Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which foreign Geopolitical (capital) entity do you most often hear about in your country's media outlets (meaning the one you hear about most other than the one of the country you live in)?
Factors to use are media outlets such as newspapers, television, Internet news sites and live streaming, or even just via the people you talk to on a day-to-day basis. Which of these places have you heard about the most AND which of these places do you hear about most often and frequently?
I may add a poll later on when I see some frequency in the number of times select cities get mentioned but for right now, here is the entire pool of administrative capital cities of sovereign and some un-sovereign "countries" or entities.
Despite the shift in national consciousness in Canada since WWII from the UK and towards the US, we hear more about London and Paris, and even Tokyo, then about DC, because they are major world cities and DC is not.
I read the news every single day about the current events that impact the world on over. I frequently read about certain cities every single day of my life not because I want to but because they are the cities mentioned in the context of the reports that I read everyday. Primarily because news outlets, universally speaking, use the name of the capital city interchangeably with a country's government to talk about new global developments or other sorts of occurrences on a daily basis.
Here's some examples from just today itself.
Quote:
If there is anyone looking for proof of common interests between Israel, Iran and Russia after the nuclear deal was reached between Iran and the global superpowers, one need only look at the Israeli evaluation of the intensified Iranian and Russian involvement in Syria. The Iranian and Russian discourse merged with the Israeli discourse in all matters related to Syria. Iran and Russia are justifying their increased intervention in Syria on the grounds that the world, especially Europe, would benefit from weakening the Sunni Islamic groups that are labelled “terrorist groups”. This would gain support for the Iranian and Russian actions. This same discourse is being promoted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has recently been keen on telling the Europeans that Israel actually acts as Europe’s protective shield against extremist Sunni Islam.
Hence, one would notice that contrary to the usual discourse, there have been many signs of Israel’s approval of Russia and Iran intensifying their roles in Syria, especially Tehran and Moscow’s insistence on helping the regime to maintain its control over the western coastal areas with a large Alawite population. According to Israeli assessments, the Iranian-Russian commitment to keep the coastal areas in the hands of the regime means the that the Israeli dream of dividing Syria into sectarian, doctrinal and ethnic mini-states will be achieved, provided that the first mini-state to be formed is an Alawite mini-state. Achieving such mini-states will forever eliminate Syria from the regional balances of power, freeing up Israel to face other challenges.
At the same time, Israelis are also celebrating because Israel will benefit the most from the Russian-Iranian partnership in the war against Sunni groups. This is because Tel Aviv fears the consequences of these groups’ control over Syria in the wake of the fall of the Syrian regime. Therefore, there is actually an indirect partnership between Iran, Russia, and Israel. On the other hand, if there is anyone concerned with monitoring the disappointments suffered by the Syrian people, all they need to do is listen to the assessments of the Israeli intelligence agency regarding the motives and nature of the increased Iranian and Russian support for Al-Assad’s regime. According to Israeli assessments, the Russians and Iranians decided to do all they could to maintain the regime’s presence and control in the coastal areas with a large Alawite population, since they are areas in which Tehran and Moscow have vital influence. It is worth noting that all the strategic assessment forums in Tel Aviv agreed that Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to rule out any solution to the Syrian problem that is not based on keeping Assad’s regime. This is because keeping the regime would provide the environment necessary to guarantee Russia’s interests.
The visit to Moscow this week by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, his first visit after the nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran was signed in Vienna, is testimony to Russia’s raised diplomatic profile and desire to capitalize on the positive momentum from that deal and maximise its gains.
Tehran’s intentions are similar. As Zarif said in Moscow, “We are confident that the Vienna agreement will have an enormous impact on developing ties between our two countries.” Russia has no objections.
This statement came in the wake of the meeting Lavrov held last week with Syrian opposition leaders while Zarif held talks with al-Assad in Damascus. Defying the West, both sides again dismissed calls for al-Assad to step down as a precondition for the end of the civil war in Syria.
This reactivation of Russian and Iranian diplomacy did not go unnoticed in the United States, where congressmen and senators are expected to vote on the ratification of the Vienna accord. Zarif’s visit took place after a barrage of speculation about an alleged visit in late July to Moscow by Major General Qassim Suleimani, commander of the Iranian paramilitary elite forces, the al Quds.
The rumours had an impact; they brought U.S. critics of the deal with Iran to the barricades.
Since General Suleimani is on the persona non grata list, stipulated in the United Nations travel ban on people linked to Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, opponents of the Vienna deal declared Russia culpable of violating the sanctions regime, which has not yet been lifted.
Moscow denied that Suleimani came to the Russian capital. His rumoured visit made little sense, as one local expert explained, since there are two or even three higher ranking military commanders, to whom General Suleimani is subordinate, who are not on the blacklist and could freely travel to Moscow.
Speaking at a press conference in Moscow, Zarif dismissed these rumours, linking them to the ongoing battle among political clans in Washington. At the core of the debate is the divergence of views on the crucial dilemma: Who stands to win and who will lose from the emergence of Iran without sanctions?
While (US President Barack) Obama’s team has opted for a policy of positive engagement with Iran in view of a possible alignment when the Ayatollah’s rule softens and evolves into a more opportunistic regime, skeptics lambast this approach as illusionary and naïve.
In Moscow, politicians and experts are no less divided on the opportunities offered by the Vienna deal. Igor Morozov, a member of the foreign affairs committee of the Federation Council (the upper house of the Russian parliament) stresses the ambiguity of Moscow’s position: On the one hand, there are plenty of benefits in cooperation in nuclear power generation, on the other hand, Iranian oil and gas sweeping the global markets would further depress prices, reduce Russia’s revenues from energy exports, and have a bearish effect on its national currency.
For Russia, there is also the geopolitical and military dimension of the Vienna deal.
A sharp stock market sell-off that began in Beijing clobbered Wall Street on Monday, sending shares plunging by record amounts amid renewed fears that the global economy is slowing down and world leaders are running out of ways to pump it back up.
“Black Monday,” Chinese state media tweeted as markets there tumbled nearly 8.5 percent. The turmoil drove other Asian indexes down to three-year lows and knocked European markets off by as much as 5 percent. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average plummeted more than 1,000 points — a historic nose dive — just minutes after the opening bell rang. Stocks then staged a dramatic turnaround but stumbled again in the afternoon to close nearly 600 points in the red. The sell-off and ensuing chaos bruised every industry. Some of the biggest U.S. companies have shed tens of billions of dollars in market value in only a few days.
There is no extradition treaty between the U.S. and China. All the same, Beijing would like Washington's help in tracking down its most wanted fugitives -- some of whom have fled to the U.S. with their fortunes.
Take the example of one businessman, Ling Wancheng, who is reported by The New York Times to be on China's list of targets. Ling is the brother of Ling Jihua, a former Chinese official who has been caught in Xi's anti-corruption drive.
Ling Wancheng could be privy to Communist Party secrets, and Beijing would like him back on Chinese soil.
In a sign of possible cooperation, China announced Friday that Yang Jinjun, a fugitive wanted on corruption and bribery charges, had been repatriated from the U.S. after 14 years on the run.
BEIJING — If North Korea launches a rocket into space or conducts a nuclear test in the coming weeks, as observers suspect it may, China is certain to respond angrily, and perhaps with an unprecedented level of economic punishment. The question is whether North Korea can be swayed even by its most important ally.
China, which fought on North Korea’s side in the 1950-53 Korean War and remains its biggest trading partner and source of assistance, is thought to have the most leverage of any nation over Kim Jong Un’s authoritarian country.
Yet the degree of that influence has long been questioned, particularly over the almost four years since Kim took power following the death of his father, Kim Jong Il, who visited China repeatedly and maintained close ties with Beijing.
The younger Kim has yet to make a trip to China or receive any high-ranking Chinese officials in Pyongyang. He snubbed a prestigious military parade in Beijing earlier this month, instead sending an envoy, secretary of the ruling Korean Workers Party Choe Ryong Hae.
Now, North Korean officials have signaled that they could mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of its ruling Workers Party on Oct. 10 with a satellite launch, and announced a restart of atomic-fuel plants that prompted speculation that North Korea is preparing for its fourth nuclear test explosion. Either a nuclear test or a satellite launch would violate U.N. resolutions, the latter because the rocket technology needed can also be used to develop long-range missiles.
China’s response to North Korea’s last declared nuclear test, in the spring of 2013, was considered something of a watershed in degree of harshness. China swiftly joined the international community in condemning the action, called in the North Korean ambassador to protest, and, according to some indications, slowed the flow of goods across their border.
A new nuclear test or rocket firing could lead China to enforce existing and future sanctions more vigorously.
“China will strongly oppose (a test or launch) and will be sure to implement future United Nations resolutions even more resolutely,” said Zhang Liangui, a North Korea expert with the ruling Communist Party’s main research and training institute in Beijing.
Beijing might also consider beefing up its forces along its 1,420-kilometer (880-mile) border with the North, as it was rumored to have done last month during a confrontation between North Korean and South Korean forces.
On the one hand the US State Department has criticized Russia for the construction of an air base in Syria, and on the other the France’s announcement it will carry out air strikes against ISIS in Syria gets no criticism from the US, says political analyst Chris Bambery.
The US has reiterated that it will not cooperate with the Syrian President in fighting against Islamic State. State Department spokesperson John Kirby, also said Washington will pursue its policy to see Bashar Al-Assad step down as the Syrian leader.
Meantime Russia's president has been urging other countries to set aside "double standards and selfishness,” and to unite in defeating Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
These are all examples from what I've read solely today, just today.
The press everywhere around the world uses the name of the capital city to synonymously refer to the specific country's entire government. Through instances such as these, I actually haven't gone a day of my life for at least the last 4-5 years where I haven't read about at least 2-3 administrative capital cities from anywhere in the world (well okay, didn't read about those cities the days I would go camping in no Internet service and cellular phone reception areas).
The cities that I hear and read about most often are Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, Tel-Aviv, London, Paris, Delhi, Berlin, Tokyo, and because of the Syrian Civil War, Damascus too.
Washington; mind you, Canadian news channels/newspapers/news websites don't cover U.S. politics to a huge extent, because Canadians have access to U.S. broadcasts, so we get most of our Washington news straight from U.S. sources. There's often a "top" Washington story of the day, then the broadcast quickly moves on to the other international news.
The foreign capitals that are most likely to come up in Canadian news would be London, Beijing, Berlin, Moscow, Paris, Australia (Canberra itself is rarely mentioned though!), Tel Aviv, Seoul, Tokyo, Rome, New Delhi, Warsaw, Johannesburg, Nairobi. It's hard to say in what order of frequency--I'd have to listen to some news broadcasts and count the references. The top ones are probably London, Berlin, Paris, Beijing, Moscow, and Tel Aviv.
I read the news every single day about the current events that impact the world on over. I frequently read about certain cities every single day of my life not because I want to but because they are the cities mentioned in the context of the reports that I read everyday. Primarily because news outlets, universally speaking, use the name of the capital city interchangeably with a country's government to talk about new global developments or other sorts of occurrences on a daily basis.
Here's some examples from just today itself.
These are all examples from what I've read solely today, just today.
The press everywhere around the world uses the name of the capital city to synonymously refer to the specific country's entire government. Through instances such as these, I actually haven't gone a day of my life for at least the last 4-5 years where I haven't read about at least 2-3 administrative capital cities from anywhere in the world (well okay, didn't read about those cities the days I would go camping in no Internet service and cellular phone reception areas).
The cities that I hear and read about most often are Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, Tel-Aviv, London, Paris, Delhi, Berlin, Tokyo, and because of the Syrian Civil War, Damascus too.
Now that I've read your post, I realize that I'm probably greatly underestimating how frequently we have news about Damascus, Tehran, Baghdad, and Kabul. Daily, certainly.
If the US had its capital and largest city rolled into one then definitely that city would be number one in Canada for the purpose of the OP question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
