Connect with us

INTERVIEW

Pascal Lottaz: US sanction system coming apart

Published

on

Russian President Vladimir Putin made his first foreign visit to China since leaving office. “These two men seem to be inseparable” (Le temps) and “Moscow and Beijing underline their common goal of reforming the global order” (Der Spiegel).

Meanwhile, the headlines are dominated by the “peace conference” to be hosted by Switzerland, while the Russian armed forces continue their offensive to create a “sanitary zone” in Kharkiv to protect the border regions of Belgorod and Kursk from Ukrainian long-range rocket and artillery attacks.

Dr. Pascal Lottaz is an Associate Professor for Neutrality Studies at Kyoto University’s Faculty of Law. He received his MA and PhD from the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (Japan) and specializes on neutral actors in international relations, especially on neutrality during the two World Wars and during the Cold War.

Let’s start with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s first foreign visit since his re-election. In Beijing, Putin and Xi signed a declaration on deepening comprehensive partnership. What do you think about the nature of relations between Russia and China?

The relationship is now definitely deepening even further but the relationship is very much one of economic nature, not military as it is sometimes portrayed in western media. Russia and China are not in an alliance, but they are partnering to enhance each other’s economic, technological, trade, etc. fortunes and build an alternative trade system from what we have known over the past 30 years after the end of the Cold War when all trade was essentially tethered to the US Dollar and US-led trade institutions. The fact that Vladimir Putin brought almost his entire government with him to China and especially the governor of the Russian central bank as well as the finance minister tells us that the talks are strategic and go very deep. My best guess is that they are working on financial mechanisms that would smoothen trade and probably function as preparatory steps towards mechanisms in the larger BRICS club.

A peace conference is being held in Switzerland without Russia’s participation. What does it mean that heads of state are meeting to discuss peace in Ukraine when one of the two main actors is not at the table?

I’m very skeptical toward this “peace summit” since it obviously can’t achieve peace. If they called it “peace process summit”, that would make more sense, because that’s even what the president of Switzerland’s federal council said what it is, a step in the process toward a peace. So, while I think the approach for a proper peace summit is wrong–which would obviously need Russia at the table, something might come out of it. And we see that some nations that are very skeptical of the West’s approach, like Hungary, also see it that way because they are willing to participate while still criticizing the approach. I think the summit was originally planned as another step in the pressure game that had been going on of naming and shaming Russia (adding in sanctions) to increase diplomatic pressure on it, since the summit is an outcome of these “Zelensky Peace Formula” meetings that had been going on several times and the rhetoric is still the same from the West at the moment, that the Zelensky Peace Formula has to be the backbone of a peace agreement.

However, what this might morph into is kind of the West’s consolidated starting point of a real peace negotiation and hence the outcome of the summit might still be useful in some sense as it might open avenues for actual negotiations. I’m not sure this is what it will be but in the most optimistic scenario, the outcome document might be something that the Russians (and some third-party mediator like China) might actually be able to work with in some sense. But maybe that’s just my hopeless optimism speaking. It’s very well possible that the entire affair will go down as simply another Western PR stunt to make it seem as if though “the whole world is against Russia” which is neither true, nor will it move the Russian’s even an inch from their course. We have seen many, many such moments in the past, and this one might become another one.

Today, the global South is back. It is a geopolitical phenomenon rather than a coherent, organized grouping. Do you think these countries represent a new pole in the world?

Absolutely. The way the Global South, as it is now called, has come to the fore is really unprecedented. This is often compared to the Nonaligned Movement of the Cold War, but what we are seeing is much bigger and stronger than that. We are seeing independent poles emerge, China and India first and foremost, but others, too, like Iran and Brazil that used to be pretty constrained by the rules of the game that the US and Europe forged, but by now they are much less constrained and are able not only to coordinate but to act in ways we haven’t seen before. The way in which Iran just was able to assert itself vis-a-vis Israel and the US would have been impossible just a few years ago. But now the US actively tries to avert yet another war because it has reached the limits of its power-projection capabilities and that is also true in the economic realm where US and EU policy is now confined to ever more sanctions (that backfire rather than coerce others) and to pleading and threatening other states, since they lack actual methods of implementation of their demands. We saw this recently with Janet Yellen going to China to beg them to export less to third markets in which the US wants to compete and then by Tony Blinken going over to demand the same but backed up with threats of even more sanctions. And sure enough, now the sanctions are coming but they won’t be able to achieve the goals since the real issue is not Chinese vehicle exports to the US, it’s that US vehicles are not competitive in 3rd markets and that’s something that’s simply out of the realm of US sanctions. So, we are seeing the US sanction system coming apart. It still carries weight but less and less so in the Global South which is now for the first time emancipating these states to go alternative routes. This is very new and the US as well as the EU are utterly unprepared for it. 500 years of Western dominance are coming to a close.

I’d also like to mention the phenomenon of Javier Milei in Argentina. What does the rise of right-wing populist or even outright fascist movements around the world have to do with the financialization of the global economy? Is this rise an anomaly or is it part of a process deliberately orchestrated by the ruling classes?

Well, Milei was able to tap into economic grievances in Argentina, of which there were plenty. I would be careful with the word “fascist” as it is not clear to me that he is aiming for that kind of state organization. To me, Milei is just an outrageous form of Margret Thatcher, who won over people with a lunatic discourse of what the economy is about—an utterly distorted view of economic reality, as I see it. Ironically enough for Argentina, his policies will most likely produce the exact opposite of what he is promising, and drive the country even deeper into financial crisis from which then only the US will be able to save it (since most of Argentina’s external debt is in USD), which, in turn, will hand over the Argentinian economy to the US (even more than before). That is very similar to what happened in Russia after 1990. But to be fair, we have to wait and see if that’s the case. I just can’t see any scenario in which ditching Argentina’s sovereign currency and “dollarizing” (or some softer form of that) is going to be beneficial to Argentina. You need a sovereign and working currency to have any kind of hold over your economy, so Milei’s policies are in my view suicidal for the political economy of Argentina. But you are right, the process will benefit a relatively small elite in Argentina that is already hard-wired into corporate US, and will profit from being the ones who sell out Argentina’s remaining national assets, or function as the middle men to control them. We see this with examples in Guatemala or even Haiti, in which very, very small elites live, work, and have their kids in Florida but still control large parts of wealth in their home countries and they are the first ones to cheer up any kind of economic coercion against their countries as long as they might produce more profits on the top. It’s capitalism at its ugliest but this is still how it works in weak, western economies.

INTERVIEW

Brazilian journalist Breno Altman: For the first time in human history, we are witnessing an online genocide

Published

on

Brazilian journalist Breno Altman answered our questions about the war in Gaza and the policies of the Brazilian and Venezuelan governments.

Breno Altman is a renowned Brazilian journalist, founder of the news portal “Opera Mundi”, an independent journalism website. He has interviewed President Nicolás Maduro and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, among other prominent figures in Latin American and world politics.

This Friday, June 14, Breno Altman, who arrived in Caracas to participate in the International Seminar: “A new holocaust in the 21st century,” spoke about the accusations against him to establish a position in favor of the Palestinian people, as well as analyzed Venezuela-Brazil relations.

It is important mentioning that, recently, Breno Altman, of Jewish origin, has been the object of strong attacks in his country, by the influential Jewish community of Brazil, which accuses him of being anti-Semitist due to his defense of the Palestinian Cause and for denouncing the genocide by the Israeli government in Gaza. The Brazilian Israelite Confederation (CONIB) accused him civilly and criminally of anti-Semitism. The pressure from the CONIB on the Brazilian Justice has been so strong that the journalist has more than 10 cases against him, and in addition, he had to remove from his social networks some of his publications in defense of the right of the Palestinian people to resist against the Zionist aggression; Fortunately, all their platforms continue to function, unfortunately, the judicial processes and the attack on freedom of expression continue as well.

A Brazilian Jew, defender of the Palestinian Cause

Present in Caracas to participate as a speaker at the event “A new holocaust in the 21st century. Zionism threatens the world”, activity organized by the Rómulo Gallegos Center for Latin American Studies (CELARG) and the Bolivarian University of Venezuela (UBV); Breno Altman is a Jew who does not deny the legacy that different people of the Jewish religion, from different regions and countries, have left for the history of humanity (especially in the Western world but also in Eurasia), for example, he highlights Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky, among others. Nor does it deny the holocaust of the Nazi regime against the Jews in Europe that caused millions of deaths, among which the majority can be counted Jews. However, the Brazilian journalist is clear and forceful: “A genocide is happening in Palestine before the eyes of the world.” “It is the first time in history that we have experienced an online genocide.” “Zionism is the racist and colonial response to anti-Semitism,” stated Altman.

To get into context, what is happening in Palestine today?

I consider it to be the first genocide transmitted online in the history of humanity. Since October 2023, we are living and seeing this genocide all day, every day, every week, every hour of our day, it is there on our screens. So far we have 37,000 deaths, of which almost 70% of the human losses are civilians, and a large part of them are women, girls and boys. Proportionally, it is the largest massacre in a war of children in history. We are talking about 14,000 children having been murdered by the Zionist government of Israel. We are talking about around 15,000 women have been murdered. These are figures from the Ministry of Health of the Gaza Strip that have been confirmed by the United Nations. It is a situation where the word, the horror of the concept “genocide” is clearly applied, because it is not a collateral effect of a war, it is a target, an objective, a calculation of the Israeli army.

What the Netanyahu government is doing is part of a normal strategy in a genocide, children are killed so that they do not become adults and women are killed so that they do not have other sons and daughters. They seek ethnic cleansing, they seek to eliminate the Palestinian people.

In your personal experience, how much is Zionism accepted within the Jewish community in Brazil? And how is the receptivity of the anti-Zionist Jew within the Jewish community in Brazil?

The majority of Jews in the world today are Zionists. In Brazil, we have the third most important community in the Americas, the first is that of the United States, the second is that of Argentina, and then there is us with 150,000 Jews who live in Brazil. I come from an anti-Zionist Jewish family that goes back three generations, my parents, my grandparents, have been important in the Jewish community, but they have always been anti-Zionist. So, there is a very harsh confrontation against every anti-Zionist Jew.

For example, I am currently responding to 13 or 14 legal cases in Brazilian justice, because Zionist organizations accuse me of anti-Semitism. And a distinction must always be made to clear up a confusion that exists between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism is the fight against a certain political ideological current, and it is the political ideological current represented by the State of Israel. Anti-Semitism is the persecution and racism against Jews. They are different things. He who is against Zionism is not against the Jews, just as he who was against Nazism was not against the Germans, and he who was against fascism was not against the Italians.

But Zionist entities try to put everything in the same bag or place, for them if you criticize Zionism you are anti-Semitic. The Zionists treat me like a Jew who hates himself, they say that I practice, against the Jews – even though I am Jewish – the crime of racism and the crime of anti-Semitism. 

Zionism, in reality, is from the same family as fascism and racism. It is part of the root of national-chauvinist, ultra-nationalist, xenophobic, supremacist doctrines.

Let’s talk about Lula. There is a perception that the Brazilian president has distanced himself a little from Venezuela and Palestine. Do you think this has been the case?

I believe that Lula has had a fairly clear and firm position on Palestine, I even believe that he was the first world leader who – in addition to speaking out against the genocide in Gaza – equated Benjamin Netanyahu’s regime with Nazism. That is to say, Lula publicly demonstrated the great contradiction of Israel by applying methods against the Palestinians very similar to those applied by Hitler’s Germany. However, we must move on to another phase, not just remain declarative.

Now, can Lula do that? take a step further. It’s difficult, because Brazil is 5th. largest oil exporter to Israel. Brasilia is 5th. Israel’s largest importer of weapons and security technology. But also, Brazil has already withdrawn the Brazilian ambassador from Israel, and, in my opinion, is inclined to follow the same line that South Africa followed to end Apartheid.

Finally, can you explain to us that “ambiguous” relationship that President Lula has had towards Venezuela?

I do not consider President Lula to be ambiguous. Lula has always maintained a position of solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution, with the government of President Chávez and with the government of President Nicolás Maduro. However, the internal and external pressure against Venezuela and the Bolivarian Government is very strong. 

Venezuela within Brazil has a negative image, the enemies of Venezuela have managed to build a negative image of the country. And all the time that image is used to compromise and attack the Brazilian left. On the other hand, Lula is not a revolutionary leader, Lula is not Chávez, Lula is not Maduro, Lula is not Fidel. Lula is a popular left-wing leader, but he acts within a Brazilian institutionality that is a liberal democratic institutionality, a conservative institutionality. Furthermore, in Brazil there is no revolutionary process underway, as there is in Cuba, Nicaragua and, of course, in Venezuela.

So, Lula chooses to balance between some criticism and some defenses for and against Venezuela, because otherwise the political cost to pay would be too high. Despite everything, Lula has remained supportive and close to the Bolivarian Revolution.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

At what stage is the UAE-Türkiye Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement?

Published

on

Juma Mohammed Al Kait, Assistant Undersecretary for International Trade Affairs of Economy Ministry of United Arab Emirates, answered our questions on the economic and commercial relations between the UAE and Türkiye and potential areas of cooperation.

Juma Al Kait serves as the Chief Trade Negotiator for the UAE and Assistant Undersecretary for International Trade Affairs at the Ministry of Economy. In this capacity, Al Kait supervises trade negotiations, monitors trade disputes, ensures enforcement of trade law, and keeps government, industry and nongovernmental organizations informed on UAE trade policy. He has played a pivotal role in nearly every major trade issue and trade legislation over the last 20 years, including the recently negotiated Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements with India, Israel, Indonesia, Georgia, Turkiye and Cambodia. He also leads the UAE’s participation in trade negotiations within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) framework.

After the normalization process last year, we had a significant visit to the UAE by the Turkish side, led by President Erdogan. During that meeting, many promises were made for investments in Türkiye, including some defense industry investments. What is the recent position of the UAE regarding investments and international trade with Türkiye and the promises to increase capacity?

First of all, it is great to be in Türkiye and to take part in 3rd Ministerial Meeting of the TPS-OIC Trade Negotiations Committee. I would like to thank the Turkish government for all the arrangements they have made. It is good to see how Türkiye is also putting forward plans and suggestions to move trade between members forward. There are many good proposals that have been put on the table and discussed, related to trade in goods as well as facilitating investment and services. From the UAE perspective, we are enjoying a very good economic trade relationship between the UAE and Türkiye. I am proud to say that we have signed the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between the UAE and Türkiye, and we see this agreement entering into force. It is beneficial for both economies. We have noticed an increase in trade flow between the UAE and Türkiye, especially after signing this agreement. As you mentioned, there have been many high-level visits recently between both countries. The recent visits of the leaders resulted in the signing of a number of memorandums of understanding (MoU) and agreements in many different sectors. We think this is how the relationship should be. There are always ways of looking at new areas of collaboration. These MoUs will not only put our private sectors into looking at the usual way of doing business but also explore new opportunities in other areas that we don’t usually engage in.

What are the new areas for you?

When I say new areas, I mean new developments in the economy, such as technology entering into many different sectors, including the industrial sectors, healthcare, and the technology element in it, financial services, construction, agricultural technology, and many other areas where both sides can complement each other. Investing in Türkiye in some companies and trying to attract investment from Türkiye to the UAE, the UAE has provided several incentives to enhance the investment ecosystem. There are many opportunities as the UAE is expanding its development in infrastructure and connectivity. This represents a good opportunity for Turkish companies to benefit from this and operate in the UAE. We have captured this in the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. Turkish companies and UAE companies will enjoy beneficial treatment through this agreement, and this beneficial arrangement will not be extended to others. We have better treatment regarding trade, investment, and service suppliers between us.

Which specific sectors or companies are coming to the UAE?

As I mentioned, first of all, constructions, food processing, service providers like professional services, and other areas like hospitality, hotels, restaurants, and financial services. We have managed to secure a proper legal framework for our private sector to do business. This should be utilized further. It is our role as a government to make our business community aware of the benefits of this agreement. Exporters from both sides can now export products without customs duties in many sectors.

Both countries can export without customs?

Yes, according to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Is it limited to specific sectors?

It covers most products. Additionally, there are MOUs signed earlier, which are considered a starting point for further collaboration in areas important to both sides, like renewable energy, sustainable development, and other areas related to the new economy. We can collaborate further in these areas and see trade and investment increase through these MOUs and the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement signed between both sides.

I think it was almost $50 billion last year, the total of these MOUs. Which part of that has been implemented up to now, or is there an initiative?

Both sides are working towards implementing a number of those agreements. There are already a good number of MOUs that have been initiated and implemented. Things are moving on track, and there is a dedicated monitoring process for progress. We want to ensure that everything moves smoothly according to those MOUs and the vision of our leaders.

It’s almost one year, right?

Yes. From those MOUs, there were so many different sectors. In Türkiye, the defense industry was the most popular if the UAE would come and invest in the Turkish private defense sector. As I explained earlier, investment in all areas will be facilitated further. Investors from both sides will be able to communicate better and sign deals more efficiently. There are many things that can be done in the near future between both sides. It is important for me as a government representative to encourage both private sectors to engage further and explore new opportunities. The UAE has also signed agreements with many countries around the world, representing a golden opportunity for Turkish investors. Once they operate in UAE markets, they can expand their business through other markets where we have signed trade agreements. I am sure you are aware of what the UAE has been doing in terms of signing these agreements. We have signed with many countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Turkish companies will benefit from this once they operate in UAE markets. The sophisticated infrastructure in the UAE will help Turkish products move better into other markets. It is a platform that will support the Turkish industry to expand internationally through the UAE.

After the normalization, do you have good trade relations with Qatar? What is your position with Qatar?

Economically speaking, we are doing business as usual with everyone. We enjoy very good trade relations with all Gulf Cooperation Council  (GCC) countries, including Qatar. We have witnessed an increase in our bilateral trade. There are also efforts at the GCC level to enhance internal trade between GCC members. As you know, we have a customs union, economic agreements, and recent visits between our leaders have contributed well to our economic agenda. We recently participated in Doha, hosting some of the ministerial GCC trade ministers’ meetings, resulting in very good outcomes. So, things are moving very well.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘NATO mission to be extended to the Middle East and Africa’

Published

on

Former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Jonathan M. Winer spoke to Harici: The NATO declaration emphasised the extension of NATO’s mission to the Middle East and Africa and the action plan to implement it.

While the world is preoccupied with the upcoming elections in the United States and the recent incident in which former Republican President Donald Trump was targeted by an assassin, reports from the United States say that Trump is now officially the presidential candidate for the November 2024 elections. Many are debating whether the attack will have any impact on the campaigns of Trump and his Democratic rival Biden. The two leaders have many differences in foreign policy and approaches to NATO, nuclear talks with Iran, the presence of US troops abroad, relations with Russia and activities in the Middle East.

Former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Jonathan M. Winer answered Dr Esra Karahindiba’s questions on global developments for Harici.

Jonathan M. Winer served as the United States Special Envoy to Libya, Assistant Secretary of State for International Law, and Advisor to Senator John Kerry. With expertise in migration, US foreign policy, counter-terrorism, governance, economics and energy, he is currently a non-resident fellow at the Middle East Institute.

Let’s start with the attack against former President Donald Trump? He was injured and critics say that the reason of the attack is Biden’s campaign portraying Trump as a candidate who should never become president again. How would it be reflected on both candidates campaigns and ballots?

It is completely inappropriate to politicize the attack on Donald Trump by what appears on the basis of the facts known so far to be the isolated acts of a lone gunman. Any suggestion that anyone but the shooter was responsible for it is reckless and wrong.

Can you share your insights on the most significant outcomes of the recent NATO summit and their implications for US foreign policy? How do you evaluate the fact that there is no message about Israel in the final declaration of the NATO Summit? Israel’s threat of war against Lebanon and the possibility that Syria in a wider scale, will naturally have negative broader impacts in the instability of the region. Will a new stance be taken regarding Israel’s actions?

Three things stand out in the NATO Communique issued at the NATO summit. First, united resolve to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine. NATO is not giving up to seek some settlement with Russia, but digging in, with commitments to deliver sophisticated air defense systems promptly and to include Ukraine in NATO in the near-term – though it appears, not until after the war has ended. Second, explicit warnings to China and to Iran that their continuing support for Russia’s continuing assault on Ukraine will have consequences. Third, expansion of NATO’s mission to include the Middle East and Africa, including the first phase of an action plan to implement it. The Middle East and Africa initiative is the first concrete response by NATO to the systematic influence operation in this region that Russian has been building out for the past five years. It will likely take years before we know whether this southern initiative will meaningfully challenge the current dynamics in which Russia’s rewards to dictators and strongmen have overwhelmed the legacy of influence previously retained by France and other former European colonial powers. 

The NATO Communique is a consensus document reflecting consensus strategic choices. Weak statements by NATO regarding Israel and Hamas and Gaza would not have been helpful to securing a cease-fire or humanitarian objectives. It would have been hard to achieve unanimity on what to say about this complex conflict. So it is not surprising that they did not address it.

To discuss Israel without discussing Iran’s role also would mischaracterize the overall dynamics of the conflict, which include Iranian involvement in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, and in Yemen, including providing military support for attacks on global shipping by the Houthis in the Red Sea. I doubt NATO will wade into taking formal positions on this interrelated set of geopolitical conflicts anytime soon. It has enough on its plate.

Britain’s new Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that the UK allows Ukraine to target Russian territory with the weapons given. What is your comment on other NATO countries giving Ukraine the authority to hit targets within Russia’s borders with Western weapons? Simultaneously, Ukraine targeted Russia’s nuclear early warning radar with unmanned aerial vehicles. Is it fair to say that this is a new phase in the conflict?

Ukraine’s leaders have long stressed that Ukraine is at grave risk if it is prevented from attacking military targets in Russia that are being used against Ukraine. NATO policy has now evolved to move beyond past constraints that limited Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. This evolution is a military and strategic necessity. 

But hitting Russian soil with directly NATO members’ weapons will count as an attack and a defense from Ukraine’s side. Won’t this action make Russia’a argument that this is a proxy war of the NATO?

Russia is already arguing – falsely – that Ukraine is fighting a proxy war for NATO. It’s an audacious falsehood, given Russia’s initiation of the war two and a half years ago and its continued targeting of civilian populations. Russian propaganda should not determine decisions made by Ukraine or by NATO.

Trump’s criticisms of NATO are well known. As the presidential elections approach, the status of NATO under the Trump administration is being discussed. What is your prediction about the budget transferred to NATO and Ukraine’s desire to become a NATO member if Trump wins?

Trump’s four years in office was marked by capricious in-the-moment decisions to say yes to requests from authoritarian leaders in other states which were contrary to the advice of his own senior advisors on national security, generating push-back from within the government by both political appointees and career professionals. Given that dynamic, how Trump’s recurrently expressed hostility towards NATO and towards Ukraine would play out within the US government, within NATO, and globally, should Trump return to office, is unknowable. 

By increasing its defense spendings, Türkiye is reached to the 2% target in NATO first time ever. Also, Ankara’s diplomatic power cannot be denied regarding its role in Russia-Ukraine talks. How do you see Ankara’s position in the organization as Türkiye prepares to host the 2026 NATO Summit?

Türkiye’s geographic location makes its continued support for Ukrainian resistance to Russia’s war against Ukraine essential for NATO, even as it also acts as a broker with Russia, as reflected in the all-too-brief Black Sea Grain deal.  Ankara will continue to be an influential actor, so long as it avoids taking any position seen as fundamentally undermining NATO and its goal of defending Ukraine. The deal ultimately reached to enable Sweden to join NATO reflects the tough, nationalist (and one could say hard-ball) approach taken by Turkish President Erdogan, and also his pragmatism.  

Türkiye’s anti-terror struggle in Syria with YPG is still an unsolved issue. This is according to Türkiye unfortunate that NATO allies underminers NATO borders’, Türkiye’s borders’ security. Then how do you see NATO members’ undermining Ankara’s key issues?

NATO operates by consensus, but NATO member countries do not have total agreement on any number of security issues. There is an extensive history here, including the need to combat the Islamic State a decade ago, that is relevant to this issue. The US and Türkiye have ongoing bilateral opportunities to work through issues on which they do not see eye-to-eye, and this goes on independently of multilateral discussions involving NATO members generally.  

Presidential elections took place in Iran. New President Massoud Pezeshkian wants to revive nuclear talks. What is the US’s approach to the new Iranian President? When you consider it in terms of Biden and Trump policies, which leader will be closer to dialogue with Pezeshkian? What are your expectations?

In important respects, in the area of its foreign policy, including with Iran, the Biden Administration has continued the policies of the Obama Administration from the 2009-2016 period. It has never abandoned the goal of containing Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon through a negotiated settlement. By contrast, Trump has little regard for diplomacy generally, and diplomacy with Iran specifically.

You also served as the Special Envoy to Libya. Considering the point reached in Libya today, that is, the actual division, intransigence and interventions of third countries, can you say that the NATO operation that overthrew Gaddafi was “absolutely right”?

The goal of the NATO operation was to support the Libyan people who had engaged in an uprising against a dictator known for erratic and vindictive behavior, who had previously imprisoned and slaughtered political dissidents. Indeed, he literally ordered the very bones of political opponents ground into dust at Abu Salim prison.

NATO played no role in initiating the Libyan uprising, it supported it weeks later, with an air campaign after cities throughout Libya rebelled against Gaddafi. Such campaigns always have consequences. But blaming NATO for what has happened to Libya is misplaced. Libya’s own political class has failed them, just as Lebanon’s political class, for example, has failed Lebanon.  The past decade of interventions by regional actors and by Russia have merely taken advantage of and exacerbated the internal divisions that had already impaired Libya’s ability to govern itself after Gaddafi’s death. 

The US experienced a great shock when its ambassador was killed in Libya. And Libya was not at the forefront of the agenda for many years. It pursued a policy through his European partners, and European states could not come to an agreement on Libya for a long time. Now, does the US have a clear, understandable and targeted Libya policy? How do you evaluate the United Nations’ Libya policy, which has not been successful so far? Do you see a political reconciliation possible in Libya?

After our Ambassador was murdered by terrorists in Benghazi along with three other Americans, the Obama Administration paused for about a year to evaluate the situation, and then appointed both a new Ambassador and a Special Envoy – the position I held, charged with the goal of doing what we could to try to help stabilize the country. We sought to do this by working closely with a range of countries to help Libyans reach an agreement on an interim unity government in a process sponsored by the United Nations. We did that with the strong personal involvement of Secretary of State Kerry, National Security Advisor Rice, Vice President Biden, and President Obama, among others. That effort, in which we worked to achieve alignment with many other countries as well as the Libyans, resulted in a new government and the 2015 Libyan Political Agreement, which remains the foundational document for the government that still remains in place in Libya, including the House of Representatives and the High State Council.  During the Trump years, the US became less involved, reflecting Trump’s general disdain for diplomacy, other than deals brokered by his son-in-law and consistent with his personal interest. Over the past three years, the Biden Administration has had its hands full in dealing with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the situation in Gaza, and managing the US competition with China, among other issues, and so has had more limited ability to focus fully on Libya.

Except for the brief period when President Trump responded to entreaties by Egypt and the UAE to back Khalifa Hifter’s failed effort to take Tripoli by force, with the help of Russian “mercenaries” backed by Russian President Putin, US policy towards Libya has been consistent. Today, as was true a decade ago, the US wants Libya’s political class to enable free and fair elections in Libya, for both the parliament and the President, and then to abide by the results to form a unified, inclusive government that meets the needs of the Libyan people.

For political reconciliation to take place, Libya’s political leaders need to accept the idea that there will be more for everyone in an inclusive government that bring stability, and that their people deserve to share in the benefits of Libya’s national resources on an equal and inclusive basis. 

Securing such elections and the formation of an inclusive and unified Libyan government have been made harder by the presence of foreign military forces in Libya, especially the rapidly-growing Russian military presence, which it is using to project force to a range of dictators in Africa, as I have described in some detail in my recent writing for the Middle East Institute.

The US is not unrivaled in the Middle East today as it used to be decades ago. Powerful regional countries can oppose the Washington when their own interests are harmed. It seems that other global powers such as Russia and China have also become a significant power in the region. How do you evaluate this new multipolar future of the Middle East?

The Middle East has long been among the most complicated regions in the world, with clashes of interests among many competing groups, religions, forces, ideologies, nationalities, tribes, and other identities. Regional powers, post-colonial powers, local forces and political groups have always competed for influence. The US role has at no time been without such competition and rivals, as reflected 45 years ago when OPEC decided to raise oil prices in a move that was visibly against US interests.

For any non-Middle Eastern country to have sustained influence in the Middle East, it has to offer benefits to not only to the relevant local leaders, but to their people. The US has many strengths and much to offer, but the US cannot succeed without maintaining partnerships with those who share common interests with the United States. To do that, takes focus and attention, and deep engagement that seeks to build enduring relationships to achieve common goals. 

Due to Russia’s cynical support of dictators and warlords in Africa, western interests and Russian interests in the region are currently close to a zero-sum game. But what Russia is doing there, especially in Africa, will ultimately backfire, as the people of those countries find themselves unhappy with having their lives dictated to them by unelected juntas and strongmen backed by Russian pretorian guards. The US should be working on helping elements of civil society to empower a new generation of people with tools that will enable them to build better options, and ultimately better societies. It can be a long slog, but in the end, people demand opportunity and freedom, just as they require food, shelter, health care, and other necessities. Major foreign powers can either be on the side of the people, against them, or absent. The US needs to be both present, and visibly on the right side of these aspirations, just as Russia is present, and visibly on the wrong side of them.

African countries have been colonised until a very near history. Their sources have been exploited by Western countries. The poor people could not get benefit from their own lands and natural richness. Maybe those countries did not have a chance but to try a cooperation with Russia. What would be your comment?

The evidence is not that African juntas, strongmen, and coup leaders are now partnering with Russia in order to improve the lives of their poor, but instead, to get military support to maintain power. In any case, typically involving significant corruption as well. Moreover, Russia has been trolling for African partners for some 60 years now, going back to the 1950s. I can’t think of a single case in which it has gone well for the underlying populations until Russia is eventually pushed out, as took place when Sadat severed relations with the Soviets from Egypt in 1981.  

One of the topics which is discussed most recently is the complete withdrawal of the US from Iraq. In my interviews with both Northern Iraqi officials and Baghdad authorities, I recognized that current politicians want the United States to stay. In fact, analysts in the US states that, far from withdrawing, the US would increase its military presence in Iraq and Syria. What is the final strategy on this?

As near as I can tell, there is no final decision on the future role of the US in Iraq. For the US to stay in Baghdad and/or Northern Iraq, the respective parts of the Iraqi government would have to want a continued US presence in those locations, and secure continued agreement by the US that is in its mutual interest to stay. Whether such agreements will be possible and in the interests of all of the relevant parties is interconnected with Iranian and Kurdish relationships with Iran and its Revolutionary Guards, including Iranian malign activities in both Iraq and Syria. There are legitimate arguments that the US should stay, and others that it should depart. But there is no good reason to make a decision now, ahead of US presidential elections at a time of great regional uncertainty and multiple plausible scenarios for trouble.

What would be the scenerious of the US presence in Iraq if Biden wins or if Trump wins?

I do not think the scenarios are very different based on which administration is President. I have little to say on this topic at this time beyond my previous answer.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey