Connect with us

Middle East

Restoration of Syria: Words and deeds

Published

on

On July 1st leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran gathered for the next summit on Syrian settlement. Given the pandemic, the summit was held on-line, in the format of a video conference.

In their closing statement the leaders of the three countries – Vladimir Putin, Hassan Rouhani and Recep Tayyip Erdogan – underscored the importance of complying with the principles of sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria and condemned any attempts to create “a new reality, …..including illegal initiatives to establish self-rule” in some areas, namely, in the territory off the Euphrates River.

The participants in the conference discussed efforts to be taken to restore the country. Fortunately, the conditions for it were ripe, Vladimir Putin said: «The level of violence in Syria has declined considerably, life is gradually coming to normal, and the most important thing is that there are all prerequisites for a sustainable political and diplomatic settlement on the basis of Resolution 2254 of the Un Security Council». Considering this, the presidents of three countries “urged the international community, particularly the UN and its humanitarian agencies, to boost their assistance to all Syrians without discrimination, politization or preliminary conditions».

Restoration of war-ravaged Syria acquires an ever greater urgency, for a successful political settlement is unachievable without rebuilding the country’s economy and infrastructure. As the conflict continues, the volume of resources needed for the country’s reconstruction is all but growing. According to the United Nations, the cost of restoration will amount to some 250 billion dollars, which is four times more than Syria’s annual GDP before the war. Two years ago Bashar Assad, in turn, estimated the amount needed at 400 billion.

Hypothetical investors comprise the European Union and the rich Arab countries. But neither the former nor the latter is rushing to invest heftily, limiting their assistance to moderate humanitarian aid. Both western and Arab investors prefer de facto independent Trans-Euphratia, which, naturally, finds no understanding with Damascus.

As for Syria as a whole, Europeans make the assistance conditional on cessation of military operations, and, first of all, on the much-needed political reforms. Unlike before, when the West insisted on a change of political regime, now they talk about its greater democratization in line with European standards. Whether such a change of political paradigm is practicable amid  the ongoing war with terrorism is unclear. What is meant is yet again the removal of Bashar Assad from the country’s political landscape.

The position of the United States on Syria is particularly tough and aggressive. Washington continues to believe that the tactic of exerting maximum pressure will work well, both in the case of Tehran, and with Damascus.  The United States will render humanitarian assistance to the destroyed areas of Syria that are under control of the central government only after the launch of irreversible political reforms,  US Special Representative for Syria James Jeffrey said in November 2019, adding that the US will continue to work with the allies so that they pursue an identical policy.

In the middle of June Washington, following the standard pattern, tightened economic sanctions yet again, as part of the Syria Civilian Protection Act, known as the Caesar Act. A total of 39 physical and legal persons in Syria, including the country’s president, fell under the sanctions. In addition, from now on restrictive measures can be introduced against companies and business people that cooperate with Syria, and with Russian and Iranian commercial organizations operating on the territory of Syria.

China has described the new US sanctions as “inhuman” while Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, said that the Caesar Act is aimed at overthrowing Syria’s legitimate authorities. But when did Donald Trump listen to what is said? As a result, experts of analytical group Stratfor conclude: «The newly introduced American sanctions against the Syrian government are set to prevent Damascus from getting the support of such potential partners as China and the United Arab Emirates. After the coming into force of tougher American sanctions, countries that signaled readiness to render support to Syria are unlikely to find participation in the restoration of the war-torn country an attractive option».

Israel is playing its game. Jerusalem de facto associates with western capitals but pursues its own motivation. According to Israel’s former Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin, the Israeli government wants Damascus and Moscow to understand that restoration of the war-devastated Syrian infrastructure is impossible as long as pro-Iranian units deployed in Syria “threaten Israel”.

Arab monarchies think along the same lines: they do not want pro-Iranian Syria. Not surprisingly, Riyadh has been trying to establish relations with Syrian Kurds, regarding them as a buffer against the spread of Iranian and Turkish influence in the region. At the end of last year Saudi Aramco got down to prospecting for oil reserves in Deir ez-Zor province.

In turn, UAE Foreign Minister Anwar Gargash is urging Arab nations to “face towards Syria”, or it will fall under the influence of Iran, Russia, Turkey and the United States. Meanwhile, Syria is building relations with a whole number of countries of the Middle East and Maghreb – Iraq, Lebanon, Algeria, Oman, Egypt, Jordan. But apparently, these countries are unsuitable for the role of investors.

As for Turkey, it is restoring only the Turkish-occupied Syrian regions where they have set up a local administration, introduced the Turkish lira, and opened Turkish post offices, which also perform the function of credit organizations.  Ankara is in  no hurry to participate in the reconstruction of the rest of the country’s territory, particularly since it has no potential to do so.

Not long ago Erdogan advised the Russian president to sell Syrian oil and use the money in order “to get devastated Syria back to its feet” (and simultaneously create a solvent market for Turkish construction companies – A.I.). In the opinion of the Turkish leader, the project should be financed by the Russian side.

Damascus views Ankara’s initiative as an attempt to assume control of Syrian natural resources without any permission from appropriate authorities. Turkey will not be given permission to engage in oil exploration in Syria, the Syrian Ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad said. Bashar al-Assad made it clear two years ago that Syria was planning to revive «at the expense of its own resources and assistance from friends».

One of these (if not the main one) is Russia. In 2016 Russia and Syria signed an agreement on the restoration of Syrian war-devastated infrastructure. The total volume of investments needed for that was estimated at 850 million euros. Later, the two sides came to agreement on  a few dozen investment projects, mainly in oil and gas production, energy generation, transport. It is also a known fact that Moscow has been making efforts to raise the resources of third countries for the reconstruction of Syria. According to Crisis Group experts, while doing so Russia «suggests that European leaders stop clinging to an illusion that playing the sanctions and restoration card could still lead to a change of regime», which they failed to achieve by using force».

Iran has announced readiness to contribute to the reconstruction of Syria. Many lay hopes of restoration projects on China, which invested billions of dollars in the Syrian oil industry before the war and which has no intention to part with its investments.

As time passes, an aggravation of economic situation in the country will be accompanied by a rising number of refugees. Syrian migrants, sooner or later, will become yet another destabilizing factor in the region, along with  Palestinian refugees. Inside Syria proper, the conflict may escalate again, causing a revival of terrorism, which has both ideological and social and economic roots.

Given the situation, the Russian president warned in 2018: «Of course, the world community, first of all, Europe, if it does not want an influx of migrants, should think about it, should shake off phobias and just help the Syrian people irrespective of political affiliations».

But the United States is following its own logic – the measures Washington is taking towards Syria pose an obstruction. The US does not want Syria to become attractive for Kurds, who, the Americans think, should play the role of a buffer in their geopolitical games against the spread of Iranian (and along with it, Turkish) influence in the region. Syrian Prime Minister Imad Khamis is quite right saying that  «the purpose of the hot phase of the war was destruction of the Syrian state with the help of military and political instruments. But the state managed to hold out. So the foes started an economic war…».

And naturally, the foreign policy paradigm of the present Washington administration is unthinkable without anti-Russian sentiments.  The US Special Representative for Syria James Jeffrey acknowledges: «My mission is to make Russia bog down in Syria». There are no doubts that one of the ways to see this mission through is to force Moscow to pay for the restoration of Syria.

The fact that this causes a lot of suffering to the people of Syria is, apparently, no one’s concern.

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading
Comments

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

Middle East

How to make the Lebanese succumb to U.S.?

Published

on

image source: Tehran Times

The scenario has two dimensions and is quite simple: prove Hezbollah to be the main element paving the way for the explosion and make the way for a country with some financial and logistical resources to save the day.

The vital information about the leading cause of the Tuesday massive explosion in Beirut released a few hours later: a cargo containing more than 2,700 tons of highly explosive material, triggered by a small fire, resulted in the third most powerful blast in the world since WW II’s Hiroshima. It’s not officially confirmed whether or not it was the third massive explosion. More importantly, the cargo had been sitting in the port for over six years. A diplomatic source told the Tehran Times that an eastern European country sent this cargo to be used by Syria’s opposition groups in the war against Bashar Assad’s government.

The critical question is: who is responsible for the cargo to be stuck in the port for so long? There are different answers to this question. Reliable data proves that the Lebanese government at the time seized the cargo for customs reasons. But media outlets that have been fighting against the Resistance Front for quite a long time (inside and outside the region) now spread unconfirmed information suggesting an arms depot that belongs to Hezbollah made the blast so powerful. This implants an idea deep inside the brains of the Lebanese: Beirut’s disastrous incident is somehow related to Hezbollah.

On the other side, the country will soon need significant help from other countries to reconstruct itself, which will give countries like the U.S. and Saudi Arabia a golden opportunity to complete their puzzle in the region and serve the interests of Israel in a better way. Whether the U.S. would step forward for help directly, or send another country from Europe or West Asia as a representative, the main precondition to rebuild the infrastructure will probably be disarmament of Hezbollah. Regarding the harsh conditions caused by the biting sanctions, it can be hard to convince the Lebanese to resist against the condition to disarm Hezbollah.

Countries like Iran, Iraq, and Syria must RUSH to help Lebanon, now.

From our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending