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.

Vladimir Lenin wrote in 1905 that there are decades where nothing happens, and then there are weeks, where decades happen. In just the few weeks since the coronavirus pandemic has gripped the world, it already appears that the course of modern history has changed decisively. And, as if a deadly global pandemic with the potential to kill millions wasn’t enough, it comes accompanied by an unprecedented global recession, if not depression. Whatever semblance of order that was left in the world is crumbling before our eyes.

Nothing is Sacred in the New Corona World Order

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has been animated by a sense of ever-increasing globalization and interconnectivity. Political movements in recent years have brought this global system into question, but no political shock has come close to what the novel Coronavirus is doing. Nothing is sacred in the new corona world order. Entire economies are being thrown onto the pyre while governments promise infinite spending. Transport, travel, tourism: put on hold indefinitely. Even the borderless Schengen area has evaporated in a matter of days, with every single country in the area closing its borders to cope with the pandemic. Nobody can be sure what awaits us on the other end of this pandemic, but it is hard to imagine that the world is not changing permanently before our eyes.

‘Competing Versions of Equilibrium’

Henry Kissinger said in an interview with The Atlantic that “A [world] order tends towards chaos when its key challenges are to its system: then it evolves with competing versions of equilibrium.” Of all the possible shocks to the system, global pandemic was probably not on his mind when he gave this interview in 2016. Kissinger has seen his fair share of system shocks in his decades long career at the pinnacle of world diplomacy, but it is safe to say he has never seen something quite like this. In the most globalized era in human history, the world has failed remarkably to coordinate any effective international response to a deadly pandemic. Relations between states have devolved into a game of blame and insults, not coordination and solidarity.

Countries have struggled throughout history to build a safe and stable international order. However, emerging from the Second World War, a group of countries with radically different ideologies and worldviews managed to build a world order that has kept us free from direct war between major powers for 75 years. When the coronavirus pandemic comes to an end, as it will, a monumental effort will be needed to reestablish a stable world order. Do our leaders look up to the task?

No Serious Attempt at Forming a Stable International Order

Granted, it is a misnomer to say the same world order has been around since the Second World War. While the trappings of that order have stuck around, it has long since disappeared along with the Soviet Union. That bipolar world order did function though — so long as leaders in Moscow and Washington were committed to maintaining stable and peaceful relations — however fraught they appeared. That order was no natural process, though. World order does not blow in from the East or set on the horizon. World order is built by the tireless work of committed and competent people with a mission.

Since the end of the Cold War, it is not clear that there has been any serious attempt at forming a stable international order at all. Instead, the United States has contently allowed forces of global capitalism and hyper-globalization to run rampant around the world, confident that history was on its side. But in Beijing and Moscow, Ankara and Tehran — and many other capitals around the world — leaders have been quietly waiting for their moment to take their place in the sun. That moment has arrived.

To be clear, this moment did not spontaneously arrive with the coronavirus. Decades do not happen in weeks, after all. But it does only take a couple of weeks for us to realize the decades that have passed and how significant they were.

Repudiating Universalism

On Lenin’s 150^th birthday, Russians will go to the polls to give their constitution its most radical overhaul since 1993. It will allow Vladimir Putin to rule until 2036, while enshrining the country’s Soviet past and WWII victory as a sort of national mythology within the constitution. Most importantly, it will encode in the constitution the supremacy of Russian law over and above international law. Article by article, the Russian state is repudiating universalist Western liberalism. Russia has once again found its place in the sun, and it won’t be giving it up without a fight.

Meanwhile Xi Jinping’s China has become more assertive than any Chinese regime in decades. Determined to use China’s economic success for geopolitical gains, Xi has initiated the largest investment program in history – the Belt and Road. Through it, China is attempting to physically alter communication and interaction across the Eurasian continent, fundamentally reshaping the world order as we know it.

Beyond Russia and China, perhaps the biggest challenges to the liberal world order — as much as there ever truly was one — came from within the West itself. America’s official national security strategy from 2017 “begins with the determination to protect the American people, the American way of life, and American interests”. Hardly an internationalist line. Meanwhile the new European Commission added a Commission for Promoting the European Way of Life. This as Britain finally heads off to promote its own way of life, ending decades of political cohabitation with the continent.

Turkey too has given up on its European dream, pursuing its own nationalist path of development under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan instead. In late 2019, Turkey joined the Syrian Civil War directly, invading the northern provinces under the dubious pretext of creating a “safe zone” for refugees. Then, in early 2020, Turkey sent some 2,000 Syrian militiamen to fight in Libya with the promise of Turkish citizenship. Moreover, Turkey has been quietly expanding its reach in the Mediterranean for years now, laying claim to more and more open waters as its own.

The Pandemic is Amplifying a Global Power Shift Which Had Already Been Underway

Already before the Coronavirus revisionist powers were becoming increasingly powerful and involved beyond their borders while Western powers found themselves unable or uninterested in projecting power abroad. It may be mere coincidence that under the shadow of global pandemic and looming depression so many monumental political events are occurring, but the result will be the same. The world emerging from the coronavirus pandemic will not be characterized by globalization or multinational cooperation. Instead, it is shaping up to be exactly the multi-polar world order that has long been anticipated.

Italy has more confirmed — or at least officially recorded — cases of coronavirus than China, with over 101,700 cases and 11,591 deaths. Its European allies have banned the export of medical equipment, while Russia and China are sending medical aid. What kind of world awaits us if Russia and China are more capable and willing to project power into the heart of Europe than the United States or Great Britain? Only time will tell, but it won’t be the world order of the past.

L'articolo World Order in the Time of Coronavirus proviene da InsideOver.

The next presidential election is near. Within the next twelve months, the US will vote again. Rarely before has an election been anticipated so intensely as the one that will determine whether or not Donald Trump remains in office. Mr. “The Art of Deal” himself has made many promises. Promises that were supposed to transform the international scene and solve major conflicts around the globe. The fact that arguably more sophisticated and tremendously more experienced elder statesmen had already failed to deliver these results did not appear to matter to Trump. In the end, and just like any other politician, Trump will be measured by the promises he made and the promises he has kept.

And while his track record on domestic issues has been solid (e.g. tax reform, Supreme Court justices, deregulations, increased support for veterans and stricter illegal immigration enforcement) his record on foreign policy issues remains inadequate at best.

North Korea

In North Korea, Trump promised a “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization.” He once threatened “Rocket Man” with “fire and fury,” while the regime in Pyongyang had unsettled the region with a series of missile and nuclear bomb tests. During his first speech to the UN General Assembly in 2017, Trump threatened the “total destruction” of North Korea. How time flies. These days, Trump showers Kim with praises. And why not? Very few people possess the aptitude of writing “beautiful letters” as Supreme Leader Kim does.

The meeting between the two this summer was supposed to become a historic moment and the foundation for long-lasting peace. So far, the most significant impact Trump’s North Korea policy has facilitated can only be measured in likes on social media, where Trump himself and affiliates such as Fox News presented the images of Kim and Trump as if Reagan had just met Gorbachev for the first time. It was an appalling display, in which a US President was willing to elevate a dictator onto the level of the world’s most powerful man.

While Trump has been the first US President to ever meet a North Korean ruler – for which there are many reasons – the summits never amounted to any tangible success. It has been pure photo diplomacy. North Korea is neither denuclearized nor has it stopped its ballistic missile program.

Right now, the negotiations have stalled altogether, though according to South Korea, the United States was “very actively” trying to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table. It has not stopped Trump from claiming that North Korea was no longer a nuclear threat. A simple untruth, or “Fake News”, and contradicted, for one, by Trump’s very own Director of Intelligence Dan Coats during a congressional hearing in January.

China

Another conundrum Trump has pledged to tackle and solve is China. A historic trade deal was supposed to decrease the enormous US trade deficit with Asia’s rising hegemon. The simple solution: fewer imports, more exports.

The deal, on which both countries are still working, or at times, procrastinate, it appears, was much more wanted by Beijing than by the US, Trump continues to claim.

Unlike his predecessors, Trump has fulfilled his commitment to negotiate with China more robustly. He has imposed tariffs on Chinese goods worth $350 billion, with the result that China’s economy stagnated for the first time in three decades.

In October, Trump announced that there had been a first minor trade deal with China in place, aiming at increased protection of intellectual property, an open Chinese financial market and Chinese purchases of US agricultural products.

However, the on – and off-trade war has been largely affecting American consumers, who carry the burden by paying increased prices for goods “made in China”. And while other states have benefitted from the dispute between Washington and Beijing, the entire US trade deficit increased by more than five percent, to $481 billion from January to September. It is a track record most CEOs would have needed to show their way out for.

Moreover, Trump has created a political dilemma besides economic struggles. Unlike Trump, his counterpart Xi Jinping does not have to convince any voters – one of the cozy advantages of running a totalitarian state. Trump, on the other hand, has made the economy his calling card. If no deal is made, the US economy could face enormous issues and Trump a troublesome election night.

With Trump signing the Hong Kong bill this week, problems have likely further increased. Even though  Congress did not leave him any choice, the now verified pro-Hong Kong stance will not make Beijing rush back to the negotiating table. In the end, Trump will likely be forced to make concessions to obtain a deal and present it to his voters.

Iran

In May 2018, Trump announced a real, comprehensive and lasting solution to Iran’s nuclear threat after he had left the infamous deal between Iran, Europe, and the US. Since then, the US has reimposed severe sanctions, while Tehran no longer feels bound by the terms of the agreement. Thus, despite continuous European appeasement Iran has begun enriching uranium in its nuclear facility again. The ambitious plan of the fundamental Islamic regime, the development of their own nuclear weapons, had moved closer in the nearly three-year reign of Donald Trump, critics argue. The reality, however, is that the US will never let Iran get a nuclear weapon, regardless of the circumstances and potential militaristic commitment.

The latter notwithstanding, the imposed sanctions have achieved a highly positive effect for Trump: Iran is in chaos and a coup by the Iranian population against the regime in Tehran, which remains the world’s main sponsor of terrorism, is not outside the realms of possibility at this stage.

It is the foreign policy development that receives the least attention and yet deserves to be commended. The general consensus that implies that the US’s exit from the nuclear deal was a detrimental decision for peace in the region – Saudi-Arabia and Israel beg to differ –  could change rather rapidly if current developments, caused by an economy that has been paralyzed due to the sanctions, was to deliver regime change without any military intervention.

And while the puppet mastery of Iran’s potential implosion has been orchestrated by Mike Pompeo first and foremost, Trump would yet deserve credit, as he, unlike his predecessor, has been willing to delegate.

China and North Korea remain work in progress at best, however, with Iran, the US might be on the verge of delivering a signature win on foreign policy for the administration that could help distract from other obvious shortcomings.

L'articolo Trump’s Art of the (Non) Deal: What happened to North Korea, China and Iran? proviene da InsideOver.

Pursued, fired upon, then captured by Russian sailors, the Ukrainian crew must’ve feared their plight might go unnoticed. But it didn’t. Days after the Kerch Strait incident late last year, a multinational reconnaissance plane soared over the turbulent waters. With American, Canadian, French, German, Romanian, and British observers on-board, the message was clear: Russia, the world is watching. The extraordinary flight was possible thanks solely to the Open Skies Treaty – an accord allowing aerial surveillance among member states. But rumblings out of Washington suggest the scheme could soon be scrapped.

First floated during the Cold War, Open Skies looks to de-escalate tensions through mutual transparency. Given 72 hours notice, each of the 34 signatories must allow unrestricted airborne reconnaissance of their land, with the promise that all images captured will be shared freely. For its supporters, the scheme is as much about confidence-building as surveillance – we have nothing to hide, so you have nothing to fear.

But Open Skies is under threat. President Trump intends to haul America out of the agreement, reports suggest, with speculation that the six-month withdrawal notice has already been signed. 

Alleged Russian violations seem to drive his disdain for the accord. Excessive constraints on their surveillance of the Kaliningrad enclave – home to some of Moscow’s most advanced nuclear missiles – and a dispute over on-board observers led Washington to cancel all flights in 2018. Russia, for its part, complains of unreasonable US restrictions – since 2017 their access to Hawaiian airspace has been limited.

Regardless, a cross-section of conservative US lawmakers believe Moscow to be the net beneficiary of Open Skies. Supported from the sidelines by John Bolton, Trump’s hawkish former national security adviser, some Republicans have demanded that the scheme’s funding be cut. The US’s intelligence needs would be better served by going it alone, they argue, pointing to the nation’s formidable spy satellite fleet, which can produce higher resolution imagery than the ageing aircraft.

There’s merit to the argument. Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford, a known proponent of the scheme, admitted in 2017 that, given America’s pre-eminence in orbital surveillance, Open Skies was – technically speaking – in Russia’s favour.

But this misses the accord’s core objective, advocates say. More than the intelligence it helps gather, the treaty binds America to its transatlantic allies – offering them access to information they would otherwise lack. Most Open Skies signatories – especially those in Eastern Europe – lack the financial wherewithal for a satellite fleet, and thus rely heavily on the scheme to monitor their borders. Should, for instance, Ukraine be without multilateral eyes in the sky, there’s little knowing what Russia might attempt. 

The agreement also offers some practical advantages over unilateral orbital reconnaissance. Wary of disclosing state secrets, the Americans don’t regularly share their satellites’ findings – and when they do, the security clearance process is often protracted. However rudimentary, images captured by surveillance planes can be shared widely and without undue delay. For supporters, this alone justifies Open Skies’s expense – around $146 million a year, 0.02% of the US’s overall defence budget.

But the Oval Office appears to be on a one-way track when it comes to Cold War-era accords. America’s departure would follow its exit from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, says Bonnie Kristian of Defense Priorities, a military think tank. “Exiting Open Skies would demolish another piece of de-escalatory infrastructure designed to avoid a crisis between nuclear powers,” she added.  

The world has moved on since the late 1980s though, with new dangers emerging at pace. For all the Kremlin’s bluster, Russia’s threat to the West is in decline. In its place, China is ascending. As with the arms treaties of old, Beijing is not bound by Open Skies – a point that’ll surely weigh on American minds. 

But the world is seldom made safer by scrapping peace-minded schemes, however ageing. Instead, like America’s rickety reconnaissance aircraft, many believe that they should be repurposed for the modern era. The emergence of hybrid warfare – with its use of ‘deep fake’ technology and disinformation – has added value to the sort of simple, mutually recognised photographic evidence Open Skies affords. It’s not perfect, but in the world of international treaties, little is. 

L'articolo Trump To Pull US Out Of Open Skies Treaty proviene da InsideOver.

The two developing superpowers have been disputing territories or resources since the mid-20th century. Both increasing tensions, and de-escalation of the disputes are possible. Will water shortages and political posturing cause tensions to rise between the two leaders of Asia?

There are many, unequally weighted reasons, why China and India have veered on the side of escalating tensions – in the context of their foreign relations.

China’s and India’s histories have been marked with invasions of foreign powers, and a long path to unification. Both countries have seen strong regional divisions in the past, and colonial attitudes from previous superpowers.

These shared experiences could turn the two countries into closest partners. Nevertheless, the same shared experiences make very close foreign relations almost impossible. When the majority of history has been either internal fighting for territory, or defence against foreign invaders (e.g. invaders from the West for India, Mongols for China), giving leeway to neighbours becomes an impossible task.

After India’s independence and China’s communist revolution, the relations of the two countries became more complex. From one side, the need for internal modernisation and poverty reduction kept the relations between the two countries civil. Disagreements about territorial claims are more of an exception, because of unclear territorial divisions after the modern India and China were founded.

Historically, the two previous empires and largest states in the South-Southeast Asian regions interacted with one another in a manner fitting to the specific historical period.

China has had the largest population in the world since the early common era. India is bound to surpass this achievement in the early 2020s. The growing populations have created increasing domestic demand, and a strong incentive to modernize. This has contributed to both countries moving towards, and competing for the status, of the regional superpower.

The present relations of the two countries are better than they were in the past (particularly during the 1960s). Yet, any bilateral talks are always marked with competition in mind. Territorial competition and claims still haven’t been resolved even after decades of the partnership of two independent nations.

The main issues which are causing the countries to trade jabs (both diplomatic and military) are: environmental, territorial, and those related to the fight for the influence in the region.

Rising tensions because of environmental and territorial issues have long been a problem for China and India. The territorial issues have been a cause for conflict as early as the establishment of the modern China and India.

Environmental issues are a complex factor creating increasing tensions for the two countries. Issues like water scarcity have had a not only negative impact on the relations of China and India. Instead, identical issues experienced by the two Asian countries also act as a push factor for closer cooperation in this sphere.

In contrast, rising tensions because of the fight for the influence in the region, are a newer threat to good relations of the two countries. In the 21st century, both countries, to different degrees, underwent transformations which pushed them to expand their foreign influence.

There are several push and pull factors for rising tensions between China and India.

Water shortages and the steadily growing populations of both countries, present an increasing problem.

Every year, China’s population increases by around 6.5 million, and India’s by 14 million. This wouldn’t be a problem if there wasn’t a dispute surrounding the water-scarce regions of India and China. Most notably, the region of Arunachal Pradesh, and the rising fears related to the possible diversion of the river Brahmaputra.

Solutions to these problems are expensive and hard to deliver. Mostly due to the terrain, and the low infrastructure development of the contested regions of north-eastern India or south-western China.

The historical precedent because of which neither China nor India are ready to give away anything (territory, resources), also slows down any talks for the resolution of this issue. In regions, where military shoot-outs have become commonplace, a step away could be interpreted as defeat. Not only by the opposing side, but also by the citizens of these two countries.

The most powerful pull to lower tensions, and peaceful relations, is trade and economic ties between nations. For the two countries, these ties account for 0.006% of China’s, and 0.006% of India’s GDP. Losing the 7th and 3rd largest trade partners would bring severe negative consequences to both countries.

The consequences of lower amounts of trade can be solved easily if the type of exports can be easily re-oriented to other markets. E.g. trade in electronics or unprocessed food products. For China and India, the largest quantities in exports are commodities and chemicals. An increasing probability of lower trade would see businesses having to solve a difficult problem. Selling products, which can’t be easily re-oriented to export into other markets.

The strategies for trade and economic development, chosen by the two neighbouring countries, also work in favour of closer relations between them. China’s newest economic strategy, presented in 2015, “Made in China 2025”, focuses on developing manufacturing prowess in high tech (e.g. robotics) manufacturing. This means that a re-orientation in the most numerous exports of China can be expected.

India’s top imports include electronic equipment, machinery, and medical or technical equipment. Hence, a push for the production of these tools and machines in China will very likely lead to higher exports of the products into India. With them, closer trade ties between the two countries. After all, the current top imports of India from China already include these products.

India’s newest choice of trade strategy doesn’t favour trade with China at first glance. The statements released by the commerce and industry minister of India, point to an increase in exports towards regions west of India, like the Middle East and Africa.

Nonetheless, India’s orientation of trade into other regions should not be viewed as a movement away from its older, and closer markets. Instead, the hesitant talks about an FTA between China and India, the establishment of Chinese industrial parks in India, and cooperation in fuel trade, show that these two countries can create closer cooperation, even while branching out in foreign relations.

Foreign nations also have influenced the bond between China and India. More so, when the rising tensions meant gains for the allies of either side.

For one, competing regional powers often try to bring neighbouring countries to their side through financial or political incentives. In the case of China and India, the South and Southeast Asian region has long been divided into two opposing factions, supporting a different side in this competition.

Countries supporting the side of China, in the South Asian region, have been Pakistan, Myanmar and Cambodia.

China, more recently, has solidified these relations through the Belt and Road initiative. The scale of investment is large for the region: $62B through the Belt and Road initiative for Pakistan, already nine approved projects through the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor, and $7B already invested in Cambodia by 2017.

Although giving out aid to allies against potential regional rivals looks like a good strategy in the short term, it can backfire in the long term. Instead of doubling down on negotiations, or looking for alternative solutions for the management of disputed territories, the spending on allies treats the symptoms, and not the disease. More so, when investments are directed towards countries unfriendly in regards to the competitor.

India has chosen a different path to gain allies and power in Asia. Its foreign aid budget was $1.19B in 2019-2020. Even though the amount of foreign aid given out by India is growing, its size can’t compete with that of China’s – $2.63B in 2019.

India’s allies in the South and Southeast Asian regions are Vietnam, Nepal and Bangladesh. Contrarily to getting allies through mostly monetary means, India is intent on expanding on already existing cultural and military ties. Communications directed at Nepal have emphasized the shared cultural connections. With Bangladesh and Vietnam, India has worked on joint military cooperation.

As long as there is a possibility of conflict escalation, both countries have an incentive to bring neighbouring countries to their side. And for financial or military support, such as provided by loans from China to its allies, the question remains: what will happen when some other country will offer a better deal?

For the foreign relations of China and India, their current disputes have the potential to bring the two countries closer through cooperation, and even similar goals. Nonetheless, the decades-long issues that haven’t been solved, and the increasing environmental issues will add to conflict escalation.

L'articolo Will There be Environmental Conflict Escalation Between China and India? proviene da InsideOver.

Fayez Al Sarraj is the chairman of the Presidential Council of Libya, a position by virtue of which he also holds the office of Prime Minister and therefore leader of the provisional government that was formed in Tripoli in March 2016 following the Skhirat agreement.

Currently Al Sarrajand his government are engaged in a battle for control of the capital which began on 4 April following the offensive launched by General Khalifa Haftar.

L'articolo Who is Fayez Al Sarraj? proviene da InsideOver.