Libyan Prime Minister Fayez al-Serraj recently performed a complete U-turn and withdrew his resignation as Prime Minister. This means that he will remain in office until the ongoing intra-Libyan political dialog comes to an end.

Last week, Stephanie Williams, the acting head of the United Nations (UN) mission in Libya, presided over a permanent nationwide ceasefire including the exit of all foreign fighters and mercenaries from the nation for a minimum of three months.

The ceasefire includes the full opening of land and air routes, efforts to tackle hate speech, an exchange of prisoners and plans to rebuild the Petroleum Facilities Guard, a militia body and oil company linked to the head of the Libyan National Army (LNA), General Khalifa Haftar.

This Ceasefire Has More Potential to Stick

Although many ceasefires have been agreed and shattered in Libya with frequency, this time it could be different because senior military officers have signed the agreement.

The ceasefire also paves the way for political talks between the Government of National Accord (GNA) and the LNA on future power-sharing arrangements, as well as the future of sovereign institutions like the Central Bank of Libya and the Libyan Investment Authority.

The Libyan Prime Minister’s decision was motivated by the insistence of the High Council of State, which suggested that al-Serraj should remain until a new presidential council is selected to prevent a political vacuum detrimental to Libya’s stability. This just shows how much support the Libyan Prime Minister has at the top and how crucial he is in uniting the opposing sides in Libya’s war.

Al-Serraj Has the Support of the International Community

Al-Serraj enjoys international support. According to al-Jazeera, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas pleaded with the Libyan Prime Minister to remain in his post “in order to guarantee institutional and executive continuity” in the crucial weeks ahead, which is a reference to in-person negotiations due to take place on November 9 in Tunisia, to discuss holding national elections.

Furthermore, the UN recognizes the GNA as the only legitimate governing body in Libya, as does the U.S., Turkey and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, and all of these factors are a significant boost to al-Serraj’s premiership.

Al-Serraj also enjoys support from the GNA as they released their own statement begging for him to remain in office. Because of the domestic and international support that the Libyan Prime Minister has, it is clear that if he did permanently resign, it would have had a detrimental impact on the Libyan peace process. Therefore, al-Serraj is the only Libyan politician capable of ensuring that his country’s latest ceasefire becomes permanent.

The Libyan Prime Minister is capable of building ties with nations that once supported the LNA. Al-Sarraj used a Twitter account that he created recently to thank Egypt for welcoming Libya’s permanent ceasefire. He also told Bloomberg that support from Egypt, the US and Turkey is crucial.

Al-Serraj Must Do All He Can to Make Libyan Peace a Reality

However, Egypt’s support for peace comes at a price. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El Sisi warned during his meeting with Libyan tribal chiefs on July 16 that the Sirte-Jufra red line, which is crucial to both Cairo and the LNA due to its vast oil supplies, must not be crossed. If al-Serraj is serious about remaining in office until the peace process has been completed, these are factors he must take into consideration.

The only country acting as an obstacle to peace right now is the UAE. They could persuade Haftar to disrupt the peace process and push for Turkey to be expelled from Libya. As Tarek Megerisi wrote for the European Council of Foreign Relations, the LNA chief should be threatened with sanctions if he disrupts the upcoming proceedings.

It is a huge relief for all the parties involved in the Libyan ceasefire that al-Serraj has withdrawn his resignation. The world will be watching him closely in the coming weeks.

L'articolo Libya’s PM al-Serraj Withdraws His Resignation – What Impact Will This Have? proviene da InsideOver.

The German government has openly been contemplating an end to Nord Stream 2 for the first time since its construction. Rightfully so. Alternatives to the pipeline already exist. Most importantly, however, Berlin would finally penalize Russia efficiently.

The Nord Stream 1 Agreement

On September 8, 2005, Germany and Russia sealed the agreement for the pipeline’s construction at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. The agreement between them was finalized under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who, one year earlier, had called Putin a “lupenreiner Demokrat,” a flawless Democrat. It is a sentence that has not aged well, just as the fact that once Schröder lost the election a few days later to Angela Merkel, he accepted a well-paid position within the Nord Stream Group. To this day, he calls Putin a dear friend and occupies key positions within Russian state-owned companies.

Nord Stream 1 has been in operation since 2012. The construction of a second pipeline was planned quickly afterward, this time under CDU leadership, and today Nord Stream 2 is nearing completion.

German-Russian Friendship?

Although Putin, in his speech in 2001 in the Bundestag, allowed Germans and Russians to dream of a new friendship, Putin was criticized as early as 2005. His authoritarian traits were too prominent. However, German naivety hoped that these traits would change for the better and that Putin could turn towards Europe as a democracy and as a friend of the West.

Of course, it did not happen that way. Putin, a former KGB agent who called the fall of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” waged war in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, annexed Crimea and rigged elections in Europe and America. Opposition and regime critics died mysteriously domestically, as in other countries, or were poisoned, most recently, Alexej Navalny.

The Navalny Poisoning

At first, even the poisoning of Navalny did not seem to shake the German commitment to Nord Stream 2. Instead, Chancellor Merkel assured that Nord Stream 2 ought to be finished. The government concurred that the Navalny case and the pipeline should be handled separately. Meanwhile, however, the mood has changed. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas was the first top German politician to clarify that the Navalny case could well impact Nord Stream.

The core argument of those who seek to finish building the pipeline has always been that stoppage will harm German interests, as, without Nord Stream 2, Germany’s increasing gas demand would not be covered in the future. Moreover, natural gas for German consumers is said to become more expensive without Nord Stream. And indeed: the drying up of European sources and increasing demand will result in a gas deficit of 120 billion cubic meters within 20 years.

An Alternative to Nord Stream 2

Such a gap needs to be bridged. Hence the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. However, an alternative already exists: liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG charging stations around the world already exist, including a total of 36 within the EU. Germany is currently building its own. Right now, 40 percent of the gas demand in Europe could already be met with LNG.

Meanwhile, the benefits of Nord Stream remain inconclusive. Proponents of Nord Stream argue that Nord Stream 2 will save consumers billion euros every year. However, different studies indicate that Nord Stream 2 will reduce the gas price by a maximum of five percent in ten years, while others estimate the savings even lower.

With the risk that energy prices would rise by a few percent in a pessimistic scenario, Germany could certainly survive an end of Nord Stream 2 and rely more on liquefied gas, which, unlike the Russian supply, liquified gas comes from all over the world. Germany could freely choose and switch suppliers, and it would be more independent.

Nord Stream is About More Than Just Money

Most importantly, however, Nord Stream is not just about monetary saving, but about security interests. To this day, Putin has remained unimpressed by European sanctions – the Navalny incident has proved that once again. However, losing Europe and particularly Germany as customers could be a message even the Kremlin couldn’t ignore.

Angela Merkel’s two-pronged policy on Russia, of sanctions, on the one hand, and maintenance of the pipeline projects on the other, has failed. For once, Germany ought to not merely pay lip service but make peaceful Russian intentions its sine qua non. Hence, the most recent Russian crime should not be left unanswered, even at the cost of exiting the pipeline project.

L'articolo From Russia with Gas: Why Germany Should Stop Nord Stream 2 proviene da InsideOver.

In the early hours of September 9, the infamous Moria camp for asylum seekers on the Greek island of Lesbos burst into flames. The motives and the exact conditions behind the incident are currently being investigated, but the fire raises some serious concerns for the migrants and asylum seekers now without a home as well as the local administration and the Greek government.

The Latest Moria Fire

The first points of fire across the camp were spotted on September 8 at approximately 2300 local time following tensions between groups of immigrants in the camp. Shortly after midnight the fire started spreading across the site and by early morning everything was utterly destroyed.

Thousands of residents of the camp swiftly fled the scene. No casualties have been reported for now, however there is no conclusive picture so far and there are serious concerns that there could have been grave injuries or deaths following the fire.

Firefighters Response and Aftermath

Dozens of firefighters and fire brigade vehicles have also promptly reached the camp and managed to get the fire under control before it could expand to other areas of the island. It should be noted here that several groups of migrants tried to block the firefighters from approaching the scene in an act of protest for the allegedly low living standards in Moria.

In the aftermath of the fire, German Federal Foreign Minister Heiko Maas characterized the incident as a humanitarian disaster and highlighted the full support of the European Commission towards Greece in terms of financial and humanitarian assistance. Maas also emphasized that the EU members should work together in good faith and quickly express their intention to receive migrants from the overcrowded Greek camps.

Local Grievances and an Unsurprising Disaster

This is not the first time that the camp in Moria has made the headlines. The camp has been probably the most serious trouble spot for the Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum in the whole country. Since its very establishment several years ago as a Reception and Identification Center (RIC) the camp has always been overcrowded.

With an official capacity of approximately 3,000 people, the camp has reportedly reached a population of about 20,000 migrants and asylum seekers in several instances in the past. After constant efforts, this number has fallen to roughly 13,000 people, still significantly outnumbering the actual capacity.

Further to the high numbers of people based in the camp and the poor living standards, there has been another point of friction causing complaints and disappointment lately. Due to the renewed COVID-19 outbreak in Greece, and the numerous cases in the Moria camp, asylum seekers based in the facility have been quarantined since early September, as per the guidance from the Hellenic Ministry of Health.

A random check in Moria earlier this week, identified 35 new Covid cases out of 2,000 samples in the camp, confirming that approximately the 1.75% of the people in the camp could be potentially carrying the virus. Considering the weak hygiene infrastructure at the camp and the high risk of further contamination, those 35 individuals were instructed to self-isolate for the necessary time-frame.

This development was reportedly been the spark leading to the massive reaction of disobedience that eventually appears to have led to the fire. On the one hand several people complained about the self-isolation instruction that would temporarily keep some family members apart, while other aggressively responded to these complaints, which could put in danger the total population of the facility.

During and after the fire all the 13,000 asylum seekers proceeded to a massive uncontrolled exodus from the camp, moving to unknown locations, ranging from nearby mountainous areas to the capital town of Lesbos, Mytilene.

A Dual Threat and Severe Concerns of Greek Officials

Following the Moria fire Greek authorities from the local to the most senior level are on high alert. Shortly after the incident Greek ‎Deputy Minister for Civil Protection and Crisis Management Nicholas G. Hardalias announced that the island of Lesbos is entering a state of emergency for at least four months due to public health reasons.

Indeed, the totally unrestrained and un-monitored movement of an unknown number of COVID-19 carriers could be an infectious time bomb for the entire island of Lesbos. This potential medical disaster has alarmed the local authorities and medical officials, who are now running in a race against time to prevent a catastrophe.

But at the same time, there is another quite concerning geopolitical aspect of this fire for the Greek government. This incident comes at a moment where Greek-Turkish tensions are reaching new levels, particularly in the eastern Mediterranean.

The Possibility of a Fifth Column Inside Greece

Lesbos is an island in the northern Aegean Sea, critically located in the proximity of the Turkish mainland and a possible theater of operations in a potential armed confrontation between the two countries. The asylum seekers in the island made it to Greece through Turkey and have been based at the Moria camp until the fire in order to be identified and then have their asylum applications assessed.

This means that there is no efficient data for an unknown number of these people, and some of these individuals could be acting on behalf of Turkey.

The Greek government should always keep in mind that even a handful of well-trained operatives could easily manipulate a massive crowd of disappointed and angry people who find themselves trapped in a detention center for a long time period. Utilizing the common language and religion alongside simple technologies based on social media manipulation techniques and the power of image, just a few malicious actors could prompt a genuine local revolt.

Was the Fire Intentional?

The fact that the weather at the night of the incident was ideal for an out-of-control wildfire due to the strong winds (another fire was also reported in the western part of Lesbos near the town of Vatoussa at approximately the same time) raises further concerns, indicating the the burning of the camp could well have been intentional.

The Two-Front Assault Scenario

The scenario of a mobilization of angry asylum seekers on Lesbos and other islands appropriately equipped through covert logistics operations, combined with a coordinated attack from Turkish tactical forces would find the Greek Armed Forces fighting on two different fronts at the same time, posing an appalling threat for the country.

Due to this possible scenario Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has called for an urgent meaning with the Ministers responsible for the management of the developing crisis, including the Head of the Greek National Intelligence Service and the Chief of the Hellenic National Defence General Staff.

After several years of inadequate measures, Greece seems to be realizing the multi-dimensional challenge that the refugee crisis presents. Their actions from now on will prove if the Greek administration is ready to efficiently handle such a complex problem in these unprecedented times.

L'articolo Moria Fire Raises Serious Concerns for Greek Government proviene da InsideOver.

Berlin is seeking to expand its geopolitical focus across European boundaries and into the Indo-Pacific. The agenda is ambitious: to alter China’s hegemonic aspirations and secure future German prosperity.

Tension in the Indo-Pacific

The Indo-Pacific region is currently witnessing a series of tensions. The increasing relevance of the region due to rapid economic growth and China’s military build-up has made it conceivable that these tensions may turn into severe conflicts in years to come.

Germany, and indeed the European Union, has not yet had a targeted, systematic, and coordinated policy approach for the region. This will now change.

Last Wednesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cabinet – and thus the government – passed Indo-Pacific guidelines and joined the Indo-Pacific geopolitical club. It is a significant step that could transform Germany’s role in the world, at least if a long-term, materially backed commitment follows the noble declarations of intent.

Maas Gets It

Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas is cognizant of the region’s relevance and rightfully alluded that Germany’s prosperity and geopolitical influence in the coming decades were based on “working together” with the states of the Indo-Pacific. It is a statement that is a testimony for an Indo-Pacific German foreign policy.

According to Maas, the main aim was to work with democratic partners willing to cooperate to enforce international rules against the “law of the strong” in a region with established and emerging powers such as Japan, China, and India and where the shaping of the future’s international order could be decided. Germany seeks to help shape this order.

Maas’s call to leave no room for the “law of strongest” refers primarily to China. In the South China Sea, Beijing claims sovereignty in violation of international law, which threatens to enforce with military means. Moreover, Taiwan also feels increasingly threatened.

Berlin’s Diverging Path from Washington

Washington currently acts as a power-balance. The US is thus the last line of defense for China’s regional hegemony. Considering the ongoing trade war between Beijing and Washington, a real conflict is no longer a fantasy. It is a looming scenario Berlin sees with “great concern,” as Maas stated.

Democratic states in the region such as Australia and India have long been asking for Europe’s commitment against Chinese claims to hegemony and intimidation attempts. Their argument states that the seas’ freedom was also in the interests of Europe and its economy.

The latter seems to have finally been realized by Europe, or at least parts of it. Besides its own agenda Berlin is also committed to pushing for a European strategy for the Indo-Pacific “together with our EU partners, especially France,” Maas said. Maas has long been emphasizing the importance of common philosophy in Europe’s China policy.

Upcoming EU-China Summit

On September 14, the EU-China summit will take place. It will be an important date as Beijing has been attempting to divide Europe to gain more power on the continent. Herein lies a significant crux: the continent is already divided as far as China is concerned.

Great Britain, for example, has established itself as Europe’s hawk. It has excluded the People’s Republic from expanding the super-fast 5G mobile network for fear of espionage. London also quickly suspended the extradition treaty with Hong Kong after China passed the controversial Security Law and offered visas and residence rights to three million Hong Kong citizens.

Other states such as Hungary, Italy, or Greece are hoping for Chinese investments into their respective economies and, therefore, insist on restraint in a European China policy.

Around two-thirds of the world’s sea trade is facilitated via shipping routes in the Indo-Pacific. German trade with Southeast Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Australia, and New Zealand has grown steadily.

Germany’s Future Footprint in the Indo-Pacific

Germany’s Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer had called for Germany to have a military presence pronounced in the region several times but met resistance from her party’s coalition partner SPD. Now, the SPD’s ministers have also agreed to strengthen security policy cooperation with actors in the region.

Germany’s agenda in the Indo-Pacific will include participation in security forums, participation in exercises in the region, joint evacuation planning, the posting of liaison officers, and various maritime presence forms. Moreover, Germany strives for more cooperation in climate change, human rights, free trade, and digitization with the democratic nations in the regions.

Nevertheless: despite the change of course in Germany’s China policy, in the end, it will depend on how united Europe is on the China question as a continent.

L'articolo Germany’s Quest for Relevance in the Indo-Pacific proviene da InsideOver.

In a recent TV interview, Russian leader Vladimir Putin confirmed his willingness to provide a police force at Minsk’s request, while criticizing the West over alleged interference in Belarus.

Putin: Russian-Backed Intervention Possible Under Certain Conditions

According to President Putin, Russia was ready to help stabilize Belarus. President Alexander Lukashenko had asked him to set up a police reserve force. However, there was still no need for it, “and I hope there won’t be,” Putin said on Russian state television.

Putin then told the broadcaster Rossiya 1 that an operation would only be conducted under certain conditions, namely “when the situation gets out of control and extremist elements hiding behind political slogans cross certain borders.”

He cited robberies, arson, and bank robberies as examples.

“We assume that all existing problems in Belarus today will be resolved peacefully,” Putin said. If there have been violations — on the part of the demonstrators and the security forces — everyone should be held accountable.”

Moscow Money for Minsk

In addition to the police forces, Moscow is again providing Minsk a financial backing: Russian loans of over one billion euros should enable Minsk to repay its national debt.

During the interview, Putin also accused the West of undue interference in Belarusian affairs. He claimed that the scandal surrounding the arrest of suspected employees of a Russian private security company in Belarus shortly before the election resulted from a Ukrainian and American special operation. Putin also named the Europeans explicitly. On the other hand, Russia was more cautious and neutral than many other countries, he claimed.

The Situation in Belarus

Since the controversial presidential election on August 9, mass protests against Lukashenko have been conducted by the public. Lukashenko was confirmed with 80.1 percent for a sixth term, a result that is criticized internationally as falsified. Putin, however, was one of the first to congratulate Lukashenko on his election victory.

Lukashenko has accused western countries of starting a “hybrid war” against Belarus. “A diplomatic battle at the highest level has begun against Belarus,” he said in a meeting broadcast by state television. It insisted on a new election and thus exerted inadmissible pressure on the country.

Lukashenko also accused Poland of seeking to take the Grodno region on Belarus’ border. As a result, he recently deployed additional Belarusian troops.

Lukashenko: ‘the Most Important Thing Now is the Economy’

Lukashenko said he could handle the street protests no matter how hard his opponents tried to destabilize the country’s situation. “The most important thing now is the economy,” he said. If all companies were to work, there would be no issues. Many people in the state-run companies went on strike. However, a large number returned to the workbenches after being threatened with dismissal.

The protest movement’s original aim was to break Lukashenko’s power through a nationwide strike in the state-owned enterprises. Independent trade unionists reported that many were now in an internal strike position and that work processes were slowing down.

The EU Imposes Sanctions

Because of the authorities’ violent actions against the protest movement, the EU is examining the expansion of its planned sanctions.

Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said before a meeting with his EU colleagues in Berlin, Lukashenko had “intensified the repression against opposition members” in the past few days. Accordingly, the EU imposed sanctions on Friday.

The latter is sorely needed. Even in just the past few days the world has witnessed how Lukashenko again cracked down on demonstrators. It is the reason one already suspected a Russian promise towards Lukashenko had been made.

Lukashenko undoubtedly feels strengthened by the public support of the Kremlin. On Thursday, he declared that he only wanted to talk to “reasonable” critics. He included farmers, workers, doctors, teachers, and student representatives, but no “street demonstrators,” as he said.

However, it seems inconceivable, particularly with a looming Russian intervention, that the situation is about to calm down anytime soon.

L'articolo Putin Backs Lukashenko in Belarus proviene da InsideOver.

German Minister of Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas visited Greece and Turkey on August 25 in an attempt to ease the growing tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean. Maas’ visit came at a moment of constant frictions between the neighboring countries, as consecutive NAVTEX warnings (navigational warnings) issued by both sides are overlapping various mutual areas of the Aegean Sea.

‘NAVTEX Diplomacy’ and Turkish claims

A long-term dispute between Greece and Turkey, has been intensifying since late July, when Ankara issued a NAVTEX covering parts of the Greek continental shelf for seismic research activities. After Germany’s intervention this activity has been cancelled, however shortly after the Greek-Egyptian agreement in early August that established the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) maritime boundaries between the two countries, Turkey issued a new NAVTEX, reserving the right to explore the aforementioned area from Aug. 10 to 23.

This move has triggered unparalleled tensions between Greece and Turkey, and incidents that could suddenly lead to significant escalation and possibly a full-scale confrontation have taken place ever since. As the time-frame of the initial NAVTEX has been approaching its end, Turkey came back with another navigational warning, issued by the Antalya NAVTEX Station, extending the area bounded for seismic research by the Turkish vessel Oruc Reis until Aug 27.

In response the Greek side issued another NAVTEX warning out of Irakleio station warning of a joint Navy and Air Force exercise due to take place between August 24 to 27, in parts of the area that Turkey has already bounded for seismic research. The Antalya Station replied with a new NAVTEX declaring that the Greek navigational warning is null and void, since it was issued by an unauthorized station and the Turkish seismic research would proceed as planned. Apparently this “NAVTEX diplomacy” is being used by each side, as a way to establish a context of the respective sovereign rights in the area. Turkey is seeking to create a de facto situation of grey zones in the Aegean Sea, and is seeming to steadily moving towards this goal.

Heiko Maas in Athens and High Greek Expectations

Heiko Maas held talks with the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Greek Prime Minister respectively during his time in Athens. The meeting between the German Foreign Minister and the Greek top officials took place in a spirit of cooperation and mutual trust.

Nikolaos Dendias, Maas’ Greek counterpart, highlighted that Turkey doesn’t have any sincere intention to negotiate and work alongside Greece to ensure the stability of the region; to the contrary Ankara is always seeking to provoke in order to push further claims and threaten Greek sovereignty. Dendias emphasized that EU under the German Presidency will certainly be a guarantor of the European rights, suggesting that the Turkish unilateral actions should be concerning not only Greece, but the European Union as a whole.

Once again there has been a Greek call for sanctions against Turkey, seeking a proactive approach, similar to the one which was adopted against Belarus; our opinion is that EU, spearheaded by Germany, has no real intention of implementing any sanctions on Turkey at all.

The Greek Foreign Minister also made clear that Greece is willing by all means to protect its sovereign rights against further Turkish provocations; however the recent events following the Oruc Reis’ activity in the sensitive area of the Eastern Mediterranean, has proved that Athens is hesitating to overtake decisive actions even when Ankara puts the Greek sovereignty in question.

An overall assessment of the comments made by the Greek side, indicates that Athens is heavily relying on a coordinated European reaction against Turkey, which is objectively a rather unlikely scenario.

Maas in Ankara and the Inflammatory Response from Cavusoglu

Following his brief visit to Athens, Maas moved to Ankara to hold further talks with the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlut Cavusoglu. During a mutual press conference, shortly after the meeting, Cavusoglu has adopted a much more aggressive approach compared to his Greek counterpart.

After initially thanking Germany for Berlin’s key role in the deescalation process regarding the Greek-Turkish dispute, he mentioned that Athens has been quite arrogant lately, “spoiled” by the long-term EU support, and clarified that no negotiations between the two neighboring countries would proceed, if Greece was to set any preconditions.

He also openly disputed the EEZ rights of the Greek islands and “advised” the Greek government to stop acting recklessly, warning that there will be no further toleration and Ankara will do whatever it takes to protect the Turkish rights and territorial integrity.

Berlin Unlikely to Change its Mild Approach to Turkey

Maas commented during and after his consecutive visits, that at this moment, deescalation is deemed absolutely necessary and constitutes a top priority. There should be a coordinated effort for dialogue between the two opposing parties, and Germany will rigorously assist towards achieving this goal.

It is interesting that Berlin chose to adopt an approach of equal distances, even though Greece is an EU member and the claims of the Greek side are in compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. On the other hand Turkey is reluctant to adhere to the Greek positions, or even negotiate in a context of mutual understanding. Ankara is following a unilateral policy characterized by hostility against the other side; yet Germany turns a blind eye on the Turkish aggressiveness.

The German stance can clearly understood if we look into the strong political and economic ties between Berlin and Ankara. The massive Turkish population in Germany, a significant portion of which is looking favorably at President Erdogan, consists a considerable political capital. Also with Germany establishing its position as a top importer country for Turkey over the last decade and considering the intense financial relations between the two countries, we easily comprehend that the potential implementation of economic sanctions on Ankara would indirectly hurt even Berlin itself.

In this context, it is highly unlikely to see any strict measures against Turkey approved by Germany in the near or long-term. This claim is further supported when we briefly look into another recent visit of Maas, to Libya. Maas reportedly visited the war-torn country to support the ongoing peace negotiations, and his visit coincided with a tripartite agreement between Turkey, Qatar, and the Government of National Accord for military cooperation. Even though this deal will actually lead to further deterioration of the current situation and trigger additional tensions, Maas abstained from commenting, once again ignoring deliberately a Turkish wrongdoing and showing the continuing trend heading forward.

L'articolo Heiko Maas Visits Athens and Ankara, as ‘NAVTEX Diplomacy’ Continues proviene da InsideOver.

On Friday, August 21, Libya’s Government of National Accord (GNA) issued a statement saying its leader Fayez al-Sarraj had given instructions to “all military forces to immediately ceasefire and all combat operations in all Libyan territories.”

Temporary Ceasefire

The Tripoli-based government’s plead for a truce was unexpected and soon received a similar call for a truce from Aguila Saleh Issa, the leader of an eastern-based parliament aligned to Khalifa Haftar and the Libyan National Army (LNA).

The two sides mentioned the growing spread of the coronavirus in Libya as grounds for bringing the armed conflict to a temporary halt. Although with scarce testing, daily Covid-19 cases across the country rose by the hundreds in recent weeks, reaching a total of over 8,000 confirmed cases and more than 150 confirmed deaths.

The ongoing Libyan conflict has left the North African country with impaired infrastructure, not least its healthcare system, after almost a decade of relentless fighting. On Thursday, August 20, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warned that the humanitarian crisis in Libya has deepened, amid the country’s abrupt cuts in oil production, blockades of its ports and, more recently, the spread of the coronavirus. The Red Cross also called for negotiations between the warring factions.

Skepticism in Sirte

Although the mutual call for peace shed some hope in the ravaged country, adding to the Libyan National Oil Company statement that same day that it was ready at last to resume oil operations at a rate close to the pre-COVID-19 rate, many people in Sirte were still skeptical.

The call for a ceasefire itself came in a time where the two belligerents’ armed forces were both heavily settled near the central city of Sirte. The coastal city, which also nears the country’s major oil terminals, became the conflict’s point of focus recently, bearing the new frontlines as Haftar’s forces settled around the city after the Turkish intervention pushed the LNA back from Tripoli in June.

Haftar’s forces, backed by Egypt and the UAE, among others, were attempting to seize Tripoli, where the GNA is based, for over a year since April 2019. Although recognized by the United Nations, the GNA mainly benefits from the support of Turkey and Qatar.

‘Deceptive Calm’

During a visit to Tripoli last week, Germany’s foreign minister Heiko Maas warned of a “deceptive calm” and noted that both sides were still arming themselves “on a massive scale” although there hadn’t been much confrontation in recent months. Maas also reiterated the United States’ call for a demilitarized zone in Sirte and Jufra.

Although there has been relatively little fighting since June, Turkey and the GNA seem poised to make further advances, even after Haftar’s forces withdrew to Sirte.

The LNA did not quickly respond to Sarraj’s call for peace on Friday, but on Sunday it said it deemed the new ceasefire attempt dubious.

“The initiative that Sarraj signed is for media marketing,” said Ahmed Mismari, the LNA’s spokesman. “There is a military build-up and the transfer of equipment to target our forces in Sirte.” Mismari even noted that the LNA was “ready to respond to any attempted attack on its positions around the coastal city of Sirte, and Jufra, to the south,” according to Reuters.

Too Many Actors

Observers have long argued that the conflict of Libya could not be solved by military means. But given the level of foreign meddling in the country, it has proven even harder to resolve diplomatically.

Turkey, who is at odds with its Mediterranean neighbors over energy reserves in the basin, soon sided with the Tripoli-based GNA, who promptly signed a maritime boundaries contract in favor of Ankara, while the United Arab Emirates and Egypt openly back Khalifa Haftar’s military rule. Other major powers, such as France and Russia, have also been accused of meddling in favor of Haftar.

In June, Egypt was among the first to warn the GNA —and Turkey— that attacks on Sirte and Jufra constituted crossing a “red line” that would systematically trigger an Egyptian military intervention.

Many Unsuccessful Peace Attempts So Far

All attempts to bring about peace to the Libyan people after almost a decade of war —most recently, the Berlin Summit earlier in January— stalled so far, not least because of the pressure exerted by foreign actors, on whom either factions heavily depend, to further their geopolitical and sometimes economic interests.

No longer than the following weekend, however, on Sunday, August 23, guns were fired in Tripoli to disperse hundreds of protesters who had gathered near the headquarters of the GNA to demonstrate over their squalid living conditions amid the current sanitary and economic crises.

L'articolo Glimmer of Hope for Peace in Libya, but Fear Lingers proviene da InsideOver.

Relations between Washington and Berlin have been mediocre as of late. Sadly, so has the public’s opinion about the US in Germany. Accordingly, the public’s reaction to the American troop withdrawal announcement was naïvely positive and marked the latest example of a change for the worse in German perception of the United States.

Details of the Troop Withdrawal Still Unclear

Albeit the extent of the withdrawal remains uncertain and, in fact, may be scrapped after all if Joe Biden wins on November 3. Still, the ongoing discussion appears to have had an impact on the German image of America nonetheless. Specific ideas German used to have about the US have, indeed, shifted significantly as of late.

Gone seem to be the days in which Germans were grateful for America, which has been liberator and protector of the whole continent in the past. While the older generations in Germany have remained cognizant of the latter — at least outside of the former East German GDR states — the current generations of Germans, millennials, in particular, appear to have gotten lost in between a  leftist ideology and a shocking degree of ignorance and lack of geopolitical understanding when it comes to America’s role in the world.

The Lessons of History are Being Forgotten in Germany

The ever-increasing distance to the end of World War II and the subsequent period of rivalry between West and the Soviet Union has increasingly weakened the image of the American soldier as a representative of freedom. It coincides with an already drastic withdrawal of US soldiers in Germany in the past 30 years. In 1985 the strength of the American contingent in West Germany was just under 250,000. The current figure is at a seventh of it: only 35,000. The plan now is to withdraw another 11,000 troops.

The latter is apparently no issue for many Germans. In a recent survey, a relative majority of 47 percent of respondents in Germany supported the partial withdrawal.

However, such a shrug of shoulders or even negative attitude towards the presence of American allies in Germany is not new. In an autumn 2019 survey only around half of those questioned answered that they considered an American troop presence in Germany to be an essential contribution to national security — which can be considered the perhaps best IQ test to date.

Anti-Americanism on the Rise

The anti-American sentiments that speak in these numbers also find political resonance in Berlin. The opposition parties Left and Greens, but also Merkel’s coalition partner, the SPD, responded in different ways to the withdrawal announcement with comments and suggestions intended to be confrontational and delimiting instead of cooperative or characterized by efforts to limit the damage.

While the Left Party, the successor party of the GDR’s SED, demands withdrawal of all troops, the Greens favor removal of all US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany. The SPD’s parliamentary group leader, Rolf Mützenich, meanwhile, who had previously also suggested that nuclear weapons needed to disappear from German soil – and thus set himself in opposition to his party colleague and Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas – now proposed that Germany should cease purchasing armaments from the United States in return for the withdrawal of troops.

Domestic Implications of the US Troop Withdrawal

The troop withdrawal is thus likely to have domestic implications also. With his intention to withdraw, Trump may have strengthened the formation of a political will, which in Germany could at least turn against some elements of the American presence that are strategically important in terms of military strategy — and may be used as a foreign policy wedge issue against the CDU during the elections in 2021.

Maas, meanwhile, still holds the argument against the demand for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons. He is cognizant that there are states in Europe that feel that they are far more threatened from a security policy perspective – from Russia. If Germany now foregoes the ability to target tactical nuclear weapons together with the United States, that would also weaken the European security architecture.

However, these geopolitical implications are far off the horizon for Germany’s (young) general public, who seem inclined to say tschüss to realism and guten Tag to naïveté.

L'articolo America’s Troop Withdrawal and Germany’s Naïveté proviene da InsideOver.

In addition to taking the helm of the EU Council Presidency in the past few weeks, Germany is also now chairing the UN Security Council. Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas thus seeks to utilize Germany’s current position to find a solution to Libya’s never-ending conflict.

Finding a Solution in Libya

The frustration with Libya is almost omnipresent at the United Nations, particularly UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres appears increasingly appalled by the lack of progress and continuing humanitarian tragedy the civil war is causing. Accordingly, Guterres recently reminded everyone involved that time remains of the essence in the conflict.

By now, the conflict in Libya has entered a new phase: foreign interference through arms exports and mercenaries has never been bigger. The latter had been one of the reasons the Berlin Conference was held in January. However, the list of achievements, so far, is almost non-existent.

Germany Steps Up

Now it is Germany again that puts the troubled situation in the war-torn civil country at the top of its agenda. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas summed up the travesty of the current situation in a recent statement. While doctors and patients on all continents were fighting COVID-19, hospitals in Libya were being bombed. And while the whole world was closing the borders and going into a lockdown due to the pandemic, ships, planes, and trucks with weapons and mercenaries were being brought to Libyan cities, Maas said. It was thus now once and for all time to stop this “cynical absurdity.”

Under Germany’s chairmanship of the UN Security Council, Maas reassembled all Libya conflict actors together once again during a video conference. Berlin’s critical demand was that foreign interference, which remains the main problem in the conflict to this day, needed to stop immediately.

Time for Truth

However, the latter is only conceivable if all actors adhere to the agreement and stop the blatant lies. Turkey, which supports al-Sarraj, and on the other hand, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia, who support General Khalifa Haftar, violate the agreement ad nauseam while publicly accusing the other side of wrongdoings. Moscow’s UN ambassador Wassily Nebensja remains particularly faithful to the Russian strategy of constant denial of any Russian interference. Instead, it claims that the Libyan ruler Gaddafi’s military overthrow in 2011 was to blame for the chaos in the civil war country.

Since Gaddafi’s fall, militias have taken control, and the country has broken down into different strongholds with the Fayez al-Sarraj government, recognized by the United Nations, and Haftar fighting for power.

Libyan Civilians are Suffering the Most

However, the victims are and remain the civilians, thus making progress crucial for Europe. Just due to the most recent fighting, 30,000 people have fled Libya, adding to the already more than 400,000 people on the run. Between April and June alone, over 100 civilians were killed and 250 injured, increasing by 172 percent. What makes the situation even worse is that the WHO has registered at least 21 attacks against medical facilities, ambulances, and staff since the beginning of the year.

All the more passionate was Foreign Minister Maas’ speech in which he once again reminded the parties to the conflict of the Berlin conference agreements: compliance with the arms embargo, a sustainable ceasefire and a peace process led by the United Nations.

The Reality of the Situation

It was only five months ago that the Security Council supported the Berlin agreements with a resolution. There is also a resolution for a global ceasefire during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was passed a week ago. The fact that no progress has been made so far shows once again how difficult the situation in Libya remains. Maas’ words can and will not change this geopolitical atrocity. As much as the west’s intentions may be noble, they also remain naive in light of non-existent enforcement mechanisms and actors such as Putin and Erdogan, who have been fueling the civil war for their strategic gains without any regard for human life.

L'articolo War in Libya: Germany Starts Another Attempt to Bring Peace proviene da InsideOver.

The US government has announced it will prepare its withdrawal from the Treaty on Open Skies due to Russian violations.

What is the Treaty on Open Skies?

The United States plans to withdraw from the treaty between NATO and former members of the Warsaw Pact for mutual military air surveillance in six months, the White House announced on Thursday, May 21. The Treaty on Open Skies The Treaty on Open Skies is an international military agreement which allows the 34 signatory states — including the United States and Russia — to perform several observation flights annually in the airspace of the participating nations.

As a reason for the decision, President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien said that the United States would not abide by agreements that were currently being violated by Russia. A Defense Department spokesman also stated that the Kremlin continued to “shamelessly violate” its contractual obligations under the treaty. Russia limits flights over the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, which “reduces transparency in a very militarized area,” according to O’Brien.

Russia Responds

Russia, meanwhile, negated the accusations. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov criticized the US in Moscow on Friday for not providing any evidence for the allegations. Most importantly, the US withdrawal from the control agreement was undermining international security, according to Ryabkov. Russia was inclined to continue its treaty participation, for the time being, Ryabkov noted.

The observation flights of the treaty serve to control arms and build trust in difficult geopolitical times. Representatives of the observing and observed states always take part in all flights. President Dwight Eisenhower had initially proposed the treaty as a confidence-building measure in 1955, however, was rejected by the Soviet Union.

Then in 1992, NATO and the states of the former Warsaw Pact had agreed on mutual military surveillance “from Vancouver to Vladivostok”, following a renewed initiative by President George H.W. Bush in 1989. The treaty entered into force in 2002. Several other countries such as Sweden or the ex-Yugoslav successor states Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina also joined the treaty. For the US itself, overflights for the US military have become less important in recent years, thanks to modern surveillance satellites, however. Already in 2016, the Defense Department commented that the overflights under the treaty primarily provided valuable information for allies and partners who did not possess the same surveillance capabilities as the United States.

International Reaction to Trump’s Move

Internationally, the Trump administration’s plan has been met with objection. Ten European countries expressed regret that the US would exit the treaty and pledged to continue implementing the agreement with Russia. Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said he deplored the announcement by the US government collectively with his colleagues from France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Finland, the Czech Republic and Sweden. Maas considers the treaty as an essential part of the European arms control architecture, as it had contributed to “security and peace” across the northern hemisphere. However, Maas also admitted that there had indeed been difficulties in implementing the treaty on the Russian side in recent years, albeit these did not justify termination, Maas concluded. The contract thus remained “functional and meaningful”, the EU’s joint declaration stated, although Russia was called upon to return to the full implementation of the contract. Besides the EU, NATO also seeks to discuss the future of the treaty shortly.

Germany’s Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer also declared that it was a legitimate question whether Russia had been violating the treaty. Nonetheless, she said that a defective multilateral agreement was more desirable than no agreement at all. In any case, Germany’s commitment to the treaty was undaunted.

The United States has already left various international agreements under President Trump, including the nuclear agreement with Iran, the Paris climate accord and the INF treaty banning land-based mid-range nuclear weapons. The latter was concluded between the United States and the then Soviet Union and was considered the most significant nuclear disarmament agreement for Europe to date.

L'articolo US Seeks to Withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies proviene da InsideOver.