As the number of COVID-19 cases continues to escalate in Europe and the US, American President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez have all either brought in or intend to introduce their own separate measures to temporarily halt immigration.

Immigration Bans and COVID-19

Although Trump closed US borders to foreigners traveling from China during the early stages of the virus, he intends to go one step further now by signing an Executive Order that will enforce his full proposed immigration ban.

The US President has rebuked calls from conservatives to close the borders to protect US jobs because immigrants would be likely to apply for jobs such as landscaping and crab-picking. He was aware that without immigration, no one else would be willing to apply for those sorts of jobs.

Meanwhile in France, Macron has banned all flights outside the EU’s Schengen zone.

The Spanish Government has extended the temporary restrictions placed upon non-essential travel from third countries to European ones for reasons of public order and public health until May 15th. Non-EU nationals will be allowed to travel if they are returning to their place of residence or possess a long-term visa provided by an EU country to which they are going to work.

Criticism of Trump’s Decision

Trump’s move has already been criticized by the US technology sector. According to the Pew Research Center, more than one million immigrants arrive in the US each year and many of them originate from China, India and Mexico.

Latha Olavatth, who works for immigration specialist Newland Chase, told the BBC that the US President’s measure will particularly impact the IT sector as many of those immigrants move to New York, Texas and California, three states where tech giants such as Facebook, Google and Cisco are located.

The Guardian’s David Smith believes that Trump’s ban is also likely to run into legal problems as such an executive order would be a far-reaching use of executive power. For example, will it apply to temporary guest workers, including those who work on farms?

The President’s Priority is Reopening the Economy

However, the US President’s priority is to reopen the economy and prevent the coronavirus from crippling it further. A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official said that they want to ensure that 22 million Americans who have lost their jobs already due to the pandemic are provided with the opportunity to work again.

Roy Beck, President of NumbersUSA, told Politico that immigration currently makes no sense because there are millions of Americans who need to be prioritized when it comes to recruitment.

There seems to be no evidence of economic motives behind the French and Spanish governments’ immigration bans, but New Zealand is a useful case study for arguing that these measures can halt the number of COVID-19 cases.

An immigration Ban Worked in New Zealand

The New Zealand Government implemented its ban on March 19 and it applied to all countries and nationalities. Since then the country has avoided a widespread outbreak, and new cases have dwindled from about 90 per day in early April to just five on Tuesday.

Equally, New Zealand’s healthcare system was unprepared for a measles outbreak last year and questions remain over whether it can implement contract tracing should a widespread outbreak occur again, which shows their response to the pandemic has not been entirely perfect.

The US, France and Spain have initiated their immigration bans for different purposes. Trump is doing it for economic reasons whilst the French and Spanish authorities are focused on prevention. The US President’s Executive Order might not even happen if it encounters any legal problems that will delay its implementation. Yet New Zealand proves how effective this measure is and it is a pity other nations did not follow its example sooner.

L'articolo Will Stricter Immigration Bans Really Help Fight COVID-19? proviene da InsideOver.

Nigeria has closed its borders, following the examples of Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan and Eritrea.

On March 21 2018, the African Continental Free Trade Movement was signed. The agreement was designed to strengthen the continent from the inside, without Africa’s previous trade reliance on the West. A continental body consisting of Africa’s fifty-five states, the AU “is Africa’s blueprint and master plan for transforming Africa into the global powerhouse of the future.”

It “aims to deliver on its goal for inclusive and sustainable development and is a concrete manifestation of the pan-African drive for unity, self-determination, freedom, progress and collective prosperity pursued under Pan-Africanism and African Renaissance.”

Under the AU, African nations have “free movement of business persons and investments.” Nearly two years later, this dream to “expedite the regional and continental integration processes within Africa” is failing. In April this year, Eritrea closed all its borders with neighbour, Ethiopia, hardly a year after reopening it. Despite the trade boom this brought, alongside reuniting families separated by the Eritrean-Somalian war since 1998, the Eritrean government gave no explanation for this closure.

In West Africa, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)”, is working to establish a single currency, Eco, by 2020. Yet, it is facing similar diplomatic, political and economic problems as the European Union. In a recent study, the IMF claimed that net benefits from a single currency, Eco, would accrue to Nigeria. Last month, Nigeria closed its border with Benin, citing smuggling from the Benin border as the reason.

As Brexit negotiations continue in the EU, an economic and political powerhouse is emerging among ECOWAS nations: Nigeria.

“All goods for now are banned from being exported or imported through our land borders and that is to ensure we have total control over what comes in,” Hameed Ali, comptroller-general of the Nigerian Customs Service, told reporters in the capital city, Abuja.

“This is not a political matter. The problem is broader: we are facing a giant who does what he wants. At a time when the sub-region is working to establish a single currency, this is rather worrying,” a source close to Beninese president, Patrice Talon, said.

To strengthen its political and economic power, Benin complains, Nigeria is exploiting Benin’s economic dependence on the giant of Africa.

“A number of Nigerian business leaders have been complaining about Cotonou’s attitude. They claim their trucks going to Benin are overtaxed at the border,” says a Beninese businessman with links in Nigeria. “In addition, businessman Aliko Dangote, who bought the Nigerian government’s shares in the Lafarge group, wants to sell his cement in Benin, which Talon is prohibiting.”

“Our cement factories are already at over-capacity, and we are doing a lot to fight smuggling,” retorts one of Talon’s government colleagues. “How can a member of the ECOWAS group, which is governed by free movement, decide overnight and without consultation to close its border with its neighbour? It’s not acceptable!”

Across many countries in the African Union, borders are being closed for economic, political, nationalistic, security and health reasons. In August this year, the Cameroonian army accused Equatorial Guinea of planning to build a wall on the border between both countries. As in the US-Mexico border wall, the creation of this wall is to stem illegal migration, as the Equatorial Guinea accuses Cameroon of letting West Africans enter its territory illegally.

By 2063, the African Union aims for a “prosperous and peaceful Africa”. To do this, it declares that “Africa needs to revise and adapt its development agenda due to ongoing structural transformations; increased peace and reduction in the number of conflicts; renewed economic growth and social progress; the need for people centered development, gender equality and youth empowerment.”

Africa is currently disintegrated. The dream of a prosperous Africa is dependent on the Pan African community succeeding. At a time when the AU aims to stabilise and prosper the continent, renewed nationalistic sentiments are prompting leaders to close their borders.

The political instinct to protect and horde; to prosper sans unification, is a current global climate. As the world’s richest horde their wealth, nations are closing their borders to protect the remnants they have.

The dream of unification cannot work alongside a global scarcity mindset. Only two years into its 50-year plan, the African Union is already on its road to failure.

L'articolo Why Are African Nations Closing Their Borders? proviene da InsideOver.

A controversial buffer zone in northern Kurdish-held Syrian-Turkish borders is to be jointly managed by the US and Turkey. This was announced following three days of intensive negotiations between the two NATO member states a week ago. Regardless of the pretexts given by both parties to the time-bomb agreement, the Syrian government gave a strong reaction both politically, by condemning the agreement as a ‘flagrant act of aggression’, and militarily, by enlarging operations against Turkish-backed militias in Hama, Idlib and Latakia countryside.

The differences between Ankara and Washington over the Kurdish issue, and the US-backed Kurdish militia, the YPG, are well known. However, well known, too, are Turkish expansionist plans in Syria and Ankara’s quest for a border buffer zone, since the very beginning of the conflict in Syria in 2011. The only difference is the pretext that is given by Erdogan’s regime to justify an invasion here, or an incursion there. No lessons appear to have been learned by Ankara from its decades-long wars against the Kurds in Iraq, nor from the fact that after more than half a century of fighting hopeless wars, Turkey seems much more than ever vulnerable to ethnic, religious and political fragmentation.

A Joint recipe for confrontation

The joint operation centre being established in order to manage tensions between US-backed Kurdish militia and Turkish forces in northern Syria may preclude an imminent conflict between the Kurds and their historical enemy, but no one can guarantee the exclusion of such a possibility in the long run.

The barrage of threats coming out of Ankara for years, have stepped up even more audaciously in recent weeks and days, warning that it intends to impose, even unilaterally if need be, a buffer zone by means of a large-scale military operation in northern Syria. This was interpreted by some observers as a sign of Turkish despair and lack of respect towards its Russian friends or even its NATO allies.

Other analysts believe that behind Erdogan’s heated threats of a big military operation east of the Euphrates River, lies a well-devised shrewd plot to fend off any possibility of a new military coup against him by keeping the Turkish army and its uneasy and unhappy top brass busy in a limited war in northern Syria. Statements issued by the Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar, and Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu give reasonable credence to such theories.

Images and scenes from the failed coup against Erdogan on 15 July 2016 and the brutal and oppressive measure that followed affecting hundreds of thousands of Turkish officers, journalists, academics, judges and even students, let alone army, navy and air force officers still resonate loudly in the ears and minds of millions of Turks, and shall take decades to forget or reconcile with.

Sidestepping a conflict or wrong-footing it?

The US on the other hand, hopes that the new agreement should dampen Ankara’s heated threats and forestall a military operation against Washington’s spoiled Kurdish allies, trained, armed and godfathered by the Trump administration. Turkey considers the YPG a terrorist offshoot of the Kurdish PKK, which has fought a highly costly and bloody guerrilla warfare inside its territory for over 35 years. It’s iconic leader Abdullah Ocalan has been jailed by Turkish authorities at the top-security Imrali prison island since 1999. He was sentenced to death under Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code.

Whose concerns?

As some leaders of Syrian Kurds were calling for a security zone to address their legitimate concerns and protect them from Turkey, the Turkish defense ministry said in a statement that Ankara had agreed with US officials to ‘implement without delay’ the first measures aimed at eliminating ‘Turkey’s concerns’. The paradox gets even weirder when we realize that both sides are trying to solve their bilateral problems and justify a blatant act of aggression on someone else’s sovereign territory.

Neither the United States nor Russia shall forgive the difficult position Erdogan’s volatile attitude, policies and treacherous ground has put them through. The recent controversial S-400 air defense missile deal seems to have done very little to change Erdogan’s fickle and booby-trapped endeavors with friends, allies and foes alike.

Syria’s president pledges to liberate every inch of Syrian land from terrorists and invaders; a pledge heavily supported by evidence from the battle field with current strategic advances by the Syrian army in Hama and Idlib. Taking into account this pledge and the deteriorating economic situation in Turkey, (same factor that shot Erdogan to power), Erdogan might end up the biggest loser in these perilous schemes. The recent US-Turkish agreement over a border security zone east of the Euphrates River shall, almost inevitably, have the same destiny of the ill-fated buffer zone set up by Israel in southern Lebanon some 4 decades ago.

L'articolo The US-Turkey Deal for Northern Syria, a Recipe for Conflict proviene da InsideOver.

(Damascus) After a prolonged delay due to field and political complications associated with the step, Iraq and Syria have announced 1^st September as the official inauguration day for the reopening of a major border crossing point that has been closed for the past five years.

Syrian and Iraqi commanders met at border area where work has been underway for months. They met to coordinate final measures and verify that the crossing point was ready for resumption of work and handling the heavy traffic of transportation trucks and other vehicles anticipated to flood the only large border crossing in operation between the two countries.

Statements issued in both Damascus and Baghdad following the joint reconnaissance tour, reiterated that “commanders from the Syrian and Iraqi armies conducted a joint reconnaissance tour of the border region as they prepare to reopen the key crossing between the cities of Al Boukamal (Syria) and Al-Qa’im (Iraq)”.

More than just a crossing

Officers from the Syrian and Iraqi armies were briefed on the situation along the border, (approximately 635 kilometers long), which has witnessed some of the fiercest battles against ISIS terrorists. The showdown culminated last year in ousting ISIS/ISIL terrorists completely from the area and much of Syria and Iraq. Some scattered ISIS cells and lone wolves are still believed to hide and conduct limited hit and run attacks against the Syrian and Iraqi armies, out of the so-called ‘Triangle’ striding the borders between Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

The significance of reopening this crossing reaches far beyond the two neighbouring Arab nations, observers say, for it shall also pave the way for Iran to break free from heavy US sanctions on its exports. Syria too has been under hefty sanctions by the US and European Union for much of the 8 and a half years of war in the country. The three nations have long cherished an international highway that links Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, and eventually Lebanon.

The Local Council of Al Anbar has pledged some 1.5 billion Iraqi dinars (1.25 million US dollars) as part of its efforts to reopen Al Qa’im crossing, which it says shall create jobs for the unemployed, bring Syrian goods to the province and restore the activities of trade and transportation fleet between the two countries. Iraq’s Prime Minister has instructed the reopening of the crossing last February, but action has been stalled for a variety of logistical, operational and not least, political reasons.

US prohibitions or pretexts?

The United States has repeatedly voiced its fears that such a step would not only ease up sanctions impact on both Damascus and Tehran, but would allow Iran to supply arms to its militias operating in Syria, and more dangerously, to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Whereas Iranian officials have maintained that the land lifeline shall make it much easier for goods transportation between the three nations, and for Iranian pilgrims to visit some of the holiest Shiite places in Iraq and Syria.

The US has continuously opposed, and pressurized the Iraqi government not to be part of a strategic railway project long envisaged the Iranians, that runs all the way from Tehran, across Iraq, to Damascus.  Such a lifeline track is bound to relieve much of the pressure of tightened US-led sanctions that have affected oil and other vital industrial supplies reaching Syria, and revamp bilateral as well as regional export and import activities.

Maintaining neutral ground

Throughout the eight years of Syria war, Iraq, although at least theoretically allied with the US, has maintained strong ties with both Tehran and Damascus, some claim much to the dismay of Washington. The US still maintains a heavy military presence, and its largest ever embassy compound anywhere in the world is in Baghdad. This, coupled with the fact that post-Saddam Iraqi governments have had serious challenges and confrontations with both Erdogan’s Turkey as well as Barzani’s separatist Kurds in the north, explain and even justify why Baghdad has not severed its ties with Tehran and Damascus. In the complicated labyrinth of regional politics, one could not afford to burn all boats for whatever reason; Iraqi politicians were no exception.

Flag, no flag!

Iraq had rejected earlier persistent demands made by Kurdish US-backed SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) to hoist their own flag instead of the recognized national flag of the Syrian Arab Republic, as a precondition for reopening the crossing. That obstacle seems to have been overcome, and unless a last-minute hurdle pops up, one of the official three strategically important crossings between Iraq and Syria could, in a couple of weeks’ time, usher a big opening in the solid wall of trade sanctions that has crippled much of the Syrian economy, already seriously damaged by a devastating and unforgiving war.

L'articolo Iraq to Reopen Strategic Lifeline Crossing with Syria proviene da InsideOver.

Moscow is preparing to deploy a number of tanks on its strategic border with Poland. The Kremlin intends to strengthen the western border by sending a further regiment of tanks into the Smolensk oblast (region), which in the past was considered as of strategic importance, being the only communicating link between Moscow and Poland. The same Poland that will welcome new American missiles.

The news was reported by the press service of the Western Military District. The new contingent of armoured vehicles will mainly comprise of T-72B tanks in the updated “A” version, but also BMP-2 armoured track vehicles for infantry transport, and specialist vehicles for every type of support in land operations. The Kremlin press office stated that “a regiment of tanks will be formed as a combined grouping from the Western Military District.

The new military unit will be put together as a separate tank battalion, located out in the Smolensk region. The regiment will improve the combat capabilities of the motorised infantry division.”  The information was later published by the news agency Interfax. According to the official statement, “sub-unit armaments will receive modern combat equipment: T-72Ba tanks, BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles, as well as air defence equipment, reconnaissance, logistic units and technical and medical assistance.”

The T-72Ba tank is an updated version of the T-72 Ural combat tank equipped with Kontakt-1 and -5 Explosive Reactive Armour on both the hull and the turret. It carries a smooth-bore 125mm 2A46M cannon, capable of firing different types of ammunition, including guided missiles. Currently, Russia has 227 tanks of this model, which carry reactive armour and implemented systems. This version of the T-72 tank, available since 2000, is considered a ‘low-cost’ upgrade from previous versions, developed to keep older T-72 tanks operational. BMP-2 armoured vehicles are Soviet-era infantry combat vehicles armed with a 30mm cannon and capable of carrying seven men in full kit.

The Smolensk region, an area of strategic importance in the past, was also the scene of one of the main defeats suffered by the Red Army during the Second World War (Operation Barbarossa in July 1941).  The decision to strengthen the armoured elements deployed here must mainly come from Moscow’s desire to maintain ‘high’ pressure on European borders, but also in view of the new situation after the ‘destruction’ of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which will see Poland (where the American modular launchers are deployed) as a possible threat to the Russian Federation, and consequently a possible ‘target’ against which to guard and protect themselves.

L'articolo Moscow Strengthens its Border: Tanks Deployed Near Poland proviene da InsideOver.