It came as no surprise, and has certainly been anticipated in the pages of this publication, that the British government decided to prohibit telecom providers from buying new equipment for 5G networks from Huawei Technologies. It is undoubtedly a U-turn for the United Kingdom, which as recently as January announced that the Chinese company would be allowed to be involved in the infrastructure of the fifth-generation technology standard for cellular networks. The government gave reassurances at the time that it was able to manage the risks of Huawei’s presence in 5G.

The UK’s Reversal and Ban on Huawei

This Tuesday, however, the UK government announced that purchases from Huawei would be illegal starting from the end of this year, and telecommunication companies would have until the end of 2027 to remove existing Huawei equipment from their 5G networks.

This decision comes with its own costs. The British Minister for Digital Issues, Oliver Dowden, said that the law, expected to be passed in the fall, would delay the development of 5G in the UK by two to three years and cost up to $ 2.5 billion, as estimated by a report from the Wall Street Journal. The Journal adds that the United Kingdom is thinking of banning the purchase of Huawei equipment from the country’s fiber optic network as well. It is reported that Huawei intends to make a full review of the business it has in the UK. With this latest decision, the United Kingdom joins the other member countries of the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance, with the exception of Canada, that have made similar moves.

Why Did Boris Johnson Decide to Block Huawei in the End?

There are three main reasons that pushed Prime Minister Boris Johnson in this direction. First and foremost, it was his own party that pushed him for months to take a harder stance towards China and Huawei, which is a Chinese state enterprise in all but name. This move is part of a broader strategy to make the UK less dependent on China, and should come as a welcome surprise to European bureaucrats who warned that should the UK leave the EU, it would be powerless in front of the Asian giant.

Apparently, the British government has more courage to take on China than many EU countries, including Germany, which remain skeptical about making a similar move. This decision, for many conservative lawmakers, was not enough, as they are arguing for a shorter phaseout period with Huawei and a total expulsion of the Chinese company from the United Kingdom.

Various Key Factors Influenced UK’s Decision

Secondly, according to reporting from the Journal, the decision was preceded by a review from the UK’s National Cyber Security Center, which was made as a result of the sanctions announced by the US. President Donald Trump took credit after the announcement made by the Johnson government, adding that it was his leadership and actions that convinced Johnson to act. The US President had emphasized several times that his country will not be able to do business with any country allowing Huawei into their 5G networks, citing security concerns. The report by the National Cyber Security Center seems to prove what Trump said. The only reason that they added a longer phase out period was due to concerns that a shorter period would lead to coverage blackout for customers.

Lastly, China’s behavior with the coronavirus, its aggression towards Hong Kong, as well as China’s pursuit to territorial claims in the South China Sea, appear to have been the tipping point. Hong Kong especially is considered a sensitive matter in the United Kingdom, as it is not an abstract issue, but a clear violation of an agreement on Hong Kong’s autonomy and a defilement of the region’s democracy. The concern is that Taiwan may be China’s next target. It would have been reckless and weak to have continued with business as usual on London’s part.

Building a Coalition to Counter China

This decision can be seen as simply one more piece in the grander scheme of the West building a coalition of the willing to take on China. US sanctions on Huawei, the positioning of warships and aircraft carriers on the region for exercise purposes, EU’s more aggressive rhetoric, UK’s recent move all point to the creation of a united front going forward. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel opposed banning Huawei, however most inside her party and across the political spectrum expect her to be tougher on China. Since she will not be seeking reelection, it remains to be seen how Germany’s stance will change once her successor within the Party and in Government has been elected.

The US under Trump is expected to continue its pressure on Germany. Since France has planned restrictions with regards to where operators can use Huawei’s 5G equipment, particularly keeping it away from military and other sensitive areas. Italy’s political forces — especially the opposition parties — have intensified their criticism towards China, so logic points to the conclusion that Germany may soon follow suit.

Assessing China’s Reaction

On the other hand, China’s reaction until now has been within expectations. Its relationship with the UK will be strained further. In addition to banning Huawei, the British government has offered a path to UK citizenship for nearly 3 million citizens from Hong Kong. The Chinese ambassador in the United Kingdom voiced his government’s disappointment and pointed out that the decision has “undermined the trust between the two governments”. He said that Huawei is a company independent on the Chinese government. However, this was clearly contradicted by his later claims that “Huawei merely symbolizes how you treat China”. This response is nothing else but another evidence that validates what is a fact known for decades – that the Chinese communist party and Chinese companies are one and the same. His threat included also the fact that other Chinese firms will follow the decision closely.

The Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman spoke of collusion between the US and the UK and warned that this decision will come at a cost. The Chinese state backed Global Times said in an editorial that it is “necessary for China to retaliate”, otherwise it will be seen as weakness on China’s part, thus, according to them, retaliation should be “public and painful”.

How Can China Retaliate?

There are several ways in which China can strike back. It can increase trade tariffs, since there is no trade deal between the countries, yet. A possibility is making it more difficult for British products to reach Chinese consumers. It could resort to harassment techniques like cyber-attacks, IP thefts and the other usual practices it has done over the decades. However, the United Kingdom should be prepared and remain unswerving in its decision.

The logical next step is a united front that includes the United States, The United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and even Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and all freedom-loving countries that are threatened by China’s aggressive behaviors. Many security experts believe recent decisions are pointing in this direction. The UK, the EU and the US can work together in strengthening Western providers, can become less dependent on Chinese products and companies, as seen during the covid-19 emergencies. Nokia, Ericsson, AT & T are some of the companies that have made progress, either in getting 5G technology patents or have started building the infrastructure.

Through his ambassadors in Europe Trump is looking to build a wide coalition with the aim of mutual defense against Chinese aggression. Ambassador Robert O’Brien came to Europe this week to discuss issues ranging from China, to 5G, Russia, Middle East and COVID response in several meetings in Paris with his counterparts from the UK, Germany, France and Italy.

As said many times before, it is very clear this is a new cold war being fought with modern weapons. The West’s weakest point rests in its internal divisions and petty rivalries.

L'articolo The United Kingdom’s 5G Decision – Taking a Stand Against China proviene da InsideOver.

The Trump administration continuing its fight against China-based tech giant Huawei after taking a break during the coronavirus pandemic. Previously, Washington banned the company from deploying its 5G infrastructure in the US, using an executive order to label it a national security risk. On Friday, the Trump administration went a step further to prevent global chip manufacturers from supplying Huawei — a plan that had been previously considered — causing Huawei’s stock value to slide and risking retaliation from Beijing.

American Businesses in the Crosshairs

“The U.S. has utilized national power and used the so-called national security concern as an excuse, and abused export controls to continue to suppress some particular companies in other countries,” China’s commerce ministry said in a statement issued Sunday.

As a result, American companies including Apple Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Qualcomm Inc., and Boeing Co. will likely be targeted. A report from China-based Global Times indicated Beijing will place them on an “unreliable entity list.” China has already paused new purchases of Boeing aircraft.

The new restrictions put in place Friday extend beyond US borders by requiring foreign companies who use America technology to be licensed before providing Huawei with computer chips. The regulation applies even to Huawei-designed chips if they are produced by companies that use American technology. 

The rule will also close a loophole that allowed Huawei to continue to profit off US technology, the US Department of Commerce said.

“There has been a very highly technical loophole through which Huawei has been in able, in effect, to use U.S. technology with foreign fab producers,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in an interview with Fox Business Network on Friday.

New Requirements

Ross reiterated that the intention of banning Huawei centred on national security concerns.

“This is not how a responsible global corporate citizen behaves,” Ross said. “We must amend our rules exploited by Huawei and HiSilicon and prevent U.S. technologies from enabling malign activities contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.”

HiSilicon, Huawei’s solution to skirt around its previous ban, allowed the company to source semiconductors from other manufacturers, the New York Times reported. However, those companies often used American technology to develop the chips that Huawei had designed. Under the new regulation, they would no longer be permitted to supply the company. 

After the rule goes into effect in September, companies that want to continue to do business with Huawei can apply for licenses. The US State Department said it would consider licenses on a case by case basis. 

“This is a licensing requirement. It does not necessarily mean that things are denied,” a senior State Department official said. “We tend to approach Huawei with some concern but this is a measure that gives the US government visibility into what is moving.”

Trump’s Favorite Target

The Trump administration’s fight against Huawei comes amid two larger US–China conflicts: a trade war that was approaching deescalation in January and the COVID-19 pandemic for which Washington blames on Beijing. Huawei offers a big name for the US to hit economically, a target to point at and show results when its hits land.

Huawei’s smartphone sales outside of china fell by 35% as a result of the administration’s policies against the company. As business success in China is strongly intertwined with relationships with Communist Party officials, hurting Huawei indirectly affects the government of Beijing, hence its quick rush to defend the tech giant.

US President Donald Trump has made his position on China and Huawei abundantly clear and if anything, he is more eager to attack it because of the coronavirus pandemic. As the new rule does not go into affect until September, a mere two months before the US elections, it’s quite possible that Democratic candidate Joe Biden will have to continue the battle. 

Biden’s close ties to China have raised eyebrows at times and he has a history of strongly supporting favorable relations with Beijing. As a senator in the 1990s, he advocated for it to be given the World Trade Organization’s most-favored-nation status. As vice president, he pushed for increased trade saying Americans “welcome this competition.” 

After the Phase 1 trade deal was announced in January, Biden downplayed concerns declaring, “What are we worried about?”

‘Strangle Huawei’

However, Biden may actually take a tougher stand on China through policies outside the scope of a trade war that Americans have to foot the bill for.

“The vice president intends to do two things: hold Trump accountable for a catastrophic set of failures in his approach to China, and a colossal gap between tough talk and weak action,” said Jake Sullivan, a senior advisor for Biden. Specifically, Biden will engage other states to coordinate a joint effort to pressure China, which would be “a hell of a lot better than just the United States choosing to try to fight a trade war with China all by ourselves.”

On the technology side, Biden would also  look to expand restrictions on technology that enabled China to commit genocide against its Uighur population. Against Huawei in particular, Biden said on a debate state in February that he supported a ban on the company using its network technology in the US, a rare point of a agreement between him and the president. 

‘Modern Wars are Fought With Semiconductors’

Biden will also find support in Congress. Actions against Huawei have never exactly been a partisan issue with both Republicans and Democrats supporting the measure.

“The United States needs to strangle Huawei,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, R–Neb. “Modern wars are fought with semiconductors, and we were letting Huawei use our American designs. This is pretty simple: Chip companies that depend on American technology can’t jump into bed with the Chinese Communist Party.”

Long-term economic prospects between the two states depend on resolving the trade war. For that, Biden may be better as he has shown more proclivity to consider other avenues for attacking Beijing. The US trade war is only the first problem to overcome, however, and Biden may bring aboard other nations to create a united front against China, something Trump has never shown an interest in doing.

With increased calls for Beijing to allow for an independent investigation of COVID-19, the world is slowing turning against China. As a unifying candidate, Biden would be America’s best shot at settling the score, as opposed to Trump’s lone wolf mentality.

The Huawei ban is only a small piece to the larger economic struggle between the US and China. Although Trump managed to hurt the company, Biden’s holistic approach may have a longer and more widespread effect. 

L'articolo Trump Administration Hits Huawei Again as Beijing Threatens Retaliation proviene da InsideOver.

The construction of a wall on the border between Egypt’s Sinai and the Palestinian Gaza Strip is nearly complete, after Egyptian authorities stepped up work on it with the aim of shielding Sinai against infiltration by jihadists from Gaza.

Closing Down Egypt’s Vulnerable Entry Point

Salafist jihadists from Gaza used to enter Sinai using a network of smuggling tunnels and a porous border with the Egyptian territory. Once in Egypt they would join Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorists operating in the Sinai region.

The wall construction started in 2014 to make Sinai inaccessible for the jihadists and make it difficult for ISIS terrorists to cross into Gaza and seek escape from Egyptian army attacks. The construction of the wall is part of a broader crackdown by the Egyptian army on tunnels between Sinai and Gaza. The tunnels were used in past decades in the smuggling of goods and arms to and from Sinai.

In recent years, they were also used in the infiltration into Sinai by Gazan jihadists and for travel into Gaza by ISIS terrorists to seek medical treatment in the Palestinian territory.

Stopping Infiltration With a Wall

The presence of a wall on the border between Sinai and Gaza is necessary for the protection of security in Sinai, especially with the Sinai branch of ISIS teaming up with Salafi jihadists in the Palestinian territory, as security analysts report.

The Gaza-ruling Hamas movement has long struggled to secure the joint border with Egypt. However, Hamas’ attempt to secure the border and prevent the smuggling of militants into Sinai can land it in trouble, given the alliance between ISIS Sinai and some jihadist factions in Gaza.

“This is why constructing such a wall is important,” said retired Egyptian police general, Ali Hefzi. “The presence of this wall will offer solutions to the infiltration of these militants into Sinai.”

A Tall Order for the Egyptian Military

The Egyptian army spent a sizable amount of resources on the construction of the wall which extends over 12 kilometers, covering most of the joint border between Sinai and the Gaza Strip. The wall is six meters high and five meters deep underground. This means that it can be an effective mechanism against the renewed digging of tunnels along the border.

Egypt has destroyed hundreds of smuggling tunnels on the border with Gaza in the past years. Some of the tunnels were difficult to find, having begun in Gaza and ended inside the homes of some Sinai Bedouins.

“These tunnels posed a real threat to security in Sinai,” said security expert Hossam Suweilam.

Egypt’s Successful Strategy

The construction of the wall on the border with Gaza is only one measure in a series of others taken by Cairo to secure Sinai and end the threat of militancy in it. The Egyptian army has been fiercely cracking down on this militancy for over five years now, having deployed all army branches in the territory which also shares borders with Israel.

Apart from deploying tens of thousands of ground troops, the army also uses the air force and the navy to besiege the ISIS terrorists and prevent them from receiving supplies. This strategy has so far succeeded in trimming the power of ISIS, which is a vital reason for the failure of the terrorist group in maintaining attacks against army and police posts in Sinai.

This does not mean, however, that ISIS is over because the group is sometimes capable of staging deadly attacks. On April 30, it killed two army officers and eight conscripts in a bomb attack on an armored vehicle in the North Sinai city of Beir al-Abd.

Big Plans for Sinai

Sinai has always been absent from Egypt’s development agenda. Larger in size than Israel, the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian West Bank and Lebanon combined, Sinai is inhabited by only 600,000 people.

The Egyptian government wants to relocate between 3 and 5 million citizens to Sinai. To do this, it is spending billions of dollars on the development of the territory. The development projects implemented include dozens of roads, hospitals and schools. They also include tens of thousands of flats, and tourist and industrial facilities.

“A comprehensive development plan is being implemented in Sinai,” said economist Zeinab Anwar. “However, this development cannot be completed without the eradication of the terrorist threat in it.”

L'articolo Egypt Tightens Control Over Sinai With New Border Wall proviene da InsideOver.

After two years, the trade war between China and America finally reached a truce by signing a deal that will help the two global powers to normalise their trade relations. The dispute between the two countries escalated after President Donald Trump who has always accused China of unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft, came to power.

Two express his resentment he tweeted last year, “Sadly, past administrations have allowed China to get so far ahead of fair and balanced trade that it has become a great burden to the American taxpayer. As President, I can no longer allow this to happen!”

….Sadly, past Administrations have allowed China to get so far ahead of Fair and Balanced Trade that it has become a great burden to the American Taxpayer. As President, I can no longer allow this to happen! In the spirit of achieving Fair Trade, we must Balance this very….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2019

To encourage Americans to buy their own goods, he imposed $360bn tariffs on Chinese goods, forcing Beijing to retaliate by imposing tariffs on US products worth $110bn. After a series of meetings between US  and Chinese officials, the two countries managed to narrow their differences which culminated into the first phase of trade deal last week.

Under the deal, China will increase US imports by $200bn and also strengthen intellectual property regulations, while the US agreed to reduce the tariffs it had imposed on Chinese products by half. Although the deal could be seen as a base for future negotiations, it failed to address some of the key controversial issues that had led to the deterioration of US-China trade relations.

Huawei

Even though the Chinese tech giant Huawei has been at the centre of the US-China current trade wars, nothing was mentioned about it in the new deal. There seems to be no solution to the matter in the near future. Just before the deal was signed The Wall Street Journal  reported that while Beijing and Washington were about to reach an agreement, the Trump administration was planning to “tighten restrictions on Huawei Technologies Co., that the White House and Congress view as a national security threat.”

Hopes of having an agreement on Huawei were further diminished after the signing of the deal when Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC:

“Just as in this deal there were certain rollbacks, in phase two there will be additional rollbacks. I think a significant amount of the technology issues are in phase one. There are certain areas of other services away from financial services that will be in phase two,” he said.

He continued, “There’s certain additional cybersecurity issues that will be in phase two. So, there are still more issues.”  He, however, added. “Huawei is not part of the national security dialogue, which is ongoing. These are going to be negotiated separately.”

Trump’s administration has always believed that Beijing could use Huawei to spy on other countries and has gone to the extent of warning its key ally Britain against contracting the tech company to provide communication infrastructure for the 5G network.

Trump’s warning was that any deal with Huawei would put intelligence sharing between the two countries at risks. But according to sources, Boris Johnson is getting ready to defy the warning by signing a deal with Huawei.

Although Trump used national security as an excuse to ban Huawei, to a large extent his action was mainly influenced by the stiff competition the Chinese company poses to American tech companies such as Apple. This was clear when he said, “We are not doing business with Huawei. We’re going  to do our own business.”

Made In China Policy

Another sticking issue missing from the deal was the ‘Made in China policy’. It was adopted by the Chinese government in 2015, to put China on the same level with top industrialised countries like Germany, South Korea, Japan, and the US by investing in sectors such as IT, vehicles, and robotics.

However the US has remained sceptical of the programme with Secretary of Commerce terming it an “attack on American genius,” while the White House trade advisor called it a brazen announcement that China plans to dominate every single emerging industry of the future”.

Washington’s fear is influenced by the feeling of a threat the programme poses to its own tech supremacy. This is because Chinese companies supported by loans from state-owned and other subsidies would have an upper hand over their US rivals. In May last year, Beijing increased its subsidies to local companies to a record $22bn, further confirming Washington’s fear.

According to Lorand Laskai of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, “If Chinese national champions dominate the Chinese market, they’ll have a leg up abroad and in many cases will replace or outlast foreign competitors by virtue of their market size.”

Whether the US-China deal will hold remains to be seen. Some critics say there is nothing substantial in the deal except that it could give Trump leverage in the elections. Most likely he will use it as a campaign tool by boasting how he had won concessions from the Chinese.

Some analysts have also claimed the deal is likely to collapse within a year because of “limited success stories of government-mandated trade in the past”, and the provision that allows both parties to walk away from the pact

L'articolo Two Key Issues Left Out of US-China Trade Deal proviene da InsideOver.

The latest execution of two men accused of spying for the Egyptian army in Sinai was the latest atrocity by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) branch in Egypt.

Political analysts view the crime as proof of the perseverance of the terrorist organization, despite deadly blows by the Egyptian army and police against it over the past four years.

Egypt has succeeded in significantly weakening ISIS Sinai, destroying almost all its capabilities. This caused a sharp drop in the number of attacks the terrorist organization was able to stage.

“The security establishment was able to remarkably undermine ISIS Sinai,” said Khaled Okasha, the head of local think tank Egyptian Center for Strategic Studies.

Fears

Egypt continues to raise the security alert level in Sinai, maintaining a huge troop presence in the territory that shares borders with Israel and the Palestinian Gaza Strip.

However, the fear in Cairo is that potential interference by Turkey in neighboring Libya will give a boost to ISIS Sinai and intensify security threats on Egypt’s joint border with Libya.

Egypt has 1,200 kilometers of borders with Libya. It has borne the brunt of securing this border solely in the absence of a functional state in the neighboring country.

In July 2018, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi revealed that his country had sent special combat troops to the joint border with Libya to secure this border. On another occasion, Sisi said Egyptian fighter jets patrol the border with Libya every day in order to ensure that terrorist organizations active in Libya would not be able to cross into Egypt.

Deep concerns

Egypt’s eyes are turning to its joint border with Libya, now with Turkey preparing to deploy regular army troops in the North African state to aid the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA).

Turkey has already sent battle-hardened mercenaries from Syria to Libya, according to a number of organizations, including the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which revealed recently that Ankara had already sent hundreds of these mercenaries to Libya.

In Egypt, observers are warning that Turkey-sent jihadists will soon be at Libya’s border with Egypt in preparation for attacking the populous Arab state.

This is particularly true, they say, if the GNA, the Islamist militias operating under its command and the jihadists sent by Turkey to Libya succeed in repelling the advance of the Libyan National Army (LNA) towards Libyan capital Tripoli and even defeating this army.

“Turkish presence will open a very dangerous front for Egypt on its joint border with Libya,” said political analyst Mohamed Hamza. “This is why we should not keep waiting for diplomatic efforts aiming at settling the Libyan crisis to bear fruit.”

Readiness

Turkey will send troops to Libya in the light of a security cooperation deal it signed with the GNA on November 28. The deal gives Ankara the right to send troops to the North African state at the request of the GNA, according to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The GNA demanded military support from Turkey on December 19. On December 2, the Turkish parliament approved a bill that allows Turkey to send troops to Libya.

Egypt has rejected this security cooperation deal, along with another one between the GNA and Turkey for the delimitation of maritime boundaries between Libya and Turkey.

Apart from the diplomatic efforts, Egypt is making to keep Turkey away from Libya, Egypt is also taking special measures to secure itself against the destabilizing effect of the Turkish presence in Libya.

It has already formed a high-level panel that contains the highest security and intelligence officials in the country to consider the effects Turkish presence in Libya will have on its national security.

The panel will refer a report to Sisi about the situation on the border with Libya on a daily basis.

“Egypt will be ready to prevent any attempt for infiltrating its border with Libya,” said retired army general Nagui Shohoud. “It will not allow any country to threaten its national security, regardless of the strength of this country.”

L'articolo Egypt Raises Security Alert Level On Border With Libya proviene da InsideOver.

On Wednesday, October 23, the Albanian Police General Director, Ardi Veliu, flanked by his counterterrorism colleague, Albania’s Anti-Terrorism Chief Gledis Nano, announced that the state security services intercepted another Iranian terror cell, thwarting the planned attacks which it was preparing to carry out on Albanian and European soil. Albanian officials stated that the attacks were being facilitated by a division of the Iranian armed services, known as QUDS. These intended attacks were directed at an Iranian dissident group, the MEK, who have taken refuge in the small Balkan nation.

This terror cell and the thwarted attacks are only the latest Iranian-backed terror operation which has been targeting Europe. France has stated that Iran was definitely behind an October 2018 planned attack near Paris which targeted a group similar to the MEK, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Earlier this year, the UK stated that it had intelligence evidencing that Iran had terrorist sleeper cells positioned in Europe funded and directed to conduct attacks.

France responded to the Paris attempt by expelling an Iranian diplomat from the country. In the months following France’s expulsion, Albania expelled two diplomats from the Iranian embassy in Tirana, including the Ambassador; who the Albanian government accused of “damaging its national security”.

Wednesday’s announcement addressed matters which stretched back to 2018. Veliu stated that Albanian security services were assisted by “sources inside the cell”. The individuals responsible for the attack are known to Albania, as two of the three named by Veliu were originally arrested back in March 2018 but released due to insufficient evidence to warrant further legal proceedings at that time. They are now believed to be in Austria and Turkey.

Veliu identified the Iranian-based head of the operation only as “Peyman”. The two other named members of the terror group had ties to the region. An Iranian residing in Turkey, Abdolkhalegh Malek Zadeh, was stated to be involved in both Iranian state-sponsored terrorism activities but is also known to be involved in organized crime. Veliu stated that Zadeh has been connected to a Turkish drug-trafficking network, whose operations are international. It is believed that Iranian operatives are working with Europe’s organized crime underworld to facilitate its intended terror attacks.

The Turkish element to the terror cell is of no surprise. The relationship, including criminal, between Turkey and Iran is well documented. Turkey and Iran have been critical partners, along with Russia, in directing the outcome of the Syrian civil war. Iran has reportedly been using the Syrian conflict as an excuse to attack Israeli assets involved in the conflict as well. The Iranian regime has deployed the QUDS force into Syria to conduct drone operations and attack Israeli assets.

Additionally, Turkey has been instrumental in Iran’s attempt to circumvent sanctions against the country. In 2017, the US Justice Department secured a guilty plea against a Turkish based Iranian banker, Reza Zarrab, who implicated Erdogan as complacent in the bank’s operation to assist Iran. Zarrab, a client of Rudolph Giuliani, Trump’s attorney; Giuliani reportedly attempted to free Zarrab by asking Trump to send Zarrab to Iran via a prisoner swap. Something which may be coming to fruition, as Iran has forwarded a list of prisoners to comprise the possible swap.

A third individual also represents what some say is a systematic problem which the MEK are dealing with. Veliu named, Alireza Naghashzadeh, as a part of the operation in Albania.  Naghashzadeh is believed to formerly be a member of the MEK, who defected from the group and reportedly returned to Iran and joined the QUDS force; the group responsible for planning these and other suspected operations.

Veliu and Nanos described the intended attack and the three individuals as terrorists; “A terrorist cell of the foreign operations unit of Iranian QUDS was discovered lately by Albanian intelligence institutions,”.  They conclusively stated that the intended target was “the Iranian opposition [group MEK],”. Wednesday’s announcement comes as Albania is reportedly seeking to arrest the individuals involved, having had over a year to collect additional evidence and build a prosecutable case.

The group reportedly tasked with carrying out Iran’s terrorist activities and eliminating the MEK is the QUDS force. The QUDS is a very shadowy, but an official and recognized, arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which is used for, essentially, foreign matters. Veliu stated that the QUDS cell was “sent to Albania from 2018 to plan attacks against the MEK,”. QUDS is known to be tasked by the Iranian government to carry out operations spanning from hacking to assassinations to bombings.

Attacks contributed to QUDS include the 1983-84 bombings of the US Embassy and military compound in Beirut. Additionally, QUDS engineered the armour-piercing IED’s which have been deployed by terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan to attack military vehicles. The group is known to have operated in, as well as with armed groups in, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories. QUDS is the only state-operated military unit to be labelled a “terrorist group” by the United States.

The MEK, or Mujahedin e Khaliq (also referred to as People’s Mujahedin of Iran), is a small resistance group, whose origins date back to the 1960’s, started by Marxists-minded university students. They are a very controversial group, as most resistance groups are; at times it has even been called a cult. During the Iranian Revolution, the MEK targeted both US citizens and interests; which resulted in the US designating them as a terrorist group. Today, the MEK, no longer labelled as terrorists, are considered a US ally in the alliance against Iran.

Just as the MEK played a key role in toppling the regime of the US-backed Shah, it intends to accomplish the same with the current Iranian regime. In the 1980’s, the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein and their compound was reportedly attacked by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, and those who survived fled the country for Europe.

Currently, the MEK are scattered across the European continent. They are believed and or known to have compounds in various European, including EU member, states; from the UK to Germany to Albania. Their leader, Maryam Rajavi, is based in Paris, France. Rajavi asserts that the MEK intend to create a non-nuclear Iran which operates as a democracy, under the principles of a separation of state and religion, and a free-market economy.

Over the past year, Iran has increased its violent international activities across the region and world. Iran has been deemed responsible for a series of attacks and seizures of oil tankers. In September, Iran was named as the party responsible for the missile attack against Saudi oil resources. Though, these attacks only represent known Iranian operations. The expertise of the QUDS force is actually in training, supplying, funding, and directing others to conduct attacks rather than carrying them out themselves. And, to that end, their actual evil footprint in Europe is still relatively unknown.

L'articolo The Iranian Operations Against MEK proviene da InsideOver.

Athens, 23 September 2019. Another police operation is taking place in one of the most central Athens neighbourhoods. Approximately 100 immigrants have been moved from what used to be one of the Greek capital’s landmark schools in the past decades; and this is only one instance of the several similar operations, that have been taking place since mid-summer in Greece. The recently elected Greek government is trying to establish the image of an administration, able to tackle this critical issue and adequately manage the unprecedented refugee crisis of the last years. But how viable and productive is the governmental plan and is Greece ready -or willing- to take drastic measures to cope with a situation that affects not only the Greek state but the integrity of the European Union, as a whole?

Roots and Security Concerns

The refugee crisis is not posing a new challenge for Greece. Due to certain lacks in current infrastructure, none of the Greek governments have succeeded to manage this issue efficiently so far and to implement a sustainable policy. However, the situation has dramatically deteriorated between 2015 and 2019 during the term of the leftist SYRIZA government. The said government applied a misinterpreted loose strategy to address the problem, in accordance with their pre-election announcements, drastically reducing the control process in the main points of entrance, encouraging the massive flow of immigrants through the Greek maritime borders. Therefore, a considerable number of the new arrivals, have never gone through the required vetting, creating several ensuing security concerns.

I happened to read recently a December 2018 analysis with regard to why Greek people are concerned about the security implications of the migrant crisis. Even though agreeing with the qualitative approach adopted by the writer, I consider that some of the findings are missing major parameters. To begin with the scenario of a terrorist attack within Greek territory, one should consider that the country functions as the entering point to Europe. A hypothetical terrorist attack in Greece by radical elements would be a strategic mistake of their terror patrons, who would see the in-country security framework being enhanced, toughening the entrance to an EU country, that provides access to major European metropolitan cities, targets of far greater significance for the terrorist networks. To  further emphasize this statement, we need to remember that terrorists involved in some of the most high-profile and deadly attacks, namely in Paris and Brussels, have entered Europe through Greece or have visited the country at least once.

In the same time, even though major funding has been allocated for the settlement procedure of these people, through the competent authorities of the European Union and the United Nations, but also through other major international organizations, including several NGOs, a paradox has been occurring in Greece since 2015. In various locations of the country’s urban centres, and predominantly Athens, the displaced people have been staying in totally inappropriate structures, most often private properties that have been occupied without any authorization from the legal owners. In those cases the lack of control and monitoring raised not only security concerns but also health implications, considering that the health and safety essentials have been completely absent in those places; in order to provide a more accurate picture of this situation, it would be enough to say that in many of those recent police raids, hundreds of people were found to be living in spaces of just a few square meters.

Facts and figures

In order to comprehend the size of the crisis and the challenge posed to each respective Greek government, let’s examine the graph below:

There has been a surge in the asylum applications since 2015, a figure correlated to the massive flow of immigrants and refugees from that year onwards. It is perplexing though, how those numbers remained lower in the first years of the Syrian conflict. There have been some decisive factors, like the action taken from the FYROM government, back then, to ease the measures and controls when migrants were entering the country; or the shift in stance of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who in an effort to tackle the crisis, suggested that Berlin would adopt a much more friendly and open policy towards Syrian refugees. However, a significant point that many analysts have surprisingly overseen, has been the role of the 2015-elected Greek government. As mentioned earlier, the leftist ruling party has been advocating an open-border policy before the elections, a fact that triggered thousands of people –many of whom would not qualify for the refugee status whatsoever- trapped in Turkey or elsewhere to move to Greece, considering that the country is the entrance to central and northern Europe.

Following the political backlash that many European governments faced due to the escalation of the migrant crisis though, the problems for Greece have been growing even further. With thousands of people planning to enter richer countries of the EU, remaining in Greece, the existing infrastructure proved to be far from efficient. For instance, Lesvos, a Greek island of approximately 86,000 residents, in the eastern Aegean Sea and quite close to the Turkish border, has been one of the “busiest” points of entrance. A major camp is located within the island, where all the migrants are stationed until their asylum applications are assessed; however, the disproportionate flows eventually led to an unmanageable and dangerous situation for all the parties involved, considering that more than 12,000 people are currently living in a structure designed for 3,000. According to an up-to-date report from the UNCHR, the capacity of structures intended for immigrants and refugees in the islands and mainland Greece, under the ESTIA scheme, is approaching 100%; and this scheme covers only a handful of the people who are currently in the country looking to settle in.

Facing the real problem or just another political grandstanding?

The Greek Minister of Citizen Protection, Michalis Chrysochoidis, recently stated that out of the 80,000 people currently in the country, more than half should be readmitted to Turkey, since they do not fulfil the criteria to be considered asylum seekers; however, just over 2% of those people have been sent back so far. Among the same lines, Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis, in front of the UN General Assembly, urged last week that Greece cannot cope with the situation anymore, indicating the country’s inefficiency compared to the real dimensions of the crisis.

The unprecedented flow of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees in Greece since 2015 has created a problem that still seems to be unmanageable. By the time these lines are written, grim images from the foresaid camp in Moria, have been dominating the Greek and international media. Two fires have been set simultaneously in the interior of the facilities and in a nearby small wooded land, with the local authorities still examining the reasons behind the catastrophe. Police forces and fire brigades that rushed to the area hardly managed to operate in the camp as for several hours, the official authorities have lost control of the situation and the camp itself with hundreds of immigrants rioting in the inside. The tragic outcome of this violent breakthrough has been a woman confirmed dead and another 17 people injured.

Apparently, the government has not been able to handle this challenging reality efficiently so far, even though governmental sources are struggling to provide a different image to the Greek public. The Sunday incident in Moria proves that the situation can instantly and unexpectedly get out of control. On top of that, one should consider Turkey’s role; the immigration crisis has been a considerable burden for Ankara over the last few years. But at the same time, Turkey can use anytime the crisis to gain leverage on political disputes with the EU. In case that the Turkish government decides to use the refugee crisis, as a means to put pressure on Europe on a wide-scale basis, then even the most pessimistic scenarios could not foresee what is to come.

L'articolo Is The Greek Immigrant Crisis Manageable After All? proviene da InsideOver.

Following the dismissal of John Bolton last week, President Trump has appointed his new Security Advisor today – his fourth in twenty months. It raises questions not only in terms of strategies but on the degree of influence a Trump Security Advisor can administer.

Established in 1947 at the beginning of the Cold War, the role of the Security Advisor had been a crucial part of the West Wing. Illustrious names as Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice served their respective president well. Under Trump, a role that is as important than few others, appears to have transformed into a sideshow.

Former Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, Robert O’Brien, will become the new White House National Security Advisor. President Donald Trump announced the appointment of O’Brien on Wednesday via Twitter. He had already worked “long and hard” with O’Brien, who will do a “great job” in his new role. On Tuesday, Trump had said he shortlisted the names of five candidates for the job. Among them was O’Brien, about whom the president said: “I think he is fantastic.”

O’Brien succeeds John Bolton, who had to vacate his post due to ideological differences with Trump and of whom Trump said had committed “some very serious mistakes” – such as proposing the “Libyan model” for North Korea. Other differences emerged between Trump and Bolton on the issue of making a deal with the Taliban. In the end, Bolton’s proclivity for “regime change” did not fit in with Trump’s agenda of avoiding conflicts that could be detrimental to his re-election efforts.  

Hopes that the dismissal of Bolton could reduce the tensions between the US and Iran have not materialised. Today, Trump announced to tighten sanctions against Iran further after airstrikes on two Saudi oil facilities. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accuses Iran of being the culprit of the attacks. Iran rejects this. O’Brien is now taking office while tensions between the US and Iran are at its apogee. 

He will be the fourth National Security Advisor during Trump’s first term. It is the highest turnover rate since the Reagan administration, which employed six different advisors – over eight years of government work, however. Nonetheless, Pompeo had made it clear that changing personnel did not mean a fundamental change in Trump’s foreign policy.

Which raises the question of what Trump’s foreign policy looks like and what role a Security Advisor can play. 

Critics have argued that, even before O’Brien’s appointment, the vacancy had been filled – by Donald Trump himself. The notion derives from a Tweet the previous week, in which Trump wrote the Security Advisor role was “easy”, because “I make all the decisions”. While the final decision is certainly the president’s prerogative, Trump’s apodictic attitude is an indicator of why the post’s fluctuation has been this excessive.

It can further be seen as a testimony for why viable foreign policy experts were not even under consideration for the role. Most importantly, it displays a lack of coherence in foreign-and security policy, a grand strategy former president conducted, e.g. the “Reagan Doctrine” or the “Bush Doctrine”. A Trump Doctrine has yet to be identified. 

L'articolo Trump names Robert O’Brien his new National Security Advisor proviene da InsideOver.

After US President Donald Trump fired his national security advisor, John Bolton on Sept.10th, the discussion immediately turned to the potential candidates who might serve as his replacement. Bolton, unabashed war-hawk, quickly became one of Trump’s closest advisors on vital issues such as the Iranian Nuclear Deal and negotiations with Kim Jong Un of North Korea. For most of the names thrown around as his possible successor, they would be a sharp departure from the confrontational nature of Bolton, a prospect that could stabilise an administration that seems to be in a perpetual state of disarray. 

“We have five people who want it very much,” Trump told the press after Bolton’s firing while promising that a decision would be made within a week.

While the president declined to reveal those five people, Foreign Policy drew up a list of 10 individuals, most of who already have roles within the Trump White House. The first speculative candidate is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. As America’s top-ranking diplomat, Pompeo has certainly gained the experience suitable for the position. Before becoming Secretary of State, he served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency since Trump’s first week in office. Some have speculated that Pompeo could manage both roles, at least in the interim, but such a task would risk overloading an already busy workload. The idea of Pompeo giving up his current job seems unlikely as he’s spoken recently on the subject. After giving a speech in his home state, he fielded questions on the possibility of him running for senate, which he refuted as he prefers working in the State Department. 

Trump could turn to a person with a military background as he has done with past nominations such as Michael Flynn, Jim Mattis, H. R. McMaster, and John Kelly. Three individuals who’ve attained high ranks in the armed forces include Douglas MacGregor, Keith Kellogg, and Jack Keane. Since returning from the army, MacGregor has worked as a defence analyst. He has taken a creative approach to “audition” for the role by filming several segments for Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show. Trump, an avid Fox News fan, is sure to have seen MacGregor on air. Importantly, MacGregor appealed to the president’s ego by suggesting that he has policies he would like to carry out, but has been stopped by his advisors. MacGregor would like Trump to think of him as the man to fulfil Trump’s vision. 

Kellogg is another solid bet as he has worked in the administration since the election was secured. Kellogg served the previous national security advisor, McMaster and after Bolton’s arrival, moved over to work under vice-President Mike Pence. He has the military experience and political background to make him an easy choice. Keane could also be picked as Trump reportedly considered him for the position of defence secretary not once, but twice. Among the candidates, he seems to have the most influence of them after he appeared on Fox News and apparently convinced the president to cancel an airstrike on Iran based on his interviews. 

Matthew Pottinger also has military experience after serving in the Marine Corps and eventually joining its officer ranks. He is already active among Trump’s national security team by managing the administration’s Asia strategy, China in particular. Pottinger is allegedly a large reason for Trump’s trade policies toward Beijing. Rob Blair also has national security experience, serving as aide to Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff. Blair was one of the few who managed to oppose Bolton and retain his position while doing so. His connection to Mulvaney could help his candidacy by promoting an insider. 

Brian Hook, special envoy for Iran, could step into the role as national security advisor. He previously worked in the George W. Bush administration so Hook has been in Washington for longer than some of his rivals for the position. However as the Iranian situation continues to escalate, Hook might be deemed as too vital to the task at hand. Furthermore, as the special envoy to the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt, is stepping down in the coming weeks, Hook is reportedly taking on some of Greenblatt’s responsibilities. 

The US ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, has caught Trump’s eye after his firm stance on both Germany’s NATO spending and German business relations with Iran. Notably, Grenell is openly homosexual which would make him the only member of Trump’s cabinet to be such. Stephen Biegun, another member of Trump’s staff with international experience, could make the move from his post as envoy to North Korea. Like Hook, Biegun served under Bush and has been highly commended for his work on Bush’s National Security Council. 

Finally, and perhaps least-likely, is Robert O’Brien. Currently, O’Brien serves the administration as the special presidential envoy for hostage affairs. His most newsworthy involvement was representing American rapper A$AP Rocky in Swedish court after allegations of physical assault. O’Brien’s legal background and minor contributions to the administration make him the weakest choice of the few candidates profiled. 

Trump is expected to announce his pick this week and after clashing with Bolton, he will likely choose a candidate who is more agreeable to his wishes. A person with military experience and ties to the administration would be the safest option as the president narrows his list.

L'articolo Who Is On Trump’s List To Replace Bolton? proviene da InsideOver.

It has just turned 60 years old; Turkey’s one-sided love affair with the EU started on 31 July 1959, when it applied for association with the EEC (European Economic Community) founded in 1958. Turkish fascination with Europe began more than 300 years ago, during the last centuries of the Ottoman Empire. It was embodied first by the modernization of the army under the European military experts. Then, to put it mildly, with the encouragement of European powers, a reform process (Tanzimat-Reorganization) was started by the Ottoman elite that, according to some Ottoman historians, lead to the disintegration of the Empire. However, they had no other choice than to be a part of the emerging European order. Albeit that the first adventure of Turks with Europe ended with a complete disaster. 

After losing the First World War against the Allied powers, the Empire was invaded by them. Yet they succeeded in liberating a portion of the Empire, built a republic on its ruins, abolished the caliphate, swallowed their pride and anger, and once again turned towards Europe by starting a new reform process. Because “Europe was the source of contemporary civilization. The new republic should have adopted its ways to progress.” Many republican generations grew up with this belief. Thus in 1959, Turkey knocked on the door of Europe and started to wait to enter.

The EEC accepted Turkey’s application. The Ankara Agreement was signed in 1963. Turkey’s application for full membership was rejected in 1989, but it was stated that Turkey was eligible to join the community. The Customs Union was established between Turkey and the EU in 1995. In 1999, Turkey was officially recognised without any precondition as a candidate state. The Accession Partnership for Turkey was accepted in 2001. 

Turkey continued its reform process, to “extend the scope of fundamental rights and freedoms, strengthen the existing regulations on democracy, rule of law, freedom of thought and expression and human rights. Within this framework between 2002-2004, eight harmonization packages, and between 2001-2004 two constitutional amendments were accepted.”

In 2004, the EU Council stated, “Turkey sufficiently fulfilled the political criteria” and decided to start accession negotiations with Turkey in 2005. Turkey’s accession process is conducted in 35 chapters in the context of Negotiation Framework, 16 chapters are opened so far yet only one chapter is closed. 14 chapters are blocked because of Turkey’s refusal to recognize the Greek Cypriot led Republic of Cyprus – which was admitted to the EU in 2004, despite Turkey’s objections – as the sole representative of Cypriot people since it is not the original partnership State established in 1960. 

Therefore, after 60 years, Turkey is still waiting at the doorstep of Europe not because of the state of its democracy, or its economy or because of its decision to buy Russian made S-400 missiles but because of the Cyprus problem. 

“Why Turkey is not solving the Cyprus problem?” Turkey wants to solve it since it has been a huge burden both politically and financially and the negotiations to solve the Cyprus problem has been continuing, on and off, since 1958. Yet, it is believed that a final solution is being prevented by the forces that are against Turkey’s EU membership. 

Let’s verify this from a rather objective observer. A prize-winning journalist, then with Reuters, Paul Taylor found out that Europe itself is divided on the Cyprus issue. The most powerful member states, Germany and France, “may be content to see the Cyprus stalemate continue rather than deal with the potential consequences of a resolution that would bring Turkey closer to EU membership.”

At his article dated February 4, 2013, from Paris, he wrote that the Republic of Cyprus was broke and desperate to get a loan about €17 billion from the EU. Therefore, Brussels had the leverage to push the Greek Cypriots to join in a loose federation as proposed in 2004 by Kofi Annan, then the U.N. secretary-general. Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of the Annan plan, encouraged by Turkey but Greek Cypriots rejected it. “Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974 in response to a Greek-backed coup in Nicosia by Greek Cypriot hardliners seeking union with Athens. The island has been divided ever since. Turkey has about 30,000 troops in northern Cyprus. Under the Annan plan, most of them would have gone home by 2018,” he reminded. 

However, the Greek Cypriots who said no to the Annan plan became an EU state just after a week. At that time European officials, and especially Günter Verheugen, the EU enlargement commissioner felt betrayed Taylor wrote. He quoted him saying, “ The understanding was quite clear when we gave Turkey candidate status in 1999 and even clearer when we concluded negotiations with Cyprus in 2002: The Greek Cypriots would not allow the peace plan to fail, and if it failed due to the Turkish Cypriots, then Cyprus could join… We came very close. The problem was that in the end, we didn’t have any leverage over the Greek Cypriots anymore since they knew they would join anyway.”

On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriots who accepted the peace plan were punished by being excluded from the Union and remained economically isolated. “At the time, Brussels released some funds that had been pledged to the Turkish Cypriots for economic development and promised to allow them to export their products directly to the Union. But the Greek Cypriots blocked direct trade with the Union. Turkey, in turn, refused to allow the Greek Cypriots direct access to its ports and airports,” Taylor added.

He also underlined that the US was actively engaged in trying to settle the Cyprus dispute until large amounts of natural gas were found over Cyprus, and Greek Cypriots began to cooperate with Israel. So Europe using the loan to put pressure on the Greek Cypriots is the last chance for the unification of the island, he warned but no avail. 

If we fast-forward, today we see American and European gas giants also got involved in the Cyprus issue. Washington is making harsh announcements against Ankara because of its drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean. 

A very aggressive media campaign has started, portraying Ankara as a rough state, which has no right over Cyprus or it’s continental shelf at all, only by using the fact that the Republic of Cyprus is the only internationally recognized state in Cyprus (which is in fact a great injustice to the Cypriot Turks.) On top of it, the EU has put sanctions on Ankara to stop its drilling. They are symbolic, yet the act itself was the last straw for Turkish people. It has proved once again that the EU plays a double game on Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots. 

In that regard, the findings of the comprehensive survey, “Public Perceptions on Turkish Foreign Policy” conducted by the prestigious Kadir Has University of Turkey just before the EU sanctions- are interesting. It has found out that 61.1 percent of the respondents still supported Turkey’s membership to the EU. Yet 68 percent think that Turkey can never become a full member of the Union, 65 percent of the respondents think Turkey’s membership has been blocked by European countries, 54.4 percent of them believe it is because of the religious and identity differences and 51.5 percent of them see the EU “not reliable and sincere”. Finally when asked, “Which countries pose threat to Turkey?” They responded as; USA 81.3 percent, Israel 70.8 percent, France 65 percent, United Kingdom 62.8 percent, Armenia 61.2 percent, Syria 60.1 percent, Germany 58.8 percent, Greece 53.5 percent and so on. In 2015 only 10.2 percent saw the EU countries as a threat. 

Consequently, after 60 years, most of the Turkish people lost hope in becoming part of Europe, and Turkey’s second adventure with Europe seemingly is coming to end, hopefully in peace this time.

L'articolo How the EU lost its leverage on Turkey proviene da InsideOver.