Connect with us

OPINION

After the Wagner’s revolt

Published

on

The Wagner revolt ended with Lukashenko’s intervention.

Two main views attract my attention. One group is more or less in favour of the following attitude: “Oh dear, it’s Russia, these things happen, it’s no big deal.” Another version of this is: “Do you think that a coup can succeed in a big country like Russia?” The other group is roughly saying: “It is very important, if this military coup succeeds, the Kremlin will fall.”

I too think it is very important, but from a completely different perspective.

Informational non-barriers to the coup attempt

Let me begin by re-stating the following. I have persistently and repeatedly argued that many of the claims made about Russia and used as the basis for intellectual activity in the West do not reflect reality. That Russia is authoritarian and totalitarian, the Russian people are warlike (or war-averse), the Russian leadership is Russian nationalist are completely wrong. They are not objective, but fabricated, distorted views about society, state and politics. These are pseudosciences, just like “Kremlinology”, which was all the craze during the Soviet Union (and is now being stewed again), and even if they sometimes offer seminal propositions, their foundations are too flimsy to be taken seriously.

In reality, Russian society is uniquely open. Paul Craig Roberts, Reagan’s undersecretary of the treasury, said as much at the turn of the millennium. Despite widespread intellectual and cultural degeneration, there is sometimes a naive hunger for information. The issue is not the claim that “there are no barriers to information in the information age”. What I mean is that there is a qualitative difference in the quantity of those who need the flow of information. In Western societies, there is more “many-sidedness” and more of it is not needed, but it is certainly intra-systemic. In Russia, no matter how much many-sidedness there is, more of it is sought.

The events of yesterday confirmed this observation. A continuous and multidirectional flow of information, the like of which is impossible to find elsewhere: anyone who wished could find any opinion he wanted on the telegram channels, on the websites and even on the television screens, and, moreover, the audio, video, and written messages of Prigozhin, who had been declared a traitor only in the morning, were widely circulated. So too were the calls to subdue and even destroy the Wagnerians at the point of the bayonet.

Unpredictable spontaneity

The history of Russia is full of spontaneous, sudden, and unpredictable upheavals. Almost all the social, political, military, etc. movements that have shaken Russia have been completely unpredictable and spontaneous. There is one single and great exception: The October Revolution.

Unpredictability does not mean political independence of the actors. On the contrary, actors act by sensing hoe the wind blows and establishing relations with potential allies to the extent that they do not narrow their room for manoeuvre. Considering that the day before he was almost an angel of peace for the Kiev regime, Prigozhin’s action was clearly a digging in the ground for possible relations. The support of the defunct oligarchs, the strange and meaningful silence of the existing oligarchs, the fact that the financial arm of the government, unlike the siloviki arm, carefully avoided statements of support for Putin and played it out over the weekend should be taken as evidence that Prigozhin was digging in the right place.

I actually touched upon this when I commented on Putin’s speech the previous morning.

The reminder of “1917” in this speech may refer to two things: the February revolution, or the Kornilov putsch.

“We know only a single science: the science of history,” Marx wrote. One of the greatest tragedies of the age should be that the left is losing its historical consciousness to a considerable degree. When they think of 1917, they do not remember February, July or Kornilov; all they think of is October.

Putin’s anti-revolutionary stance is well known, but the context of the speech attributes much more to him than that.

If Putin was referring to Kornilov, there is a solid internal coherence, since the Kornilov putsch after the July uprising was the real beginning of the collapse of the provisional government. But in this case, Putin is drawing a parallel between himself and Kerensky.

If he meant the February uprising, the problem is more complicated. February was not just a spontaneous uprising. The uprising itself shows that a state of paralysis of state power had long since emerged, but in the process that led to and resulted in the tsar’s abdication, there was a power conflict that had been brewing since 1915, and behind it was a conspiracy involving the grand prince and a number of front commanders. So, if February is what is meant here, the problem is much more serious.

I will not discuss which assumption is correct.

Spiral history

It is one of Marx’s well-known sayings: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”

How many times it repeats itself is a question mark. This is related to the spiral development of history, each new historical period repeats similar events of a sub-segment in a new, highly degenerated form.

Mussolini travelled to Milan on 27 October 1922. On the same day, in Perugia, the National Fascist Party’s appeal to the Italian people that the “march to Rome” had begun was published.[1] The “squadristi” (squad) marching columns, estimated at 10-30 thousand in total, mobilized under the direction of “quadrumviri” (quattro-four; four leaders of the march). The squadristi began to arm themselves, either by raiding army depots along their route or by volunteers from local army units. Prime Minister Luigi Facta declared that the country was on the brink of rebellion and prepared to declare a state of emergency. On 28 October, the king held talks; despite the army’s declaration of loyalty to the king, he refrained from declaring a state of emergency and dismissed the prime minister. Mussolini opposed a coalition government in which the fascists would participate and demanded the premiership. The squadristi were within 50 kilometers of Rome. On 29 October, the king surrendered to the blackmail of Mussolini. On 30 October, Mussolini and his squadristi entered Rome more or less simultaneously. Mussolini, supported by the army and the grand bourgeoisie, received authorization from the king, and the fascist government was formed. The king remained on his throne, but as a hollow puppet, a straw, impotent scarecrow.

Prigozhin called his action a “march for justice” against “corruption, lies and bureaucracy”. Who could oppose such a demand? Who could oppose the black shirts demanding justice?

A perfect choice of slogan for the fascist movement

As always, history proved Marx right again. Prigozhin appeared on the scene as a runt Mussolini and withdrew, fearing the possible consequences of his action, namely that he would not be able to obtain the consent of the people and would fall into disaster. Mussolini had risen on the promise of raising Italy, which had managed to emerge, albeit muddy, from the mire of disaster, while Prigozhin was a candidate to drag Russia, far from disaster, into the gutter. Mussolini had nothing to lose, Prigozhin had everything to lose.

I should make a note here, which I will refrain from dwelling on for the moment. Let us remember that Zhirinovsky died on 6 April last year. Zhirinovsky functioned as an air cushion from which potential unrest could crash and take the momentum away. His death created a vacuum in politics. All the conditions were ready for the petty-bourgeois rightism he represented to shift to another center. How voluntary it was is debatable, of course, but the nature of things was such that Prigozhin emerged as one of the main candidates to fill this vacuum.

This is how the danger of petty bourgeois rightism, a political tendency that is actually quite close to the left, given the material conditions that created it, evolving into a fascist movement emerged.

Why was it not suppressed? One: fundamental reasons

The question of why the armed forces did not take action against the Wagnerians is a legitimate one. It must be answered from two different perspectives.

The first is the reasons below ground.

It is worth going into detail because the dynamics continue to work.

In his first speech on the morning of 24 February, Putin said that they would not be caught unprepared as in 1941. Let us recall the exact wording:

“We know that in 1940 and early 1941 the Soviet Union went to great lengths to prevent war or at least delay its outbreak. To this end, the USSR sought not to provoke the potential aggressor until the very end by refraining or postponing the most urgent and obvious preparations it had to make to defend itself from an imminent attack. When it finally acted, it was too late.”

This means that the Ukrainian conflict, as I have mentioned in all my articles on the impending conflict from November 2021 onwards, was considered a kind of “winter war.” In other words, it was not planned as an aggressive war at all, but as the only means of preventing a bigger war.

That is, the discourse of “we intervened to stop the war that started in 2014” reflected a genuine, sincere belief, even if its (in)accuracy was debatable. However, the discourse naturally included the emphasis on “we will not make the mistake of 1941, we will not delay”, whereas, as Putin admitted for the first time last autumn in a meeting with women who had lost relatives at the front, they had delayed.

One could argue that this delay has a political content, that is to say: yes, but we were not caught unprepared militarily, which is contrary to the nature of things. The development of the war industry and the output of modern weapons and technology undoubtedly meant preparation, but many problems also arose in the organization of the army in terms of supply, logistics, personnel, troops and command. These problems had to arise; nothing more natural than these problems arising when an army that has not been in combat begins to fight.

The problem is that in 1941 these problems were solved with much greater speed, because the state and society had been mobilized down to the core, because they could be mobilized, because the state did not have to calculate in the face of the bourgeois greed for profit. However, as I wrote in March: “… so many and difficult problems arose, from the provision of equipment for the soldiers to the establishment of unity of command and even the transport of those summoned to their posts, that this dynamic was inevitably transferred to Wagner.”

There is therefore no point in roundabouts and clichés about the general tendency of capitalism towards mercenary companies and how this is a sign of political decay. These clichés seem to say a lot, but they do not recognize that the current situation is not caused by a tendency, but by a concrete and burning problem.

Such are the “experts” on the left. As for the “experts” on the right, who are always on the TV screens in Turkey, they have finally learnt that there is such a thing as a Wagner (although they have never learnt why it is called a Wagner, but one should not expect them to, since each of them is a jar of intelligence, history and politics, and since the jar is full to the brim, it cannot hold much); therefore, there is no need to go into the history of this mercenary company.

In passing, it is worth mentioning the legal side of the matter. According to the Constitution, mercenary labour is prohibited in Russia. But there is a loophole in the legislation, military companies are not considered mercenary companies. They are considered as “private detective and protection activities” established according to the corporate law.

In fact, a loophole in the legislation is a ridiculous phrase; in bourgeois law, the legislation is written for the sake of a loophole. This gap is closed in different ways depending on the threat or advantage.

Two: root causes

Let’s come to the technical, “cyclical” (but not unimportant) answer to the question “Why did this happen?”. I emphasized this several times during the day yesterday.

Firstly, by the very nature of things, no army, except the armies of colonial countries, which are mainly organized against a possible civil war, develops serious strategies based on the possibility of confronting another army (regular or guerrilla army) inside the country. (This is precisely what made colonial countries a paradise for military coups for more or less the entire second half of the 20th century).

Secondly, in the current situation, with probably all the experienced combat troops at the front, in border areas and bases, only the following forces are left to intervene against another armed army inside: police, gendarmerie, intelligence and air force. The Russian equivalents of the second and third are the Rosgvardiya, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, and the Federal Security Service (FSB).

Stopping heavily armed professional units, advancing in tanks and armour, armed with stinger-type air defense weapons and having recently undergone a major combat experience, is very difficult, even if their personnel numbers are relatively small, and perhaps almost impossible without heavy bombardment by the air force. It is necessary to isolate the advancing enemy army from the civilian population. But this, too, is close to impossible, because the situation has developed so rapidly that normal life goes on in a strange, almost surreal way. Civilian casualties are therefore inevitable.

More important are the difficulties of capturing a city that has actually fallen, not of stopping the incoming. Moreover, this city, as in the repeated experiences of 1919 and 1942, is of strategic importance; it is the gateway to the south. The targeting of this city by Wagner points to serious strategic work and recalls tragic historical experiences.

The most important thing is the political consolidation of the masses. At the present stage, this coup army has not interfered with the administrative and municipal organs. It has not even intervened in the military-law enforcement organs. It is enough only to stop them from implementing the orders they have received or to make it clear that it will stop them. Moreover, the coup army has achieved tremendous successes on the front (this expression does not mean affirmation) and these successes have brought it great prestige in the eyes of the masses. Moreover, this prestige has been reinforced by the government itself through television adverts, giant billboards, and praising speeches at official receptions.

In other words, there are all the conditions for a rapid escalation of the conflict, but there are also conditions for keeping it under controlled tension.

These are very serious, deadly problems. No one can easily predict the military and political consequences. It is no coincidence, therefore, that throughout the day, especially from the Russian left, there have been discussions of the possibility of a chain reaction effect of the conflict, which (1) could lead to a moral breakdown at the front; (2) might require a shift of troops from the front to stop the coup army; (3) in either case could lead to a setback at the front; (4) could result in political defeat vis-à-vis NATO; (5) political defeat could lead to internal turmoil, etc.

Independence tendencies

The main subject of my article in March was the following (I summarize it in the roughest outline): There have been many times in Russia when insignificant men have gained enormous importance. Prigozhin is also trying to become an independent political force. This tendency is also gaining strength elsewhere. The process will inevitably end in liquidation.

One of the underlying causes of the capitalist restoration and the resultant localized civil wars in every sense of the word in 1990 was the decision in September 1989 by a plenum of the CC of the CPSU to cede its powers to the union republics: “The most important sentence in the resolution, quoted by Putin, is this: ‘The highest representative bodies of the union republics may, on their territory, protest and stop the implementation of the decrees and instructions of the union [USSR] government.’ It is difficult to find another example of any government declaring its own existence meaningless. In any case, this would mean the disintegration of the Soviet nation.” It meant that Moscow was handing over its legitimacy to someone else.

It is as ironic as it is tragic: It was this decision of the CPSU that brought about the end of the Soviet Union as a state, where, in Putin’s words, “borders were fictitious and decisions were centralized”, but it was Putin’s hesitation to suppress tendencies towards autonomy that has been his method of governing on the ruins of capitalist restoration, while at every opportunity accusing Lenin, who founded the unity of modern Russia, of breaking up “historical Russia”.

Now an upheaval is inevitable. Firstly, there will be an upheaval that will suppress the tendencies towards independence, and this process will proceed step by step, but with determination. It is not only Wagner, but everyone and everything like Wagner, and they are particularly strong in the local organs of power.

Yesterday’s events have clearly shown that if the central authority is content with the function of coordinator among the subordinates, it will disintegrate; the central power must suppress the independent will of the subordinates and make them dependent on itself.

[1] This event is translated into Turkish (and other languages) as “march to Rome”, and into Russian as “campaign to Rome”. Maybe “marcia” in Italian also means “campaign” in our language, I don’t know. But “campaign” better reflects the spirit of the action.

OPINION

G20 Summit could use a few extra pairs of chopsticks

Published

on

Li Yunqi, Journalist
CGTN Radio

“If there’s an extra guest, you have to prepare an extra pair of chopsticks,” – an ancient Chinese wisdom for the upcoming G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

The global economic order is undergoing an obvious shift toward Global South countries, as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that by 2030, developing economies will account for 60% of global GDP—up from already 50% in 2010. With emerging markets playing an increasingly prominent role at the global “economic table,” the question facing the G20 is clear: Where is the hospitality, and those extra pairs of chopsticks?

Formed in the 1970s, G7, the more “elite” club of G20, was designed to address the economic challenges of its time. At its peak, the G7 nations accounted for 60-70% of global GDP, with the U.S. alone contributing 25%. This dominance made the G7 a natural hub for global economic decision-making.

But as the global economy diversified, so too did the need for governance structures that reflected this reality. By the 1990s, the rapid growth of emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil reduced the G7’s share of global GDP. Recognizing the limitations of G7 as an exclusive forum, the G20 was established in 1999, incorporating a broader range of voices from across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Yet, despite its broader membership, the governance structures of the G20 still tilt heavily toward historically dominant economies, leaving the perspectives of the Global South underrepresented.

In 2023, developing economies attracted about 65% of global foreign direct investment (FDI). Many of these nations boast young populations, in stark contrast to aging demographics in Western countries. For instance, Africa’s median age is 18.8, compared to over 40 in many Western European countries. By 2030, the Asian middle class alone is expected to exceed 3 billion people.

These economic transformations underline the need for more fair and inclusive governance systems. Just as a gracious host ensures there are enough chopsticks for every guest, the G20 must adapt to accommodate the realities of a multipolar economic world.

This is not merely a symbolic gesture. Global South nations have legitimate demands for reforms in international institutions like the United Nations Security Council, the IMF, and the World Bank, all of which remain skewed toward the interests of Western nations. The inclusion of perspectives from emerging economies isn’t just about fairness—it’s about crafting more effective and sustainable solutions to global challenges.

The rise of the BRICS is a case in point. Originally formed as a loose group of emerging economies, BRICS has evolved into a platform for addressing global imbalances, recently expanding to include nations like Argentina, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. This expansion signals a broader desire among Global South countries for alternative frameworks to the traditional Western-led institutions.

The 2024 G20 Summit in Brazil offers a rare chance to recalibrate global governance. With a host nation that is itself a leader in the Global South, the summit is well-positioned to champion a more balanced approach to decision-making for global affairs.

This does not mean sidelining the priorities of developed nations; rather, it calls for recognizing that the inclusion of diverse perspectives leads to more innovative and equitable solutions. For Western countries, this shift will require letting go of long-held assumptions about leadership and embracing the legitimacy of different economic models and governance approaches.

The Global South’s rise is not about dismantling the established order but about evolving it to reflect the realities of today’s interconnected world. By preparing those extra pairs of chopsticks, the G20 can ensure a more inclusive future—one that respects the voices of all its members, regardless of their economic status.

Not having to share the table may seem convenient, but if we zoom out, we see that many in the world still struggle to secure even the basics, let alone a seat at the global table. Preparing a few extra pairs of chopsticks isn’t just a metaphor, but a call for a more balanced, diverse, and inclusive global order.

Continue Reading

OPINION

Türkiye’s “soft severance of diplomatic relations” with Israel has limited impact on the Middle East

Published

on

On November 13th, Turkish President Erdoğan announced that Türkiye has cut off trade and diplomatic relations with Israel. Anadolu Agency reported his statement during his return trip from visits to Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan. Erdoğan declared, “We currently have no relations with that country,” emphasizing that Türkiye has responded in the strongest terms to “Israel’s atrocities” by taking concrete measures, including halting all trade exchanges. He also stated that the ruling “People’s Alliance” firmly supports this stance.

Observers believe that Erdoğan’s remarks, coming just after the conclusion of the Arab-Islamic Riyadh Summit, aim to enhance Türkiye’s discourse power, express additional sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinian people, maintain sustained anger towards Israel’s belligerence, and exert pressure on Trump, who is about to return to the White House and is highly pro-Israel. This move may also serve to soothe strong anti-Israel public opinion domestically. However, it is conceivable that this posture will not affect the development of the current war situation in the Middle East, let alone change the geopolitical landscape; on the contrary, it may bring pressure on Türkiye from the United States and the European Union.

Erdoğan’s statements further highlight Türkiye’s tough stance and sanctions against Israel over the past year, attempting to demonstrate Türkiye’s political responsibility, humanitarian concern, and religious obligations as a major country in the Middle East, especially an Islamic power. Objectively, this will make the six Arab countries that still maintain policy relations with Israel feel embarrassed and will also enhance Türkiye’s discourse power in Middle East disputes, particularly in promoting the de-escalation process of this round of conflict.

Türkiye is not only a major country in the Middle East and the Islamic world but also a NATO member and EU candidate country, as well as the initiator and leader of the Turkic States Alliance. From the outbreak of the “Arab Spring” in 2011 to the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, Türkiye has been a very active geopolitical actor and has played an important role in shaping the regional landscape. However, in the grand chessboard of Israel’s “eight-front warfare” triggered by the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the space for Türkiye to maneuver is very limited.

Erdoğan’s publicized severance of relations with Israel seems to be a kind of “salami-slicing,” or even a painless “soft severance,” and therefore will not cause significant shockwaves. Tükiye had already recalled its ambassador to Israel in November last year and announced in May this year the suspension of all imports and exports with Israel to punish the latter for exacerbating the humanitarian tragedy of the Palestinian people. In August, Türkiye formally submitted an application to the International Court of Justice to join the lawsuit initiated by South Africa against Israel’s alleged “genocide,” becoming one of the few Third World countries to use international legal means to challenge Israel.

However, Türkiye has not announced the closure of its diplomatic missions in Israel, nor has it punished Israel as severely or even rudely as it did in May 2018. Six years ago, when Trump announced the relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thereby recognizing the latter as Israel’s capital, the Erdoğan government not only immediately recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Israel but also expelled the Israeli ambassador to Türkiye on the spot. The ambassador was subjected to a full set of humiliating security checks at the airport, including body searches and shoe removal, causing bilateral relations to plunge to a historic low, only beginning to recover slowly two years ago.

Israel has not made any response to Türkiye’s latest declaration of “severing diplomatic relations” and may continue to maintain a low profile or restraint. Perhaps Israel has adapted to Türkiye’s nearly two-decade-long “angry diplomacy,” or perhaps it currently lacks the energy and willingness to provoke Ankara and thereby create new enemies for itself. It is already overwhelmed dealing with the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance” and the United Nations, not to mention the internal frictions and power struggles among its top officials.

Türkiye’s tough stance against Israel is actually facing very similar historical scenarios, making it seem powerless or even counterproductive when playing the Palestinian card. This is because the Arab world does not welcome the successor of the former Ottoman Empire changing the long-standing Western-oriented “Kemalism” to an “eastward and southward” approach. They especially strongly resist Türkiye’s deep involvement in Arab affairs, much like their strong aversion to Iran constructing a “Shia Crescent” in the Arab world. From this perspective, Middle Eastern countries, particularly the Arab world, exhibit an “Arab Monroe Doctrine,” opposing any external interference, even though they are incapable of fairly resolving the Palestinian issue.

Since the Justice and Development Party led by Erdoğan won the general election in 2002, based on the disappointment and dissatisfaction arising from repeated setbacks in pursuing EU membership, as well as a dual return to Neo-Ottomanism and Islamism, Türkiye has significantly elevated the strategic position of the East, especially the Middle East—its traditional sphere of influence—within its foreign policy framework. Ankara began by actively attempting to mediate the Iranian nuclear crisis, suddenly paying high-profile attention to the Palestinian issue, and in 2008, a public dispute erupted between then-Prime Minister Erdoğan and Israeli President Peres at the Davos World Economic Forum.

In May 2010, disregarding Israel’s warnings, Türkiye dispatched the humanitarian aid ship “Mavi Marmara,” attempting to forcibly cross Israel’s naval blockade to dock in the Gaza Strip. This led to Israeli special forces air-dropping onto the ship, resulting in a bloody conflict. Türkiye announced the severance of diplomatic relations with Israel, and it was not until Israel later apologized that bilateral relations were restored. However, due to the indifferent or even critical stance of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and even the PLO towards the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), which was fighting Israel alone, Türkiye’s proactive “foreign aid” actions did not receive enthusiastic responses.

After the outbreak of the “Arab Spring” in early 2011, the development model of the Arab world was widely questioned and even lost its future direction. The “Turkish model” received widespread international attention and was even considered a reference or option for Arab countries. Facing an Arab world mired in failure and chaos, the Erdoğan government was highly proactive, even being described as “attempting to act as the leader of the Islamic world.” Driven by such wishful thinking and strategic impulses, Türkiye not only supported Egypt’s “Square Revolution” in a high-profile manner, strongly backed the Muslim Brotherhood entangled in power struggles, sent troops to Syria and Libya, intervened in the Eastern Mediterranean oil and gas disputes, and openly supported Qatar in its rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, Türkiye’s relations with Arab countries deteriorated from the idealized “zero problems diplomacy” to a nightmarish “all problems diplomacy.”

It can be said that the decade or so during which the “Arab Spring” evolved into the “Arab Winter” was a period when Türkiye’s realist offensive diplomacy and “eastward and southward” strategy suffered major defeats. Türkiye not only lost its traditional ally Israel and offended more than half of the Arab world, but its relationships with Russia and the United States also faced unprecedented challenges.

The Middle East today has once again plunged into war and turmoil, but the causes, nature, conflicts, and opponents are vastly different from those of the “Arab Spring” or the Arab-Israeli conflicts during the Cold War. Several non-state actors from Arab countries are involved in what some are calling the “Sixth Middle East War.” However, countries that have normalized relations with Israel—such as Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, and even the Palestine Liberation Organization—have no intention of re-entering the historical stream of the Arab-Israeli conflict. On the contrary, Iran and its leadership of the “Shia Crescent” have become the main forces opposing Israel in this new Middle East war. Some non-state actors in Arab countries have formed a new “Axis of Resistance” in alliance with the Shia Crescent. This shift in geopolitical relationships makes the attitudes of Arab nations more nuanced. Yet, in balancing “interests and righteousness,” they still value the hard-won Arab-Israeli peace and the crucial Arab-American relations. Although Arab countries are deeply frustrated by Israel’s refusal to cease fire and feel powerless to change the situation, they are absolutely unwilling to accept Iran and Türkiye taking the lead in Arab affairs.

Therefore, Türkiye’s new round of Middle East diplomacy is bound to fall into an awkward position similar to that after the “Arab Spring.” It is unlikely to receive widespread and positive responses in the Arab world or have any substantive impact on the current “eight-front warfare.” Nonetheless, Ankara’s diplomatic efforts to support the rights of the Palestinian people are commendable, reasonable, and even resonate with mainstream international public opinion.

With the openly pro-Israel Trump team controlling the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon, and the Republican Party—which has always been more favorable toward Israel—fully controlling the U.S. legislative, executive, and judicial branches, Washington’s Middle East policy will further tilt toward Israel. Even if the new U.S. government does not encourage Israel to escalate and expand the existing conflicts and wars, it will mobilize all resources and employ all means to exert maximum pressure on Israel’s opponents to force them to compromise. At that time, Türkiye’s relations with the United States will experience new friction and uncertainties due to its tough stance against Israel.

Not only will the new U.S. government’s Middle East policy fail to reward Türkiye’s hardline approach toward Israel, but major European powers—which generally support Israel’s security and hold unfavorable views toward Iran and its led “Axis of Resistance”—will also be dissatisfied with Türkiye’s intensified pressure on Israel. This could further affect the smooth development of Türkiye-Europe relations.

Therefore, although Türkiye’s stance toward Israel is tough, the pressure it can exert is nearly exhausted, and Israel has considerable capacity to withstand such pressure, especially from Türkiye’s “soft severance of relations.” Given that Arab countries do not welcome deep Turkish intervention and that the U.S. and Europe oppose Türkiye joining the anti-Israel camp, Türkiye’s role and space for maneuvering in the Middle East are very limited and unlikely to see significant breakthroughs.

Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.

Continue Reading

OPINION

Palestinian messages to the Arab-Islamic Summit

Published

on

Our people have endured decades of oppression, during which their rights were virtually destroyed and forgotten. In the post-Oslo period, when the Palestinian leadership opted for negotiations, settlement expansion accelerated while the foundations of national independence eroded under partition, isolation and prolonged blockades. Today, the occupation seeks to complete the historic Nakba by exploiting the Palestinian uprising that began on 7 October in response to escalating Zionist extremism, attempts at Judaisation and efforts to marginalise and eradicate the Palestinian entity. This existential challenge, backed by a broad coalition with regional and international dimensions that do not serve the interests of our people, obliges us to unite our efforts around common principles. Despite these barbaric attacks, limited resources and the imbalance of power with the enemy, we stand in solidarity with the resistance and determination of the Palestinian people. If these efforts are coordinated, we can put counter-pressure on the occupation, deepen its political and legal isolation and worsen its economic crisis. This will be an opportunity to force the occupation and its allies to stop the aggression and strengthen the ongoing struggle of our people.

Today, the Palestinian people are facing one of the heaviest Zionist attacks on the Gaza Strip, which reaches the dimensions of genocide and ethnic cleansing. According to unofficial statistics, the number of Palestinian martyrs since the beginning of the war has exceeded 186,000, and the environmental and health destruction caused by the attacks has directly contributed to this number. This scenario could, God forbid, be repeated in the West Bank, with radical settlers attacking Palestinian towns and villages through the occupation army or with the official support of the occupation government.

Historically, the Palestinians have paid the heaviest price for the Western approach to the Eastern question. The consequences of this approach have been disastrous for us: It not only led to the seizure of our land by the Zionist movement, but also paved the way for the establishment of a settler state. In this war, the Arab and Islamic countries acted with great responsibility, rejecting the international categorisation of the resistance as terrorism and insisting on presenting it as a national liberation movement.

Arab and Islamic countries have played a strong role in supporting our cause in international forums, with a growing regional awareness of a common destiny and the need for common security against a common enemy. This solidarity is a very important step in supporting our cause through the work of the Ministerial Committee of the Arab-Islamic Summit convened in Riyadh, which is expected to be an international framework for shaping a solution to the Palestinian issue in accordance with the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Internationally, unlike in previous crises, we have seen clear international positions condemning the genocide and crimes against humanity committed against our people, reflected in firm positions at the United Nations. We appreciate these positions of the nations and peoples of the world and see the path to the establishment of a Palestinian state based on international legitimacy as the result of more than a century of Palestinian struggle and the revival of their rights, which have historical and political roots. Since 1922, the foundations of a Palestinian state have been laid, and despite British and Zionist conspiracies, Palestine retains its political primacy on the world map.

Today, more than 150 countries recognise the State of Palestine on the basis of international resolutions such as the General Assembly Settlement Plan (Resolution 181), the Algiers Declaration declaring the State of Palestine in 1988, and Security Council resolutions on the illegality of settlements outside the 1967 borders. The most recent resolution demands that Israel end its ‘illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’ within 12 months of the General Assembly’s request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in Palestine. The resolution was adopted with overwhelming support – 24 votes in favour, 14 against and 43 abstentions – demonstrating the gains made by the Palestinian cause and highlighting the growing political isolation of the occupying state.

Despite the obstacles to sovereignty posed by the occupation, the Palestinian state remains a legal reality. We see current international efforts to revive these historic and entrenched rights, against the post-World War II trend of international powers favouring the establishment of a Zionist political entity at our expense.

These forward-looking initiatives, called the ‘International Alliance for the Realisation of the Two-State Solution’, include direct steps to organise the establishment of a Palestinian state, rather than merely negotiating its right to exist. This is an important step for regional security and international peace, a necessary way to stabilise the global system and prevent the spread of geopolitical conflicts, sometimes with a religious or cultural dimension.

Diplomatic and political efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood must be compatible with efforts to end the war, protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian aid and address the consequences of the aggression through compensation and reconstruction. At the same time, Palestinian efforts to meet the conditions for a sovereign state consistent with the principles of regional security and global peace should be intensified.

In the midst of these efforts, it is clear that the Palestinian forces will respond sincerely to these initiatives and are willing to overcome differences over governance, elections and the so-called ‘day after’ issues. Palestinian behaviour shows that these disputes are now a thing of the past and that focusing on the future enhances the ability to build and govern the Palestinian state on the basis of national spirit and solidarity.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey