Information

Are there countries the U.S. doesn’t have diplomatic relations with?


The history of American diplomacy stretches back to Ben Franklin, the country’s first diplomat, who helped the 13 colonies form official ties with France in 1778, during the Revolutionary War. Other nations that were among the earliest to make a formal diplomatic alliance with America include the Netherlands (1782), Spain (1783), Britain (1785) and Russia (1809). The U.S. launched its official diplomatic relationship with Brazil in 1824, India in 1946 and China in 1979.

America has formal diplomatic ties with most of the world’s nations, but Iran, North Korea and Bhutan aren’t on that list. After establishing an official relationship with Iran in 1883, the U.S. cut ties with it in April 1980, after Iranian students seized the American Embassy in Tehran the previous November and took 52 U.S. citizens hostage. Meanwhile, the situation between America and North Korea, which has been ruled by three generations of the Kim dynasty since the country’s founding in 1948, has never been cozy. As for Bhutan, it’s never had official diplomatic ties to the U.S. but not because there’s any bad blood between the two. Bhutan, a remote, Buddhist nation in the Himalayas that’s known for its gross national happiness system, gets along fine with America but has no formal relations with it or China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

America’s diplomatic relations with various nations have, of course, gone through rocky patches. For example, the U.S. severed ties with Germany during World War I and again in World War II. In 1991, U.S.-Iraq relations hit the skids amidst the Gulf War, but in 2004 (two years after President George W. Bush famously referred to Iraq as part of the “axis of evil”) diplomatic ties were restored. In 2012, America shuttered its embassy in Syria during the civil war there; in 2014 it ordered the Syrian government to suspend operations at its embassy in Washington, although diplomatic relations didn’t officially end. And in 2015, five decades after the U.S. cut ties with Cuba amidst rising tensions with Fidel Castro’s government, the neighboring nations restored formal relations and reopened embassies in each other’s capital cities.


The Irrelevant Diplomat

The embassy, at least in its traditional form, is facing an existential crisis. The global transformations of the twenty-first century have dramatically changed the way nations practice diplomacy. The rise of digital communications, diminishing resources, and growing security threats all raise the question of whether the traditional embassy is still relevant.

More than half of the developed nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have reduced their diplomatic footprint over the last decade, according to our research at the Lowy Institute, where we have constructed the Global Diplomacy Index, which charts almost 6,000 diplomatic posts across nearly 660 cities around the world. As government budgets shrink, embassies and diplomats seem more like expensive luxuries than political assets. It doesn’t help, of course, that diplomats are stereotyped as overpaid and ineffectual cocktail-circuit regulars and that foreign ministries frequently fail to reflect the times. They generally lack diversity and are slow to embrace innovation, even social media. Australia’s diplomats in Indonesia, for example, were still not using social media in 2010, even though Indonesia is the site of one of its most significant embassies, the largest recipient of Australian aid, and one of its most important neighbors in Asia. Despite being described as a “digital dinosaur” in 2010, the secretary of Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs admitted in 2012 that he still did not consider digital diplomacy a high priority. And with the rising importance of economic diplomacy, governments are more inclined to open trade offices and innovation hubs than embassies. For example, our research indicates that between 2009 and 2015 the United Kingdom’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office shed almost 30 diplomatic missions, while its science and innovation network expanded its coverage from 24 to 28 countries.

Once the government’s eyes and ears abroad, embassies are now usually the slowest way to get information, unable to compete with lightning-fast media reporting and exhaustive country analyses prepared by NGOs and risk consultancies. The digitally connected world allows governments to communicate directly with their counterparts, and some world leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have become prodigious users of Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, speaking to huge domestic and foreign audiences without even telling their embassies.

In some ways, smaller budgets have brought about some much-needed streamlining. In the five years since 2010, the United Kingdom’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office has been forced to shave off $143 million from its annual spending and nearly ten percent of its U.K.-based staff. But the agency’s leaner profile has required it to prioritize and shift resources from its largest European posts, as well as dwindling priorities in Afghanistan and Iraq, to address new crises in Ukraine and West Africa.

Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom are adapting to budget constraints by operating what are in effect joint embassies with other countries. Switzerland shares premises and operating costs with the Netherlands in Oman and with Austria in Los Angeles, California. Canada and the United Kingdom announced plans in 2012 for a number of resource-sharing arrangements, and Canada and Australia have already signed a reciprocal arrangement for representing each other’s interests in Asia, the Pacific, and the Americas. Under a 1986 memorandum of understanding, Canada and Australia agreed to provide citizens of the other country with consular assistance: helping those who are arrested, ill, or hospitalized aiding victims of crime and locating missing family members, among other tasks. They also, importantly, cooperate in crisis response, which is an increasingly significant focus of international exchange between ministries of foreign affairs the world over.

But the biggest threat to the viability of embassies is security. In conflict-ridden countries where information on the ground is scarce, diplomatic posts are crucial, and yet are routinely shuttered when conditions get rough. Most nations have closed their embassies in Libya, Syria, and Yemen because of the conflicts there. Even in less dangerous countries, embassies are mired in security protocols that restrict access by locals and often confine embassy staff and diplomats to semi-safe green zones—hardly a way to get an accurate picture of events on the ground. Indeed, some embassies, particularly American ones, resemble elaborate military bunkers more than diplomatic outposts. They are outfitted with bomb-proof pads and full-service food courts. Of course, these are still the exception. At most embassies, diplomats are free to go about their business, cultivating networks and pursuing their nations’ interests.

All of this doesn’t mean that embassies do not have a significant role to play in foreign relations. There are plenty of reasons why we still need these foreign outposts. They are their nations’ shop fronts: a physical interface between the home nation and the host country. Good diplomats forge relationships with governments that would otherwise be tough to reach they navigate local power dynamics, gather and interpret information, help businesses steer through foreign legislation, and connect with local civil society. Tom Fletcher, U.K. ambassador to Lebanon between 2011 and 2015, confronted a society riven with dysfunctional politics and facing threats at its borders. Yet under his ambassadorship, the United Kingdom helped Lebanon defend its borders and stave off terrorist attacks and supplied vehicles and military infrastructure. Fletcher’s charisma and energy on the ground enabled the United Kingdom to build a stronger and more resilient presence in Lebanon and in the region. On the flip side, the absence of an embassy can be as damaging as its presence can be enabling. The United States’ absence from Tehran for over 30 years certainly made it more difficult for U.S. policymakers to parse developments in that notoriously complex country. And the closure of diplomatic posts in other war zones in the Middle East has severe consequences: it strangles the delivery of humanitarian assistance to populations, hampers support for besieged governments, and makes counterterrorism efforts far harder to implement.

But to survive, embassies will need to adapt.

They could begin by focusing more on adding value to their government’s understanding of a foreign country. Embassies cannot compete with the speed of news organizations and social media, nor should they try to. But they do provide a unique lens for such information, contextualizing and analyzing events with a trained eye toward enhancing their country’s national interest. What a media organization might find newsworthy will be different from what a diplomat judges as an important development for relations between his country and a host nation.

Diversifying embassy workforces will also help. Roughly 60 percent of senior leadership positions in the U.S. State Department, the U.K. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, and Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are held by men. This imbalance limits a nation’s understanding of and engagement with a foreign culture as a whole. Diplomats from a broader spectrum of backgrounds will be able to interact with more diverse segments of society.

Embassies also need to strike a better balance between security concerns and the ability of diplomats to do their job. This is a formidable issue and the consequences of neglecting it are extremely serious, as the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others at the U.S. embassy in Benghazi have shown. But if embassies respond to security threats by cutting themselves off from the societies in which they operate, they might as well turn off the lights and go home. Harnessing new technologies, particularly social media, can help alleviate the impact of cumbersome security restrictions, although it’s a poor substitute for building strong personal connections with locals. Some embassies and diplomats are well versed on this, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Without embassies, building and maintaining useful relationships with other countries would be much harder. There would be no dedicated agency establishing high-level relationships with foreign governments, garnering crucial knowledge about foreign institutions and legislative regimes, or smoothing the path for citizens and businesses in foreign markets. There would be no diplomats to understand local conditions and identify key players. There would be no consular experts trained to help their nationals in distress. Without embassies, crisis response, which relies on established relations with local authorities, would be less effective.

These are among the many reasons why most nations still see the value in having embassies. But whether their numbers dwindle further in the next decade will depend to a large extent on whether embassies can become more nimble and adapt to an increasingly fluid global environment. For a centuries-old institution, that’s not going to be easy.


Which Countries Still Recognize Taiwan? Two More Nations Switch to China In Less Than A Week

Taiwan's few formal diplomatic ties became even fewer this week as it lost the recognition of two more countries that instead chose to establish relations with China.

Rival governments in Taipei and Beijing both view themselves as the rightful leadership of China, with the overwhelming majority of the international community siding with the latter in the decades since its communist forces won a civil war in 1949. On Friday, the tiny Pacific island nation of Kiribati became the latest country to switch to the mainland Chinese leadership, which continues to claim sovereignty over Taiwan.

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen said she and her officials "truly regret the Kiribati government's decision," which the leader described as "to leave the true friend they had in Taiwan to act as China's pawn." Tsai accused China of attempting to influence Taiwan's upcoming election and said "the Taiwanese people will not abandon their determination in the face of China's thuggish oppression."

In Beijing, however, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang told reporters his country "highly commends the decision of the Kiribati government to recognize the one-China principle, sever the so-called 'diplomatic ties' with the Taiwan authorities and re-establish its diplomatic relations with China. He added: "We support Kiribati in making such an important decision as a sovereign and independent country."

Only four days earlier, Taiwan lost another Pacific partner when the Solomon Islands shifted their position. Last week, Tsai welcomed a "delegation of friends" from the fellow island nation and said she "looks forward to expanding bilateral cooperation for mutual benefit in agriculture, healthcare, & education," but on Monday, she announced "we terminated the Republic of China's diplomatic relations with Solomon Islands."

"We sincerely regret and strongly condemn their government's decision to establish diplomatic relations with China," Tsai said. "Over the past few years, China has continually used financial and political pressure to suppress Taiwan's international space. We have responded to these actions with the sternest condemnation as not only a threat to Taiwan, but also a brazen challenge and detriment to the international order."

Again, the mood was different in the mainland, where Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying offered a response that was identical to what Geng would say days later.

"There is but one China in the world, and the government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government that represents the whole of China," Hua said. "Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory. These are basic facts and the universal consensus of the international community. On the basis of the one-China principle, China has established official diplomatic relationships with 178 countries."

After closing its missions in the Solomon Islands and Kiribati, Taiwan would be left with recognition from only 14 out of 193 United Nations member states: Belize, Eswatini, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Tuvalu. The Holy See also recognizes Taiwan.

The U.S. maintained its recognition of Taiwan for three decades after the Chinese civil war, but eventually switched in 1979, eight years after the United Nations granted Beijing China's seat as a permanent member of the Security Council. Washington has continued to uphold informal political ties to Taipei, however, and has continued to provide Taiwan with military assistance, something that has deeply angered China, which has threatened to reunify what it viewed as a renegade province by force, if necessary.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has intensified his country's naval activities, including in the contested Taiwan Strait. He has also offered to reunify Taiwan under the terms of the same "one country, two systems" framework that applies to Hong Kong and Macau, two territories granted semi-autonomous status after being returned by colonizers the United Kingdom and Portugal, respectively, at the end of the 20th century.

Tsai has repeatedly rejected the offer, however, and the system itself has recently come under scrutiny in Hong Kong, where months of protests have threatened to destabilize the financial hub. Though Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam has agreed to withdraw a proposed controversial bill that would allow residents charged with a crime to be extradited to the mainland, increasingly violent demonstrations have demanded her resignation and greater freedoms from Beijing.


56g. Triangular Diplomacy: U.S., USSR, and China


After his takeover in 1949, Mao Zedong's China went unrecognized for years by the United States. China was also barred from the United Nations by an American veto. Instead, the U.S. supported the Chinese Nationalist government in Taiwan.

Unlike his predecessor, Richard Nixon longed to be known for his expertise in foreign policy . Although occupied with the Vietnam War, Nixon also initiated several new trends in American diplomatic relations. Nixon contended that the communist world consisted of two rival powers &mdash the Soviet Union and China. Given the long history of animosity between those two nations, Nixon and his adviser Henry Kissinger , decided to exploit that rivalry to win advantages for the United States. That policy became known as triangular diplomacy.


As part of the Cold War's temporary thaw during the 1970s, Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev agreed to import American wheat into the Soviet Union. The two countries would also agree to a joint space exploration program dubbed Apollo-Soyuz.

The United States had much to offer China. Since Mao Zedong's takeover in 1949, the United States had refused recognition to the communist government. Instead, the Americans pledged support to the Chinese Nationalist government in Taiwan. China was blocked from admission to the United Nations by the American veto, and Taiwan held China's seat on the Security Council.

In June 1971 Kissinger traveled secretly to China to make preparations for a Presidential visit. After Kissinger's return, Nixon surprised everyone by announcing that he would travel to China and meet with Mao Zedong. In February 1972, Nixon toured the Great Wall and drank toasts with Chinese leaders. Soon after, the United States dropped its opposition to Chinese entry in the United Nations and groundwork was laid for the eventual establishment of diplomatic relations.


As President Nixon's national security adviser, Henry Kissinger made a secret trip to arrange the first-ever Presidential visit to China in 1972. He would become Nixon's secretary of state the next year.

As expected, this maneuver caused concern in the Soviet Union. Nixon hoped to establish a détente , or an easing of tensions, with the USSR. In May 1972, Nixon made an equally significant trip to Moscow to support a nuclear arms agreement. The product of this visit was the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I). The United States and the Soviet Union pledged to limit the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles each side would build, and to prevent the development of anti-ballistic missile systems.

Nixon and his Soviet counterpart, Leonid Brezhnev also agreed to a trade deal involving American wheat being shipped to the USSR. The two nations entered into a joint venture in space exploration known as Apollo-Soyuz .

Arguably, Nixon may have been the only president who could have accomplished this arrangement. Anticommunism was raging in the United States. Americans would view with great suspicion any attempts to make peace with either the Soviet Union or China. No one would challenge Nixon's anticommunist credentials, given his reputation as a staunch red-baiter in his early career. His overtures were chiefly accepted by the American public. Although the Cold War still burned hotly across the globe, the efforts of Nixon and Kissinger led to a temporary thaw.


U.S. Relations With Indonesia

Indonesia is a vital partner in the Indo-Pacific Region and U.S.-Indonesia relations have taken on increasing importance. Indonesia is the world’s third largest democracy, largest Muslim-majority country, the seventh-largest economy by purchasing power, and a leader in ASEAN. It possesses the world’s greatest marine biodiversity and its second greatest terrestrial biodiversity. Indonesia also borders the South China Sea, which has the world’s busiest sea lanes — over $5 trillion in cargo and as much as 50 percent of the world’s oil tankers pass through the South China Sea every year. The United States was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with Indonesia in 1949, following its independence from the Netherlands. Indonesia’s democratization and reform process since 1998 has increased its stability and security, and resulted in strengthened U.S.-Indonesia relations. The United States and Indonesia initiated in 2010 a Comprehensive Partnership to foster consistent high-level engagement on democracy and civil society, education, security, resilience and mitigation , maritime, energy, and trade issues, among others. Based on its success, in 2015, the two countries upgraded the relationship to the U.S.-Indonesia Strategic Partnership , extending cooperation to issues of regional and global significance.

U.S. Assistance to Indonesia

Indonesia faces domestic development challenges uneven benefits from democratic and economic progress fragile institutions that lack capacity to adequately address its social service needs economic inequality and risks from environmental degradation. Cooperation extends across a range of key development areas: strengthening education and professional ties, improving governance, strengthening health systems, advancing security, partnering on international issues, and supporting environmental stewardship.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) partners with the Government of Indonesia, to advance shared economic and security interests to reinforce a stable, self-reliant and resilient Indonesia. Through results driven investment, USAID works with the Government of Indonesia, local leaders, the private sector, civil society and other development partners to strengthen a just and accountable democracy, expand basic services, and enhance mutual security and prosperity.

Indonesia’s coral reefs, tropical forests, and mangrove ecosystems support one of the greatest concentrations of biodiversity on earth. Indonesia is at the center of the Coral Triangle, the global epicenter of marine biodiversity, and has the third largest tropical rainforest in the world. However, decades of resource-driven development and illegal land clearance have damaged the country’s unique ecosystems and biodiversity. Illegal, unreported, and unregistered fishing (IUU) results in $3-5 billion in economic losses to Indonesia’s economy, threatening both local livelihoods and global food security. USAID assistance programming supports the Government of Indonesia’s efforts to combat IUU fishing and counter illegal wildlife trafficking, while promoting local efforts to improve land use practices and increasing the amount of renewable energy generated as a proportion of Indonesia’s overall energy production.

In 2018, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) concluded its successful five-year, $474 million compact with the Indonesian government, which aimed to advance renewable energy, improve nutrition to reduce widespread stunting, and modernize Indonesia’s public procurement system.MCC’s Board of Directors also selected Indonesia as eligible to develop a second compact, and MCC and the Indonesian government are working in partnership to identify potential areas for investment for this new program.

The Peace Corps works in underserved and rural schools and communities to help Indonesia reach its education development goals through grassroots people-to-people contact, cultural exchange, and technical skills transfer.

Bilateral Economic Relations

Indonesia, the largest economy in Southeast Asia, has enjoyed steady economic growth over the past decade, averaging between 5-6 percent, with moderate inflation, rising foreign direct investment, and relatively low interest rates. Indonesia’s annual budget deficit is capped at 3 percent of GDP, and the Government of Indonesia lowered its debt-to-GDP ratio from a peak of 100 percent shortly after the Asian financial crisis in 1999 to 30.1 percent in 2018. Indonesia’s growing middle class, strong domestic demand, large and youthful population, and need for new infrastructure makes it an important potential market for U.S. products and investment. U.S. bilateral goods trade with Indonesia totaled more than $29 billion in 2018, while bilateral trade in services totaled an estimated $3.9 billion. Principal U.S. exports to Indonesia include soybeans, aircraft, , mineral fuels, machinery, and cotton. The stock of U.S. foreign direct investment in Indonesia was $11.1 billion in 2018, while Indonesia’s investments in the United States for the same period was $350 million. The United States continues to engage with Indonesia to advance economic reform priorities, such as strengthening the investment climate and reducing barriers to trade, such as protectionist laws, limited infrastructure, and an unevenly applied legal structure.

Indonesia’s Membership in International Organizations

Indonesia and the United States belong to a number of the same international organizations and forums, including the United Nations, ASEAN Regional Forum, the East Asia Summit, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, G-20, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization. Indonesia serves as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 2019 and 2020. Indonesia also cooperates with the United States on issues of regional and global concern such as countering violent extremism, counterterrorism, global peacekeeping operations, maritime security, and health pandemics.

Bilateral Representation

Principal embassy officials are listed in the Department’s Key Officers List.

Indonesia maintains an embassy in the United States at 2020 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 (tel. 202-775-5200).

More information about Indonesia is available from the Department of State and other sources, some of which are listed here:


These 36 Countries Don’t Recognize Israel

The map above shows who does and does not have diplomatic relations with the State of Israel. Currently 36 countries do not recognize and/or have foreign relations with Israel.

This includes 15 states that did at one point in the past but now, for variety of reasons, do not. Interestingly, this includes several Latin American countries.

The following states have never recognized and/or had foreign relations with Israel:

  1. Afghanistan
  2. Algeria
  3. Bangladesh
  4. Bhutan
  5. Brunei
  6. Comoros
  7. Djibouti
  8. Indonesia
  9. Iraq
  10. Kuwait
  11. Lebanon
  12. Libya
  13. Malaysia
  14. North Korea
  15. Pakistan
  16. Saudi Arabia
  17. Somalia
  18. Sudan
  19. Syria
  20. United Arab Emirates
  21. Yemen

The following countries did have relations with Israel at one point in the past. (Time period of relations and reason for breaking them off are in parenthesis):

  1. Bahrain (1996–2000 Second Intifada)
  2. Bolivia (1950–2009 Gaza War)
  3. Chad (1960–1972 solidarity with the Palestinians)
  4. Cuba (1950–1973 Yom Kippur War)
  5. Guinea (1959–1967 unknown but presumable related to 1967 Arab-Israeli war)
  6. Iran (1948–1951, 1953–1979 Islamic revolution in Iran)
  7. Mali (1960–1973 pressure from neighboring countries)
  8. Morocco (1994–2000 Second Intifada)
  9. Mauritania (2000–2009 Gaza War)
  10. Nicaragua (1948–1982, 1992–2010 Gaza flotilla raid)
  11. Niger (1960–1973, 1996–2002 Second Intifada)
  12. Oman (1996–2000 Second Intifada)
  13. Qatar (1996–2009 Gaza War)
  14. Tunisia (1996–2000 Second Intifada)
  15. Venezuela (1950–2009 Gaza War)

Want to learn more about Israel’s history and foreign relations? Then have a look at the following books:

Have any comments about this map? Please leave them in the comments section below:

Comments

Combine it with a map of countries that don’t recognize Palestine. It is roughly the same number, but not the same part of the world.

Because moral equivalence isn’t a fallacy.

Israel is a country. A sovereign state. “Palestine” is a region comprising space in eight countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Nope. “Israel” is an illegitimate, invented “country” inhabited and run by Zionist Jewish supremacist Khazars masquerading as “Semites” who do not belong, nor do they have any history whatsoever in that region.

All countries are “invented” by history, and are legitimized by recognition of their sovereign status on the part of a preponderance of the other sovereign states in the world. Israel has that status. Your irrational hatred for Jews doesn’t obviate that. I recommend you figure out whoever taught you that bigoted nonsense and stop listening to them.

There are people who are indigenous to a region, and people who are not. European Jews are NOT indigenous to the Middle East, and therefore have no right to be there murdering innocent people who ARE indigenous, in order to steal their land. I recconend you find out whoever taught you your extreme arrogance and delusional belief of moral superiority, which are typical for your people, and stop listening to them. But your being a supporter of the most heinously genocidal entity on the planet, I have no reason to believe that you ever will.

Europeans are not indigenous to North and South America.

So you’d say the US, Canada, Brazil, and two dozen other countries don’t exist, based on your false presumptions of legitimacy of nations.

You are misinformed, deluded, and mendacious. Slap your teachers, stop reading the propaganda you have been conditioned to seek out, and stop annoying the internet with your gibberish.

Israel exists only on the maps and minds of ex-colonial powers. Israel is a creation and will cease to exist….. hopefully soon. There is Palestine. Historically there was NEVER a state or even a region called Israel. Israel is the name of Prophet Jacob , and was hijacked by the zionists and used for their entity.

If you live in one of the Arab or moslem countries, then your utmost wishes would be to live in that “fallacy”, in order to enjoy your life and live in dignity that human being are entitled and deserved to, rather than living in fear of saying the wrong word and lose your dignity and your life in any moslem country.
May the Almighty bring peace to your soul and remove the hatred off your mind.
Insha’alla

You say 36 countries but why only 15 on the list?

When will Saudi Arabia recognize Israel? Can’t wait for that day, I’m Saudi Arabian and want peace with Israelis.

Saudi Arabia already recognize Israel. It’s slaughtering and starving to death millions of Yemenis for them. They are also proud partners in butchering the populations and leaders of Syria and Libya. In fact, they are united by their love of gold and common Jewish herritage and roots. Jewish and proud, Jewish and Saud!

Shame on you. You coward dare to mention yourself Arabian.

You are desperate to go to these butchers. Who have murdered millions of innocent people in Philistine.

Very soon, assuming Netanyahu wins the upcoming elections. Informaly rumors say there are close ties already

Amen brother Hijazi. Peace from Israel

It doesnt matter if you recognize israel, is still not a real country, israel is just a THING .

Wether you like Israel or not it’s here to stay.

All the Arabs are our muslims brothers , but they do not have the dare to handle Israel. We are just one country having a lot of problems but still we have controlled India which is a terrorist country and and close ally of Israel.

Ask your aba jaan what we did to you in 1971

Ask you mom how we Pashtoons freed Azad Kashimir. Don’t forget when you cried during Kargil war. 1971 was a mistake done by our so called PM. Unfortunately it was a war with our Bangali brothers, they are still our brothers. You Endians can’t face Pak army at all. Your army is hungry, they have no food, so no match with the world’s strongest Pakistan’s army.

Like Iran cares about you. Iran is the oldest country to exist and it doesn’t need a filth like you to approve what ever you are trying to do

Palestinians never existed as a people before Israel. just a bunch of arabs from neighboring counties that came to work there and stayed.
There’s no single Palestinian leader that was actually born in Palestine.
There are not a few Israelis that were… since the British Palestine Mandate was formed in order to make a Jewish state.
They gave over 70% of Israel to create an Arab Palestinian state… now Jordan. it’s population is over 70% Palestinians.
So… Palestine is Jordan.

Palestinians always existed as a group of people that lived on Palestine. The reason that the Palestinians didnt have a king is because they were always living under a diffrnt occupier from the romans (bzyntines) up until the ottman empire but this doesnt mean that the region(s) were not known by their modern names. You can clearly tell that the region was know as Palestine by simply reading the Belford declaration. Jews came in huge numbers at the beginning of 1921 when the British mandate of Palestine was created.
”Since the Palestinians in Jordan make up 70 % then Jordan is Palestine” this sentence is simply false and ridicules. The reason that the Palestinians are in diaspora (Some jews were also in diaspora before the state of israel) is due to the nakba when Palestinians were ethically cleansed which was caused by Jews ( Which is also why modern day Palestinians that are born are mainly not born in Palestine, 70% of their population has been ethically cleansed and are mainly in diaspora). So NO, Jordan is for the Jordanians and Palestine or modern day Israel is for the Palestinians and Jews.

Why recognise any state? There is only one race the human race. There is no need for a heavenly afterlife as this planet is paradise in our lifetime. Only our fellow humans make the existence of some others sheer Hell.


‘Possible Crime-a-Thon’: Experts Weigh in on Bombshell Trump Org May Be Criminally Charged Next Week

Experts in the legal and journalism world are weighing in on the bombshell news that the Trump Organization “will be criminally charged” and “will have faced criminal charges” by this time next week, according to an on-air report from MSNBC’s Tom Winter reports. The New York Times published a similar report stating charges could come “as soon as next week.”

“An indictment of the Trump Organization could mark the first criminal charges to emerge from an investigation by the Manhattan district attorney into Donald J. Trump and his business dealings,” The Times reports. “The Manhattan district attorney’s office has informed Donald J. Trump’s lawyers that it is considering criminal charges against his family business, the Trump Organization, in connection with fringe benefits the company awarded a top executive, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.”

“TrumpNation” author and Bloomberg Opinion columnist Tim O’Brien calls it a “possible crime-a-thon.”

It’s not just individuals now. The Trump Organization itself could get indicted by the Manhattan DA. A possible crime-a-thon. https://t.co/dEAMjNIqKY

— Tim O’Brien (@TimOBrien) June 25, 2021

David Corn, DC bureau chief of Mother Jones, MSNBC analyst, and co-author of “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump”:

Trump is responsible for the preventable deaths of about 400,000 Americans.

He tried to overturn American democracy.

But he may be nailed for giving a few Trump Organization officials perks on which taxes were not paid.https://t.co/MYDJtrnNe8 pic.twitter.com/7m1W4YvXbV

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) June 25, 2021

MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent and anchor Ari Melber says the charges could potentially bankrupt Trump:

And last week, the former deputy to the current D.A. told me there’s a strong case to indict the whole company:

If they changed valuations, it’s likely Weisselberg led that, and he meets the legal requirement for acting for the company.https://t.co/wC9djFk3VA

— Ari Melber (@AriMelber) June 25, 2021

Bush 43 Chief White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter:

If this suit survives a motion to dismiss, NYC can take Trump’s deposition and ask him questions under oath about what happened on January 6.
Looking forward to it….https://t.co/sVNWXGKq6j

— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) June 22, 2021

Political investigations and impeachment lawyer Ross Garber, teaching at Tulane Law School:

Indicting Trump Org and Weisselberg over fringe benefit tax issues would not be a strong move. Efforts to muscle W into cooperating have failed.
Trump shouldn’t celebrate given ongoing investigations and potential issues w banks.
But could be worse for him https://t.co/CScOulODzH

&mdash Ross Garber (@rossgarber) June 25, 2021

Law professor, former US Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal:


Latest Updates

Yet it is not clear that Paraguay has taken formal steps toward exploring a flip.

Charles Andrew Tang, who heads the China-Paraguay Chamber of Commerce, said he had advised officials at the health ministry this year on the paperwork they would need to fill out to request purchasing Chinese vaccines.

Mr. Tang, who is seen in Paraguay as a key interlocutor with the Chinese government, said it was conceivable that Chinese vaccine manufacturers would sell vaccines to Paraguay even without formal diplomatic relations. But he said the onus was on officials in Paraguay to make the first move.

“If the Paraguayan government would like to speak to China, they can speak to China,” he said. “It’s very simple. China is there, not pressuring Paraguay, not threatening Paraguay.”

Officials in Taiwan recently accused China of using “vaccine diplomacy” to pressure Paraguay to sever ties with Taipei. China’s foreign ministry spokesman, Zhao Lijian, said China was doing nothing of the sort, calling its vaccine deals “completely aboveboard” and humanitarian minded.

“The virus can spread across borders, but mankind’s love also transcends borders,” he told reporters.

This week China’s main Covid-19 vaccine manufacturer, Sinovac, made a gesture that is certain to fuel speculation about Beijing’s plans in Paraguay. The South American soccer federation Conmebol, which is based in Paraguay, said it was receiving a donation of 50,000 doses of CoronaVac, the Covid-19 vaccine produced by Beijing-based Sinovac.

“The leaders of this company have understood the enormous social and cultural value of soccer in South American countries,” the federation’s president, Alejandro Domínguez, said in a statement, calling the donation a “noble gesture.”

Despite all of these signals, Taiwan’s position in Paraguay may be safer than it appears, said Lee McClenny, who served as the U.S. ambassador in Paraguay until last September. While cabinet members and businessmen have pressured President Mario Abdo Benítez to forge ties with China, the Chinese government did not show much interest in getting Paraguay to flip, he said.

“On the ground I didn’t see very effective efforts to make this happen,” Mr. McClenny said.

Besides, Mr. McClenny added, Paraguay’s president takes a special pride in the relationship with Taiwan, which was brokered in the 1950s by his father, who served as the personal secretary to Alfredo Stroessner, the dictator who ran the country for 35 years. And Taiwanese aid has made a major impact in the landlocked, impoverished nation.

“It’s effective and benefits people’s lives in real ways,” Mr. McClenny said about Taiwan’s assistance.

The Biden administration has signaled its unease about the prospect that Paraguay could cut a deal with China. In a phone call with Mr. Abdo Benítez last month, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken urged the Paraguay government to continue to “work with democratic and global partners, including Taiwan, to overcome this global pandemic,” according to a summary of the call provided by the State Department.

That message rankles opposition lawmakers, including the leftist Senator Esperanza Martínez, who served as health minister from 2008 to 2012. Ms. Martínez has long favored establishing relations with China, arguing that Paraguay stands to benefit in the long run by expanding trade. She said Washington’s exhortation was immoral.

“We’re being loyal to people who impose rules on us while we die,” she said. “Our allies are vaccinating people morning, afternoon and night while they block us from getting vaccines, saying we’ll turn into communists.”

Santi Carneri contributed reporting from Asunción Amy Qin from Taipei, Taiwan and Sui-Lee Wee from Singapore.


Diplomats Are Made, Not Born

Diplomacy and politics may go hand in hand, but their partnership isn’t one of equals. It is logical — especially in a democracy — for a country’s diplomacy to serve its political leaders. Sometimes, however, smart leaders allow diplomacy to influence politics.

For that influence to be truly worthwhile, governments around the world must solve an acute problem: Global diplomacy today is not very effective, in part because it is misunderstood and starved of resources. The best diplomacy carries out foreign policy professionally, yet most countries let amateurs practice it.

I’m talking about appointees who receive diplomatic posts thanks only to political connections. To resolve at least some of the many conflicts, disputes and other problems around the world, governments must start building or strengthening professional diplomatic services, providing them with proper training and career development, and giving them all the tools, resources and authority necessary to get the job done.

Few countries come close to this standard today. No one is born with the ability to practice international diplomacy — to manage a country’s relations with other states, understand and engage foreign societies, influence governments and publics, conduct difficult and consequential negotiations, anticipate threats and take advantage of opportunities. These are skills that have to be acquired.

The mantra among career diplomats has long held that on-the-job training — not lessons in a classroom — is the only way to learn how to practice diplomacy. As a result, many countries’ official representatives don’t get anything that resembles proper training before they are posted abroad. They are left to figure things out as they go along, taking months or even years to get a decent grasp of what exactly their job entails.

Some governments have outsourced a big part of diplomats’ work to lobbyists and consultants. Many embassies in Washington use the costly services of public relations firms to do their bidding. At the same time, some of their own employees arrive with barely any knowledge about how Washington works and how to navigate the government bureaucracy. Another recent trend — no doubt following an example of a regrettable American practice — has been to increase political appointments in ambassadorial and other diplomatic posts.

That is a misguided response to the challenges that diplomats are facing. Countries would be much better served in the long run by having an embassy staff that is well prepared and has all necessary tools, and that benefits from continuity and an institutional memory as diplomats pass the torch to their successors.

Some Western officials say that if Ukraine had better-trained and more-effective diplomats, the international community might have inflicted a harsher punishment on Russia for its 2014 annexation of Crimea and its interference in eastern Ukraine. If India, the world’s second most populous country, had a diplomatic service that was more effective, perhaps it could have achieved its goal of winning a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

The German diplomatic service, while one of the best in the world, has suffered from being led by foreign ministers who have doubled as party leaders of the junior partners in successive governing coalitions. The French service, a historical example of excellence, has made significant progress in addressing the lack of diversity in its ranks, but a majority of its most senior diplomats remain white men.

The United States Foreign Service is under assault by the Trump administration, which is driving out dozens of its members and seeking to cut about a third of its budget, resulting in the lowest morale in recent history. The British Foreign Office neglected formal training for its diplomats for decades it finally established a dedicated center in 2015, but it hasn’t instituted mandatory professional development.

With all the history and professionalism of Western European diplomatic services, why were those countries so shocked by and unprepared for the influx of refugees in 2015? Being intimately familiar with conditions, events and trends in foreign countries is an essential part of a diplomat’s job. Most refugees came from conflict zones. Good diplomats should have anticipated those developments and prepared policy analyses and recommendations for their leaders back home.

And why has it been so difficult for the West to exert meaningful influence with Turkey, a NATO member, to prevent what Western officials view as destabilizing actions, such as its current attack on Syrian Kurds? There are certainly many reasons, but insufficient diplomatic skill and creativity are part of the problem.

Chronic underfunding is also crippling the diplomatic services of rising powers, including those of India and Brazil, which are grossly overextended. India, for example, is struggling to run more than 160 missions with 600 diplomats.

Even China has failed to make a sufficient investment in diplomacy, choosing instead to focus almost exclusively on its military, whose budget is almost 20 times bigger than what it spends on foreign affairs. Not surprisingly, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has much less clout in policymaking than its counterparts in other countries.

But most countries do not have proper professional diplomatic services, particularly in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, and even in some parts of Europe and Asia. True, they do have civil servants in their ministries of foreign affairs, some of whom are sent to work in embassies and consulates from time to time. Many of these officials have degrees in international affairs or a related field, and that’s enough for many governments to assume that they can excel in diplomacy.

Some countries offer only initial training to new recruits, and it tends to focus on area studies, such as the politics and economics of geographic regions, as well as foreign languages. Others put a big emphasis on humanities courses, forgetting that the ability to converse at cocktail parties is not as important today as it was in previous decades — and that there are plenty of other places to get that knowledge.

Skills-based training in specific aspects of diplomatic practice that cannot be obtained elsewhere is largely absent. In addition, instead of having their experienced diplomats pass on their expertise to more junior colleagues, countries hire academics or send their employees to take a university course. Of course, many countries don’t even do that.

Only a handful of countries, such as the United States and Germany, have dedicated centers that provide training in skills, though most of it is voluntary and few diplomats take advantage of it. At a time when the White House doesn’t hide its disdain for diplomacy, the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute is hardly a high priority — as with many parts of the department, it doesn’t have a director.

Governments must end the decades-long culture that views diplomacy training and professional development as a luxury — or worse, as unnecessary. On-the-job training should not be overestimated — it works great if one is lucky to have good mentors, but that’s not a given — and formal preparation should not be undervalued. It can save time and money, and more important, with more professional diplomacy, the world might just become less of a mess.


Who Are Israel's Allies?

Israel's closest diplomatic relations are with the United States. The country has diplomatic ties with 157 other countries including Egypt, Jordan and much of the European Union.

The United States is Israel's largest trading partner and provides over 2 billion dollars in annual military assistance to the country. A "Celebrate Israel Parade," claimed by organizers to be the single largest showing of international support for Israel, is held annually in New York in June. Mexico and Canada are also considered strong allies of Israel.

Israel has strained or hostile relations with many countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Israel has a formal peace treaty with Egypt, which has acted as a mediator in a number of unofficial ceasefire agreements between Israeli forces and Palestinians. Israel also has a formal peace treaty with Jordan and the countries have full diplomatic relations.

In Africa, Israel has diplomatic relations with 40 states that are not members of the Arab League.

In Asia, Israel has formal diplomatic relations with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of the Maldives, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It also has some form of positive relationship or dialogue with several other countries in the region, including South Korea and the Philippines.


Watch the video: Foreign Policy: Crash Course Government and Politics #50 (January 2022).