Connect with us

Middle East

Libya: Is reconciliation possible?

Published

on

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

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Are The U.S. And Its Partners Losing The Grip On Syria’s North East?

Published

on

The oil-rich province of Deir Ezzor located in Eastern Syria has witnessed another escalation between the local Arab populace and the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Unexpectedly for the SDF and the U.S. military, the protesters have established control over a number of towns, and it seems they are willing to go further.

Sources close to the SDF initially reported that the protesters limited their demands by requesting a solution to a number of minor issues, but soon enough it became evident that it was not the case and the issue – and a major one – was the presence of SDF in the area. The demonstrators were quick to turn from chanting slogans to taking control of towns: in a single day they captured all of Shuhayl, Al-Hawayej, Diban and forced the SDF members to leave before blocking the roads.

The protests were sparked by a series of assassinations of influential leaders of Al-Aqidat and Al-Baqara tribes. Three Deir Ezzor sheikhs were killed in less than a week: Sheikh Suleiman Khalaf al-Kassar from Al-Aqidat was shot in Busayra village July 30. The next day Sheikh Suleiman Al-Weis who belonged to Al-Baqara was shot in the head by two gunmen on a motorcycle in Al-Dahla. Finally, Sheikh Muttshar al-Hamoud al-Hifl was shot in the outskirts of Al-Hawayej on Sunday, August 2. His relative Sheikh Ibrahim al-Hifl was also wounded in the incident but survived.

In a peculiar coincidence, a few weeks before the assassinations the tribal leaders were invited to a meeting with the SDF Commander Mazloum Abdi with the U.S. servicemen also present. The agenda reportedly included co-operation between the tribes and the SDF. It was reported that at least one of the victims, Muttshar al-Hifti, declined to participate and to engage with the Americans.

An insight into the details of these meetings can be gained through the reports about an oil deal allegedly struck by the SDF and a little known American oil developer Delta Crescent LLC. Delta Crescent was granted exclusive rights for production, refinement and export of the oil from Deir Ezzor fields potentially bringing the participants annual profit of hundreds of millions dollars, according to statements made by U.S. officials. The deal was met with harsh response from the Syrian government who labeled it a “deal between thieves”.

According to sources on the ground, the implication is that those who fell victim to the assassinations shared this view and opposed the deal. Their removal, however, has clearly failed to deliver the results intended by the masterminds behind their deaths, yet another time when the Kurds were thrown to the wolves by the U.S. who is accustomed to making their allies bear the consequences of the reckless pursuit of the American interests.

Meanwhile the SDF started to amass forces in the vicinity of the areas shaken by the unrest. The reinforcements sent from Al-Shadadi, Al-Sousa and Baghuz are gathering at the US military base near Al-Omar oil field. Moreover, two US Apache attack helicopters were spotted patrolling the area. These developments combined with lack of report on any negotiations between the protesters and the SDF leadership paint a grim picture, indicating that the SDF likely intends to use force to disperse the protests.

It is not the first time the SDF resorts to the use of force when faced with the discontent of the local populace in north-eastern Syria, although this approach had never brought the desired result. All areas affected by the protests have been subjected to dozens of raids of the SDF and the US special forces. Reports on these operations unfailingly mentioned arrests of ISIS terrorists. They failed to mention, however, what the Pentagon files under the category of “collateral damage” – deaths of civilians killed in the result of the actions of the US military and their allies.

The upheaval in Deir Ezzor is yet another evidence that the SDF, initially an independent movement, has degraded to a tool or a lever of American influence in Syria, and now finds itself fighting consequences instead of locating the root cause of the unrest – widespread corruption among the officials of the Kurdish administration and dramatic deterioration of the living conditions.

The regional turbulence created by Washington’s constantly shifting stance – or rather a lack of stance – on Syria has grown so strong it finally turned against the American interests. The latest escalation in Deir Ezzor should be considered nothing but a byproduct of this ill-designed policy and, perhaps, marks a beginning of the end of the US and SDF hegemony in Syria’s North East.

Continue Reading

Middle East

The Looming Disaster of the Safer Oil Tanker Moored off the Coast of Yemen

Amb. Sahar Ghanem

Published

on

Amidst the raging conflict in Yemen, the challenge of the Safer Oil Tanker emerges as one of the most hazardous risks to the environment safety in the Red Sea as a result of the potential oil spillage in the Red Sea at any moment.

Following expressing deep alarm, the United Nations Security Council called on 29 June,2020, to immediately grant unconditional access for the United Nations technical experts to assess the tanker’s condition without overdue to prevent growing risk of possible rupture, explosion or even spillage.

The threat of the floating Oil Tanker, moored off the coast of Yemen, does not only impose challenges to the geopolitical and strategic importance of the Red Sea, but it rather represents a huge challenge that threatens the environment safety, leading to one of the largest environmental hazards in the world, after the unforgettable 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster in Siberia – Russia.

On 18 July 2019, the United Nations Humanitarian Affairs Coordinator Mr. Mark Lowcock informed the UN Security Council of the growing threats of the deserted Safar Oil Tanker, warning of possible explosion or leakage of its loads [1.14 M barrels of crude oil]. In his briefing on the humanitarian situation in Yemen, he pointed out that such an incident would result to a disastrous crisis to the marine life in the Red Sea and maritime in the straits of Bab-Al Madeb and Suez Canal which are two significant water corridors to the world.

It is known that the Red Sea is home for some scarce invertebrates such as corals and 600 species of fish. Unless preventative measures are taken now and immediately to prevent oil spill or possible tanker explosion, we will concretely witness a disastrous incident leading to severe effect on the Red Sea marine environment, and on both biodiversity and livelihoods starting from Yemen and extending north to Suez Canal through Jobal strait and the Gulf of Suez and south through Bab-Al Madeb strait reaching even Hormoz strait through the Arabian sea.

Environment experts’ projections expect that 115 islands are vulnerable to the risk of oil pollution; 126,000 fishermen will lose their source of income, among them 76,000 fishmen are in Al Hodeidah governorate; 850 tons of fish stocks will be exposed to the danger of contamination and death in Yemen, in the Red Sea and in Bab Al-Mandam; more than 500 fish species are at high risk of disappearing; and 300 corals will certainly disappear as a result.

The problem emerged following the takeover of the Capital Sanaa on 21 September 2014, when Houthi militias implemented unilateral actions inter alia dissolving parliament and taking over Yemen’s government institutions, which have seriously escalated the situation, leading to illegitimate seizure of power “coup d’etat”, and eventually leading to current conflict in Yemen.

The floating storage and its connected offloading terminals have not been inspected or maintained since 2015 after Houthis militias took control of the area including port of Ras Isa to which the floating tanker is connected by terminals extending 9km off the coast of Yemen.

Yemen’s internationally-recognized government has warned in many letters of evident corrosion and lack of maintenance, creating the conditions for serious environmental disaster. The Yemeni government made an urgent call for the UN to send inspection team to scale the risks.

Unfortunately, the UN inspection team was denied access to the floating tanker by the Houthi militias many times. The UN inspection team is tasked with the mission to provide the necessary inspection and put recommendations for the needed maintenance and continuing to create obstacles will refrain the team from reaching the tanker and delivering the urgent inspection.

Lately, the Government of the Republic of Yemen repeated asserting the urgent emergency of the imminent catastrophe of the floating “Safer Oil Tanker”. The government confirmed that “given the critical nature of the aging floating tanker’s situation, on 27 May 2020 leaks have been reported in the tanker causing water leaked into the tanker’s operational machineries raising the possibilities of the tanker rupturing, sinking or even exploding.

Despite urgent fixing of leaking occurred, the deteriorating situation of the tanker threatens continuing eroding. As a result, on 15 July 2020, the UNSC held a session to debate latest urgent developments and called for urgent response to be taken by the Houthi militias as required by the inspection team. It is worth mentioning that the Houthis always show willingness to accept the inspection team just like the assurances made by the Houthis in August 2019 only to be withdrawn right before the inspection team was due to board the tanker.

The Yemeni government has always approved all relevant initiatives recommended by the UN to allow addressing the serious matter and proposing necessary urgent solutions to the Safer oil tanker, as part of the responsibility to the humanitarian and economic measures proposed by the office of the UN Special Envoy Mr. Martin Griffiths and as part of its responsibility to building and sustaining environment safety; however, the Houthi militias continue refusing to allow permissions to the UN inspection team to visit the oil tanker, noting that the situation of the Safer oil tanker is becoming extremely critical more than ever, causing increasing threats of possible oil spillage, tanker sinking and explosion at any moment.

In conclusion, the Safer Oil Tanker is a floating time-bomb and allowing inspection and maintains is the only possible means that will stop a serious catastrophe from happening. If incidents of explosion or even oil spill occur, that will lead to one of the worst man-made environmental disasters in the Red Sea. Action must be taken immediately while we have in hand an opportunity to protect the environments and spare the lives of millions of people in Yemen and the region from a looming tragedy.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Greater Implications of the Iran-China Deal on India

Dhritiman Banerjee

Published

on

Authors: Dhritiman Banerjee and Subarna Mustari*

India entered as a stakeholder in the development of Iran’s Chabahar port in 2016 as part of an India- Afghanistan- Iran trilateral agreement on Establishment of International Transport and Transit Corridor. A landmark strategic victory for India, this agreement not only connected New Delhi with Kabul but also provided India a link to Eurasia through the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). Additionally, it sought to challenge China’s investment in the Gwadar Port in Pakistan as part of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Indian involvement in the Chabahar- Zahedan Railway project therefore has far-reaching implications for New-Delhi’s interests in the Asian geopolitical scenario. However, after Iran’s signing of a landmark investment deal with China earlier this year, we aim to analyze the implications of the deal on India in this article.

The Middle East is particularly important to India because of its vast energy resources. Stephen P. Cohen feels that five factors steer India’s policy in the Middle East namely:

1. Energy Security: India is very reliant on Oil and Gas resources from the Middle East and therefore relations with most of the major suppliers including Iran, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are strategically important to India. And India does not want to become a victim to a sudden increase in Oil and Gas prices or a temporary embargo of these resources as the pipeline from Central Asia to India via Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan is not likely to materialize soon.

2. The Muslim Factor: Although a secular democratic State, India has a very high Muslim population who resonate with countries in the Middle East which brings out the relation between India’s foreign and economic policy on the one hand and domestic politics on the other. This linkage has particularly increased in importance after the passing of the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) by the Modi Government which is thought to be discriminatory against Muslims and has provoked sharp criticism from the international community.

3. The Kashmir Factor: For Indian foreign policy it is of paramount importance that the Middle Eastern States do not interfere in Kashmir or support Pakistan regarding the issue. Therefore it conducts a “sophisticated balance of power diplomacy” in order to contain the spread of Pakistani influence regarding Kashmir and to keep the Kashmir issue out of all discussions.

4. The Israel Factor: India’s recent cultivation of strategic relations with Israel has led to important advancements in the technology, intelligence, and military sectors as well as important leverage in the US but many analysts in India are still skeptical about cultivating close relations with Tel Aviv. Eventually it can be said that a balance between Tel Aviv and Tehran will become an important factor in Indian Foreign Policy.

5. The Non-Proliferation Factor: Because of India’s strategic relations with the US, India does not want to violate American non-proliferation goals in the region. But Indian strategists have had a long history of skepticism regarding American non-proliferation strategies and tactics with skepticism. In fact the Indian leadership was at the forefront in the development of the theoretical case against the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the global non-proliferation regime. In fact, most of the arguments developed by India are now used by Iran and North Korea to justify their opposition to the NPT and therefore India must find a solution to this paradox in the near future as although its record of horizontal proliferation has been very good, it has been an example for States regarding vertical proliferation.  

China’s offer to invest $400 billion in Iranian oil and gas sectors over 25 years tokening a comprehensive trade and military partnership between the two nations is undoubtedly far more beneficial to Iran than India’s promise of a $150 million investment scheme over 10 years. This deal is mutually beneficial for both China and Iran and the Iranian economy reeling under sanctions will get a much needed lifeline. Similarly, China is facing international criticism over its aggressive political and military strategies that include attempts at hegemonizing the South China Sea (SCS) at the cost of the other littoral States, passing a new security law to strengthen its control over Hong Kong and engaging in a border standoff with India in Ladakh. This deal therefore allows China a strategic leverage in the Middle East. China’s strategic decision for such an investment into Iran comes at a notable time – immediately following the Sino-Indian Border Clash of June 2020. Iran’s decision to choose a more lucrative deal from a more lucrative regional partner facing the same extra-regional opponent – the United States – intersects directly with India’s vested security interests in Iran against both China and Pakistan. Furthermore, India’s relations with the United States puts both India and Iran in a very complicated situation with Iran at greater risk of allowing more Chinese presence than India in the region, given the former’s bigger investment and the mutual threat of the United States.

India, compared to China, not only has far less to offer economically to neutral yet strategic prospective allies (Iraq, Iran, and other Gulf nations) in countering China in the West Indian Ocean Region (IOR), but its alliance with the extra-regional United States has compromised Iran’s faith in India as concrete ally. With such a timely investment, China has in one stroke obtained a highly strategic regional ally against the United States in securing its energy concerns, and simultaneously taken the battle directly to Iran where India is attempting to undermine China’s String of Pearls (SOP) strategy (Gwadar Port, Pakistan) through the Chabahar Port.

Furthermore, India’s recent history of erratic dealings in the middle-east, and compliance with the US’s policies in Asia has dipped the region’s confidence in India as a reliable regional partner. China’s already expanding foothold in the middle-east and Africa, and stronger deliverance makes it a better prospective partner for Arab nations who see China as such. In fact, in recent years China’s influence has grown in the region through an increase in economic investment.  Between 2005 and 2019, China has invested over $55 billion in the region according to the AEI’s China Global Investments tracker. Between 2004 and 2014, China also gave financial assistance of $42.8 billion to the region according to Aid Data Research lab. Also for many States in the Middle East, China is their most reliable trade and strategic partner as well as a key source of technology and armed drones. Therefore, it can be claimed that while Iran and China have patterned their foreign policies in such a way that it regionally benefits them against extra-regional influences; India’s current foreign policy narrative accounts to a degree of dependency on extra-regional powers that limits its regional interests of security against its two biggest border rivals – China and Pakistan. Secondly, India’s engagement with the United Sates in the maritime arena remains limited in the eastern side of the Indian Ocean at a time when India needs to increase a collaborative presence on the western side – which, given the unfavorable economic effects of the pandemic and wishful economic management of the Indian Government, leaves room only for clever diplomacy on India’s part. Therefore, Indian dealings in the middle-east and in the West IOR have to be strategically designed with not just extra-regional allies which share the same apprehensions of Chinese presence; but also look to secure greater strategic partnerships with East Asian nations like South Korea and Japan to balance its over-dependence on the United States for energy and geopolitically diversify its defense against China’s SOP doctrine.

India, apart from expedient solidification of its energy, trade, and security interests in the middle-east, has to double-down on its Act East Policy especially with Indonesia and Malaysia. In fact, in this regard it can be said that relations with these two countries, particularly with Indonesia, will be of paramount importance to India. This will help cement India’s claim of a rules based maritime order in the Indo-Pacific in order to check Chinese attempts to hegemonize the region. In this regard, the link between the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the Aceh Province in Indonesia will cement maritime ties between the two countries and help to check Chinese advances near the strait of Malacca through the SOP strategy. However, a major restriction to such collaborations in this regard, would be the persecution of Muslims under the Modi government in India and the religious radicalism prevailing in the country. Another more viable option available to India is the QUAD group consisting of India, US, Australia and Japan. India can use this grouping to not only uphold its claim of a rules based maritime order but also gain a foothold in the SCS region and pose a challenge to China through close alliances with the QUAD and ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations). Therefore, to conclude, it can be said that a new Cold War maybe brewing between India and China which might set to define the very nature of Asian geopolitics in the near future.

* Subarna Mustari is an undergraduate student of Political Science at Bethune College, Kolkata. Her interests lie in Political Science and International Relations as well as in history of war, colonialism and philosophy. She has recently published for Modern Diplomacy.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Southeast Asia1 hour ago

Countering Chinese String of Pearls, India’s ‘Double Fish Hook’ Strategy

India and Indonesia held their defence dialogue between the defence ministers on July 27, 2020 and discussed issues related to...

Middle East3 hours ago

Are The U.S. And Its Partners Losing The Grip On Syria’s North East?

The oil-rich province of Deir Ezzor located in Eastern Syria has witnessed another escalation between the local Arab populace and...

Newsdesk5 hours ago

Niger: World Bank Approves $250 Million to Boost Long-Term Growth

The World Bank Board of Directors today approved a total amount of $250 million in International Development Association (IDA) credit...

Economy7 hours ago

Pandemic Recovery: Three Sudden Surprise Gifts

A new shine across the globe is entering into boardrooms; a new awakening is enforced and a new shift emerges…...

Newsdesk10 hours ago

World Bank releases first comprehensive stock-taking of infrastructure services in Asia

A new World Bank report presents data about infrastructure provision in three key sectors is Asia: road transport, electricity, and...

Newsdesk11 hours ago

Global cooperation is our only choice against COVID-19

With more than 18.5 million cases of COVID-19 reported worldwide as of Thursday, and 700,000 deaths, the UN’s top health...

Middle East13 hours ago

The Looming Disaster of the Safer Oil Tanker Moored off the Coast of Yemen

Amidst the raging conflict in Yemen, the challenge of the Safer Oil Tanker emerges as one of the most hazardous...

Trending