The recent talks between President Vladimir Putin of Russia and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan focused on the commissioning of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline – a major infrastructure project of today: the pipeline is 930 km long, with a capacity of 31,5 bln м3 yearly. According to Gazprom, the Turkish Stream gas is already being pumped to some countries of the European Union, and next on the waiting list are Greece, Bulgaria, Italy, Serbia and Hungary.
Although the launch of the pipeline stands out as an event of tremendous importance for the two countries, one of the top points on the agenda of the talks was the situation in Libya, which has come into the global spotlight again in recent months. The Instanbul meeting took place behind closed doors – no statements were made either before or after it, which triggered doubts as to its effectiveness. However, the negotiations resumed after the launch of the pipeline and were followed by the two leaders’ joint statement.
The overthrow of the Muammar Gaddafi regime with the help of NATO forces split the country. The north-west of Libya is run from Tripoli by the Government of National Accord (GNA) headed by Fayez al-Sarraj, while the eastern part is governed by the nationally elected and thus equally legitimate parliament (the House of Representatives), which has formed its own government. The latter structures are largely under control of Khalifa Haftar, the Commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA). In addition, some sections of the Sahara are so far free from Haftar’s control. Such a situation is quite understandable: Tripolitania (in the west), Cyrenaica (in the east) and Fezzan (in the south) are known since antiquity and were formed into a single state (or rather, a colony) by the Italians in 1934. The centrifugal processes continued even during Gaddafi’s tough rule.
Ankara has been seeking closer ties with Tripoli in recent months. A memorandum on the sea boundary delineation agreement which was signed with the GNA at the end of last year provides Turkey, along with hypothetic geopolitical gains, with a chance to assume, even if slight, control, of the development of natural gas deposits at sea which are claimed by other countries of the Eastern Mediterranean, first of all, by Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and Israel – countries that form the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum. It is no secret that looming behind them is the United States. Besides, considering that the European Union’s position on this issue is pretty tough, Ankara is highly unlikely to run the risk of facing a new aggravation of relations with Europe. This time, Brussels may choose to impose sanctions on Turkey, whose exports and imports are more than 50% dependent on European partners.
The prospect of facing regional isolation in connection with “gas activity”, on the one hand, and plans to intervene in the civil war in Libya (which none of international legal entities seemed to support), on the other, forced Erdogan to look for allies. This explains his unexpected voyage to Tunisia during which he was accompanied by the minister of defense and director of the national intelligence service. Referring to certain mercenaries, Erdogan sort of “justified” the dispatch of Turkish servicemen to Libya.
However, Erdogan failed to win over the Tunisian leadership: after his departure a Tunisian presidential spokesperson said his country would stick to neutrality in relations with Libya. The spokesperson also disavowed Erdogan’s allegations that Turkey had struck a “union” with Tunisia on Libya.
The failure in Tunisia did nothing to discourage the Turkish leader. In the first week of January Turkey’s Supreme National Assembly approved of the president-initiated mandate on the dispatch of Turkish servicemen to Libya. Haftar responded by announcing a general mobilization with a view to “dislodge foreign forces” and prevent Ankara from “bringing back the Ottoman legacy”. On January 5th Erdogan acknowledged the dispatch of Turkish military to Libya, where he said they would engage in “coordination”. Traditionally, every meeting with the Russian president is preceded by the Turkish president’s steps to consolidate his positions – be it expression of reverence to the Atlantic alliance, or a visit to Washington. This time, the tradition was observed as usual.
For many political and economic reasons, Turkey is unlikely to launch a large-scale military operation in Libya. Unlike the last Turkish campaign in Syria, when Turkey’s military activity in a neighboring country seemed natural to most of the electorate (common border, the refugee problem, the “Kurdish threat”), the situation in remote Libya triggers no immediate response in Turks and is thus unlikely to secure their support for a military campaign there, which is fraught with new political tensions. Besides, given that Turkey cannot afford the “luxury” of running two military campaigns at a time, the Turkish contingent is unlikely to be numerous – in all likelihood it is but a “flag demonstration” in the Mediterranean.
Another thing is that unnamed Reuters sources within the Turkish leadership report Ankara’s plans to send hundreds of pro-Turkish militants from Idlib to Libya (according to other sources, they are already there). This sounds quite plausible in view of the close denouement in the Idlib zone. It is these militants’ actions that the Turkish instructors are supposed to “coordinate”.
Ankara’s recent geopolitical initiatives received a cool response from Moscow: on December 26, Dmitry Peskov told reporters: “The situation in Libya is undoubtedly causing a lot of concern, including ours … We believe that any intervention by third countries in Libya is unlikely to contribute to a settlement, but any attempts by third countries to directly contribute to solving the problem and help the parties involved in the conflict to reach a solution are always welcome – international efforts are always supported by the Russian Federation. “
In other words, Moscow, after saying it is against an escalation of the conflict, has de facto invited Ankara to join forces in searching for a solution through diplomatic means.
Three days earlier, on December 23, a Turkish delegation consisting of diplomats, military officials and intelligence officers arrived in Moscow to discuss the situation in Libya and Syria. According to Turkish media, the consultations lasted three days, but, apparently, no solution was produced, and, according to some experts, the discussions were postponed until a face-to-face meeting between the Russian and Turkish leaders. Significantly, these days the main strike of the Haftar army’s December offensive on Tripoli (where the GNA is based, A.I.), has been redirected to Sirte and Misurata, while military operations in the direction of the capital have entered a sluggish phase.
Presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan have made a joint statement reaffirming commitment to the territorial integrity of Libya and stating that stability in the country can be achieved only through an inclusive inter-Libyan dialogue. And most importantly: the two leaders “decided to act as intermediaries and call on all parties involved in the Libyan conflict to stop all military operations as of 00:00 on January 12, declare a lasting ceasefire backed by the necessary measures that must be taken to stabilize the situation on the ground and normalize everyday life in Tripoli and other cities, and immediately sit at the negotiating table in order to put an end to the suffering of the Libyan people and reinstate peace and prosperity in the country. ”
France, Italy and the UN leadership have all made attempts in recent months to secure a ceasefire and arrange a meeting between Haftar and Sarraj, but so far without success. Will Moscow and Ankara be more successful? The chances are there for grabs: Sarraj needs to clinch a deal – the more he moves on, the more he loses in the confrontation with Haftar, who seems to heed recommendations from Moscow, which has established itself as a mediator for a wide variety of conflicting parties in the Middle East.
From our partner International Affairs
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.
Iran unveils new negotiation strategy
While the West is pressuring Iran for a return to the Vienna nuclear talks, the top Iranian diplomat unveiled a new strategy on the talks that could reset the whole negotiation process.
The Iranian parliament held a closed meeting on Sunday at which Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian briefed the lawmakers on a variety of pressing issues including the situation around the stalled nuclear talks between Iran and world powers over reviving the 2015 nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The Iranian foreign ministry didn’t give any details about the session, but some lawmakers offered an important glimpse into the assessment Abdollahian gave to the parliament.
According to these lawmakers, the Iranian foreign ministry addressed many issues ranging from tensions with Azerbaijan to the latest developments in Iranian-Western relations especially with regard to the JCPOA.
On Azerbaijan, Abdollahian has warned Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev against falling into the trap set by Israel, according to Alireza Salimi, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s presiding board who attended the meeting. Salimi also said that the Iranian foreign minister urged Aliyev to not implicate himself in the “Americans’ complexed scheme.”
In addition to Azerbaijan, Abdollahian also addressed the current state of play between Iran and the West regarding the JCPOA.
“Regarding the nuclear talks, the foreign minister explicitly stated that the policy of the Islamic Republic is action for action, and that the Americans must show goodwill and honesty,” Salimi told Fars News on Sunday.
The remarks were in line with Iran’s oft-repeated stance on the JCPOA negotiations. What’s new is that the foreign minister determined Iran’s agenda for talks after they resume.
Salimi quoted Abdollahian as underlining that the United States “must certainly take serious action before the negotiations.”
In addition, the Iranian foreign minister said that Tehran intends to negotiate over what happened since former U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA, not other issues.
By expanding the scope of negotiations, Abdollahian is highly likely to strike a raw nerve in the West. His emphasis on the need to address the developments ensuing the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in May 2018 could signal that the new government of President Ayatollah Seyed Ebrahim Raisi is not going to pick up where the previous government left.
This has been a major concern in European diplomatic circles in the wake of the change of administrations in Iran. In fact, the Europeans and the Biden administration have been, and continue to be, worried about two things in the aftermath of Ayatollah Raisi taking the reins in Tehran; one is he refusing to accept the progress made during six rounds of talks under his predecessor Hassan Rouhani. Second, the possibility that the new government of Ayatollah Raisi would refuse to return to Vienna within a certain period of time.
With Abdollahian speaking of negotiation over developments since Trump’s withdrawal, it seems that the Europeans will have to pray that their concerns would not come true.
Of course, the Iranian foreign ministry has not yet announced that how it would deal with a resumed negotiation. But the European are obviously concerned. Before his recent visit to Tehran to encourage it into returning to Vienna, Deputy Director of the EU Action Service Enrique Mora underlined the need to prick up talks where they left in June, when the last round of nuclear talks was concluded with no agreement.
“Travelling to Tehran where I will meet my counterpart at a critical point in time. As coordinator of the JCPOA, I will raise the urgency to resume #JCPOA negotiations in Vienna. Crucial to pick up talks from where we left last June to continue diplomatic work,” Mora said on Twitter.
Mora failed to obtain a solid commitment from his interlocutors in Tehran on a specific date to resume the Vienna talk, though Iran told him that it will continue talks with the European Union in the next two weeks.
Source: Tehran Times
Montenegro on Course for Stronger Economic Recovery in 2021
The Western Balkans region is rebounding from the COVID-19-induced recession of 2020, thanks to a faster-than-expected recovery in 2021, says...
UNESCO ‘eDNA’ initiative to ‘unlock’ knowledge for biodiversity protection
To understand the richness of biodiversity across World Heritage marine sites, the UN scientific organization launched on Monday a project to protect...
America’s Two-Tiered Justice System
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived...
‘Overzealous’ security services undermining South Sudan peace
State security forces in South Sudan have been responsible for imposing new and potentially arbitrary restrictions against the country’s most prominent civil society leaders, issuing “credible” death threats that have undermined peace...
In highly uneven recovery, global investment flows rebound
After a big drop last year caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, global foreign direct investment (FDI) reached an estimated $852 billion in the...
American submarine mangled in the South China Sea
Tensions in the western Pacific have been simmering for the past many months. The western world led by the United...
Restore sexual, reproductive health rights lost during COVID, rights expert urges
Sexual and reproductive health rights, are human rights, the independent UN expert on the right to health reminded Member States...
Science & Technology3 days ago
U.S. Sanctions Push Huawei to Re-Invent Itself and Look Far into the Future
Americas4 days ago
How terrible the consequences of the Cold War can be
South Asia3 days ago
A Peep into Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s Tricky Relations with Afghan Taliban
Intelligence3 days ago
A More Diverse Force: The Need for Diversity in the U.S. Intelligence Community
Economy3 days ago
Is Myanmar an ethical minefield for multinational corporations?
Finance3 days ago
Early signs of collective progress as banks work to implement the Principles for Responsible Banking
Defense2 days ago
Iran in the SCO: a Forced “Look East” Strategy and an Alternative World Order
East Asia4 days ago
Shared Territorial Concern, Opposition to US Intervention Prompt Russia’s Support to China on Taiwan Question