On October 11, the US Congress presented a bill aimed at reducing Russian gas supplies to EU (!). According to TASS, the document envisages the allocation of $1 billion to finance projects on the use of new sources of energy in the EU, as well as the provision of diplomatic and technical assistance to the European Union between 2019 and 2023. The bill envisages measures for a number of US government agencies to support private US investment in strategically important energy projects in Central and Eastern Europe.
It also proposes to allocate an annual $5 million for project evaluation and technical seminars for early stage project support. The State Department is advised to ramp up political and diplomatic assistance to certain countries in the development of their energy markets. The draft of the European Energy Security and Diversification Act was submitted by the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on European and regional security cooperation, Ron Johnson, and a fellow subcommittee member, Senator Chris Murphy.
On October 17, Russia’s Deputy Energy Minister Anatoly Yanovsky said that Russia is the only country capable of offering Europe such great volumes of natural gas so cheap, therefore there is no real alternative to pipeline gas coming to Europe from Russia. How realistic are US plans to phase Russia out of the European gas market?
Prerequisites for redrawing the European gas market arose in 2009 with the adoption of the EU’s Third Energy Package. Capitalizing on the fact that the policy of developing alternative sources of energy has led to stagnation or a bigger drop in hydrocarbon imports than expected, the European Union has switched to a strategy of diversifying supplies and, in general, imposing new rules of doing business with supplier countries. Comprehensive measures were later taken to develop a new gas import infrastructure. The past years have seen the integration of individual states’ pipelines via the construction of numerous interconnectors as part of the EU’s effort to make sure that the consumer, not the supplier, dictates the rules in the energy market. As a result, a conflict of interest between the consumer and the supplier has moved from the sphere of purely commercial disputes to the area of political confrontation between countries.
It is no secret that the United States had both geopolitical and economic reasons to encourage the Europeans’ policy, with experts still undecided which of these two reasons was actually prevalent. A more traditional standpoint explains this by the current tendency for the US to return to the world energy market as a potentially significant exporter. The energy boom that started in the US in the mid-2000s, caused by the wide-scale use of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), made the country much less dependent on foreign exports. This simultaneously revived Washington’s claim to be the main regulator (arbiter) of global hydrocarbon markets.
The United States accuses Moscow for its alleged attempts to exert political pressure against the EU and Ukraine as a pretext for its desire to limit Russia’s presence on the European energy market. When meeting with EU leaders in March 2014, US President Barack Obama demanded (!) measures from Brussels that would reduce its energy dependence on Russia. The very same desire is at the core of Washington’s rejection of the Nord Stream 2 project . Last year, the US adopted the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) that allows Washington to impose sanctions on companies participating in the construction of any new gas pipeline. As an alternative to Russian gas, Washington is offering Europeans to buy liquid natural gas (LNG) from the United States. In summer 2017, President Donald Trump unveiled an ambitious plan to make the US the world’s number one gas supplier.
The White House hopes to make America a net exporter to the LNG market by 2020.
Well, these hopes are not entirely ungrounded though. In line with the strategy of increased gas production initiated by President George W. Bush, the US Department of Energy reported in the spring of 2018 that United States had (for the first time in 60 years) reached the net gas export. The growth of shale production allowed the United States to produce 733 billion cubic meters by the end of 2017. Now, according to lenta.ru, America accounts for 21 percent of global gas production, and Russia, for 16 percent.
That being said, there are quite a few hurdles on the way of expanded US gas supplies to Europe. There is a notable energy shortage in the US domestic market. Therefore, it is hard to imagine an effective strategy for seizing foreign energy markets based on increased export of resources that are not in sufficient supply at home. What is the point of selling what you do not have enough yourself, the business weekly Expert wonders. Storms and severe frosts that hit the US in the early 2018 led to increased consumption of natural gas in the country, effectively dashing hopes for exports abroad.
As a result, 2017 gas deliveries to Europe did not exceed 3 billion cubic meters, while Europeans’ gas consumption in 2017 had reached 500 billion cubic meters. Moreover, within the next two or three years the currently high prices in the European gas market may drop due to growing LNG supplies, Reuters reported early this month, citing Norway’s draft budget for 2019.
Any further diversification of sources of gas supply, much talked about in the EU in recent years, will only reinforce this trend. How, in this case, US authorities will manage to convince their energy producers to continue supplies to Europe, where they will have to compete with possibly cheaper Russian or Iranian oil is a big question.
Despite a notable increase in political and sanctions pressure since 2014, in late 2017, Russia accounted for 35 percent of the European gas market. Still, it has had to pay a price for this by making concessions in terms of price and terms of supply. Anticipating a further sanctions squeeze, in late December 2017, Vladimir Putin ordered corrections to the country’s energy security doctrine, the transport strategy for the period until 2030, and also the energy strategy until 2035. He also ordered new projects in the field of LNG where Russia currently occupies a rather modest niche. Russian forecast an over 40 percent increase in global demand for gas by the year 2040. The largest uptick – up to 70 percent – is projected exactly in the LNG trade where competition will obviously heat up.
At the same time, Moscow will need to work out measures to prevent competition between Russian LNG and pipeline gas, Expert believes. This would call for urgent development of technologies and infrastructure in big- and medium-scale gas liquefaction and transportation.
The turn of 2019-2020 could become a turning point for the European gas market. By the end of 2019, the ten-year Russian-Ukrainian gas transit agreement expires. To bolster its position, in 2018-2019, Gazprom plans to complete two gas transportation megaprojects – Nord Stream 2 and Turkish Stream. President Trump’s announcement of entering the market exactly in 2020 may have also factored in the assessment of Gazprom’s future plans and the EU’s next steps to “liberalize” the gas market.
Meanwhile, pragmatically-minded politicians in Europe, primarily in Germany, have consistently been supporting the idea of the entirely economic nature of the second leg of Nord Stream – Nord Stream 2.
On October 12, the Prime Minister of the German Federal State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Manuela Schwezig, posted an article on the website of the weekly Wirtschaftswoche about a steady increase in energy demand in Germany, adding that natural gas is the most efficient way of meeting this demand. She refutes the notion that a new gas pipeline will allegedly make Germany more dependent on Russia. Berlin and Moscow are equally interested in ensuring reliable energy supplies, Schwezig noted. Despite some lingering disagreements between the two, they have shared interests too, including the possibility of an early return to a “close partnership.” She believes that a gradual lifting of sanctions from Russia could also speed up the normalization of relations.
There is one more geostrategic view on what is going on. Many Russian analysts believe that a long-term US strategy is not about a struggle for the gas market (European or even global) as such, but for its transformation by analogy with the current oil market. Washington’s goal is to block as many existing gas pipelines and those still under construction so that the lion’s share of gas is transported by sea in the form of LNG.
This will help ‘‘unpeg’’ gas prices from oil and transform the international gas market into a single whole – global and spot  – where transactions are short-term and made in US dollars to minimize costs and risks. Such reformatting of the market will eventually make it possible to dictate terms to sellers and buyers through exchange rules and Fed policy. This means that the main purpose of the hype that has been going on about the “shale revolution” and “snapping up the world gas market” is to keep the world’s traditional energy market pegged to the US dollar.
Both the aforementioned scenarios are fraught with serious problems for Europe. If Russia halts gas transit via Ukraine from 2020, and all attempts to avoid the blocking of Nord Stream 2 fail, Europe will have to urgently look for alternative suppliers, and US LNG will be the first thing it will have to go for. However, in this case Germany’s economic leadership will be thrown in doubt, and, consequently, the prospects of strengthening the unity of the EU.
If the European Union is to fight for real energy independence, then it will have, among other things, to look for ways to bring down the share of international commodity trade made in US in dollars. In September 2018, the European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, described as “absurd” a situation where 80 percent of the EU’s its energy imports (300 billion Euros a year) are paid for in dollars. Meanwhile, a mere 2 percent Europe’s energy imports come from the United States. Juncker said that the euro should become “an instrument of a new, more sovereign Europe” and promised to “present initiatives to strengthen the international role of the euro.”
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas later came up with a proposal for the EU to have its own system of international payments. To make this happen, European financial authorities will need a greater deal of financial centralization of the EU and a political partner for the European Central Bank in the form of a pan-European Finance Ministry.
In this largely unpredictable and controversial situation, it is necessary to prepare for different scenarios. However, this task per se could further stoke up conflicts between EU members.
Faced with this largely unpredictable and controversial situation, countries need to get ready for different scenarios.
According to one such scenario, by increasing its LNG production and export capacity, the United States can toughen its sanctions on Russia. If and when Washington is ready to replace Russian gas with its LNG, the EU could once again consider restrictions on Russian gas supplies to Europe. According to expert estimates, shale gas liquefaction plants currently under construction in the US, will not be able to produce necessary volumes before 2020 and even 2022. In spite of all sticking points currently existing between the EU and the US, after meeting with President Trump in Washington in July 2018, Jean-Claude Juncker announced the EU’s intention to build “more terminals for importing LNG from the US.”
Another option could be a possible US attempt to impose a price war on Russia. If Washington shows readiness to sell its LNG to Europe at dumping prices, Gazprom would have to engage in an even tougher political and price struggle to keep the European gas market.
First published in our partner International Affairs
-  Nord Stream 2 project envisages the construction of two legs of a gas pipeline to annually deliver 55 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea. The construction’s estimated cost is 9.6 billion Euros. Nord Stream 2 AG acts as the project operator, while Gazprom is the only shareholder. Due to be wrapped up before the end of 2019, Nord Stream 2 is a joint project of Russia’s Gazprom with France’s Engie, Austria’s OMV AG, UK-Dutch Royal Dutch Shell, and Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall, which will finance 50 percent of the construction costs (Deutsche Welle)
-  Spot (business deal) a contract of buying or selling a commodity, security or currency for immediate settlement (payment and delivery) on the spot date, which is normally two business days after the trade date.
Revisiting the Bosnian War
Genocide is not an alien concept to the world nowadays. However, while the reality (and the culprit) is not hard to profile today, history is ridden with massacres that were draped and concealed from the world beyond. Genocides that rivaled the great warfares and were so gruesome that the ring of brutality still pulsates in the historical narrative of humanity. We journey back to one such genocide that was named the most brutish mass slaughter after World War II. We revisit the Bosnian War (1992-95) which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 100,000 innocent Bosnian citizens and displaced millions. The savage nature of the war was such that the war crimes committed constituted a whole new definition to how we describe genocide.
The historical backdrop helps us gauge the complex relations and motivations which resulted in such chaotic warfare to follow suit. Post World War II, the then People’s Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina joined the then Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. Bosnia-Herzegovina became one of the constituent republics of Yugoslavia in 1946 along with other Balkan states including Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. As communism pervaded all over Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina began losing its religion-cultural identity. Since Bosnia-Herzegovina mainly comprised of a Muslim population, later known as the Bosniaks, the spread of socialism resulted in the abolition of many Muslim institutions and traditions. And while the transition to the reformed Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1963 did ease the ethnic pressure, the underlying radical ideology and sentiments never fully subsided.
The Bosniaks started to emerge as the majority demographic of Bosnia and by 1971, the Bosniaks constituted as the single largest component of the entire Bosnia-Herzegovina population. However, the trend of emigration picked up later in the decades; the Serbs and the Croats adding up to their tally throughout most of the 70s and mid-80s. The Bosnian population was characterized as a tripartite society, that is, comprised of three core ethnicities: Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. Till 1991, the ethnic majority of the Bosniaks was heavily diluted down to just 44% while the Serbian emigrants concentrated the Serbian influence; making up 31% of the total Bosnian population.
While on one side of the coin, Bosnia-Herzegovina was being flooded with Serbs inching a way to gain dominance, the Yugoslavian economy was consistently perishing on the other side. While the signs of instability were apparent in the early 80s, the decade was not enough for the economy to revive. In the late 80s, therefore, political dissatisfaction started to take over and multiple nationalist parties began setting camps. The sentiments diffused throughout the expanse of Yugoslavia and nationalists sensed an imminent partition. Bosnia-Herzegovina, like Croatia, followed through with an election in 1990 which resulted in an expected tripartite poll roughly similar to the demographic of Bosnia. The representatives resorted to form a coalition government comprising of Bosniak-Serb-Craot regime sharing turns at the premiership. While the ethnic majority Bosniaks enjoyed the first go at the office, the tensions soon erupted around Bosnia-Herzegovina as Serbs turned increasingly hostile.
The lava erupted in 1991 as the coalition government of Bosnia withered and the Serbian Democratic Party established its separate assembly in Bosnia known as ‘Serbian National Assembly’. The move was in line with a growing sentiment of independence that was paving the dismantling of Yugoslavia. The Serbian Democratic Party long envisioned a dominant Serbian state in the Balkans and was not ready to participate in a rotational government when fighting was erupting in the neighboring states. When Croatia started witnessing violence and the rise of rebels in 1992, the separatist vision of the Serbs was further nourished as the Serbian Democratic Party, under the leadership of Serb Leader Radovan Karadžić, established an autonomous government in the Serb Majority areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The vision and the actions remained docile until the ring of independence was echoed throughout the region. When the European Commission (EC), now known as the European Union (EU), and the United States recognized the independence of both Croatia and Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina found itself in a precarious position. While a safe bet would have been to undergo talks and diplomatic routes to engage the Serbian Democratic Party, the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović failed to realize the early warnings of an uprising. Instead of forging negotiations with the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosniak President resorted to mirror Croatia by organizing a referendum of independence bolstered by both the EC and the US. Even as the referendum was blocked in the Serb autonomous regions of Bosnia, Izetbegović chose to pass through and announced the results. As soon as the Bosnian Independence from Yugoslavia was announced and recognized, fighting erupted throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Bosnian Serbs feared that their long-envisioned plan of establishing the ‘Great Serbia’ in the Balkans was interred which resulted in chaos overtaking most of Bosnia. The blame of the decision, however, was placed largely on the Bosniak president and, by extension, the entire ethnic majority of the Bosniaks. The Bosnian Serbs started to launch attacks in the east of Bosnia; majorly targeting the Bosniak-dominated towns like Foča, Višegrad, and Zvornik. Soon the Bosnian Serb forces were joined by the local paramilitary rebels as well as the Yugoslavian army as the attacks ravaged the towns with large Bosniak populations; swathing the land in the process. The towns were pillaged and pressed into control whilst the local Bosniaks and their Croat counterparts were either displaced, incarcerated, or massacred.
While the frail Bosnian government managed to join hands with the Croatian forces across the border, the resulting offense was not nearly enough as the combination of Serb forces, rebel groups, and the Yugoslavian army took control of almost two-thirds of the Bosnian territory. The Karadžić regime refused to hand over the captured land in the rounds of negotiations. And while the war stagnated, the Bosniak locals left behind in small pockets of war-ravaged areas faced the brunt in the name of revenge and ethnic cleansing.
As Bosniaks and Croats formed a joint federation as the last resort, the Serbian Democratic Party established the Republic Srpska in the captured East, and the military units were given under the command of the Bosnian-Serb General, Ratko Mladic. The notorious general, known as the ‘Butcher of Bosnia’, committed horrifying war crimes including slaughtering the Bosniak locals captured in violence, raping the Bosniak women, and violating the minors in the name of ethnic cleansing exercises. While the United Nations refused to intervene in the war, the plea of the helpless Bosniaks forced the UN to at least deliver humanitarian aid to the oppressed. The most gruesome of all incidents were marked in July 1995, when an UN-declared safe zone, known as Srebrenica, was penetrated by the forces led by Mladic whilst some innocent Bosniaks took refuge. The forces brutally slaughtered the men while raped the women and children. An estimated 7000-8000 Bosniak men were slaughtered in the most grotesque campaign of ethnic cleansing intended to wipe off any trace of Bosniaks from the Serb-controlled territory.
In the aftermath of the barbaric war crimes, NATO undertook airstrikes to target the Bosnian-Serb targets while the Bosniak-Croat offense was launched from the ground. In late 1995, the Bosnian-Serb forces conceded defeat and accepted US-brokered talks. The accords, also known as the ‘Dayton Accords’, resulted in a conclusion to the Bosnian War as international forces were established in the region to enforce compliance. The newly negotiated federalized Bosnia and Herzegovina constituted 51% of the Croat-Bosniak Federation and 49% of the Serb Republic.
The accord, however, was not the end of the unfortunate tale as the trials and international action were soon followed to investigate the crimes against humanity committed during the three-year warfare. While many Serb leaders either died in imprisonment or committed suicide, the malefactor of the Srebrenica Massacre, Ratko Mladic, went into hiding in 2001. However, Mladic was arrested after a decade in 2011 by the Serbian authorities and was tried in the UN-established International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY). The investigation revisited the malicious actions of the former general and in 2017, the ICTY found Ratko Mladic guilty of genocide and war crimes and sentenced him to life in prison. While Mladic appealed for acquittal on the inane grounds of innocence since not he but his subordinates committed the crimes, the UN court recently upheld the decision in finality; closing doors on any further appeals. After 26-years, the world saw despair in the eyes of the 78-year-old Mladic as he joined the fate of his bedfellows while the progeny of the victims gained some closure as the last Bosnian trail was cased on a note of justice.
Greece And Yugoslavia: A Brief History Of Lasting Partitions
Prior to the 1992-1995 Balkan war, the European Community delegated the British and Portugese diplomats, Lord Carrington and Jose Cutileiro, to design a suitable scheme for ethno-religious partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in February 1992 they launched the Lisbon Conference, with the aim of separating Bosnian ethno-religious communities and isolating them into distinct territories. This was the initiation of the process of partition, adopted in all subsequent plans to end the war in Bosnia. However, such a concept was stipulated by Carrington and Cutileiro as the only available when there was no war to end, indeed, no war in sight; and, curiously, it has remained the only concept that the European Community, and then the European Union, has ever tried to apply to Bosnia.
Contrary to the foundations of political theory, sovereignty of the Bosnian state was thus divided, and its parts were transferred to the three ethno-religious communities. The Carrington-Cutileiro maps were tailored to determine the territorial reach of each of these communities. What remained to be done afterwards was their actual physical separation, and that could only be performed by ethnic cleansing, that is, by war and genocide. For, ethno-religiously homogenous territories, as envisaged by Carrington and Cutileiro, could only be created by a mass slaughter and mass expulsion of those who did not fit the prescribed model of ethno-religious homogeneity. The European Community thus created a recipe for the war in Bosnia and for the perpetual post-war instability in the Balkans. Yet, ever since the war broke out, the European diplomatic circles have never ceased claiming that this ‘chaos’ was created by ‘the wild Balkan tribes’, who ‘had always slaughtered each other’. There was also an alternative narrative, disseminated from the same sources, that Russia promoted the programme of ‘Greater Serbia’, which eventually produced the bloodshed in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Facts on the ground, however, do not support either of these narratives. All these ‘tribes’ had peacefully lived for centuries under the Ottoman and Habsburg empires, until nationalist ideas were imported into Serbia and Greece at the beginning of the 19th century. On the other hand, Russia’s influence in the Balkans could never compete with the influence of the Anglo-French axis. The latter’s influence was originally implemented through the channels of Serbian and Greek nationalisms, constructed on the anti-Ottoman/anti-Islamic and anti-Habsburg/anti-Catholic grounds, in accordance with strategic interests of the two West European powers to dismantle the declining empires and transform them into a number of puppet nation-states. In these geopolitical shifts, nationalist ideologies in the Balkans utilized religious identities as the most efficient tool for mobilization of the targeted populations and creation of mutually exclusive and implacable national identities.
The pivotal among these nationalist ideologies has been the Serb one, built on the grounds of Orthodox Christianity, with its permanent anti-Islamic and anti-Catholic agenda. The existence and expansion of Serbia was always explicitly backed by London and Paris – from a semi-autonomous principality within the Ottoman territory in the 1830s and the creation of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1882, through the 1912-13 Balkan wars and World War I, to its expansion into other South Slavic territories in the form of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia), promoted at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919.
Eventually, the Serbian elites – supported by the Anglo-French axis, again – used the dissolution of the communist Yugoslavia as an opportunity for implementation of the 19th-century ‘Greater Serbia’ programme, that is, Serbia’s expansion in all the Yugoslav territories populated by the Orthodox Christians. However, this time ‘Greater Serbia’ was used as a catalyst in a bigger geopolicial reshuffling advocated by the UK and France – the simultaneous implementation of four ethnnically homogenous greater-state projects, including ‘Greater Serbia’ (transferring the Orthodox-populated parts of Bosnia, plus Montenegro and the northern part of Kosovo, to Serbia), ‘Greater Croatia’ (transferring the Catholic-populated parts of Bosnia to Croatia), ‘Greater Albania’ (transferring the Albanian-populated parts of Kosovo and Macedonia to Albania) and ‘Greater Bulgaria’ (transferring the Slavic parts of Macedonia to Bulgaria).
Since 1990s, ethno-religious nationalisms in the Balkans have served only this geopolitical purpose – creation of ethno-religiously homogenous ‘greater’ states, including the disappearance of Bosnia and Macedonia, whose multi-religious and multi-ethnic structure has been labelled by the British foreign policy elites as “the last remnant of the Ottoman Empire“ that needs to be eliminated for good. The only major foreign power that has opposed these geopolitical redesigns is the US, which has advocated the policy of inviolability of the former Yugoslav republics’ borders. Yet, the US has never adopted a consistent policy of nation-building for Bosnia and Macedonia, which would be the only one that could efficiently counter the doctrine of ethno-religious homogeneity promoted by the UK and France and supported by most EU countries.
Failed Diplomacy: A hot tension between Spain and Morocco
An unexpected diplomatic wrong move on the part of the Spanish government through its interference in the Moroccan territorial sovereignty caused diplomatic tension, which may reach a high degree of suspending all diplomatic and strategic partnerships between the two neighboring countries. This diplomatic strain came after Span refused to give any facts to the Moroccan government regarding the reception of the Ibrahim Ghali Leader of separatist of Polisario Front in Spain’s soil under the so-called humanitarian and health reasons. Unfortunately, Irrational justifications from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs didn’t react to true cooperation with Morocco to make a peaceful resolution with their Northern border.
Ghali’s illegal entry to Spain has questioned Madrid’s about the principle of good neighboring agreement, and more importantly the credibility and independence of the Spanish judiciary, and the extent of its actual involvement in promoting the principle of non-impunity, the Spanish government found itself in an awkward position in front of domestic and international public opinion. Thus, Concerning this issue puts the Spanish status of “democracy” and “human rights” to a real test.
In diplomacy, “consensus” signifies the accepted context in which the adjustment of conflicts through negotiation is only the rightful way. The Moroccan-Spanish tension was created by the Algerian government to disrupt Moroccan foreign policy in the North African arena. This crisis is a clear sign that shows the diplomatic contradiction between the Spanish foreign affairs decisions and statements in the name of strengthening relations with a strategic partner “ Morocco ” with which he brings together a set of common interests and priorities, whether it is linked to migration issues, preventing terrorism or pledging unmannerly actions and policies that contradict the requirements of strategic partnership and good friendship.
In effect, this is what the crisis has flamed the diplomatic difficult stages that the relations between the two countries have gone through in recent years. It also brings to mind the Leila Island crisis, which flared up in 2002. When The Kingdom of Morocco determined to delineate its maritime borders, the Socialist Party, which leads the Spanish government, showed its rejection of this move, and in the aftermath of it. Former US President Donald Trump issued a republican decree recognizing the Moroccan Sahara, and Spain openly stated its annoyance with the issue, and its Secretary of State confirmed its rejection of what she labeled as “unilateral trends in international relations”, but she admitted that her country had contacts with the current US president. Joe Biden to push him to change this decision, which caused a great shock in Moroccan public opinion.
Accordingly, many of the Spanish trends in recent decades have raised concerns about any Moroccan military development, and also the breakthrough in the Moroccan Sahara dispute that supports Morocco’s regional and international position, which adds a degree of uncertainty to the relations between the two states, and brings to the international understanding the case future of the occupied cities of Ceuta and Melilla and several other islands particularly the Canary.
In line with these circumstances, Morocco has retained that the Spanish authorities are responsible for worsening diplomatic relations by accepting an adverse person. The humanitarian reasons that justified the reception of the Polisario Front leader Ibrahim Ghali put Spain in a position of a discrepancy, given its denial of the human suffering of many of its victims, and its preference for the security approach in dealing with migration cases. Meanwhile leaving behind a legacy of the human crimes committed by the colonial army in northern Morocco, especially those related to the use of toxic substances, and the resulting destruction in the framework of the Spanish colonial campaign that targeted Morocco in the last of twenties century, it is related to human genocide that falls within the war crimes. Many studies and reports carried out by researchers and non-governmental organizations have shown the prevalence of lung cancer among the population of the region, far exceeding the national rates recorded in this regard, which demands Spain to acknowledge these crimes that do not have a statute of limitations and bear the responsibility for their remnants and consequences.
Certainly, nothing is easy in the field of world politics as the realists argue what Morocco and Spain need from each other are their mutual geopolitical and geo-economical interests? This type of approach is reasonable and also skeptical. Indeed, historically the Kingdom of Morocco and Spain had been on good terms for a few centuries, and during the French colonial era, Spain acted as a natural buffer state between Morocco and colonial France.
Strategically speaking, the Kingdom of Morocco wants to sustain its border areas peaceful and stable in light of its “Strategy on Borders Demarcation” that means while Morocco tries to combine its entente partnership with Spain on the North and pacifying its East coast, it necessarily aims to maintain the convention on border demarcation plans to the West and the maritime route to the South. This is the key of the “SBD” plan initiated by the Moroccan Kingdom since his Majesty Mohmed VI took power. Consider Spain’s strategic setting and political stability, Morocco is sure to endorse the bilateral relations as the two previous Mediterranean partners were signed in Rabat including to reconstruct Morocco—Spain The good neighborliness principle agreements. It will help northern frontiers areas get an alternative transit route and also ease the local economics, as much an important part of the SB as the economic corridor between Morocco and Spain.
Given the Spanish domestic opinion, there is still a positive attitude about long-term cooperation on a strategic partnership among the kingdom of Morocco and Spain, even considering some temporary problems between the two in irregular migration. For instance, at the first Morocco-Spain Immigration and Security meeting on November 20, Spain’s Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska remarked that despite the disputes at the moment, Madrid has a long-standing relationship with Rabat and the current politics would not harm that, because it’s a political situation.
To conclude, diplomacy is a key process based on negotiation, persuasion, and compromise. On the one side, a static and steady Morocco-Spain Strategic relationship is decisive for both and the globe as a whole. To that end, the Kingdom of Morocco has shown its motivation to share with Spain its development experiences, practices, and inclusive security governance approaches. In doing so, geopolitical features should never be the hindrances to Rabat-Madrid strategic cooperation. Rather, Spain could serve as a dynamic bridge between Morocco and EU countries, and Morocco and North Africa.
Kenya Receives $750 million Boost for COVID-19 Recovery Efforts
To reinforce Kenya’s resilient, inclusive and green economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, the World Bank approved $750 million in...
World Bank Supports Croatia’s Firms Hit by COVID-19 Pandemic
Tamara Perko, President of the Management Board of the Croatian Bank for Reconstruction and Development (HBOR) and Elisabetta Capannelli, World...
Assessing the trends of Globalization in the Covid Era
Coronavirus largely represents acceleration in existing globalization trends, rather than a full paradigm shift. Globalization has ebbed and flowed over...
Zimbabwe’s Economy is Set for Recovery, but Key Risks Remain
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in Zimbabwe is projected to reach 3.9 percent in 2021, a significant improvement after a...
Carl Schmitt for the XXI Century
For decades, the scholars of international relations have confused the term “New World order” in the social, political, or economic...
Educating Women in Pakistan: A Necessity For National Development
Education is fundamental to the success of any nation. Almost every developed nation recognizes its importance and lays great emphasis...
How has Russia’s economy fared in the pandemic era?
Authors: Apurva Sanghi, Samuel Freije-Rodriguez, Nithin Umapathi COVID-19 continues to upturn our lives and disrupt economic activity across the world....
Economy2 days ago
Is Bangladesh falling into a China’s Debt-Trap Like Sri-Lanka?
Economy3 days ago
Rare Earth Elements: Elements of the New trade war
Europe2 days ago
Failed Diplomacy: A hot tension between Spain and Morocco
New Social Compact2 days ago
Global Health Security: The need for collective action
East Asia2 days ago
Taiwan: The First and Oldest ‘Thorn’ between China and the West
Intelligence2 days ago
Uranium is being traded freely in the open market in India
Middle East2 days ago
Powershift in Knesset: A Paradigm of Israel’s Political Instability
New Social Compact3 days ago
Sindh Compulsory Marriage Act 2021 in Pakistan