Why did the Conference on Libya organized by Prime Minister Conte’s government at Villa Igiea in Palermo fail?
Firstly, it was a chaotic and hastily organized Conference, with evident signs of oversimplification, which became evident both in the logistics and in the policy line.
At the time of Presidents Moro, Cossiga and Craxi, the Conference would have certainly been a real success. Why? Because, at that time, Italy still counted much in the Mediterranean region and was taken very seriously by everyone. Italy knew what its interests were, not the usual “seductive attractions” of peace, development, etc. -just to put it in Benedetto Croce’s words.
It would not have been possible for France and Great Britain to pressurize and blackmail Italy to bomb a country, namely Gaddafi’s Libya, which was our always open merchant bank. It was also our strategic partner in the Maghreb region and our military guarantee against the so-called Françafrique and the defender of the equilibria with Egypt and Algeria, as well as the protection of ENI wells from many dangers.
The current Italian government has reduced the Libyan issue to a problem of mere reunification between the two parts, namely Cyrenaica’s area and Tripoli’s area, which is much loved by the United Nations, but no one knows why.
What is missing is the whole Fezzan region, an area of autonomous tribes in which interests intersect with illicit trafficking and with migrant flows. The Fezzan region was controlled by Gaddafi with a very effective system of stick (much) and carrot (sometimes).
It is fully inconceivable to think that all this can disappear thanks to the mere good will and good heart of al-Sarraj in Tripoli or of General Haftar in Benghazi.
Furthermore, a great and so sensitive foreign policy operation is never arranged for the migrant issue alone.
Migrants are above all the result of Great Britain’s and France’s extreme idiocy on Libya and of their desire to oust a “tyrant” (it is their eighteenth-century political rhetoric) that was instead a wonderful asset for the hated Italy.
Certainly, General Haftar could not even accept that Italy was the sole sponsor and funder of the Tripoli Coast Guard, which coordinated the “Operation Nauras” to stop the migrants’ ships and the NGOs that protected them.
One cannot fund either contenders and think that the other is happy with it.
Migrants, however, are a social, political and economic emergency that cannot be the only matter for a peace Conference on Libya.
In fact, for too long in Italy foreign policy has been confused with domestic policy, however without ever getting a grip on either of them.
We should not even forget the fully offensive action on European defence organized on November 12, by President Macron with Presidents Trump and Putin and Chancellor Merkel.
The “European defence” is a huge nonsense invented by the childish President, Emmanuel Macron, who even wanted to merge the French and German armies at the beginning of his term of office.
Some of Cambronne’s words of the other French high military ranks have so far stopped this process, thus preventing the French Armed Forces from merging with the current chronic disaster of the Bundeswehr.
Nevertheless, at the Palermo Conference, Russia was represented by an influential deputy-Minister, Bogdanov.
What did Russia want from the Conference held in Sicily? Obviously a recognition of his new role in the Eastern Mediterranean region.
Russia no longer thinks about the Mediterranean as in the Cold War phase -i.e. to divide it into two areas – but imagines it as a united region and probably under its sole hegemony.
Russia has excellent relations with most African countries, strengthened by economic treaties, whereas this is certainly not the case with the European Union, while the rebellion against the CFA franc on the part of the 14 countries that are forced to adopt it is mounting ever more.
The fact of not having invited China to the Palermo Conference makes us smile.
This oversight is strange. China is the largest trading partner of African countries, with the exception of Swaziland.
A donor country, an investor and a lender.
With a mass of investment throughout Africa, which this year has reached 600 million dollars, in addition to a traditional presence in the infrastructure of Nigeria and Angola which is currently unparalleled.
They are the countries that, together with others, generate the flow of migrants reaching the Libyan coasts. Therefore, the fact of not having invited China is self-destructive.
It would also be interesting to know who is behind the many recruiters of men who can be seen in African squares. Certainly, many Western “operators” and some gangmasters of local leaders, who want to get rid of former convicts and “dangerous masses”.
Hence why China was not invited? For parochialism. Because we cannot imagine how such a huge country can be interested in peace in Africa, and probably we do not know what it wants. Simply China wants the absolute stability of the whole African continent.
But can we ensure it to Africa? No, we cannot. France still has its Operation Barkhane in place between Chad and Mauritania, which serves above all to let migrants move to Libya. Furthermore the North American troops of AFRICOM are everywhere on the Dark Continent with a view to opposing China.
Let us consider also the case of Djibouti, where a new Chinese base was built very close to the US one.
After the phase of economic investment, there will certainly also be the phase of Chinese military positions and I am not so sure that a Chinese base will not come out on the shores of the Maghreb region. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that China is a friend of Israel.
In short, it was real madness to do without the clout and influence of the People’s Republic of China in the Palermo Conference.
Why? Is it because we do not want to annoy America? Needless. Is it because it is too big and hence could say quia sum Leo? The Chinese diplomacy is so subtle that it does not permit such deductions.
As already mentioned, I think that ignorance is at the basis of China’s exclusion from the Conference. In fact, our diplomats come from years of “reforms” that have turned them into mere sales representatives.
They are all obsessed with an economy they do not know – hence they are probably not familiar with the evolution of Chinese business in Africa.
As for France and Great Britain, they came to use the Conference for their own purposes.
The French Foreign Minister, Jean Yves Le Drian, is a widely experienced old Mitterandian Breton.
The organization of the Conference based on bilateral meetings – as established by the regulation – favoured confidential agreements and “covert” meetings. For someone like Le Drian, who is a member of the Grand Orient of France, a covert approach is easy to take. France’s primary interest is to limit ENI’s presence as much as possible and exclude Italy from the African games.
Furthermore, Great Britain has the same style as the United States: they bring democracy somewhere and then, immediately after, they forget about it.
Therefore, bilateral relations were favoured, instead of a general and overall picture, which would have been in Italy’s interest.
It would have been very useful to have a Summit involving all parties, so as to break any stalemate and overcome rejections.
However, the Italian government’s approach was not a foreign policy approach, but a domestic policy one, i.e. to stop the migrant flows.
Hence no other idea for Libya, if not “dialogue” or the usual “peace”.
Platitudes for newspapers. In fact, how is it possible to put together al-Sarraj and General Haftar, who want dominance over coastal and productive Libya implying the usual principle of King Francis I and Emperor Charles V, epitomized by the statement “my brother and I want the same thing”. It was the Duchy of Milan.
Why should al-Sarraj commit suicide-probably only at political level – for General Haftar? Obviously, General Haftar pays heed only to the Russian and French intelligence services, which support him in his actions.
Furthermore, why should we try to achieve the goal of a “United Libya”, when currently no faction has difficulty in just seeing the other?
Let us face reality and state it clearly: the only way to unify Libya is to give a real Rais back to it.
Only those who credibly threaten to have maximum strength and power can stop the smaller forces of insurgency.
Perhaps it would be better if we read Machiavelli’s books more often, instead of those of the heart-rending political scientists.
In short, the Palermo Conference was a good idea – in principle – but organized by a country that was previously a second-class power and, currently, not even that.
Decades of destruction of Italy’s foreign policy, in the period from the end of the so-called “First Republic” to present times, have left their mark. Politicians are now reduced to vociferous tenants or to shortsighted semi literates who are unable to contemplate anything beyond their own national navel.
UAE-Israel relations risk being built on questionable assumptions
A year of diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates and Israel has proven to be mutually beneficial. The question is whether the assumptions underlying the UAE’s initiative that led three other Arab countries to also formalise their relations with the Jewish state will prove to be correct in the medium and long term.
UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed laid out the strategic assumptions underlying his establishment of diplomatic relations, as well as its timing, in a conversation with Joel C. Rosenberg, an American-Israeli evangelical author and activist, 18 months before the announcement.
Mr. Rosenberg’s recounting of that conversation in a just-published book, Enemies and Allies: An Unforgettable Journey inside the Fast-Moving & Immensely Turbulent Modern Middle East, constitutes a rare first-hand public account of the Emirati leader’s thinking.
Mr. Rosenberg’s reporting on his conversation with Prince Mohammed is largely paraphrased by the author rather than backed up with quotes. The UAE’s interest in building good relations with American Evangelicals as part of its effort to garner soft power in the United States and project itself as an icon of religious tolerance, and Mr. Rosenberg’s willingness to serve that purpose, add credibility to the author’s disclosures.
Mr. Rosenberg’s reporting, wittingly or unwittingly, has laid bare the potential longer-term fragility of the relationship that is evident in Prince Mohammed’s timing for the UAE’s recognition of Israel as well as the assumptions on which the Emirates has argued that relations would contribute to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
What emerges is that the UAE and Israel have a geopolitical interest in cooperating to contain Iran and militias in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen that are associated with the Islamic republic. They also reap economic benefit from the formalisation of a relationship that has long existed de facto.
When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however, the implication is that public support for the relationship could prove to be fickle even though comment on social media in a country that tightly polices freedom of expression was dominated by supporters of the Emirati government.
Prominent Emirati political analyst Abdulkhaleq Abdulla described the public backing as “a show of support for the government rather than a show of support for ‘normalization’ (with Israel) as such.” Mr. Abdulla was speaking in May as Israeli warplanes bombarded the Gaza Strip in a conflict, sparked by protests in East Jerusalem, with Hamas, the Islamist group that governs the territory.
He noted that “no matter what your national priorities are at the moment or regional priorities are at the moment, when stuff like this happens, the Palestinian issue comes back and hits you.”
It was this sensitivity that persuaded Prince Mohammed that the door would close on establishing diplomatic relations with Israel without a solution to the Palestinian problem if then Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu were to go ahead with his plans to annex parts of the West Bank occupied by Israel during the 1967 Middle East war.
“The only way to stop Netanyahu from grabbing what the Emiratis saw as Palestinian land was to go full Godfather and make Bibi an offer he couldn’t refuse,” Mr. Rosenberg wrote referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname.
A proposal by the Trump administration that the UAE and other Arab states sign a non-aggression and non-belligerency pact with Israel without establishing diplomatic relations with the Jewish state gave Prince Mohammed the opening to push his plan.
“MbZ was open to the idea, but he now realized it would not be enough to pull Netanyahu away from his desire to annex large swaths of the West Bank. The only way to get what he wanted, MBZ recognized, was to give Netanyahu what he wanted most – full peace, full recognition, full normalization. But MbZ would have to move fast” to pre-empt the Israeli prime minister Mr. Rosenberg summarised, referring to Prince Mohammed by his initials.
Quoting then Emirati minister of state for foreign affairs, Anwar Gargash, rather than Prince Mohammed, Mr. Rosenberg regurgitates hopes publicly expressed by Emirati officials that the establishment of diplomatic relations would reinvigorate moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
The establishment of diplomatic relations promised to be “a 360-degree success, one that goes beyond trade and investment,” Mr. Rosenberg quoted Mr. Gargash as saying.
Emirati economy minister Abdulla Bin Touq said the UAE hoped to boost trade with Israel to US$1 trillion over the next decade. Emirati officials were further banking on the fact that strong cultural and people-to-people ties – absent in Israel’s initial peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan in the 1980s and 1990s – would put flesh on a skeleton of Arab-Israeli relations and ensure that Israel refrains from acts like annexation that would upset the apple cart.
Mr. Netanyahu’s successor, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, has put those hopes to bed. He has unequivocally rejected the notion of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, refused to negotiate peace with the Palestinians during his term, and suggested that the improvement of social and economic conditions would satisfy Palestinian aspirations.
That could prove to be a risky bet given a shift to the right in Israeli public opinion, the growing influence of conservative religious segments of society, and the fact that some 600,000 Israelis who populate settlements built on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem make a two-state solution de facto impossible. That would leave a one-state solution as the only solution.
For that to work, Palestinians would have to buy into Mr. Bennett’s approach that is informed by the concept of “shrinking the conflict” that seeks to marginalise the Palestinian problem, put forward by Micah Goodman, an Israeli academic who chose to build a home in a West Bank settlement.
“Twenty per cent of Israelis are on the extremes, for either withdrawing from the territories or annexing them,” Mr. Goodman says. “The remaining 80 percent who don’t want to rule over the territories or relinquish them don’t have a way to talk about the conflict, so they just don’t think about it. Which is the tragedy of the Israeli center.”
Shrinking the conflict, rather than solving it, is what Mr. Goodman calls “replacing indifference with pragmatism.” He suggests that initiatives such as the creation of corridors between Palestinian enclaves on the West Bank and a border crossing to Jordan “up to the level that the Palestinians feel they are ruling themselves, without the capacity to threaten Israel” would tempt Palestinians to buy into his concept. Mr. Goodman’s plan would ensure, in his words, that Palestinians “don’t get anything like the right of return, a state or Jerusalem.”
Prince Mohammed appears, based on Mr. Rosenberg’s account of his conversations with the UAE leader and other Emirati officials, to have adopted the approach.
“MbZ believed that by breaking the mould and making peace with Israel without giving the Palestinian leadership veto over his freedom of movement, he could open the door for other Arab countries to see the benefits and follow suit,” Mr. Rosenberg wrote.
Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco were quick to follow the UAE’s example. Some 300 Iraqi tribal and religious leaders, activists and former military officers called last week for diplomatic relations with Israel in a gathering in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Erbil.
“Just as we demand that Iraq achieve federalism domestically, we demand that Iraq join the Abraham Accords internationally. We call for full diplomatic relations with Israel and a new policy of mutual development and prosperity,” said Wisam Al-Hardan, a spokesman for the group and onetime tribal militia leader that aligned with the United States to fight al-Qaeda in 2005.
Mr. Rosenberg noted that “as more Arab states normalized relations with Israel, MbZ and his team believed it could create the conditions under which the Palestinians could finally say yes to a comprehensive peace plan of their own with Israel.”
That may prove to be over-optimistic. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly this week, President Mahmoud Abbas warned that the Palestine Authority would withdraw its recognition of Israel and press charges against Israel in the International Criminal Court if Israel did not withdraw in the next year from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and lift the 14-year-long blockade of the Gaza Strip.
The assumption underlying Prince Mohammed’s hopes that Palestinians as well as Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon for that matter, would ultimately fall into line, creates a false equation between most Arab states and those bordering on Israel or under Israeli occupation.
Most Arab states like the UAE have existential issues with Israel that need to be resolved, which makes public opinion the potentially largest constraint on recognition of the Jewish state. There is no doubt that for Palestinians the issue is nothing but existential. The same is true for Jordan that has historic connections to the West Bank and whose population is more than half of Palestinian descent.
Similarly, Lebanon and Syria host large numbers of Palestinian refugees. Syria, moreover, has its own issues with Israel given the latter’s occupation of the Golan Heights since 1967.
Improving the social and economic conditions of the Palestinians are unlikely to satisfy their minimal needs or those of Israel’s immediate neighbours. Not to mention what the accelerated prospect of a de facto one-state solution to the Palestinian problem would mean for an Israel confronted with the choice of being a democratic state in which Palestinians could emerge as a majority or a Jewish state that sheds its democratic character and claim to be inclusive towards its citizens.
Syria: 10 years of war has left at least 350,000 dead
A decade of war in Syria has left more 350,200 people dead, High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet told the Human Rights Council on Friday, noting that this total was an “under-count of the actual number of killings”.
These are a result of a war that spiralled out of the 2011 uprising against President Bashar al-Assad’s rule.
Based on the “rigorous work” of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), she said that the tally, which includes civilians and combatants, is based on “strict methodology” requiring the deceased’s full name, the date of death, and location of the body.
People behind the numbers
In the first official update on the death toll since 2014, Ms. Bachelet informed the Council that more than one in 13 of those who died due to conflict, was a woman – 26,727 in all – and almost one in 13 was a child – a grim total of 27,126 young lives lost.
The Governorate of Aleppo saw the greatest number of documented killings, with 51,731 named individuals.
Other heavy death tolls were recorded in Rural Damascus, 47,483; Homs, 40,986; Idlib, 33,271; Hama, 31,993; and Tartus, 31,369.
“Behind each recorded death was a human being, born free and equal, in dignity and rights”, reminded the High Commissioner.
“We must always make victims’ stories visible, both individually and collectively, because the injustice and horror of each of these deaths should compel us to action.”
More accountability needed
Her office, OHCHR, is processing information on alleged perpetrators, recording victims civilian or combatant status and the type of weapons used, Ms. Bachelet said.
To provide a more complete picture of the scale and impact of the conflict, the UN agency has also established statistical estimation techniques to account for missing data.
The High Commissioner explained that documenting deaths complements efforts to account for missing people and that her office has been helping the families of the missing, to engage with international human rights mechanisms.
Given the vast number of those missing in Syria, Ms. Bachelet echoed her call for an independent mechanism, with a strong international mandate, to “clarify the fate and whereabouts of missing people; identify human remains; and provide support to relatives”.
No end to the violence
Today, the daily lives of the Syrian people remain “scarred by unimaginable suffering”, the UN human rights chief said, adding that they have endured a decade of conflict, face deepening economic crisis and struggle with the impacts of COVID-19.
Extensive destruction of infrastructure has significantly affected the realization of essential economic and social rights, and there is still no end to the violence.
“It is incumbent upon us all to listen to the voices of Syria’s survivors and victims, and to the stories of those who have now fallen silent for ever”, the High Commissioner concluded.
Lessons Learned: US Seek to Salvage their Relations with the Syrian Kurds
The hasty retreat of the US troops from Afghanistan has left a sizeable dent in the reputation of the White House among the American public, in the Middle East and the world in general. Washington was criticised heavily for the betrayal of the Afghan government, which paved the way for Taliban to storm to power.
It’s only natural that such events created a breeding ground for uncertainty among US allies in the region. Some of them started to reevaluate their relationship with the White House after the Afghan fiasco; others were having doubts about the US’ commitment beforehand. Current situation forces Washington to take firm actions to validate their status as a powerhouse in the region. There are indicators that US leadership has found a way to regain trust from its allies starting with Kurdish armed units in Syria.
The Kurds became a key ally to the US in their quest to defeat ISIS in Syria. Washington helped to create the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who consequently established control over oil-rich regions in the north-eastern Syria. However the rapid rise of Kurdish influence triggered discontent from other parties of the Syrian conflict: the Assad government and Turkey, who considers SDF an offshoot of the PKK, designated as a terror group by the Turkish authorities. Under this pretext Ankara conducted three full-scale military operations against the Kurds in spite of its membership in the US led coalition.
Turkey remains a major headache for the US in northern Syria as it obstructs the development of a Kurdish autonomy. US failure to act during the Turkish offensive on Al-Bab and then Afrin is still considered one of the most agonizing experiences in the recent history of American-Kurdish partnership. On the flip side, this relationship had its bright moments. US forces were persistent in their cooperation with the Kurds despite Donald Trump’s efforts to withdraw US military presence from Syria. Furthermore, former Pentagon’s chief James Mattis increased funding of SDF in 2019 to a record high of $300 million.
Although the US cut back its support for the Kurds after proclaiming victory over ISIS, it’s still sufficient for SDF to stay among the most combat-capable forces in Syria. US provide machinery, equipment and ammunition, but most importantly teach the Kurds the skills to profit from their resources. Besides training SDF rank soldiers, the American troops prepare their special forces HAT (Hêzên Antî Teror, Anti-Terror Forces) primarily tasked with establishing security on oil facilities as well as detection and elimination of terrorists. In terms of their equipment they practically hold their own even against US troops. During their operations HAT fighters use standardized weaponry, night goggles and other modern resources.
Regardless of all the US aid military capabilities of SDF have one critical vulnerability, namely the lack of air defense. This weakness is successfully exploited by Turkey who uses their drones to bomb Kurdish positions. For the last couple of months the number of air strikes has significantly increased, which brought SDF to find new methods of deflecting air attacks.
There are good grounds to believe that Washington accommodated their partner’s troubles. Thus a source from an US air-base in Middle-East who asked to keep his name and position anonymous told us that on the 18th of September three combat-capable trainer aircraft T-6 Texan have been deployed to Tell Beydar air-base in Hasakah province, Syria. According to the source American instructors have begun a crash course in air pilotage with the candidates picked form the SDF ranks long before the airplanes arrived to their destination. This is implicitly confirmed by the large shipment of US weaponry, machinery and ammunition to Tell Beydar delivered on the 17th of September that included missiles compatible with Texan aircraft.
The sole presence of airplanes, even trainer aircraft, prompts a change in the already existing power balance. T-6 Texan can be used not only for air cover but also as a counter tool to Turkish “Bayraktar” UAVs especially if US grant Kurds access to intel from the radars situated on US air bases. Ultimately, from Turkey’s standpoint it must look like an attempt from the US military to create PKK’s own air force.
This being said the US are better off using political means rather than military if the goal is to handicap Turkish interests in Syria. The groundwork for this has been laid thanks to a reshuffle in the White House under Biden administration. First came the resignation of former US Special Representative for Syria Engagement James F. Jeffrey infamous for his soft spot for Turkey, who has been openly promoting pro-Turkish views in the White House during his tenure. In addition to the loss of their man in Washington, Turkey has gained a powerful adversary represented by the new National Security Council coordinator for the Middle-East and North Africa Brett McGurk. McGurk is a polar opposite to Jeffrey and has sided with the Kurds on numerous occasions. He is well respected among the leaders of SDF because of his work as Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to counter ISIS.
The only yet the most important question that is yet to be answered is the position of US president Joe Biden. So far Biden’s administration has been avoiding radical shifts regarding its Syria policy. Development of cooperation with the Kurds considering they have proven their reliability might come as a logical solution that will also allow the White House to show their teeth. Washington cannot endure another Afghanistan-like fiasco that will destroy their reputation figuratively and their allies literally. Even with all possible negative outcomes taken into account the enhancement of cooperation with the Kurds outweighs the drawbacks and remains the optimal route for the US.
Study of Diversity Shows Scale of Opportunity in Media and Entertainment Industries
The World Economic Forum’s Power of Media Initiative has compiled a first-of-its-kind compilation of the state of diversity and representation...
Afghanistan and the Quest for Democracy Promotion: Symptoms of Post-Cold War Malaise
The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan should be the first step in a reduced American overseas force posture. Democracy promotion in...
UAE-Israel relations risk being built on questionable assumptions
A year of diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates and Israel has proven to be mutually beneficial. The question...
Afghanistan and Beginning of the Decline of American Power
Has America’s disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan spoiled its global standing? The pictures of retreating American soldiers at Kabul International Airport...
North Korea’s Nuclear Shadow: A Worrisome Expansion
Abstract: The nuclear news from North Korea remains clear and threatening. Ignoring both political warnings and legal prohibitions, Kim Jong...
Russia’s Blueprint For Success in the Middle East
As a tradition in the modern world the Middle East remains unstable. Continuous political turbulence in the region extinguishes all...
India’s view of “terrorism: at the UNGA?
At the recent United Nations’ general Assembly session, India was furious at mention of Kashmir by Pakistan’s prime minister Imran...
Development4 days ago
Demand for Circular Economy Solutions Prompts Business and Government Changes
Urban Development4 days ago
WEF Launches Toolbox of Solutions to Accelerate Decarbonization in Cities
Southeast Asia3 days ago
The Indo-Pacific Conundrum: Why U.S. Plans Are Destined to Fail
Defense3 days ago
Eastern seas after Afghanistan: UK and Australia come to the rescue of the U.S. in a clumsy way
Southeast Asia4 days ago
AUKUS: A Sequela of World War II and US Withdrawal from Afghanistan
Americas4 days ago
Interpreting the Biden Doctrine: The View From Moscow
Middle East3 days ago
Turkish Geopolitics and the Kabul Airport Saga
Middle East3 days ago
The Battle for the Soul of Islam: Will the real reformer of the faith stand up?