On January 30, the Turkish military launched an operation in the Kurdish-controlled Afrin district under a code-name “Olive Branch Operation.” The offensive was against the Kurdish-led Democratic Union Party in Syria.
After the defeat of the Islamic State (ISIS) in eastern Syria in recent months, the remaining takfiri terrorist groups attacked the Eastern Ghouta district, and intensified the sufferings there once again.
Following the clashes between terrorist groups in eastern Damascus with the Syrian army, and the launch of mortars and missiles from extremist groups into the residential areas of the Syrian capital, which killed or wounded many civilians, the Syrian army launched operations to destroy the terrorists.
The blow against the extremists has pushed the West to spread lies and propaganda against the Assad government.
The UN Security Council has held numerous meetings for the so-called ceasefire in the eastern Ghouta, while ironically, more than a month ago, Turkish army launched the attacks in Afrin. So far, the West and the Arab world have kept silent about the killing of Kurdish civilians by the Turkish army, and so has the UN Security Council. Double standards seem to apply.
What is worth noting is that in the latest fights in Eastern Ghouta, Iranian forces, as well as Hezbollah, Fatemiyoun … have never dispatched troops to the area, and the operation has been running by Syrian ground and air forces, backed by Russians.
US, Russia’s stance on Turkey’s invasion of Afrin
In the beginning of the Turkish invasion of Afrin, Kurdish armed groups reached out to the United States for help, but Washington not only did not support the Kurds, but said explicitly that Afrin was not a top priority for the US military.
The gesture proves that the White House had already given the green light to the Turkish army to attack Afrin, so that the US could gain dominance of the eastern region of the Euphrates.
Moscow, too, has taken a hazy stance on Turkey’s Afrin offensive. A few days prior to the invasion of Afrin, Russia withdrew its advisors from the Kurdish region to protect the lives of their citizens.
Russia’s move on Afrin has generated speculation that Moscow and Ankara have reached an “unwritten agreement” in which Turkey, along its border, could occupy an area and establish a security “belt” of 10 kilometers deep in Syria’s Afrin.
However, Turkey’s objectives in Afrin go beyond the “unwritten agreement”. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has stated that he will seek to transfer the Syrian refugees from Turkey to the Afrin area, which would mean a change in the population composition of the Afrin region and the conversion of the Kurdish majority to a minority.
The Damascus government certainly does not agree to the occupation of areas of its territory by Turkey under the pretext of establishing a security belt.
The Kurds, disappointed with the US, have turned to the Syrian government for assistance, pleading with the Syrian army to return to Afrin after seven years of Kurdish domination in the area.
In indirect negotiations between the Syrian government and the Kurdish groups, Damascus has put forward certain conditions to deploy troops to Afrin: the Kurds must hand over their guns to the Syrian state.
To this day, the Kurds have refused to turn in their weapons, and thus the Syria has not deployed units to Afrin.
On the one hand, the Syrian government avoids direct talks with the Kurds, as it does not recognize the legitimacy of Kurdish nationalism, and on the other hand, the area is part of Syria’s territory, and therefore, Syria’s national sovereignty calls for the involvement of its military to keep away foreign forces.
Eastern Ghouta, crises central
Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis and over the past seven years, the Eastern Ghouta has been the focus of terrorists seeking to attack and threaten nearby Damascus.
The new round of clashes in the Eastern Ghouta, however, began this winter because the Syrian army managed to carry out successful operations in northern Hama and in the eastern province of Idlib in December and January.
The liberation of Abu al-Duhour military Airport, in eastern Idlib, the largest Syrian military airport in the north, pushed the terrorists to another front.
The terrorist groups in the Eastern Ghouta, assuming that the Syrian army will not be able to operate in this area, began a new round of attacks by targeting the residential areas of eastern Damascus. Since late February, the severity of the mortar and missile attacks has increased considerably both in terms of volume and geographic extent in Damascus.
The Syrian army, following victories in the eastern province of Idlib, moves some of its forces to relieve Eastern Ghouta. Brigadier General Soheil Hassan (known as Nimr) was commanded by the Russians to transfer their troops from East Idlib to Eastern Ghouta. It was an attempt by the Russians to help secure the capital and, at the same time, compensate for the dissatisfaction of the Syrian government with Russia’s position on Afrin.
With the arrival of Soheil Hassan’s forces in Eastern Ghouta, the Syrian army has targeted the terrorists’ hideouts effectively, in such a way that the East Aleppo liberation scenario may be repeated in the Ghouta.
After the disagreements between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, bloody clashes ensued between Jaysh al-Islam on the one hand, and Falq al-Sham and Jabhat an-Nusra on the other.
The psychological warfare and the western and Arab media propaganda have become so focused on the Eastern Ghouta that the UN Security Council has held several sessions in the last two weeks to establish a ceasefire in the region.
The experience of these types of ceasefires in Syria has proven that the main loser has been the Syrian government, because it complies with ceasefires, but the terrorist groups, in particular the Jabhat an-Nusra, often do not.
With Saturday night’s UNSC resolution calling for a 30-day ceasefire across Syria, including Russia, revealed that Moscow was also under political and media pressure. This may temporarily prevent the Syrian army from moving forward in Eastern Ghouta.
First published in our partner Mehr News Agency
Process to draft Syria constitution begins this week
The process of drafting a new constitution for Syria will begin this week, the UN Special Envoy for the country, Geir Pedersen, said on Sunday at a press conference in Geneva.
Mr. Pedersen was speaking following a meeting with the government and opposition co-chairs of the Syrian Constitutional Committee, who have agreed to start the process for constitutional reform.
The members of its so-called “small body”, tasked with preparing and drafting the Constitution, are in the Swiss city for their sixth round of talks in two years, which begin on Monday.
Their last meeting, held in January, ended without progress, and the UN envoy has been negotiating between the parties on a way forward.
“The two Co-Chairs now agree that we will not only prepare for constitutional reform, but we will prepare and start drafting for constitutional reform,” Mr. Pedersen told journalists.
“So, the new thing this week is that we will actually be starting a drafting process for constitutional reform in Syria.”
The UN continues to support efforts towards a Syrian-owned and led political solution to end more than a decade of war that has killed upwards of 350,000 people and left 13 million in need of humanitarian aid.
An important contribution
The Syrian Constitutional Committee was formed in 2019, comprising 150 men and women, with the Government, the opposition and civil society each nominating 50 people.
This larger group established the 45-member small body, which consists of 15 representatives from each of the three sectors.
For the first time ever, committee co-chairs Ahmad Kuzbari, the Syrian government representative, and Hadi al-Bahra, from the opposition side, met together with Mr. Pedersen on Sunday morning.
He described it as “a substantial and frank discussion on how we are to proceed with the constitutional reform and indeed in detail how we are planning for the week ahead of us.”
Mr. Pedersen told journalists that while the Syrian Constitutional Committee is an important contribution to the political process, “the committee in itself will not be able to solve the Syrian crisis, so we need to come together, with serious work, on the Constitutional Committee, but also address the other aspects of the Syrian crisis.”
North Africa: Is Algeria Weaponizing Airspace and Natural Gas?
In a series of shocking and unintelligible decisions, the Algerian Government closed its airspace to Moroccan military and civilian aircraft on September 22, 2021, banned French military planes from using its airspace on October 3rd, and decided not to renew the contract relative to the Maghreb-Europe gas pipeline, which goes through Morocco and has been up and running since 1996–a contract that comes to end on October 31.
In the case of Morocco, Algeria advanced ‘provocations and hostile’ actions as a reason to shut airspace and end the pipeline contract, a claim that has yet to be substantiated with evidence. Whereas in the case of France, Algeria got angry regarding visa restrictions and comments by French President Emmanuel Macron on the Algerian military grip on power and whether the North African country was a nation prior to French colonization in 1830.
Algeria has had continued tensions with Morocco for decades, over border issues and over the Western Sahara, a territory claimed by Morocco as part of its historical territorial unity, but contested by Algeria which supports an alleged liberation movement that desperately fights for independence since the 1970s.
With France, the relation is even more complex and plagued with memories of colonial exactions and liberation and post-colonial traumas, passions and injuries. France and Algeria have therefore developed, over the post-independence decades, a love-hate attitude that quite often mars otherwise strong economic and social relations.
Algeria has often reacted to the two countries’ alleged ‘misbehavior’ by closing borders –as is the case with Morocco since 1994—or calling its ambassadors for consultations, or even cutting diplomatic relations, as just happened in August when it cut ties with its western neighbor.
But it is the first-time Algeria resorts to the weaponization of energy and airspace. “Weaponization” is a term used in geostrategy to mean the use of goods and commodities, that are mainly destined for civilian use and are beneficial for international trade and the welfare of nations, for geostrategic, political and even military gains. As such “weaponization” is contrary to the spirit of free trade, open borders, and solidarity among nations, values that are at the core of common international action and positive globalization.
Some observers advance continued domestic political and social unrest in Algeria, whereby thousands of Algerians have been taking to the streets for years to demand regime-change and profound political and economic reforms. Instead of positively responding to the demands of Algerians, the government is probably looking for desperate ways to divert attention and cerate foreign enemies as sources of domestic woes. Morocco and France qualify perfectly for the role of national scapegoats.
It may be true also that in the case of Morocco, Algeria is getting nervous at its seeing its Western neighbor become a main trade and investment partner in Africa, a role it can levy to develop diplomatic clout regarding the Western Sahara issue. Algeria has been looking for ways to curb Morocco’s growing influence in Africa for years. A pro-Algerian German expert, by the name of Isabelle Werenfels, a senior fellow in the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, even recommended to the EU to put a halt to Morocco’s pace and economic clout so that Algeria could catch up. Weaponization may be a desperate attempt to hurt the Moroccan economy and curb its dynamism, especially in Africa.
The impact of Algeria’s weaponization of energy and airspace on the Moroccan economy is minimal and on French military presence in Mali is close to insignificant; however, it shows how far a country that has failed to administer the right reforms and to transfer power to democratically elected civilians can go.
In a region, that is beleaguered by threats and challenges of terrorism, organized crime, youth bulge, illegal migration and climate change, you would expect countries like Algeria, with its geographic extension and oil wealth, to be a beacon of peace and cooperation. Weaponization in international relations is inacceptable as it reminds us of an age when bullying and blackmail between nations, was the norm. The people of the two countries, which share the same history, language and ethnic fabric, will need natural gas and unrestricted travel to prosper and grow and overcome adversity; using energy and airspace as weapons is at odds with the dreams of millions of young people in Algeria and Morocco that aspire for a brighter future in an otherwise gloomy economic landscape. Please don’t shatter those dreams!
Breaking The Line of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
The conflict between Israel-Palestine is a prolonged conflict and has become a major problem, especially in the Middle East region.
A series of ceasefires and peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine that occurred repeatedly did not really “normalize” the relationship between the two parties.
In order to end the conflict, a number of parties consider that the two-state solution is the best approach to create two independent and coexistent states. Although a number of other parties disagreed with the proposal, and instead proposed a one-state solution, combining Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip into one big state.
Throughout the period of stalemate reaching an ideal solution, the construction and expansion of settlements carried out illegally by Israel in the Palestinian territories, especially the West Bank and East Jerusalem, also continued without stopping and actually made the prospect of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis increasingly eroded, and this could jeopardize any solutions.
The attempted forced eviction in the Sheikh Jarrah district, which became one of the sources of the conflict in May 2021, for example, is an example of how Israel has designed a system to be able to change the demographics of its territory by continuing to annex or “occupy” extensively in the East Jerusalem area. This is also done in other areas, including the West Bank.
In fact, Israel’s “occupation” of the eastern part of Jerusalem which began at the end of the 1967 war, is an act that has never received international recognition.
This is also confirmed in a number of resolutions issued by the UN Security Council Numbers 242, 252, 267, 298, 476, 478, 672, 681, 692, 726, 799, 2334 and also United Nations General Assembly Resolutions Number 2253, 55/130, 60/104, 70/89, 71/96, A/72/L.11 and A/ES-10/L.22 and supported by the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004 on Legal Consequences of The Construction of A Wall in The Occupied Palestine Territory which states that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territories under Israeli “occupation”.
1 or 2 country solution
Back to the issue of the two-state solution or the one-state solution that the author mentioned earlier. The author considers that the one-state solution does not seem to be the right choice.
Facts on the ground show how Israel has implemented a policy of “apartheid” that is so harsh against Palestinians. so that the one-state solution will further legitimize the policy and make Israel more dominant. In addition, there is another consideration that cannot be ignored that Israel and Palestine are 2 parties with very different and conflicting political and cultural identities that are difficult to reconcile.
Meanwhile, the idea of a two-state solution is an idea that is also difficult to implement. Because the idea still seems too abstract, especially on one thing that is very fundamental and becomes the core of the Israel-Palestine conflict, namely the “division” of territory between Israel and Palestine.
This is also what makes it difficult for Israel-Palestine to be able to break the line of conflict between them and repeatedly put them back into the status quo which is not a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The status quo, is in fact a way for Israel to continue to “annex” more Palestinian territories by establishing widespread and systematic illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Today, more than 600,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
In fact, a number of resolutions issued by the UN Security Council have explicitly and explicitly called for Israel to end the expansion of Israeli settlement construction in the occupied territory and require recognition of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the region.
Thus, all efforts and actions of Israel both legislatively and administratively that can cause changes in the status and demographic composition in East Jerusalem and the West Bank must continue to be condemned. Because this is a violation of the provisions of international law.
To find a solution to the conflict, it is necessary to look back at the core of the conflict that the author has mentioned earlier, and the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to encourage Israel to immediately end the “occupation” that it began in 1967, and return the settlements to the pre-Islamic borders 1967 In accordance with UN Security Council resolution No. 242.
But the question is, who can stop the illegal Israeli settlements in the East Jerusalem and West Bank areas that violate the Palestinian territories?
In this condition, international political will is needed from countries in the world, to continue to urge Israel to comply with the provisions of international law, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and also the UN Security Council Resolutions.
At the same time, the international community must be able to encourage the United Nations, especially the United Nations Security Council, as the organ that has the main responsibility for maintaining and creating world peace and security based on Article 24 of the United Nations Charter to take constructive and effective steps in order to enforce all United Nations Resolutions, and dare to sanction violations committed by Israel, and also ensure that Palestinian rights are important to protect.
So, do not let this weak enforcement of international law become an external factor that also “perpetuates” the cycle of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It will demonstrate that John Austin was correct when he stated that international law is only positive morality and not real law.
And in the end, the most fundamental thing is that the blockade, illegal development, violence, and violations of international law must end. Because the ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict is only a temporary solution to the conflict.
Plastic pollution on course to double by 2030
Plastic pollution in oceans and other bodies of water continues to grow sharply and could more than double by 2030, according to an assessment released on Thursday by the UN Environment...
Global Warming And COP26: Issues And Politics
The president’s massive social services and infrastructure package is under consideration by Congress. The problem is Senator Joe Manchin, a...
The End of the West in Self-annihilation (Intentionality, Directionality and Outcome)
A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.-Definition of Health,...
Women in leadership ‘must be the norm’
We can no longer exclude half of humanity from international peace and security matters, the UN chief told the Security...
Maximizing Nickel as Renewable Energy Resource and Strengthening Diplomacy Role
Authors: Nani Septianie and Ramadhan Dwi Saputra* The development of the times and technology, the use of energy in the...
To Prevent a Nuclear War: America’s Overriding Policy Imperative
Abstract: Though current US defense policy centers on matters of conventional war and terrorism, other problems remain more existentially worrisome....
Gender Mainstreaming and the Development of three Models
The field of gender mainstreaming plays a central role in the debate of critical feminist International Relations (IR) theorists. Reading...
Science & Technology3 days ago
China beats the USA in Artificial Intelligence and international awards
Defense2 days ago
American submarine mangled in the South China Sea
Middle East3 days ago
North Africa: Is Algeria Weaponizing Airspace and Natural Gas?
Middle East4 days ago
Breaking The Line of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Americas3 days ago
Iran poll contains different messages for Biden and Raisi
South Asia4 days ago
Changing complexion of “militancy” in the occupied Kashmir
Americas3 days ago
Gallup: World’s Approval of U.S. Govt. Restored to Obama’s Record High
Americas3 days ago
Biden’s Department of Justice: parents as domestic terrorists