Connect with us

INTERVIEW

“We are in an interregnum without a king”

Published

on

The global financial crisis followed by the Eurozone crisis, the imperialist intervention in the Middle East followed by the refugee crisis, the Ukraine crisis, the energy crisis… This compound spiral of crises that has spanned almost 15 years seems to have opened the door to a new era in Europe. There is not a single corner where the “death of neoliberalism” has not been proclaimed. We are witnessing not only the collapse of the old economic order but also the collapse of the world of thought, sometimes quietly, sometimes with a great noise.

But the foundations of the order are solid for now. Those who want a new and different construction may not number in the billions, but they are accumulating. For a European thinking about this, about a new architecture, especially if that architecture is about security and geopolitics, the first thing that comes to mind is Russia. “Russia experts” are breathing new life into European thinking. They think that there should be Russians in the new mortar, more or less.

That’s why we spoke to Thomas Fasbender. Fasbender, the geopolitical chief of the Berliner Zeitung, who stood out as a kind of “outsider voice” in the German mainstream media, which had become “one voice” after the Ukraine war and the Gaza invasion, attracted attention with a biography he wrote about Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Fasbender, like Hauke Ritz, has a background in philosophy, perhaps one of the prerequisites for writing about politics in Germany. Like Ritz, but even earlier, he lived in Russia in the turbulent 90s, from 1992 to 2015. He says he was involved in “business”, meaning he came to journalism relatively late.

In his recently published book Der Eurasienkomplex: Warum und wie dem Westen die Zukunft entgleitet [The Eurasian Complex: Why and how the future slipped away from the West] he calls for unity against “Western arrogance”. Based on his own personal experience, he argues that basically people everywhere are pursuing “the same petty goals” as Western Europeans: Individualism, the pursuit of professional and personal success.

It is therefore calling for a kind of “eye level” from Western Europe towards other worlds, for example the Islamic world, for example China, for example India. The West no longer has the power to impose its will and desires on the world. What needs to be done is to abandon the “this-or-that bloc” mentality of the Cold War and place Europe (and Germany) as a bridge between East and West, North and South.

Given your background in philosophy, I think we can also talk about Kantian eternal peace. Which brings us to your book on Eurasia. Can you start by briefly explaining how the future is moving away from the West? I think you also call this the Eurasian complex. What do you think about this Eurasian complex? Because there is always a lot of talk about the decline of the West or the collapse of the West. Western values don’t work anymore, and so on. What do you mean by that?

The future of the West is slipping away. Basically, when we say that the future is slipping away from the West, we start with the basic economic and demographic data.

Let’s start with demographics. European people, if you include Canada, if you include the United States, people of European descent, 100, 150 years ago made up 30% of the world’s population. Today these countries make up less than 15% of the world population. The so-called West, if we include Europe, Australia and North America, accounted for more than 50% of the gross national product, world income, world total production. More or less until 2010. Since 2010, it has fallen below 50%.

If we look at the BRICS countries today, a few years ago, they reached a total production higher than the G7, which has been the club of western developed industrialized countries since the 1970s.

So we are seeing a numerical decline, a numerical shift from a very influential position that Europe and the countries that are Eurocentric or of European origin used to have until it reached its peak in the mid-20th century after the Allied victory in the Second World War.

So is this the Eurasian complex?

It’s not the Eurasian complex, it’s something else. This is just to indicate the starting point of our thinking, why the West is losing its dominance over the world, and we base it on its demography, its economy.

The Eurasian complex is an additional element, because the Eurasian complex means for Europe, for us Europeans, the challenge of accepting the growing power of countries, of Eurasian countries, of Eurasian regions outside Western Europe (even look at Russia today, for example).

We used to see Russia as an important part of Europe, because most of Russia belonged geographically to Europe, to Europeans. But recently, since the beginning of the war, the European idea of ourselves has increasingly excluded Russia. So Russia becomes part of the concept of Eurasia.

In the book we argue that there are different concepts of Eurasia. You can have the Eurasian landmass, which basically stretches from Portugal to Shanghai and covers the entire spread of Eurasian geography.

You can have a concept of Eurasia that spreads in Russia, for example, and covers the region of the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Russia and part of the Caucasus. This is another concept of Eurasia.

We look at Eurasia more from a geographical point of view, but mainly we understand it in the sense that Europeans have to deal with the rest of the Eurasian continent in a new way, not in the way they did in the past.

In the past, as colonial masters, we were ruthless. Basically, we produced the goods, we produced the ideas, ideologies. That was the only thing that came from Europe for 100, 200, 300 years.

And that has stopped. It stopped for the reasons I mentioned earlier, with the economy and demography. But it also stopped because after globalization, non-European, non-Western countries have a new self-confidence all over the world.

This self-confidence maybe only came with the last generation, it is actually based on the experiences of previous generations. But it is this power of asserting oneself that makes the real difference, that creates the real challenge, because now we see people simply standing up and saying: It’s all very well for you Europeans to tell us about liberalism, democracy, values and so on, but it doesn’t interest us anymore.

This is very difficult to digest even for the average member of the European elite, that we find ourselves in a completely new situation in relation to non-Western, non-European peoples, countries, traditions and histories in this huge continent.

So in what way does this concept of Eurasia overlap with the BRICS or the “Global South” or other “non-Western” terms?

Of course, at this point Eurasia becomes a kind of cliché word. It does not really cover everything and everyone.

In terms of geopolitical relevance, it is much more accurate to talk about the West and the “Global South”, for example. But then you also have to deal with the problem that China is not really a southern country and China is not really a developing country.

So all these concepts are simplifications to some extent, but they are necessary simplifications. You have to make them. The total world is so complex that it is completely impossible to grasp it unless you simplify it at least in terms.

So when we say Eurasia, of course there is an overlap with the Global South. There is an overlap with BRICS. There is the SCO, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. What we see is that underneath these terms, underneath the names that we give, it represents this assertiveness that I just mentioned, transforming itself into new power arrangements.

Because BRICS was a club. They weren’t even a club, it was initially a name, a name given by an American analyst around 1999. And then it transformed. It took on a kind of life of its own and became a conceptual name and then a political reality, and now this economic reality is becoming a political reality, it is gaining traction. It is attracting.

It has already attracted Ethiopia, Iran has been admitted, Egypt and the Emirates, plus now your country, Turkey, has formally requested membership and probably in three weeks, in October in Kazan, Turkey will be admitted. The same goes for Azerbaijan.

And this of course creates a new dynamic, because think of the original BRICS. In 1999, there were no Islamic countries in the original BRICS. Now, the Islamic factor represents an entity in itself, an entity in itself, the Islamic world from Indonesia to Morocco. Now I can say that this Islamic world is also participating in this new distribution of cards.

If we compare geopolitics to a game, there is always a new hand. We always redistribute the cards and one of these cards is of course the Islamic world, whose value is increasing.

Another question is: Can Asia or Eurasia today maintain its strong position in competition with the US or the G7? The US had a very clear position of superiority and even the Soviet Union, for example, could not maintain its superiority. Could Eurasia maintain a position of superiority, not only economically, but also culturally, civilizationally and systemically? Could it at least provide a counterbalance to the Western countries?

We must be careful not to confuse two things here: these are just names. There is no such entity as Eurasia. There is no entity. There is no single entity called the Global South. There is no entity called the West.

We use these labels to describe influences, to describe certain pulls, to describe forces that oppress, compete, antagonize each other.

When we talk about Asia, there is always China, there is always the Sino-Indian conflict as a dividing factor. When we talk about the Islamic world, there will always be competition between Turkey, Iran and the Arab world.

Of course, in the reality of geopolitical gains, each side will take advantage of the rivalries on the other side and try to exploit them. Just like Russia wants to separate the Europeans from us, the Americans or the Israelis will use the rivalries within the Islamic world and try to divide it for their own interests. Everyone will try to pit India and China against each other so that they can keep both of them under control, so that they don’t allow each of them to become too powerful.

So it is very important to see this here. I think the name multipolar world is not a bad name because it simply starts from the fact that there is no single pole that can dominate the world. As you mentioned, of course the US comes from a very strong position. It is still in a very strong position and it will remain in a strong position, a very strong position for a long time to come.

The United States is a young country of 250 years. When we look at the empires in history, they either collapsed very quickly or they were really long-lived, they proved to be long-lived entities.

In this game, the term multipolar allows us to understand a game where there is no single dominant factor, but there are very strong centers of power, centers of power that exert influence, project power, project competitiveness.

Here we have an Islamic world with three centers. The Arab world, the Turkish world and Iran. In Iran, you have Asia with China and India, you have the West with the US and Europe, and you also have Australia.

So what we see is that now the game is being played in a new way. It creates a new, let’s say, interdependent, ever-changing situation, like a puzzle.

That’s what makes this world, the new world, so different from what it was 30 years ago. After the end of the cold war, everything was simple. That’s why a lot of people liked it. Before the end of the cold war it was simple because you had two poles and it was much easier to understand a bipolar world than a multipolar world.

If you think about the possibility of a multipolar world becoming a multipolar world, then it becomes really very difficult.

But my personal view is that the clear and simple structures of 30 years ago are not going to be quickly replaced by something new. So if we say, great, the new world will be bipolar again, the US and China… No, neither the US nor China is strong enough like the Soviet Union and the US were 50, 70, 80 years ago.

So you are pointing to a kind of interregnum.

Geopolitical interregnum is probably the right word: Kingless interregnum. Because even if we assume that the US will remain the dominant power militarily and economically for decades to come, which I think we can assume, at least economically, there is strong competition from China, there is strong competition from India, and militarily the US, despite its 700 or 800 military bases, no longer has the power or the manpower, the willingness, but also the material power to really be everywhere.

Because because of globalization in the world, there are countries that 50 years ago, 70, 80 years ago were quite new when it comes to exerting power in real geopolitics. Africa was colonized and much of Africa and Asia was just dumb, happy to survive, but not claiming any political importance, any political ambition on their own.

This situation has now changed. Countries have started re-entering the international arena. China re-entered; China was the most powerful nation until the first half of the 19th century. India has re-entered in the same way, Iran has re-entered in the same way, Turkey has re-entered in the same way. So these countries have re-entered the international arena and they are reclaiming their historical rights. This adds an additional color to geopolitics. Until the 20th century, geopolitics was quite complex and simple. Now they have evolved into something completely different.

But in this case, could your description, multipolarity, mean more wars? Because you said it could be a kingless interregnum. So if we go into a kingless interregnum, isn’t it more likely that we will have more wars than in past decades?

We already have so many wars. I think you are right that we will have more wars. But the likelihood of a big all-out world war, the so-called Third World War, will probably decrease.

It will be less likely than if we have a world dominated by two or at most three very powerful powers.

This is how the world used to live. The world has always been used to living with a series of regional conflicts, some of them escalating into war, and this is probably a solution or a description of the future situation.

Let’s talk a little bit about your expertise on Russia. In one of your interviews on Vladimir Putin’s autobiography, you said that the state, the concept of the state is the main element that determines the worldview of the Russian leader Vladimir Putin. I would like to ask you, is it just pragmatism or Machiavellianism, or does Putin have deeper ideological beliefs? And I would also like to ask at this point: if Europe, and especially Germany, starts to learn from Putin and Russia about this concept of the state, is it possible to predict the consequences? Because the glorification of the state has not led to good results in Europe before.

Russia, unlike the European nation-states, even though it has been cut off from Central Asia, even though it has been cut off from the Caucasus, it is still, in their view, an empire, an imperial sovereign state, not a nation-state.

Russians make up about 80% of Russia’s population. This is, of course, a majority, a large majority, but nevertheless, Russia does not see itself as a nation-state of Russians because of their historical understanding, because of their own views.

Russia has historically had a fragile government, a fragile power, because it has huge territories, it is also sparsely populated, it has traditionally very high disparities, strong differences between rich and poor, and it is very difficult to protect the country, because Russian borders are very big and very few of them are natural borders like rivers or mountain ranges.

So there is always the possibility that the Russian state, as it sees itself, is a threatened entity. That is why Russia is moving very strongly to the west, but not only to the west, but also to the south.

This high degree of distrust, at least potential distrust, is very strong because of the memory of the French occupation in 1812, the memory of the German occupation in 1941. On the one hand, these are artificially cultivated by the state, as part of the state’s cult of history and cult of historical victories. But they also reflect something real, which is a feeling, and this feeling is real, a real sense of insecurity.

This is what many people in the West find difficult to understand, because people in the West start from themselves: They don’t have aggressive feelings towards Russia, they don’t have expansionist feelings… So they say that there is no threat from them to Russia, even if it is NATO or the West. So any insecurity, any perception of threat on the Russian side is just a fantasy, it is not real.

But here we get into psychology. The important thing is to understand that any Russian leader, anybody sitting in the Kremlin, will insist on having a strong and vertically organized state structure, because this has always been the case. This is a tradition that is inherent in the Russian people and in Russian history.

And to expect something like European liberal democracy to work in Russia is a fantasy, it is completely illogical and unrealistic, because in different countries, in Germany, in England, in Russia and other countries, you can have different traditions of self-government. The tradition of self-government in Russia has always been top-down and at the same time vertical and combined with a strong element of power, an element of power only in the sense of being able to implement your own will.

For example, during the collapse of the Soviet Union, [then German Chancellor] Helmut Kohl thought that Gorbachev was willing to decentralize the Soviet Union and that this would be a good, wonderful democratic experience for the Russian people. Many political elites in the West, especially in Germany and the US, thought so. Do you think this is not true?

I think Mikhail Gorbachev himself believed that there could be something like a liberal and more or less democratically organized Russia. But in the end it didn’t happen. Of course, books have been written and will be written about why it couldn’t happen. But the fact is that the security apparatus, the apparatus of power, the state in its purest form, embodied by Vladimir Putin, has regained control.

So I wouldn’t say that everything that Gorbachev tried to achieve and that Yeltsin somehow continued in the 1990s didn’t work at all, because I lived in Russia in the 1990s and there was a lot going on. There was always a great deal of democracy and debate.

But it ended de facto, it ended with the old security power, the Siloviki as the Russians call them, the old KGB structures taking over.

We can regret that. We can speculate whether it was necessary or not. We can try to explain it, but the reality is that the Russian state is run by this mentality and these people, this part of Russian traditional history and this is what Europe has to live with.

So, what is Germany’s reaction or can we learn something from this in Germany? I don’t think Germany will or should learn anything from what is happening in Russia because the two countries are very different. It has a completely different history than Western Europe, Central Europe, the rest of Eurasia. It’s not just Russia, it’s history and history shapes our future.

This is what is sometimes difficult to understand or not fully understood by people: How much our collective history determines our collective future. Because we think we are autonomous and strategically free, “We are free people. We can change our systems.”

Theoretically we can, but it will never work. Russia is an example of why it doesn’t work. Even if you compare it with Germany in 1945, for example, some people tell us that democracy was brought by the allied powers, by the Americans. This is not true. It happened in 1945, but it was re-established from our own democratic traditions going back thousands of years, going back to the self-government of independent German towns.

So we are like the rest of Western Europe. We have 1,500 years of strong democratic tradition. Unless you have this tradition of democracy, you cannot invent democracy. You cannot really create democracy out of nothing in any state. Something has to happen first.

I think the challenge for Germany is first of all to realize that our way of thinking, the way we want to have, with words like liberal, democratic, etc., is something that we can only be happy with if we achieve it in our own country.

But we should never want or expect the rest of the world to follow us in the way we see ourselves. We see an ideal world. This is also true for Russia because when we talk about European values we must always keep in mind that Russia, even today’s Russia, is part of Europe.

When we talk about European values, sometimes I ask people, what are these European values? They say, rule of law, democracy, human rights… And I say, European values are God, family and homeland. These are European values. God, family and homeland are actually the values that governed Europe during the rise of Europe, during the rise of Europe to world power. So what we have in terms of democracy, human rights and the rule of law is a very late development in our European history.

Europeans see these concepts as fixed ideas, not historical ideas, but fixed concepts…

You are right. I don’t know about other European countries, but in Germany we are stuck in a set of ideologies, a set of values that we think are universal. But in fact they are not universal. They are just an expression of our own historical experience, our own historical formation.

And there is no guarantee that in, say, 200 or 300 years time, people will value human rights the way we value them today. Even in other parts of the world, there is no guarantee that people will value human rights the way we value human rights. When you talk to very educated Muslim people, for example. There were a series of conferences on Islamic human rights and these are highly educated and highly intellectual people who will argue that the so-called universal rights of Europeans do not necessarily apply to different cultures and religious traditions; we simply have to accept that as a fact.

The mistake we make is that we say, yes, this is all there, this is what people think, but we are still right. And this is where our own misery begins. Because even if we are right, as the West we are no longer in a position to impose our opinion and impose our will on the rest of the world.

This is the dilemma in which we find ourselves at this very point, in the third century, in the third decade of the 21st century.

And this brings me to a question about German-Russian relations. Let’s talk about that. Can Germany, at odds with Russia, build healthy relations with Eurasia, Asia or the “Global” South? Relations with Russia are unlikely to improve in the short or medium term. And the question arises. What does Germany have to lose by picking a fight with Russia in this context?

Germany is at a crossroads, as I said, we have certain ideas about which values should be universally applicable to everyone. We have certain ideas about the rule of law in international relations. We have certain ideas about international law, the dogmas of international law, territorial integrity, the right of nations to self-determination, and we are very firm in our belief, in our understanding that this should apply to everybody.

Now, Russia feels that it is being attacked, so to speak, on its southwestern front. This approach of the West, from the Russian point of view, trying to cut Ukraine off from the so-called East Slavic world, from the so-called Russian world, whether we accept it or not, is a reality.

Russia violated international law with its invasion on February 24, 2022. There is no doubt about that. It violated its own obligations towards Ukraine, towards the international order. So in many ways it has violated the order that governs Europe and from a German point of view should govern Europe.

So how do we deal with this? We are still trying to secure the victory of the Ukrainians. By securing victory we mean restoring the status quo, the European order as we understand it.

If that doesn’t work, if we are not in a position to secure the victory of the Ukrainians, to restore order, if the conflict ends with, let’s say, a territorial concession that goes completely against all our beliefs in international law… That’s the dilemma I’m talking about. Then we will find ourselves in a situation where we will have to rethink our whole relationship with the world, with the outside world.

How do we deal with Russia if we still hold on to our beliefs in the international order? We cannot talk to the perpetrator. Russia will become a taboo country for us. But not only Russia, China, for example, because of human rights violations; you will find it in Iran, you will find it in many countries; you will find it in Saudi Arabia, even our ally, violates human rights.

So if you really take the intellectual basis of our current policy to the end, we will end up isolated, we will isolate ourselves. We will definitely isolate ourselves. Of course we are not going to isolate ourselves absolutely, because even in Germany there are not only ideologues, there are very rational people. We rely on exports, our economy is more than 50% or around 50% based on exports. So we have to deal with the outside world.

But here you are pointing to something very important, a dilemma, the crossroads I was talking about. We will probably not have the power to impose our ideas of order on the whole world. We will probably not even be in a position to restore the European order in Eastern Europe, in Ukraine, and we will have to accept that. This means that we will have to rethink and rebuild our relations with the outside world on a new set of ideas that will be governed in more realistic terms, moving away, for example, from the idea of universal values.

Apart from the Ukraine and Eastern Europe problem, the situation in the Middle East is also heating up these days. The Israeli invasion of Gaza and now the invasion of southern Lebanon. Even in countries like the UK or the US, there are different voices, different opinions about their country’s support for Israel. But when we look at the German government, when we look at the German state structure, there is even a term for Germany’s support for the state of Israel: Staatsräson [state wisdom]. What do you think Germany is trying to achieve by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and the Lebanese people, what is the geopolitical reason for this support?

Don’t think that Germany expects to get something. This is not about getting something in exchange for something else. Germany’s commitment to Israel as a state is based entirely on the Holocaust. Not just fundamentally, it is entirely based on the Holocaust, on the fact that we are responsible for it, that Germany is responsible for the extermination of a people as a whole in the only industrially organized way ever in the history of the world.

It is a violation of culture, it is a violation of civilization, it is a violation of all values and rules of all countries and all religions, all cultures, and in that sense it is truly unique. It is genocide in its own singular order, and this of course binds Germany and will bind Germany for generations to come. The great dilemma in which we find ourselves.

So, yes, the great dilemma in which we find ourselves has to do with the question of the extent to which this happened. To what extent does this guilt, this responsibility, compel us to position ourselves in any conflict in which Israel is involved today and in the future? The word Staatsräson was coined by Angela Merkel, who was our chancellor until 2021, I think it was around 2010. This term was coined in a very prosperous, calm, peaceful, relatively calm period of German history. It probably has too much in it, in the sense of linking us as a state to Israel, in the sense of going too far in this regard. I understand very well what Merkel wants to say, I completely agree with her about this special responsibility, this special commitment that we have. The question is: does it limit us to take certain positions? Do we limit ourselves to only taking certain positions, or do we commit ourselves to taking certain actions?

For example, does Staatsräson mean that we should send the Bundeswehr to the Middle East if Israel’s existence is threatened? Israel’s existence can be threatened at any time.

As we are seeing now, we are dealing with a very victorious, confident Israel, which has largely destroyed Hamas, which has destroyed a large part of Hezbollah and its leadership. This will probably show Iran the limits of its power. So you have an Israel that has militarily reestablished, revitalized its power in the region.

The question, and this is a question that Germany cannot answer, is how Israel sees its future surrounded by hostile populations. Was there any other country in the world that for a long time, for decades, for centuries, based its relations with all its neighbors on military superiority? It is a big question mark.

So I think we have to come back to this question when we talk about the fundamental issues that we Germans have to deal with. To what extent do we have to support an Israeli state that focuses itself exclusively or almost exclusively on the use of military force?

I don’t believe that Israel will behave in this way under any government. The current government under Binyamin Netanyahu is responsible for leading Israeli society in this direction. But we have to deal with this democratically elected government, so according to our rules and norms this government is the legitimate government. This legitimate government is behaving in a way that we as Germans feel morally distant from.

Some Germans may say that what was done to the Israeli people, to the Jews on October 7, 2023, justifies or legitimizes any reaction. But the vast majority of the German people will ask the same question: OK, Hamas terrorists killed 1,200 people and took hostages on October 7. But does that justify the deaths of 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 people? Where will this end? What is the equivalent of 1,200 Israeli citizens?

I always try to think things through to the end and get to the bottom of things. And the bottom line here is that Germany cannot be obliged to support an uncompromising eye for an eye, ear for an ear policy on Israel’s side. This is a question that our politicians have to answer.

But as you can see, when you talk to Germans, it doesn’t matter if they are from below or from above, everybody feels this dilemma and there are very few people who have a clear position.

I would say, “I tell you: Israel is a disturbing factor. I don’t think there are many Germans who would say, “I’m telling you: Israel is a disturbing factor. It should be eliminated.” No, there may be Arabs in Germany who say that, not Germans, but there are very few Germans who say that everything Israel does is legitimate and justified because of our own German background.

But there is a greater hypocrisy on the part of the German government. Germany can morally separate itself from Russia and Vladimir Putin, but it cannot do the same with the Netanyahu government and what Israel is doing now in Gaza and Lebanon.

I wouldn’t use the word hypocrisy, there are hypocrites, no doubt. But I don’t think they sit in the German government. I accuse our Chancellor Olaf Scholz of being a hypocrite, neither on Israel nor on Ukraine. There are hypocrites in the media, absolutely. There are double standards in the media. Many politicians have double standards.

I think our current government is trying to stay on an equal footing with regard to these two major conflicts. I would say that. And of course, again, we have two commitments. When we look at Ukraine, we have a commitment to the European peace order, to restore the principles of the European peace order. And when we look at the Middle East, there is a commitment to the existence of Israel as a state, and these are constraints that create a framework within which we have to operate.

I wouldn’t say that the German government has actually done a bad job in this regard. Yes, in every conflict there are doves and there are hawks, and sometimes we have hawks in politics and in the media who go too far in saying that everything Israel does is justified, or that Ukraine must win in all circumstances.

These are really double standards that emerge very quickly. For example, I was just wondering these days, because the Russian invasion of Ukraine has always been described by the Russians as a special military operation. The Israeli invasion of South Lebanon was also described, not in those words, but as a limited operation. As far as Russia is concerned, the German media always portrays it as a lie, clearly untrue, because it is a full-scale invasion. Here it is called a full-scale occupation. Nobody is talking about a full-scale invasion of South Lebanon by Israeli forces of the IDF. Maybe there is no full-scale occupation in south Lebanon yet, but even if there is, I don’t think the German media would talk about full-scale occupations.

One last question. Let’s go back to the problem of Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Caucasus. I think you have visited both countries recently. I was in Azerbaijan but I did not go to Armenia, I had a meeting with the Armenian Ambassador.

If we include Iran and Turkey, is the situation in the South Caucasus closer to peace or war?

In the South Caucasus, it should be clearly stated that we are talking about the end of 2024, for the first time since the end of the Soviet Union there is a real chance for peace.

It is necessary to say it again and again, because many people don’t like to hear it, that a year ago, in September 2023, Azerbaijan militarily restored its territorial integrity and sovereignty over all its territory, as internationally recognized at the end of 1991.

So what Azerbaijan achieved in the one-day war in 2023, which was preceded by a war in the fall of 2020, is exactly the same as the weapons and billions of dollars that we sent to Ukraine to ensure the restoration of the full sovereignty of the Ukrainian state on the territory of Ukraine from the last day of 1991.

The problem here, of course, is that this part of Nagorno-Karabakh, the disputed part, or the part of Azerbaijan that is being fought over, is inhabited by about 120,000 Armenians. On the other hand, we all know that there are another 100,000 people in Donbass, which is also being fought. There are millions of people living there, identifying themselves as Russians, sympathizing with them.

Therefore, we are facing a more or less similar situation where the borders of the Soviet Union, the internal borders of the Soviet Union, which became the external borders of sovereign states in 1991, in no way reflect or reflect the population, ethnic origins.

So yes, Nagorno-Karabakh became part of Azerbaijan after 1991. This is how history worked, first of all, after 1991 there was a big Armenian-Azeri war. Armenia won the war, or let’s say the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh won the war. They occupied a big part of Azerbaijani territory. People were forced to leave Azerbaijani lands. Azerbaijan regained this country after 30 years.

There is an endless spiral of conflict here. There are atrocities on both sides. There are refugees on both sides. This is a terrible conflict that could theoretically go on forever. The only great chance we have now is that we have a situation where peace is possible internationally, with the restoration of internationally recognized borders between both countries, because the status quo again corresponds to internationally recognized territories. This is the most important difference that has emerged for the first time since the end of the Soviet Union. So peace is possible again.

There are big challenges for both sides. Can Armenia live with this defeat? Yes, it was a defeat for the Armenian sides. The exodus of Karabakh Armenians after the one-day war last September was a defeat, a terrible cultural defeat. Basically, Armenia as a people gave up, not a state territory, but a cultural territory that it has had for millennia. So the question again is: can Armenia live with this defeat and transform itself into a more promising future?

And, equally importantly, can Azerbaijan be humble in victory? In both cases, the victorious side needs to show humility. The defeated side also depends on the magnanimity of both sides. If both sides, if both leaders, Mr. Pashinyan on one side and Mr. Aliyev on the other side, if both leaders are historically good, if they realize their potential, they can become historical figures. There is a chance for peace. If they go back to the spiral, the spiral of endless war, they will squander this chance.

On the other hand, we have more regional and bigger actors like Turkey and Iran. You know, Iran does not want the Zangezur corridor against its will. And Turkey is supporting Azerbaijan both militarily and economically. So, if there is a new war in the future, it is likely to be bigger than the previous previous war.

A new war should be avoided. There is no question about it because there will be no chance to reach peace again. And it is very difficult to imagine that a single actor will develop as a dominant winner in this region. Who could this be? This is a very old issue.

This is a region where there has never been one dominant power, or very rarely. Now when we look at the opportunity for peace, I think it is in everybody’s interest. Elements on the Armenian side and elements on the Azeri side may not be able to live with this status quo for emotional reasons. For the Turks, it is a very attractive prospect to have the Armenian border open for the economy, just for trade. The possibility that they can build this Azeri exclave through Nakhchivan, through Nakhchivan and then south through the Zangezur corridor, or some other way through Azerbaijan to Baku and then to China, the middle corridor, is a tremendous opportunity for trade, because today it all has to go north through Georgia to Azerbaijan.

It is the same for the Iranians. Because if Azerbaijan and Armenia live in peace, it will be much easier to realize the idea of a north-south corridor from Russia through Iran to India, through Azerbaijan to Iran.

And the Zangezur corridor that you also mentioned. The problem with the Zangezur corridor is not the Iranians. The Iranians are building a link between Nakhshavan and mainland Azerbaijan on their territory south of the Armenia-Iran border. Therefore, they have no problem with the Zangezur corridor. The problem with the Zangezur corridor is that the Azerbaijanis want to have an uncontrolled and duty-free connection between the mainland and their exclave for their goods and their people. For understandable reasons, Armenia is not in a position to commit to this because it would mean voluntarily giving up its sovereign rights. So this is a point where both countries are still a stepping stone for a possible prolongation of the conflict.

But I don’t think that Turkey or Iran has any negative impact on peace. It depends on Armenia and Azerbaijan. I am sure that both sides understand this, because most of the negotiations are now done bilaterally, without Turkey, Iran, the EU or the US.

You can think geopolitically here, you can expect that there might be some opposition from the US, because the US does not want to give China the opportunity to develop the Belt and Road Initiative, the so-called New Silk Road. Because a peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan would mean an opportunity to build the middle corridor in completely new dimensions. The south, east and west of the Caucasus will be connected through the Caucasus to Central Asia via the Caspian Sea. I don’t know if there are forces, geostrategic thinkers or conspirators in the US who would welcome this about Turkey and its geopolitical role in the multipolar world.

I think you have some thoughts about what Turkey can do in this emerging new league of nations and what Turkey can do in this emerging multipolar world. What do you think about that?

I think Turkey is definitely realizing its potential and its goals right now. As far as I understand, Turkey has said goodbye to the idea of being tied to Western Europe. I would say that EU membership is a fanciful idea. There will be some kind of relationship with the EU and of course Turkey has a strong interest to integrate economically with the Europeans. There is no doubt about that, but without giving up any foreign policy autonomy, foreign policy rights…

Looking at the current perspective of BRICS membership for Turkey, it is clear that Turkey will lead a 360-degree foreign policy. The challenge, which will not make Turkey’s job easier in the meantime, is that on the one hand, Turkey is returning to its traditional high dominance in the geopolitical theater. On the other hand, it is returning to the old rivalries that have made life unbearable for Turkey time and time again. Because the biggest challenge for Turkey is to maximize the number of enemies. The Christian Balkans are a kind of potential enemy. The two countries that have fought the most wars in Europe in the last 400 years are Russia and Turkey, I think eleven or more. Turkish-Iranian rivalry, Turkish-Arab rivalry, Turkish-Egyptian rivalry…

Therefore, for Turkey, the ambition to set a rule in this geopolitical theater and to assert and reassert its sovereignty is logical, necessary and understandable. Otherwise there will be a vacuum in Anatolia around the straits. But this opportunity also brings with it many potential problems and challenges for the Turkish leadership.

I think the biggest threat at the moment, though, is to rediscover old rivalries, for example with Greece. Turkey does not need such a rivalry. That would be foolish.

Another threat is of course Islamism, fundamentalism. This is a threat to the whole Islamic world. Because every step towards fundamentalism leads to deeper rivalries within the Islamic world and deeper enmity with non-Islamic powers.

And perhaps the biggest challenge is for Turkey to navigate its position in relation to the growing West-East, West-Russia hostilities, the growing divide between Western Europe and the NATO world and Russia and China as representatives of the so-called autocrats.

So the more these blocs become hostile blocs, really hostile blocs, the more difficult it will be for Turkey to remain here as a NATO member and there as a BRICS member. And this will always bring with it the danger of unduly straining Turkey’s position.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘Europe can be a bridge between the Global South and the US’

Published

4 days ago

on

01/01/2025

By

Prof. Franco Bruni, the President of Italian Institute for International Political Studies spoke to Harici: “I think Europe could be helpful because by  gaining some strategic autonomy from the United States, we could pay special attention to the global South and get the global South to make a bridge with us and, through us, with the Americans also.”

Professor Franco Bruni, President of ISPI, Italian Institute for International Political Studies, one of the world’s leading think tanks in the field of international relations and economics founded in Italy in 1934, discussed critical issues such as the current dynamics of the global economy, Trump’s challenges, the challenges facing Europe, the Draghi report and the injustices of representation in international organisations.

Opening the doors of ISPI to Harici, Professor Bruni gave a comprehensive overview of his views on many topics such as conflicts within the European Union, the role of BRICS and the clash of global economic blocs.

Professor Bruni says that Europe can bridge the gap between the Global South and the Global North. Ukraine, on the other hand, could be given territory in Russian-populated areas in order to make Putin feel that he has won a victory in order to sit at the negotiating table. Here is the full interview:

Please tell me what do you mean by your opinion that Europe could be a bridge between the Global South and the Global. Can you open up this?

I think that the world can be thought of as divided into three really sort of independent blocks. One is the West, the other is China, which makes its role part, and the rest is the Global South. Formally, the Global South includes China, but that’s just formally because the leader of the Global South is India really, and I don’t think their relationship with China is that perfect. Moreover, Russia is in the middle and it’s clearly with China. So, you have China and Russia on one side, the Global South, which is also South because China is also north, and then you have the West.

And we don’t find a way to really multilateralization of the world have a governance which pays full respect to all sides. So, we have to break the game and start again in a way after this disastrous world is coming out. And I think Europe could be helpful because by  gaining some strategic autonomy from the United States, we could pay special attention to the global South and get the global South to make a bridge with us and, through us, with the Americans also; and in a sense, also re-approaching diplomatically China. I’m not talking about Russia because Russia is out of, in this moment, completely out of any discourse. I mean, it’s a country which is dying by this war.

I look at China, not at Russia. This is what Europe could do: to diplomatically be very near to India, very near to countries like Egypt. Clearly I’m not talking about Türkiye because Türkiye, in a way, I think it’s part of Europe, but certainly, if you keep Türkiye as an independent country from Europe, Türkiye is one of our basic relationships that we must exploit in order to have a bridge with the South. But countries like Egypt, like all the Arab states, South America—I mean, these are crucial countries that constitute a group which has nothing really in common except one very important thing, which is the desire to participate in the world in an independent way without being with one block or the other block. This is a very precious quality, and we should sort of exploit it to help the world to get a truly multilateral governance. It’s going to be extremely difficult, and we can only do this piece by piece, year by year, but the strategy must be there.

How do you think Europe can be independent from the US? Because now in your speech again, you referred to that, and it is one of my questions. What do you think about the discussions about European autonomy? Is it really possible for Europe to be independent, have its own autonomy? Can Europe do something without the consent of the US?

Certainly, I think this is positive, and we did many things. Look, for instance, in trade, we are fully independent. We are able to combat a trade war. We have an antitrust system in Europe that prevents American companies from exaggerating in exploiting monopolistic powers in Europe. So, we have several fields where we have our autonomy.

Obviously, what I mean is strategic autonomy. It doesn’t mean to break the alliances. The important thing is that the alliances are true alliances so that we decide together, and we have full reciprocal respect. But this requires that Europe is much more united. As soon as Europe is able to express its strategy in a uniform and united way, immediately the alliance with the United States will become much more balanced. So, we can be allied, but having lots of autonomy also in proposing to the US different ways of action and speaking at the same level.

The problem is that now you have the US on one side, which is one big thing, and in Europe, you have these little governments and states that fight one against the other—France against Germany. And this is the problem. So, we’re not talking about autonomy in an aggressive way or saying we are going to be outside. For instance, we can have a full alliance in terms of defense, like your country has. By the way, you are in the NATO system, so Türkiye is in the NATO system, but you have a lot of autonomy, strategic autonomy, and you exploit it very well. So, we can have strong alliances with the United States in many fields, but be autonomous enough to contribute to world diplomacy in an autonomous way.

Then my other question is also about the US and President Trump and his threats to Europe about the trade tariffs. Do you think it will work? Whenever he wants to teach a country something, he’s using his trade stick.

It’s more a strategic weapon. But I don’t think he will exert this or put the tariffs at the level he is threatening to do. I don’t think, especially with Europe, simply because the United States is full of large firms, important firms, powerful businessmen, etc., that do not like this and don’t want to. They are very open. Their firm’s profits depend on the fact that there is full trade integration in the world.

I think that Trump will use in a very effective way his threats of tariffs, but, for instance, one thing that could happen is that he points at specific products and puts tariffs on that. This is different from a full tariff war, and we can reciprocate because we have specific tariffs we can put on American products, and therefore we have our weapons. The point is that even there Europe must be united. In this case, Europe has the power to be united because, as you know, trade policies are centralized in Brussels, so the commission has full authority to maneuver with tariffs. Unity in theory is already there. The problem is that even the commission wants to be in agreement with the major countries so that if France starts diverging from Germany in trade issues, it’s going to be very difficult for the commission to act.

This is—we’re going to see. Anyway, I had a meeting at the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Rome. I was on video, and, well, the idea is that it’s going to be a bit of a mystery what is going to happen.

What do you expect from Trump era’s global politics? On the one hand, you have Western global economic blocks like G7. On the other hand, there’s now BRICS emerging. Some people are hopeful about BRICS, and some people criticize, asking what has BRICS achieved until now. Now Middle Eastern and Gulf countries are also being part of BRICS. This multibillionaire countries are in BRICS. BRICS is getting really stronger. Türkiye is eager to join too, but Trump recently made a declaration that anybody, any country, any person who wishes to reduce the power of the US dollar will be punished. What do you think about this global economic war and the clashes between these global economic blocks of the West and the East?

One thing we can immediately say is the issue of the dollar—the dollar being the privilege of the United States and the idea that somebody could compete with the dollar is not possible. I don’t think that this is a fruitful way for the BRICS. It doesn’t make any sense. You can have an independent circulation of another currency like the Chinese currency, but it’s going to be only to pay for goods and to cash what you get from exports.

As soon as you have assets and you want to invest them, you have to go to the States because this is the only place where you can find a menu of activities, a menu of financial assets that satisfies anybody—short, long, risky, less risky, everything. Moreover, as soon as you have an investment in the US, you can take it away when you want. It’s liquid, large, big, accepted all over the place. There’s no way for China to compete with the United States in this—no way. Absolutely.

I mean, they have controls; they have a political climate that is frightening for any investor. So, the renminbi can be useful, can have its own circulation in the East, in the Southeast, but it’s just circulating money. You can use it for doing the payments or keeping the wealth. As soon as you have assets and wealth to keep, you cannot keep your wealth in a sustainable way in that country. Even the euro is a problem in this sense because Europe is divided. Financial regulations are different in different countries, and when a Chinese investor wants to invest in Europe, investing in Italy is different than investing in France or Germany because banks are regulated in different ways, and the liquidity of the markets is very different.

The euro at the moment cannot even—cannot flank the dollar. So, the dollar is the dollar, full stop, for the moment. Then, when financial markets all over the world will be free, flexible, modern, well-regulated, and safe, then we might have a single currency at the global level. And that currency is not going to be issued by the States; it will be issued by a multilateral organization like the IMF or something similar.

The BRICS, when they talk about money and monetary matters, are really weakening their points. Sometimes, they are even, a little funny. It’s like theater. Look at what happened between Brazil and Argentina when they wanted to separate themselves from the dollar circuit. Nobody wants to put their money in Argentina, so it doesn’t make sense. It’s better to concentrate on real things, not on money.

Another thing that might be of interest is the issue of sustainability and the green transition. This is something that Trump criticizes and would like to stop, as he did or tried to do in his previous presidency. This can be worrying, but as far as I understand, he will find a lot of opposition—mainly from firms. In Europe, firms are moving sufficiently fast toward a green transition. They are fond of it in a sense; they are investing and following the rules. In America, also, large companies are like that. In certain states, the green transition is in progress. So, I doubt that Trump’s war against the green transition can be successful. It might slow it down a bit and give some voice to opposition, but in the end, it will fail.

The consciousness of the fact that if you don’t provide a sustainable green transition, we are going to face enormous problems is now very clear to everyone. Look at the costs of climate damage—it’s incredible. Banks are understanding this; they are measuring it. Central banks are putting rules in place and want to know the risk that each firm runs by having a plant near a river, the sea, or a mountain, or in a risky area.

If this happens, the interest rate for loans to such firms will be higher. So, the tendency of the economy to move in this direction is clear—faster or slower, but it will move. This process is going independently of Trump or general public opinion. This is my idea. Sometimes, I even see friends who are skeptical about the green transition when we’re having coffee together. But when I see them at work, they act as strict managers, pushing the green transition very seriously. So, I tend to be optimistic about this.

Please tell me: do you see any positive sides in BRICS? Because you said it is weak considering monetary policies and common currency issues. But do you see anything positive? You are a professor focusing on the global South. Considering the role of the global South in the global arena, which role do you give to BRICS?

The role of BRICS is the role they want to perform: to establish a different type of governance at the global level. Each country has to be represented for its true weight in the global economy.

For example, take the governance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations, or other international multilateral agencies. The way we regulate large markets—the ocean, the green transition, etc.—must ensure that decisions are not dominated by one or two blocks while forgetting the rest of the world, particularly the global South.

The global South’s presence at the right tables is essential. This is the only real aim of BRICS, apart from rhetoric, that makes sense. Otherwise, what do Argentina and Türkiye have in common? Or Egypt and Vietnam? They are culturally and socially different, with different aims and tendencies.

It’s not like the West, where people watch the same movies in Milan and Florida. BRICS countries are very different, but they make sense as a group because they can help re-equilibrate the world.

Take the IMF: its governance and the number of votes do not correspond to the actual weight of individual countries in the global economy. China doesn’t have the number of votes that reflect its weight. The same goes for India, Brazil, and Egypt.

We need to increase these countries’ weight in the IMF and their role in the United Nations, the International Labor Organization, the World Health Organization, and other global governance platforms.

The Global South must actively demand its representation. This is the only meaningful way to understand the concept of the global South. Otherwise, it’s just rhetoric. They can protest because they are forgotten and criticize the lack of help for poor countries to manage their debts and survive.

Look at the problems of the poor countries in the world. There are 40 to 70 very poor, heavily indebted countries today. These countries need help for several years now. Economists have developed proposals, techniques, and ideas to address this, but nothing is done quickly enough. There are proposals, there are techniques. Economies have developed and elaborated a lot of ideas. There is a possibility to do it, but nothing is done quickly enough to solve the situation. So this is what—and it’s a common interest because even the United States, or Europe, or all the lenders, as usual, have an interest in the fact that the borrowers can repay their debts.

Fixing this problem and relaunching the growth of countries that are today too poor to sustain their life in the world is a common interest. It has to be pursued by a multilateral organization. And the BRICS—BRICS excluding China or with China, depending on certain issues—

Europe can act as a broker because we understand these dynamics better than Americans do, normally and obviously. Sometimes even a sacrifice is needed. For example, Europe holds more votes in the IMF than it deserves. We should give up some of these votes to BRICS and then use our remaining voting power more effectively as a united bloc.

Europe has instruments to broker agreements with BRICS, even making sacrifices to achieve results. This can lead to a new approach to multilateralism.

The government in France is also on the verge of collapse due to the budget crisis. Is it possible that the EU’s two most indebted countries will be dragged into a Greek-style debt crisis? On the other hands, in Italy, the government’s budget plan has sparked debate and strikes. It calls for increased purchasing power for wages and pensions, and more funding for health, education, public services and industrial policies. What do you think of the budget plan?

Well, let me say first one thing on Greece, on the Greek example. The Greek example is famous because apparently European authorities and the IMF have dealt with Greece in a bad way. And they caused a lot of suffering. Now this is true, but it is also true that at the end, Greece was able to profit from the enormous financial help that we gave.

And I was recently in Cairo and there was a big conference. And what the Egyptians did was to invite Greek people from the treasury, from the parliament, from the political parties and from the think-tanks. And they organized an entire morning on Greece, citing Greece as a potential example for Egypt in getting out from a debt trap. And these Greeks that are now in power, they were explaining the way they did it in the last ten years. They were able gradually to get out and now they are in much better form. And I asked very squarely the question, but look, what about this fact that apparently the IMF in Europe has made you suffer enormously and this was counterproductive? And they answered in a very unexpected way. “Yes, we suffered a lot. We probably could have suffered less if the approach would have been different. But suffering was indispensable for solving our problems and we were able to solve our problems. So, now we are much better off.” And this was important because Egypt was learning that you can be rigorous with finance, suffer a bit, but getting out of the problem and attracting capital.

Now as France and Italy, it’s a totally different story. We have so large countries, so large debts. So as soon as we have difficulties, we will be under the control of European financial help, the central bank, the commission. So, it’s going to be a problem at that point of re-managing our countries. My impression is that if we don’t do before our tasks our homework and reorganize our public finance in a sustainable way, we will do this anyway under the control of the European Central Bank, the commission, and I think it’s difficult to do these things without the IMF. So, because you know, nobody can allow France or Italy to have a true financial crisis. It’s impossible to bear.

Look what happened in 2010, 2011. Greece failed, Ireland failed, Portugal failed, Spain, not the whole country but the banking system failed, and Cyprus. All these countries were bankrupt basically and were, say, officially bankrupt. They were not able to repay their debts. They were helped and re-managed by the international community. But the worst situation at that time was the Italian one. Because we had the largest problem in terms of public debt and speculative attack. And we were the biggest country there. So, officially, we were not bankrupt but we were helped very, very much.

We were being helped in many ways including the fact that they’ve changed the rules in Europe. They admitted that the central bank can officially help a country that proves to be constructive in solving its debt crisis.

So, regarding my questions about France and Italy’s budget today, you said that it is not a problem because this country cannot be bankrupt.

They cannot be bankrupt. I was looking at what’s happening to the spread of France these hours, to the interest rates on long-term debt. And you can see clearly that when it comes a certain time during the morning, the price of long-term bonds of France -and also Italy are the same- but France is currently much more under speculation than Italy. The price of bonds, which is going down the very first part of the morning, second part of the morning, comes up.

The reason is we cannot say this officially but since the central bank is buying, I’m sure. And at the end we can see this statistically because once every month, there is a statistic where the central bank is obliged to show how many bonds it has purchased or sold. And if you analyze carefully this data, you can discover that they are clearly manipulating for stabilizing this. So, I think that politicians in both countries must sooner or later discipline themselves and suffer some costs of austerity and readjustment. Otherwise somebody else will come up and do it for them.

Among the suggestions put forward in the report prepared by Mario Draghi to make the EU competitive again with the US and China is the issue of joint borrowing. He proposes joint borrowing. France and Italy want this but it is not okay for Germany. It is not okay for Netherlands. What do you think of the suggestions in the Draghi report?

I am a very good friend of Draghi. Well, in fact we gave him the ISPI prize. I like the report. It is full of good ideas. At the end, it is convincing in saying that there is no way to do what we have to do to be competitive if we don’t borrow together. But, I have a big “but”. One should also emphasize the fact that maybe with a slower rhythm, but we must spend less at the national level. We must have less debt at the national level. And in a certain sense, I criticize Draghi because he doesn’t say this. I know he thinks this, but he doesn’t say this in an explicit way. Borrowing together means that we spend together also. Okay, but this must not be only additional expenses. We have to give up something at the national level, bring some of our expenditure under the authority of Brussels, save something so that the global debt, including national debt, doesn’t grow very, very much. And the idea of Draghi is that there is this concept of “good debt”. And good debt is the debt that you can do but because it is productive. And I agree that it is productive. If you go into debt to spend in a useful thing, it’s going to be a deal at the end. But, in the meantime, the markets will not follow you. So, you can have a very good debt, but you cannot have it too large. Because, at the end, the market doesn’t look very much to the fact that after 5 or 10 years, your debt will be productive.

From now to the next 5 years, the market must support you and must believe that you really are going to reimburse this thing. And in order to do so, you must show some financial discipline. You must give up something in order to spend in other things.

So, I am fully positive on the idea of having joint borrowing. I think Germans are fairly confused. I mean, they don’t even want their own debt to increase. They want this “zero budget” rule that doesn’t make any macroeconomic sense. Because, at least, the national debt must grow at the same rhythm as GDP. And in order to grow, you have to have more debt. Because, otherwise, the ratio between debt and GDP goes to zero. Because GDP grows and debt stays put. It doesn’t make sense.

So, you have to abolish this rule. And Germans are understanding this. So, sooner or later, things will change in Germany in this sense. So, it’s fine to have more debt and have it as a global debt together. But there must be something that officially centralizes certain expenditures and takes away financial autonomy from national debt. Because, otherwise, you add debt to debt, add debt to debt. In the end, the markets will not accept it. Also, because these debts are in Euros, as I say. And if they are in Euros, then you don’t follow another important suggestion of both Letta and Draghi.

That is, unify capital markets. If you don’t unify capital markets, they don’t even will buy this debt. By the way, this is what happened to the joint debts that we made for the COVID crisis. We issued this common debt to finance the Next Generation EU program. But the interest rate on these bonds happens to be very high compared, for instance, to German debt. The reason is that the market is not liquid.

When a Chinese wants to buy one of these securities, he doesn’t know exactly who is the real debtor, where is the market where he can sell and buy these things, how many, even when JP Morgan buys one of these securities, they don’t know how large will this market be. Because, okay, we issued that today, but what about tomorrow? So, we have really to make deep reforms to make the Euro market uniform, united, a big pool of funds. And this is what Draghi argues very well in the report.

So, you have to do this, and then you can issue debt in common and be credible and have low interest rates. Otherwise, the Chinese, at the end, they will buy this debt only at a discount, because it’s not that liquid. If they want to invest their money better, they buy US treasuries. I mean, why should they buy this if there’s no public finance behind it? So, it’s very important to make unification of capital markets and then some transfer of expenditure, so that the national debts decrease and common debt increases. But the fact that Draghi doesn’t have the courage to insist on the fact that we have to decrease national debts in a much more rigorous way, I think it’s a mistake. He should have insisted also on this.

Let’s talk more about Europe. French Prime Minister Michel Barnier emphasized strengthening France-Italy ties. This emphasis was interpreted as a sign that France increasingly sees Italy as a partner in EU matters. Will Italy take on such a role? France also needs some partners because in some cases in Brussels it feels not backed enough. What is Italy’s position regarding France’s global international policies and European policies? Where does Italy see France?

Well, Italy is sort of a vague concept. We have a government which is now different from the governments we had in the past. And so the Italian government now has a different idea of Europe. But for instance, I don’t know, ISPI for instance, or researchers and thinkers in ISPI have different ideas. So in this way, what really has to be stressed is that it’s not an issue of France and Italy. The issue is Europe.

We have to put together our countries in a common policy and this has to be done as quickly as possible. The problem is that France is a difficult country in dealing with foreign policies because they are rhetorically very, in particular Macron is, rhetorically very pro-Europe. But then when you come to concrete issues, they always are very much nationalistic.

So look at the defence issue. The defence issue is now very important and we want to sort of build a common defence system. We want to put in common defence strategies and form a substantial European army, etc. And France is crucial because they are the most powerful military power in the European Union.

Italy is not bad too in defense production.

 No, we have good producers of arms, but certainly our army is much, much weaker than the French army. I mean, France is a nuclear power, has a very strong army, super technologies in the army. So they are much more powerful than we are. Moreover, they are in the United Nations Security Council. So they are extremely powerful in terms of military power. And they tend to keep it. For instance, they would never give up their position in the United Nations Security Council. And this prevents Europe to have its role in the Security Council. We should be represented by one person coming from Brussels.

And I think Germany would approve of this. Italy, perhaps not with the current government, is going to be a bit more difficult. But I think that at the end, we would approve. Spain would approve. But France wouldn’t approve. Maybe they would say yes, but then they would put a lot of difficulties.

In Türkiye, President Erdogan says the world is bigger than five, referring to the United Nations Security Council. This motto became widespread in the World. Many others also discuss that the UN needs reform, UNSG needs reform, but how should be the UNSG reformed regarding the way it operates. In your case, France practically does not represent the whole continent of Europe. So, can you tell me how the representation should be amended? Should the new international organizations such as BRICS have also representation in the UNSG?

Well, it’s a question of having a larger group of countries and not full unanimity. So a larger group of countries having a decision power that currently is with the Security Council. Or if you want to increase the powers of the Assembly, which includes everybody, and changing the weight of the countries. And Europe should act together, should be represented as a single country. Somebody from Brussels should represent the EU in the UNSG.

And so, but currently there are lots of proposals. They are discussing a bit. Italy has its own documents. But I think it’s irrelevant because it’s a confusion. And the crucial point is that there’s no agreement on changing the current situation. 

Why do you think Italy’s proposal is complicated? What does it say?

To give more room to the Global South. But Italy cannot express a proposal which is too different from what can be agreed in Europe given that we have France in the Security Council. Moreover, we have this question of the British. Because, you know, Britain was in the Union previously. And it’s no longer there. And now we’re going to see what happens with the United Kingdom because with Trump, who knows, maybe that Trump manages to sort of eat the United Kingdom and put it also from the military power completely on their side, as they are now. But perhaps also something different could happen and the opposite could happen that is, the United Kingdom being near to Europe, also in geographical terms, and having the same threats from the East, etc., maybe she can be re-approached by Europe also on military issues. At the moment, this is what is happening. During the last months, there’s been a very important re-approach of the British defence system in Europe. We had different strategies about Ukraine. The UK are much more sort of radical. We are more prudent, if you want. But even trend can change now.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also didn’t like the fact that the US President Biden approved the use of US-made ballistic missiles can be used against Russia by Ukraine just before he leaves his post. She found it risky and provocative.

This probably has been a mixture of propaganda and inertia of the Biden administration. It’s probably a mistake, diplomatically speaking. And it’s not really happening. Because as you see, Zelensky keeps saying we don’t have the arms to win the war.

But Zelensky said we waited 12 months to receive this ballistic missile, but they will receive it.

They don’t receive what they need, because these are not weapons you can use just like that. You need really a lot of assistance. I mean, this is really a mystery for everyone. But for instance, we have information that Russia is in enormous economic difficulties in this moment. They have inflation that is growing very much. There’s a deep division between the central bank and the government. And so the economic situation is going badly perhaps not to be able to stop the war, but to change in a very radical way its rhythm. So maybe a ceasefire, a pause… Moreover, we have to wait for Trump, really, because Trump has gone so far as to say, “I will get out from NATO”. This is absolutely improbable. He will never do such thing. But still we have to wait, because when he will start governing, we’re going to see what can be done also in these terms, because, for instance, Zelensky deserves at least a clear answer on the fact that they should be defended by NATO or not. And if we deny the defense, we have to provide something else, a substitute. It should sort of manage the diplomatic settlement with Russia in a rather different way. Because, in principle, if Zelensky was not satisfied, but would stand a stop of the war and giving up a substantial part of their land, like the peninsula and maybe a couple of regions there…

Do you mean that some land should be given?

No, but suppose that at the end the situation is such that they have to give up something.

You mean Crimea?

Crimea and maybe a couple of lands smaller than the Russians are now occupying, but something. When you sit at the table and start discussing, the important thing is if the red line has been placed backwards with respect to the position, “we will never give not even a square meter to the Russians”. This has been the red line up to now. But this red line is not sustainable. And it will be changed, I think. So, the problem is not so much how much it will be changed, but it will be changed. And therefore it will, at a certain point, in exchange of the stopping of killing people, there will be this red line. But Zelensky has basically already said that this red line is now much more flexible. If you look at the very last declarations, you can see that. And moreover, you must understand what Russians do want, even for them. If you give maybe only Crimea and Putin thinks that he can exploit the fact that he has been able to get Crimea in a way which is sufficient for him to declare and to pretend that he has done a fruitful thing for Russia, which is a crazy idea because the cost for Russia has been enormous. But suppose he is convinced that if he can declare that having a little piece of Donbass and Crimea, he has won. Well, this can help Putin to come to terms and stop the war.

But all this has to be seen. And the only thing that I know for sure, because this is a common sentiment, it’s not my personal conviction, is that during the last couple of months, things have been progressing. In spite of the fact that they still bomb. But the diplomatic work is going on. And China, I think, is also crucial. And it has been activated. And I think that the relationship between the US and China is the relationship that will find a solution. Because China is in full control of Putin, full. I mean, they can stop it from one day to the other. I mean, they buy the gas, they buy the oil, they provide the arms, they defend…

China will not blackmail Putin to stop the war or to stop trade.

Well, if they want, they can do it.

If they want the war to finish, why would China want the war to finish?

Because they might turn the point aside, that they want to improve very, very much their relationship with the rest of the world. They are sufficiently powerful to deal in a peaceful way and be the winners in many fields.

So that after all, it’s better to live without the war than with the war. Because they need investments, they need to be considered a serious country. Obviously, we have to offer to them a different attitude in terms of their culture and their political ideas. We cannot ask China to become a Western country. It doesn’t make sense. We have to pay full respect to their values, full respect to their political system that is different from us and will stay different. And we must hope that it stays different. Because if you try to impose on a country, on a culture, a system which is not good for their culture, it’s going to be a failure. So, as soon as we give the right attention to China, and they understand, I think they will stop. Moreover, it’s a danger also for them.

Look, now they have North Korea… North Korea for China, you know, they’ve been in charge in the past, they’ve been in charge to keep control of North Korea. And now, they’ve lost control of North Korea, I suppose. And today, we have the news from South Korea. And China is extremely attentive to economics. They want to grow. They want to be rich. They want to be successful economically. It’s not like Russia that has lost its mind, and they don’t know what they want. China knows what they want. So, I think it’s reasonable enough. And they have an enormous amount of relations with America. They have an enormous amount of investments in the US. And the United States and European investments are very rich and very important in China.

So, China is completely on different footing. I think that they are in full talking with the US since the beginning of the work. By the way, we had a very important meeting between the two. A very powerful Chinese delegation came to Italy, came to Rome at the very beginning of the Ukrainian war and entered the American Embassy, and they stayed in 48 hours. And we don’t know what they said. It was on the media. We saw on the television news, we saw the cars coming also from Washington, because there was a special delegation from Washington. And we saw the cars of the Chinese. And the doors of the American Embassy, where you, by the way, you have a very large part which is occupied by the CIA. So, they opened up and then they closed up. And this happened during late afternoon, or it was already dark, I remember. And some say that, Jake Sullivan was there, so some say that something has been decided that has been kept during the war. Because, politicians are, they declare the wars, but the true power is with the generals. And the generals are very, very reasonable. People that know what the war is, they know exactly what they’re talking about. And they prefer not to be in war. They want to have a lot of arms, a lot of power, a lot of money but not the war.

You said that Zelensky became flexible in his red lines recently, and there was much progress. Why do you think is that? Because several Western leaders, such foreign minister of UK, somebody from US and somebody from Germany, they were like several declarations that Ukraine is being like a buffer zone for protecting the West. And some ministers said that Ukrainians are dying bravely for Europe. And for these two years, we see that seriously. Ukrainians are dying for Europeans. And Zelensky is now, what do you think, figuring out that he’s not supported enough? The West actually looks like now provoked Ukraine to get in a war with Russia. And now it is almost all alone. Zelensky, joined the radio program. He told, “I am waiting the US to confirm the arms sales for one year.” And why do you think he’s getting now flexible? Because he accepts the situation that the West is actually not giving him what they promised?

Yeah, I don’t want to exaggerate in saying that it’s becoming flexible. But the impression is that he’s saying, “you should have given us much more help. You should send us immediately very powerful missiles. You are bad if you don’t do it.” I still expect that this happens. But he keeps saying some buts because he understands that things cannot go on like this. And by the way, I think he should have done this much before if he could rely on his population to confirm him after a peace treaty. The problem is that, you know, the real danger is that the war stops, from a military point of view, Russia doesn’t go beyond a certain limit, maybe just a really small part like the peninsula is given to the Russians. But Ukraine falls in the hands politically of a puppet government similar to the Belarusian. So, Zelensky is sent away and Ukraine is governed by a pro-Russian government, corrupted and financed by Moscow, etc. So, these are the two things to be avoided. If you can avoid this in exchange of giving up pieces of land that are, moreover, whose inhabitants are also more or less Russians, I think that it’s something that at this moment would be at least attractable at the table, also for Zelensky. He cannot say this clearly, but I’m sure that it is.

Why he cannot say it clearly? Because he needs approval of the bosses from Europe or the US. Who should allow Zelensky to make a peace deal?

His population. These guys are dying massively to defend. And then if you say stop, they have been convinced of the possibility of winning this war. Because they had the West in their favor, etc. So, if you are the number one of a country like this, you have to say that the war has to be won, etc. I mean, it’s very dangerous. You have also this nuclear power plant in Ukraine. In Ukraine, it keeps being a nightmare. So you cannot…

So, you said that it would be for Ukraine a good idea to give up from some land where there is already Russians are living and it is already kind of taken by Russia. And for example, in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, there are more Russian population living. Russia said they made a referendum. We really don’t know the content as we were not there. On the other hand, it has another outcome. When I go to Baltics, I spoke with several politicians and they say that the Ukraine, it is important to keep the territorial integrity because they are very afraid that if Ukraine loses any land, they are afraid that Russia can go to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. There is the Suvalki Corridor problem. You know, if Russia, with the support of Belarus, gets the Suvalki Corridor, all these Baltic countries’ ties and connection can be cut with Europe and NATO borders.

Yeah, it’s a Hitler model, you know, with the Czechs back in the beginning. This is clearly the position, but this doesn’t change if you keep Ukraine without concessions. I mean, they are on the frontier of Europe. What they can ask is a super support of all Europe and America and the West and everybody to their borders. This is what they can. Moreover, Ukraine is a cushion between part of the European Union, the southern part of Russia, but Estonia and Lithuania have a contact with Russia. So, it’s fairly natural that these countries are very sensitive to this, but I don’t think they can change the reality. Ukraine has been a disaster. Perhaps things could have been conducted in a different way and perhaps, the outcome could have been better. But moreover, once Russia is out of this war, its economic and political conditions will be very weak, not very strong. Even if the solution could be giving up a little part of Ukraine. This will give Putin the right to, in turn, domestically, to argue in favor of what he did, but it doesn’t strengthen the Russian economy, etc.

China, again, is crucial because China, at that point, could do one very aggressive thing, that is really to conquer Russia. In the sense that a very weak Russia could become a province of China, basically. Metaphorically. And they could sort of seal this with a lot of very important things such as Chinese population being settling in Russia, in Siberia, in Russia. Very strong agreements in terms of resources, etc. This means that Russia will cease to exist independent of China. And this can be done also in an aggressive way to the West. So, at that point, China could say, “well, I take Russia and I keep being extremely aggressive with the West”. Or the opposite could happen. “Well, now that I helped to solve the Russian problem, I will be able to deal with the West in a peaceful but diplomatically strong way”. And then you have Taiwan at that point. If you give up something in Taiwan also, you can buy Chinese consensus. So, it depends a bit. And Trump in this can be a surprise.

And by the way, finally, Türkiye. I mean, Türkiye should take much more responsibility in this. Because Türkiye is playing in all the fields, doing everything and mediation.

They could do an enormous job. Because they have a relationship with Ukraine in terms of sea shipping. Odessa is a crucial thing for Türkiye. You could really contribute… Türkiye could really contribute to make a deal with Russia and Ukraine and help Ukraine to accept a deal that will bring peace. Because you have something to offer. And to offer in a way also to get something.

This is very unique. Türkiye is buying S-400s from Russia and giving Baykar UAVs, drones, to Ukraine for air defense. Baykar is not a government company. It’s a private company. So it looks like complicated, but it’s really a balancing situation.

You have a lot of money. You can make enormous investments in Ukraine and cheap price, basically. Of course, when the reconstruction starts, the peace deal should be signed for that.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘It’s still too early to talk about final peace’

Published

6 days ago

on

30/12/2024

By

Hanno Pevkur, Minister of Defense of Estonia spoke to Harici: “It’s still too early to talk about final peace, we all understand that before the peace, there has to be a ceasefire. We want to be part of these negotiations if that comes onto the table.”

Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur answered Dr. Esra Karahindiba’s questions about the latest developments in the Russia-Ukraine war and the ceasefire and peace negotiations.

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna, in a statement, said that European leaders should be ready to send military forces to Ukraine in support of any peace deal Donald Trump devises between Kyiv and Moscow. Have Estonia and its allies taken any concrete steps in this direction?

Well, of course, we all understand that it’s still too early to talk about final peace, and we see that the battlefield is not in this moment yet. Of course, we’ve always said that we have to help Ukraine as much as we can and as long as we need. Regarding the peace, of course, we all understand that before the peace, there has to be a ceasefire. When the ceasefire is there, it has to be guaranteed. And we also understand that it has to be guaranteed together with the international allies. So, this is why we have not excluded anything at the moment. We want to be part of these negotiations if that comes onto the table. It’s not on the table yet, but, of course, we always said also that there cannot be any peace negotiation or any peace without Ukraine. And if Ukraine is ready for this, then, of course, we are ready to support them.

Would you be ready to send any troops to Ukraine for help?

When we talk about guaranteeing the peace, we have not excluded that. But also, we have said very clearly that before these peace negotiations start, Ukraine has to have a stronger position. And when Ukraine wants to have a stronger position, then all the Western allies have to send as much help as we can. And we have to deliver all the possible equipment that is in our position in order to help Ukraine and also to train the Ukrainian soldiers. So, as I said, it’s still a bit too early, but we all understand and see that there are rumors going on about different options. But our position is very clear: that no peace can happen without Ukraine. And if there will be some kind of guarantee or peace and guarantee mission, then, of course, all the Western allies together have to be part of that.

As part of Estonia’s recent education reforms, all first graders will be taught in Estonian. Russian language is totally banned from Estonia, and the authorities will begin inspecting schools to ensure compliance with the new law on the transition to Estonian language education. What is your reaction to the reactions from Moscow regarding the situation of the Russian minority in the country? Because it is their mother tongue, and if you think about some constitution of human rights and education rights, it is kind of some contradictory position. I know it is not your field, but I think you can comment because this decision is coming out of the clash with Moscow.

We have also Ukrainian minority, we have Finnish minority, we have Latvian minority, we have many other minorities—tens and tens of nations who are living in Estonia. So the state educational system is in the Estonian language, and this is the point. Of course, we have also international schools—for instance, European school—which is giving the studies in English.   But when we talk about the national school system, then this is in Estonian and will be also what we would like to see in the future is that it continues. Regarding any reactions from someone, Estonia is an independent country. We are making our decisions on our own, and this is the answer. There is no other understanding.

With the election of Mr. Trump, statements and road maps for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine have begun to be exchanged. From Tallinn’s point of view, what kind of solution do you envisage for the establishment of peace in Ukraine?

As I said in the beginning, there cannot be any peace without Ukraine. Secondly, what is very, very important is that Russia has to take responsibility for all these war crimes: deporting the children, killing civilians, raping women, etc. This is what we see in Ukraine. This is what has been also proven by facts and collected evidence. And Russia has to take responsibility. So that means that the peace, when it’s done or when it’s concluded, has to be a fair peace. Also, Russia has to pay for all these war crimes—not only about the crimes, but also the destruction they have done in Ukraine. That means, you know, I believe it will be quite a long peace negotiation if it will be conducted one moment. But again, our position is very, very clear. So when I put it into three, like bullets: Firstly, no peace without Ukraine. Secondly, Russia has to take the responsibility. Thirdly, this peace has to be a fair peace with all these different elements.

What could the “fair peace” be?

As I said, first, Russian responsibility. Russians have to pay for the destruction. But also, of course, the Western countries will never accept the occupied territories because this is about the Ukrainian territorial integrity. This is about their right to be and to use their own land.  Russia cannot choose one moment from history and say that this is the true history. Because in history, also, Turks have been much more into Russian territory. We’ve seen the Lithuanian-Polish Kingdom being much further, etc. So, it’s not the point that you can choose one specific moment from history and say that this is the only right moment. In 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, all the territory of Ukraine was put on paper as it is today. We can never accept that someone is coming to take a piece of your land by force.

In the Baltic Sea, Estonia was the first country to start searching and observing the Shadow Fleet of Russians, which are trying to carry Russian oil to Europe using so many different straits and seas in Europe. Estonia was raising this question and trying to catch international attention and support from Europe, and finally, Russia got the 15th level of sanctions. In Tallinn, there was a summit participated in by Nordic-Baltic 8 countries, and the decision came out that other European countries will support this initiative, too, to search for Russian Shadow Fleets. Now, you have more substantial decisiveness on this topic. Would you like to give any comments after what happened in the summit?

Again, when we talk about the Shadow Fleet, this is one more proof of Russia not respecting international law. We all know that the Baltic Sea is important for Russia transporting the oil out of Russia. But nevertheless, we see that they are doing that not according to international maritime law but they are using exactly the Shadow Fleet, etc. So, it is important that the international community will react to that and then say very clearly that if there is something which is against international law, then we have to react.

How do you find and how do you understand that it is Russian oil?

When it comes from Russia and Russian ports, which oil is it?

There has been damage to telecommunications cables under the Baltic Sea. The failure of the C-Lion1 cable on the Finland-Germany line has fuelled suspicions of sabotage. Who do you think is responsible for this incident? Do you think it is an accident or sabotage?

First, we have to wait for the official investigation outcome. Of course, we have some doubts. Of course, there are some rumors circulating around the news. But when we really want to point the finger to someone who is guilty, we need to have proofs, we need to have evidence. And this is exactly for the investigation to find out. So, let’s wait for the investigation results. At the moment, the understanding is that behind the destruction of the cable in the Finnish Gulf a year back, and now between Finland and Germany and between Sweden and Lithuania, these both vessels—or both ships—were belonging to Chinese companies. So now it’s up to the investigation to find out all the details behind these.

Don’t you have an assumption or suspicion?

We might have many assumptions, but as a minister, I cannot go into the rumors or speculations. So I might have a personal opinion, but at this very moment, it’s not relevant.

In September, Major General Andrus Merilo, Chief of the Estonian General Staff, told the Helsingin Sanomat newspaper that the Finnish and Estonian commands intended to develop a plan to prevent the Russian Navy from operating in the Baltic Sea in the event of an ‘extraordinary situation’. How realistic is the prospect of war in the region?

Well, we see that Russia is hostile toward its neighbors. We saw that in 2008 in Georgia. We saw that in 2014 in Crimea. My understanding is that this was a preparation for a larger war—what we see at the moment, already close to three years, in Ukraine. And of course, we understand, and when we look at Putin’s speech in Munich about 15 years ago, a bit more, then from there you can see the intentions. There should be, from the Russian perspective, a gray zone between NATO and Russia, that there should be no enlargement of NATO, etc. So, when you read this speech, then you understand what the ambitious goals of Putin are.

On the other hand, when we also take the officially approved plan from the Ministry of Defense of Russia, the reality is that close to the Estonian and Finnish border, Russia wants to put a new Army Corps—approximately 50,000 to 60,000 troops, a lot of new tanks, a lot of new equipment. So, when this is not an escalation toward NATO and Western countries, what is it?  And this is why, of course, we have to prepare. We have to send a very clear message to Russia: don’t even think about attacking NATO, because NATO will act as one, and NATO is stronger—definitely together as Russia.

Tell me—why does Russia have to use the buffer zone outside of Russia? Russia can also build the buffer zone inside of Russia. Why do they think that the buffer zone can be taken by force, by military force, from the other country, from the other nation?

Maybe they think that Russia doesn’t have to pay for it. The country that has to be in a nonaligned position is preferring a military international organization, to be a member of that organization. Then that country needs to pay—maybe this is the Russian perspective, I don’t know.

Look, NATO is a defensive organization, not an offensive organization. NATO has no intention to attack Russia. NATO is defending its members, and it should be each country’s sovereign right to decide on which side of the civilization they want to be. Do they want to be on the side of Western civilization or Russian civilization, where you don’t have any human rights, any freedom of the press, where people are put in jail just for coming onto the streets? So, this is the choice, and every nation should have the free choice. And again, if Russia wants to build the buffer zone between the NATO countries and Russia, it can definitely do that inside of Russian territory—no problem.

Coming to this PYD issue—Türkiye is a very strong member of NATO, has a very powerful army, and was the only country that fought ISIS on the ground face to face. All other countries were providing aerial support but Turkish soldiers were fighting against ISIS on the ground. Now still, Pentagon and the U.S. still advocating that the YPG is a very good option to fight with ISIS. And our correspondents asked about this: Türkiye is giving you guarantees to fight ISIS with its full presence. Don’t you trust Türkiye? Why do you have to keep an organization that Türkiye sees as a terror group? Why do you still keep supporting them? They said, ‘We are not changing our strategy to fight against ISIS.’ What do you think about NATO? Jens Stoltenberg, the previous Secretary General, was always very supportive of Türkiye. But the members of NATO—including Germany, France, and the U.S.—these countries who say ‘Türkiye is a very good ally,’ leave Türkiye alone in this YPG terror issue.

No, again, we have to separate each member state or each country’s actions outside of their own territory and what NATO is doing as an alliance. NATO as an alliance is strictly focused on defending its member states and its territories. So, this is the focus of NATO. When we talk about also—and when we take the new approved regional plans for NATO—then these plans are defense plans, not offense or attack plans. This is why I believe that we have to keep it separate: what NATO is and NATO tasks, compared to the member states’ individual foreign and defense policy. Because when we take also the United States and Estonian troops in Iraq at the moment, then we are there together with our allies on Operation Inherent Resolve. So, Operation Inherent Resolve is led by the United States. This is why we have to keep it separate—it’s not a NATO mission. Yes, we also have a NATO mission in Iraq where Estonia is also contributing, but we have to keep these issues separate. This is why I don’t want to go into bilateral relations between Türkiye and the United States, but I’m happy to elaborate and happy to discuss what NATO is for and what NATO stands for.

But what is NATO? NATO is composed of states.

Yeah, but you know this is exactly what we have to understand that there are differences. When we talk about also, for instance, Poland—Poland was attacked by migrants coming from Belarus. So, this is not the question of a defense alliance or the question of NATO. This is the question of police forces, border guards, etc. Also, terrorism is not considered as a military problem at the moment. Terrorism is dealt with as an internal affairs matter, also in the United States, for instance. So, this is why, of course, we have to understand and separate very clearly the different tasks of different organizations.

Türkiye is also a member of many organizations. Estonia is part of many organizations. And, for instance, we can also say that, let’s say, the European Union. The European Union has 27 member states. Why is it not defending against military threats? Because it has been very clearly stated that NATO is taking care of the military’s defense posture and the defense, and the European Union is mainly for freedom of trade, freedom of people, etc. This is why we have to make the difference, and I believe also every person—doesn’t matter if this person is in Türkiye or in Estonia—we have to make a difference why different organizations are formed.

You’re traveling to Northern Iraq. Can you tell us the reason for your travel? What is your defense and military cooperation with the Central Iraq or Northern Iraq government? What’s happening there? Why do you have your troops there?

Yes, as I said, we are participating in the mission called Operation Inherent Resolve. We know that this operation will be reformed. Of course, we have to wait because the lead country is the United States. We’ll see when the President Trump administration starts its term, then probably there will be a change in the mission. But at the moment, yes, Estonia has around 100 troops in Iraq on this mission, and we are helping to secure the peace in this region. So, this is what the allies are doing. We are not there because we just went there. We are there because the Iraqi government asked us—or actually asked the United States—to provide that kind of service, that kind of security guarantee. And this is why the United States formed Operation Inherent Resolve.

After the anti-EU post-election and pre-election legislative initiatives in Georgia, there was a strong reaction from the Baltic states to the authorities in Tbilisi. I think you also sanctioned some of their politicians. In light of the events in Georgia, what do you think of the comments about a short-term escalation of tensions in Russia’s neighborhood, such as in the Baltic and the Caucasus?

Well, as we see also from Syria, that Russia is not able to handle many crises at one moment. So, of course, Georgia is different because they’ve been manipulating the Georgian nation and Georgian people for a long time already. We’ve seen many proofs about the violation of election freedom. Unfortunately, the regime today in Georgia is not ready to conduct or to bring new elections onto the table. And, of course, this is something that the Western countries are not approving because we get a lot of information about different violations of the elections. So, this is why, of course, first and foremost, it’s for the Georgian people to come out and say that this is not the way they want to live and this has not been the election result they voted for. And, of course, this is very clear proof of how Russia is trying to affect different neighbors by also intervening in elections. We saw that in Romania lately. We saw that in Moldova.  Also, during the Estonian Parliament elections, we had one party that got some orders from Russian services. So, this is, unfortunately, what we see. And, of course, again, this is very clearly showing that Russia is not respecting the freedoms of its neighbors. And, you know, the only way to fight this is to come out openly with this and to show what Russia is actually doing—how they are influencing not only European elections but also, as we’ve seen, trying to manipulate U.S. elections.

Very shortly about the Suwalki Corridor—it was very much spoken about in recent months. When I came to Tallinn, I spoke with Mr. Marko Mihkelson. Do you still see the Suwalki Corridor as a threat, as an open risk for Russia because of this Belarusian case? Like, it is a very, very small place, but it can cut all the connection with the NATO region and the European Union region. Do you seriously have such hesitation, or is it just one more place to be protected from Russia?

Well, we all understand that Belarus is fully under Russian control, especially when we talk about military actions. So, we see that during this ongoing war of aggression in Ukraine, and as Russia also has the Kaliningrad enclave, then, of course, we all understand that the corridor called Suwalki in between Lithuania and Poland is critical for us. It is an important connection, and as it is so, of course, we need to do everything we can in order to keep it free.

But do you believe there is really a risk? Because not so many people in Russia speak about it, but officials in the Baltics speak about it.

You know, when we come to this neighborhood, and as we are here in Istanbul at the moment, when you talk about the Turkish Straits or Bosphorus Strait—so, is it a problem for Türkiye when it will be closed? I believe it is. It’s the same with the Suwalki Corridor. So just put it in local conditions, local understanding, and you will understand how important it is.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘What we need from HTS is not to interfere in Lebanon’s internal affairs’

Published

2 weeks ago

on

22/12/2024

By

Ziad Makary, Minister of Information of Lebanon spoke to Harici: “What we need from HTS is not to interfere in Lebanon’s internal problems or affairs.”

After two months of intense and destructive fighting, Israel and Lebanon have reached a ceasefire. Within 60 days, the ceasefire was to be implemented. According to the agreement, Israeli troops will withdraw from the designated areas, the Lebanese Army will deploy in the areas vacated by Israel and ensure security. A large-scale reconstruction work will be carried out due to mines, unexploded ordnance and destruction of infrastructure in the region. United Nations UNIFIL forces will maintain a presence in southern Lebanon in accordance with UN resolution 1701.

However, Israel has violated the ceasefire more than 100 times so far, which is considered unacceptable by Lebanon. Lebanese Information Minister Ziad Makary answered Dr Esra Karahindiba’s questions on the latest situation in Lebanon.

I would like to start with the latest situation in Lebanon. Even though there is a temporary ceasefire, Israel is not implementing what was promised. Can you tell us about the latest situations, and I’ll ask my other questions?

Well, as you know, we had a deadly war for about two months. As a government, we negotiated a ceasefire for long weeks, and in the end, with the help of the Americans, we reached an agreement to have a ceasefire and to implement it 60 days after the announcement.

In the meantime, there is a military plan: the Lebanese Army will start deploying where the Israelis will withdraw.

There is a lot of work to do. The army will handle this mission because there are many mines, unexploded munitions, destruction, closed roads, displaced people, and a sensitive military situation between Israel and Lebanon.

Israel has violated this ceasefire more than 100 times, and this is, of course, unacceptable. Lebanon is respecting the ceasefire, and we count on the committee formed when the ceasefire was announced.

I am talking about the Americans, French, Lebanese, UNIFIL, and Israelis. Their first meeting was held this week on Monday, and we hope this ceasefire will be implemented seriously as soon as possible because we have a lot to rebuild after the destruction we faced from Israel.

If Israel cancels the ceasefire and continues attacking Lebanon as it did recently, what is Lebanon’s current position? Hezbollah is stepping back from Syria. Maybe more of their troops will return to Lebanon. What about Lebanon’s own army?

I don’t think this ceasefire will be broken. We will have incidents daily, but I believe it will be a serious ceasefire.

I suppose we will have a complete withdrawal in about 40 days from all Lebanese territory. The Lebanese Army will deploy its forces, and we will apply 1701 as required, including southern Lebanon.

Of course, this especially applies to southern Lebanon because 1701 states that weapons are forbidden in southern Lebanon, and the only weapons will be with the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL.

What do you think about the latest situation in Syria? Now Bashar Assad has gone to Russia, and there is a so-called interim government trying to prepare for a transition period. Hezbollah is back. Iran is stepping back. There are no more Russian soldiers, and now a group called HTS is a candidate to shape Syria’s future. What will Lebanon’s position be toward Syria?

So far, we don’t have any relationship with HTS. What I would like to say is that the people of Syria must choose whoever will rule Syria.

What we want in Lebanon is to have good relations with the future government of Syria because we have many interests. We don’t need a fanatic government there.

We need a neighbor who respects Lebanon’s sovereignty and diversity. This is all what we need.

We will do everything to maintain the necessary relationships to continue ties between our countries as neighbors. We have a lot of interests in the economy, trade, social, political, and even border issues to resolve.

We have millions of Syrian refugees and many problems that need solving with whoever rules Syria. We don’t and should not interfere in Syria’s affairs and at the same time we will not let them interfere to us, too.

I hope and will work to ensure a decent and fruitful cooperation with the future Syrian government.

HTS is on the terrorist group list of the United Nations, and several countries have designated this group as terrorist. But in the near future, things may change. Turkey has appointed a charge daffairs for its embassy to continue diplomatic relations.

What will Lebanon’s position be? Do you consider HTS a terrorist group, or are things changing as they lead the country toward elections?

We don’t have a system of considering groups as terrorists or not. I already mentioned that we will assess the aims of Syria’s future government. What we need from HTS is not to interfere in Lebanon’s internal problems or affairs. Till now, as I told you, we are not the only country that cannot predict how the future of Syria will unfold.

The system theoretically should continue. We are continuing to deal with what we have—for instance, the embassy of Syria in Lebanon, the borders, and other matters. We are waiting for the new state, the new administration, and the new government to emerge, and we will proceed from there.

Will you run your diplomatic mission in Damascus?

Currently, it is not active due to everything that has happened. We will wait, but we hope to have good relations with whatever government emerges because it is in both countries’ interests. After Assad’s departure, Israel has invaded more of the Golan Heights. What is Israel’s position in the region? Many believe their presence may not be temporary.

For Lebanon, it is essential that Israel withdraws from the territory it has conquered. As you said, Israel is not only in the Golan Heights or southern Syria but has also destroyed Syria’s army, air and naval forces, and everything.

This puts Syria in a difficult position. We don’t know what kind of army or security forces the new Syrian government will have or how they will deal with Israel. Everything is unclear now. It’s been just five or six days since all this happened, and we need time to see how things settle down.

One question about Lebanon’s internal politics. After the port blast, you had difficult times with economic problems, and the presidential issue is still ongoing. How did it affect the current situation?

The system in Lebanon is not designed to facilitate such processes. It’s a complex system involving parliament, religion, political groups, and more, making electing a president challenging. It is not easy to elect a president because of our law which is causing things happen late, especially the elecion of president. However, we have a session on January 9, and we hope to have a president soon. We cannot rule a country without a president. Yes, we can manage it; it will continue, it won’t die, it won’t vanish, and it won’t disappear. But it also won’t have prosperity. We cannot develop our country, we cannot build it, and we cannot establish a new, modern administration that reflects the aspirations of young Lebanese people those who are ambitious and want to create a modern country with the protection of freedom and the beautiful Lebanese culture, along with the admirable image of Lebanon.

We hope to have a president, a new government, and renewed relations with Syria, as well as a ceasefire with Israel. In the long run, personally, I am somewhat optimistic about what will happen to Lebanon.

Last question: Do you think remaining without a president during this period makes it harder for Lebanon to address these challenges?

Of course, it has a serious impact. As a caretaker government, we cannot make major decisions, recruit new talent, or pass laws. The system cannot function without a president. We are losing talented young people who are leaving Lebanon, which is not in our interest.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey