addition, emerging powers like China and India are heavily spending in Africa to access its much-needed natural resources and exploit the opportunities for high investment returns. Yet, in the case of China, this also raises concerns. While African states welcome Chinese investments as they come with no legal precondition on the respect of civil and human rights, some worry that its economic penetration might result in political leverage and in a form of economic neo-colonialism.

There are also two states whose situation is particular. The first is Ethiopia, the powerhouse of the Horn of Africa. As other states along the continent’s eastern coast, it can greatly benefit from international sea trade, but unfortunately it is a landlocked country. This largely explains the recent deal it reached with Eritrea to settle their longstanding conflict: turning Eritrea into a friend would enable Ethiopia to access the sea and engage in maritime trade along one of the busiest routes in the world. As a matter of fact, the Red Sea is an obliged passage for ships sailing between Europe and Asia. Ethiopia has even expressed its intention to build a navy, which is a clear sign of its seafaring ambitions.

The second peculiar case is Somalia. In theory, it is also poised to take advantage from its position on the Indian Ocean, but in practice it is a failed state ruled by armed groups where the central government has not enough power to pursue such kind of maritime policy.

This raises the issue of the threats to sea trade along the Western shores of the Indian Ocean. Somalia is part of the problem, as it has become a hub for piracy. The difficult economic conditions have pushed many Somalis to start attacking cargos navigating along the country’s coasts. This became a serious problem that prompted the international community to organize a military operation to patrol the Somali waters and combat piracy. These efforts succeeded in securing the area and in reducing the number of attacks, but as long as the socio-economic conditions of coastal population …

Geopolitics of Brazil

Brazil is South America’s emerging power. It is the largest and most populous country in the continent; and it benefits from a favourable geographic position, important natural resources and a growing economy. As such, it is taking a more active international role both in the region and beyond. Yet, it must also face notable challenges; notably corruption, criminality, inequality and others; all of which may undermine its rise as a great power.

Geography and Brazil’s rise

Like any other country, Brazil’s geopolitics can be examined as a combination of three factors: dimension, configuration and position.

Brazil covers a total area of about 8,515,000 square kilometres, making of it the 5th country in the world in terms of size. This puts Brazil in a favourable position to dominate the continent, as it can access any region with relative ease. Similarly, its 7,500 kilometres-long coastline on the Atlantic Ocean enables Brazil to easily project its power abroad and to engage in lucrative maritime trade.

In terms of configuration, Brazil’s territory can roughly be divided in two parts. The north-west is centred on the Amazon river basin and its vast rainforest, the largest in the world and a real treasure in terms of biodiversity. The south-east is made up of ridges and mountain ranges crossed by the Parana river. As a matter of facts, watercourses are an important feature in Brazil’s geography: the country has a complex hydrographic system that brings significant benefits to electric power generation and agriculture, which is also favoured by Brazil’s warm climate. Most of Brazil’s 208 million citizens, the majority of which are young people, live in the cities along the coast. This has resulted into vast metropolis where economic prosperity meets overcrowded slums.

But position is Brazil’s most important characteristic. It borders ten nations, meaning all the countries in South America except Ecuador and Chile. None of its neighbours represents a real threat, and not only because relations are generally good: Brazil is simply more powerful than any of them. Even Argentina, the second most influent country in the continent, cannot seriously challenge Brazil’s supremacy due to a worse geopolitical and economic situation. Other states are not a real matter of concern; yet, they are important for Brazil’s own geopolitical ambitions. Brazil wants to extend its influence westwards to connect the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans so to unlock its innermost territories, become the centre of coast-to-coast trade and increase its regional influence. To reach this objective, Brazil needs to keep the URAPABOL area in its sphere of influence. This zone takes its name after the three states composing it: Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia. They are seen as South America’s geopolitical pivot, meaning that the power who controls them can extend its influence over all the continent and obtain a dominant position. Moreover, the URAPABOL states were also seen as useful buffer zone against foreign threats and Argentina in particular; even though today the likelihood of a war is really remote. For these reasons, Brazil is …

Is Macron a friend of the Rich?

Recently France has been swayed by large scale protests carried out by tens of thousands of its citizens in response to a series of economic reforms since the new government came to power in 2017. A growing mistrust amid the tax cuts on corporations and high earners while raising taxes for the working class has prompted the people to put pressure on the government to make big changes.

Emmanuel Macron founded the centrist movement named “En Marche!” in April 2016 and much to the surprise of many, won the elections the following year. The French saw promise in Macron’s manifesto, which promised significant economic reforms backed up by his relevant experiences both in the public and private sectors. The fragile economy and mistrust for the previous regime left the people with no options but to take a risk instead of voting far-right candidate Marine Le Pen. However as the recent “Yellow Vests” movement spread out in France the truths behind the reforms have only started to get publicity.

Historical information

Francois Hollande, who preceded Macron as President, failed to live up to expectations having faced major opposition from his proposed economic and employment reforms. He faced criticism for many issues including failing to address difficulties in integrating immigrants into the French society and even pandering to the right with his comments on stripping French citizens with dual nationalities off their citizenship following the high profile terrorist attacks that shook the country, including the Charlie Hebdo shooting in 2015 and the Nice truck attack in 2016. Hollande decided not to re-run for the election due to a combination of social, political and economic frailties and the huge mistrust shared among the French citizens.[1] Macron on the other hand was appointed Deputy Secretary General to Hollande in 2012, while also serving as Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs between 2014 and 2016, where he formulated several business reforms to aid the economy.[2]

Macron was born in Amiens, France and is an alumnus of the elite École Nationale d’Administration. He showed great aptitude in the areas of literature, politics and theatre at an early age and had been able to forge powerful connections during his time as an inspector at the French Finance Ministry during Nicolas Sarkozy’s tenure as President. However he switched civil service to work in investment banking at Rothchilde and Co where he swiftly rose up the ranks to become managing director before being appointed as Francois Hollande’s staff. [3] His most significant contribution in investment banking was his crucial role in advising Nestlé on its USD 12 billion acquisition of a unit of Pfizer in 2012 which earned the nickname- “the Mozart of finance”.[4]

Despite public protests as, the business reform package he introduced in 2015 as Finance Minister was forced through parliament by then Prime Minister Manuel Valls who invoked the special article 49.3 procedure which also received criticism from within the ruling Socialist party.[5] However he soon resigned (in 2016), and founded …

Modern Nations – Rise of Muslims Episode 7

Based entirely on the book by Ali Mahmood titled “Muslims” –

Purchase using this link – https://www.kjvids.co.uk/product/muslims/

In this episode, Author Ali Mahmood, looks at the emergence of Muslim nation states following the collapse of the Ottoman empire. He looks at the birth of modern Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

Important links we want you to check out;

Sponsor our next video – https://www.fundmyvideo.com/kjvids
Keep us Independent – https://www.fundmypage.com/kjvids
KJ Vids Book Store – https://www.kjvids.co.uk/books
Patreon Perks – https://www.patreon.com/kjvids
Amazon Shop – https://www.amazon.co.uk/shop/kjvids
Get $10 of Rev’s Caption Service – https://www.rev.com/blog/coupon/?ref=kasimjaved
All other enquiries – info@kjvids.co.uk

Watch our other Playlists

Geopolitics – https://goo.gl/haQTbJ
Global Trends – https://goo.gl/9q2NHL
International Relations – https://goo.gl/Jzvous
Leaders – https://goo.gl/46fhwA
Public Opinion – https://goo.gl/BvNicA
Strategy – https://goo.gl/Z1NnqW
Quick History – https://goo.gl/fnVkbA

Africa – https://goo.gl/4MQ4Ts
America – https://goo.gl/cTBuji
East Asia – https://goo.gl/73hZsK
Europe – https://goo.gl/TMq2cv
Middle East & The Gulf – https://goo.gl/Vk9jYD
UK – https://goo.gl/KSW9fz
South Asia – https://goo.gl/Pd2nRf
South America – https://goo.gl/BZH8Ch…

Israel’s Enigmatic relationship with India

India and Israel have been allies for much of recent history although the relations between these two countries have been low-profile and only started getting global attention in recent years. Besides having strong economic ties the two countries also share key strategic and military cooperation.

Surprisingly India-Israel relations were largely informal until 1991. Despite having some ties since the 1960s mainly owing to defence and intelligence cooperation, India did not formalise diplomatic relations due to having a pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian stance. However this gradually changed when they formally established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992.[1]

History

India recognised Israel as early as 1950, but did not establish diplomatic ties until 1992. During the Suez crisis in 1956 the then Israeli foreign minister Moshe Sharett visited India as the Israeli army pushed into Egypt after Egyptian President Gamam Abdel Nasser nationalised the canal; while India played the role of mediator alongside the UK, the US and Yugoslavia.

During the Sino-Indian war in 1962, Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru sought arms from Israel, writing to Israeli PM Ben Gurion, and he responded, forming the foundations for defense cooperation between the two countries. This paved way for increased bilateral cooperation over the years as India sought more arms in their war with Pakistan in 1965 as well as in 1971.[2]

Throughout much of the 1970 and 1980s, India kept its distance from Israel publicly due to its support for the Palestinian cause. India was a founding member of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) that was supportive of anti-colonial struggles around the world which explains their support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).[3] India was astonishingly one of the first non-Arab states to recognise Palestinian independence. There were several geopolitical issues that shaped India’s standpoint during the 1970s and 80s. The seemingly antagonist position between India and Israel also involved India’s diplomatic strategy of trying to counter Pakistan’s influence in the Arab world as well as of safeguarding its oil supplies from the Gulf.

There were other major motives behind India’s anti-Israel stance. India has a large Muslim population and their antagonism towards Israel played a major role in delaying diplomatic relations, as politicians feared that they may lose Muslim votes in key regions if they were to formalise ties.[4] Also,  was the fact that thousands of Indian citizens worked in the Gulf, helping keep its foreign exchange reserves afloat.

Security cooperation

Even before establishing formal ties, India and Israel managed to collaborate in specific areas, with India’s main intelligence agency RAW (research and analysis wing) and Israel’s Mossad having signed a secret cooperation agreement in the areas of security, intelligence and military equipment.[5] The two top intelligence agencies established relationships since the 1960s. This was remarkable because throughout the 1970s and 80s their bilateral relations were sour. The situation started to shift in 1989 as three major developments sowed the seeds of change: first, the beginning of the era of coalition politics in India; second, the beginning of Pakistan-sponsored …

The rise of YouTube and monetisation

Since its launch in 2005, YouTube has changed the way we watch videos and create influential content online. With an audience the size of a quarter of the world’s population, this global phenomenon has over 1.8 billion active users logging in each month to watch videos. If each individual person held an account- that would be a quarter of 7.6 billion people on the planet last year using the platform.

Last year, in an average month 8 out of 10 people aged 18-49 years-old watch YouTube. The free streaming networks popularity has stemmed from the fact that we live in a multi-platform and a multi-screen world, where we want to consume our content wherever we are rather than having to pay for T.V which is only restricted to our homes.

Rather than reaching for the T.V remotes, more and more people are reaching for their phones and that is what makes YouTube so popular in the digital era. The fact that it is accessible anywhere and anyhow. YouTube covers over 95% of the world’s population and you can use the streaming site in 76 different languages.

From vlogs to music videos to gamer channels and branding, YouTube is the second most consumed site in the wold, behind google, and it shows no sign of slowing down.…

Will there be a EUROPEAN ARMY? – KJ Vids

In an era of mounting rivalry between great powers, and with the Trump administration raising doubts over the America’s commitment to protect Europe, the recent declarations by French President Emmanuel Macron over the need of a “European Army” to protect the continent against Russia, China and even the United States have caused much political debate. But will there ever be a European Union Army?

The evolution of the EU policy on defence

The debate over the establishment of a European common policy on defence and therefore over the creation of a unified armed force is as old as the European integration process itself. The first step in this sense was came with the Brussels Treaty of 1948 which established the Western Union, an alliance that included the United Kingdom, France and the three Benelux countries. Knowing that their military forces would be insufficient to defend the continent from a Soviet invasion, one year later these and other countries (including the United States) formed NATO, which soon became the main collective defence pact in Europe. Still, the European countries wanted to increase their cooperation in defence in order not to be completely reliant on America. In 1952, France, Italy, West Germany and the three Benelux states signed a treaty to form the European Defence Community. This was an ambitious project that was supposed to create a unified European Army. However, it ended in a failure: the French Parliament did not ratify the Treaty and consequently it never entered into force; which is quite notable considering that today France’s Macron is calling for a common military structure. At that point, the European countries opted for a revision of the Western Union. In 1954 its founding Treaty was modified, transforming the organization into the Western European Union, which included the original members plus Italy and West Germany. This was essentially a political-military mutual defence pact, and did not include any plans for a common armed force. The WEU continued existing as a separate organization until 2011, when it was finally dismantled.

All these initiatives ran in parallel to the European integration process that would later create the EU, which back then was simply the European Coal and Steel Community and therefore had a primarily economic connotation. In 1957, its scope was enlarged and it became the European Economic Community (EEC), whose aim remained essentially that of creating a common market as a premise to greater political cooperation, but which had practically no military ambitions. But various international crises raised the need to at least coordinate the foreign policy actions of its member states. Because of this, the European Political Cooperation was launched in 1970. Yet, it was merely a mechanism to attempt coordinating the positions of members states on foreign policy issues. It did not devolve specific competences to communitarian institutions, did not oblige member states to comply with the decisions that were taken (provided a common agreement was reached) and had essentially no military content. After a series of other international crises …

Will North and South Korea Ever Reunite?

Since the end of the War in 1953, the Korean peninsula is divided by a frozen conflict that still awaits a definitive settlement. The recent developments as the signs of detente between North and South Korea or the meeting between the former’s leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump leave some hope of a peaceful resolution of the Korean issue. But will it actually be the case?

The historical background

After having been under Japanese domination for nearly four decades, in 1945 Korea was divided in two occupation zones separated by the 38th parallel: the Soviet one to the north, and the US-led Allied one in the south. While the original plan was to ultimately restore an independent and unified Korean state, in practice things unfolded differently. As the Cold War emerged, the disagreements between Moscow and Washington led to the establishment of two different states: a pro-communist one ruled by Kim Il-sung in the north, with Pyongyang as capital, and an authoritarian but pro-American one in the south, whose government was based in Seoul. The former took the name of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK, while the latter became known as the Republic of Korea, shortened in RoK. The efforts to reach a common agreement over the reunification of the Peninsula were all unproductive, and the situation stalled until 1950 when North Korea invaded the South.

Exploiting the surprise effect, its troops captured Seoul and almost managed to occupy the whole Peninsula. The international coalition created to defend the South, patronised by the United Nations and headed by the US, struggled to stop the advancing enemy. But then, the US organized a counter offensive. With a bold amphibious landing at Inchon, they cut the supply lines of the North’s armies and pushed them back to the initial positions. Acting beyond the UN directive, the allied forces proceeded further north, taking Pyongyang and almost reaching the Yalu river, Korea’s border with China. Feeling threatened, the PRC intervened in support of its North Korean ally in December 1950. The coalition was expelled from the North’s territory, and the communist troops conquered Seoul a second time. But once again, the US and its allies counterattacked and retook the city in March 1951. the situation stabilized along the 38th parallel, and no notable changes occurred until the signature of an armistice in 1953. While this practically put an end to the conflict, a true peace treaty was never signed, and as such the Korean War is officially still unresolved.

Since then, the situation has stalled. The South maintained an authoritarian regime for several decades, before becoming a democracy in 1987 and beginning a period of rapid economic growth that turned it in one of the world’s most dynamic economies. The North, under the leadership of the Kim family, has remained a ruthless, isolationist, heavily-militarized and economically fragile dictatorship centred upon the Juche ideology; a peculiar combination of communism, nationalism, Korean tradition and cult for the ruler.

The geopolitical

The Weaponisation of Space

Space: The final frontier, where no war has been fought before. In the past few years, both states and firms have shown a renewed interest for space exploration. New ambitious missions were launched for scientific and commercial purposes, with some aiming even at landing a manned mission on Mars. But will space also become the final frontier of warfare?

Space: Militarization & Weaponization

When examining the use of space for war-related activities, an important distinction must be made between the militarization and the weaponization of space.

The term “militarization” refers to the use of space for military purposes; be it reconnaissance, targeting, communication, direct attack or anything else. In this sense, space was militarized decades ago. The armed forces of advanced countries, as the United States and its competitors like Russia and China, have deployed satellites in orbit to perform such tasks and support their combat operations on Earth.

On its part, the term “weaponization” has a more specific meaning: it indicates the deployment of weapons in space, and sometimes also that of weapons capable of striking space-based assets. Space could soon be weaponized, and in some sense it already is. But to understand the scope of this trend, it is first necessary to consider the legal framework of space use.

The legal framework

Due to its nature, space is part of the global commons. It is therefore a domain that anyone can freely access and exploit for various activities. This conception underlies the legal framework on the use of space, and this is why there have been efforts to prevent its militarization and most of all its weaponization. However, important juridical vacuums persist, and they leave room for exploiting space for military purposes.

The most important treaty in this sense is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which a total of 107 countries have adhered; including the US, Russia and China. Its aim is to regulate activity in space and in particular to avoid an arms race. It states that “The exploration and use of outer space […] shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries”, that space “shall be free for exploration and use by all States”, and establishes that it “is not subject to national appropriation”. But its most important provision appears in Article IV, which reads: “States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner”. It also establishes the peaceful use of the Moon and other celestial bodies.

The treaty therefore explicitly forbids the deployment of weapons of mass destruction (or WMDs) in space. But in spite of the will to promote the peaceful use of this domain, there is no clear prohibition on the placement of non-WMD weapons in space. In this sense, an important provision concerning Anti-Ballistic Missiles system (or ABMs) …

Will the EU Collapse and lead to a Civil War?

The last decade has been a difficult one for the European Union. In the wake of the 2009 debt crisis, much debate has arisen around its nature, its powers, its governance and its policies.

The situation got only worse when the migrant inflow boomed in 2015, triggering a EU-level crisis.

In this strained socio-economic context, diverging views on the EU as a polity have emerged at the political level both inside the single member states and inside the organization’s institutions.

Recently, two events have revived once more the debate. The first is the re-election of Viktor Orbán, a prominent conservative and Eurosceptic politician, as Prime Minister of Hungary.

The second is the statement by France’s President Emmanuel Macron that the EU is facing a “civil war” on its fundamental values resulting from different opinions between its Western and Central-Eastern members.

This affirmation seems exaggerated, at least at a first glance. But in such a turbulent political context, it raises a legitimate question: is the EU on the edge of a civil war?

The Conditions of a Civil War

To answer this question, the first thing to do is determining in which conditions a civil war does start. Essentially, this happens when two or more socio-political groups belonging to the same political entity disagree on the existing and/or future institutional order; and, being unable or unwilling to peacefully find a compromise through the existing institutional mechanisms, opt for armed conflict to impose their view and determine who will (re)shape the existing order by the use of coercion. Usually, a civil war opposes one group fighting to preserve the standing institutional framework (along with the prerogatives it enjoys thanks to it) and another group who wants to dismantle it (and set up a new order more favourable to its interests).

That said, history is full of examples of civil wars; from those which paved the way to the end of the Roman Republic centuries ago to the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Yemen. But one is particularly significant due to its similarities with the situation the EU is facing today: the American Civil War.

The American Civil War

The US Civil War, also known as War of Secession, was an armed conflict that split the United States between 1861 and 1865.

The contenders where two: one was the Union (the North), formed by states that remained loyal to the government of the United States;

and the other was the Confederacy (the South), made up of states which seceded from the US and form a separate political entity known as the Confederate States of America (CSA).

Usually, this war is portrayed as a fight over the issue of slavery, with the Union supporting its abolishment and the Confederacy favourable to its preservation.

But even though slavery was indeed a central issue in sparking the conflict, the situation was far more complex than a clear-cut black-vs-white clash between conservative and progressist ideals. As a matter of fact, there were also major political, juridical-institutional and …

Enjoy 12 week's access for £12

Get unlimited access to our news, analyses and forecasts

Get unlimited access to our news, analyses and forecasts

Login to your account

If you are already a KJ Member, please login

Login to your account
Scroll to top