Non molto tempo fa Donald Trump e Kim Jong Un stavano scambiando di tutto, dagli abusi verbali alle minacce di totale annientamento. Da allora, secondo Trump, le cose sono cambiate. Due vertici e grandi elogi per il dittatore nordcoreano avrebbero dovuto gettare le basi per un trattato che avrebbe garantito la pace per l’Occidente e la prosperità per la Corea del Nord.

A due anni dalle nuove relazioni bilaterali, il tono tra Washington e Pyongyang è cambiato di nuovo. Questa volta in peggio, comunque.

La ragione di ciò, secondo la Corea del Nord? Il presidente Trump non riuscì a trattenersi, ma dovette utilizzare il soprannome che una volta aveva dato a Kim a margine del vertice della NATO a Londra la settimana precedente. Il soprannome, ovviamente, è Rocket Man. Il rapporto di Trump per questo, mentre elaborava in modo così eloquente a Londra: “Sicuramente gli piace sparare missili, giusto?”

La reazione della penisola nordcoreana è arrivata prontamente sotto forma di una dichiarazione del viceministro degli Esteri Choe Son-Hui. E il messaggio era chiaro: se Trump voleva tornare indietro nel tempo e ricominciare l’ostilità che i due paesi si erano scambiati due anni fa o, come diceva Son-Hui, “quando una guerra di parole fu portata attraverso l’oceano , “Trump doveva solo continuare la retorica mostrata al vertice della NATO. Ciò, tuttavia, creerebbe una situazione “molto pericolosa”.

Choe ha aggiunto che qualsiasi insulto contro il Leader supremo di Trump deve essere visto come una ricaduta nella “senilità di un povero”. Inoltre, le parole di Trump avevano scatenato “un’ondata di odio dei nostri cittadini contro gli Stati Uniti”. Se le osservazioni di Trump fossero un provocazione pianificata e non solo un errore verbale, sarebbe considerata come tale e contrastata da una retorica altrettanto dura contro gli Stati Uniti.

Nel frattempo, Trump continua a promettere il disarmo nucleare della Corea del Nord, che a causa del “buon rapporto con Kim” era più che immaginabile. Vedremo cosa accadrà “, concluse Trump, prima di ricordare agli Stati Uniti che avrebbero usato la forza militare se fosse stata necessaria.

L’ambivalenza di queste parole e la dicotomia tra le promesse e il processo attuale hanno di nuovo timore che le tensioni nella disputa sul programma di armi nucleari possano aumentare nuovamente.

I negoziati non sono progrediti dal fallito summit di Trump con Kim in Vietnam a febbraio. Pyongyang aveva fissato unilateralmente una scadenza fino alla fine dell’anno. Fino ad allora, Washington aveva bisogno di mettere sul tavolo nuove proposte. Tuttavia, tali proposte devono ancora apparire.

Il vice ministro degli Esteri Ri Thae Song ha dichiarato che “spetta agli Stati Uniti scegliere quale regalo di Natale ricevere”. Il suo paese non ha più bisogno di “nascondere quali azioni intraprenderà per andare avanti”. Sebbene non abbia menzionato i dettagli, la Corea del Nord potrebbe prendere in considerazione la possibilità di revocare la sua moratoria sui test nucleari e sui test sui missili a lungo raggio.

Solo la settimana precedente, la Corea del Nord aveva condotto un altro test missilistico. In risposta, gli Stati Uniti hanno chiesto la ripresa di “colloqui sostenibili e sostanziali”.

Quando di come questi colloqui saranno facilitati, rimane sconosciuto a questo punto. Tuttavia, con la leva che Trump ha fornito alla Corea del Nord elogiandolo e promettendo la pace, si è manovrato in una posizione in cui qualsiasi cosa, tranne la pacificazione di Kim, potrebbe essere dannosa per la sua campagna di rielezione.

L'articolo North Korea Calls out President Trump proviene da InsideOver.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said his country is willing to normalize ties with Saudi Arabia aimed at creating stability in the Middle East and ending the bloodshed in Yemen.

“From Iran’s points of view, there is no problem in developing ties with neighbors and resuming relations with Saudi Arabia,” Rouhani made the statement in a meeting with Omani Foreign Minister Yousef Bin Alawi in Tehran as Xinhua quoted.

Rouhani also emphasised the Yemen War, where Saudi and Iran were involved. He added there should be an effort to end the conflict sooner. In 2015, Saudi launched a military intervention in Yemen to crush Iran-backed Houthi rebels who expelled internationally-recognized leader Abd Mansour Hadi, who fled to Saudi.

The background of the Iran-Saudi rivalry

Saudi and Iran are leading powers of the two largest sects of Islam; the former is seen as the world’s leading Sunni Muslim nation, while the Iatter is predominantly Shia Muslim.

The 1979 Iran revolution came as a challenge to Saudi, which boasted as the birthplace of Islam, given Iran’s theocracy system and its aim to export such a system elsewhere.

Iran was close to the West during the Shah rule. However, the revolution turned Iran into one of the US adversaries, while Saudi is one of the US closest allies.

Saudi and Iran have never been engaged in a direct fight. However, both are competing to exert their influence in the Middle East. They are also among the world’s largest energy producers due to their oil and natural gas’ abundant reserve.

Yemen is a battleground for Saudi and Iran. Riyadh backs Mansour Hadi while Tehran supports Houthi rebels to overthrow him.  The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) report revealed that, as of November 2018, the Saudi Arabia-led coalition had killed 6,872 civilians in 2018 and wounded 10,768.

Tensions continued when Saudi and the US accused Iran of masterminding the drone attacks targeting Saudi’s oil facility on September 14. Riyadh claimed Tehran’s role in the incident based on the drones’ and missiles’ debris. However, it was uncertain whether those weapons appeared to be launched from Iran.

Iran-Saudi improved ties for the peaceful Middle East and Yemen

Rouhani urged Saudi to end its military operation in Yemen, adding that by withdrawing troops from Yemen, Saudi’s security would be guaranteed.

“The security of Saudi Arabia will be guaranteed with the termination of aggression in Yemen, rather than by inviting foreigners,” Rouhani told the UN General Assembly.

Just a few weeks after the drone attack, Iran and Saudi were reportedly in touch despite Riyadh’s denial, as Voanews reported.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani welcomed a dialogue with Saudi as it could ease the tension in the world’s most volatile region.

“Tehran welcomes any negotiations with Saudi Arabia … because talks with Riyadh can resolve many regional problems and issues,” Larijani told Aljazeera as Voanews reported.

Saudi’s minister of state for foreign affairs, Adel Jubeir, denied Tehran’s claim via Twitter, stating: “it is not correct that Saudi Arabia sent a message to Tehran, but that the leader of a friendly country sought to calm the situation and Riyadh told him that its position has always been to seek security and stability in the region.”

Saudi has held talks with Yemen’s Houthi rebels via video conference mediated by Oman over the past two months, Gamal Amer, a negotiator representing the Houthis, confirmed as AlJazeera reported.

A senior Saudi official admitted that Riyadh had opened a dialogue with the Houthis since 2016 and would continue it to create peace in Yemen, as AFP reported.

“We have had an open channel with the Houthis since 2016. We are continuing these communications to support peace in Yemen,” the official told reporters.

The official did not elaborate on the development of the talks. The Houthi rebels did not also comment on the dialogue. However, rebels also held a meeting with Washington as Assistant Secretary of Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker confirmed during his Saudi visit in September.

Anti-Iran alliance is crumbling

Saudi and its allies have started a dialogue with Iran (as the United Arab Emirates held maritime talks with Tehran), showing that the anti-Iran alliance is waning and dialogue with Tehran is necessary to create the peaceful Middle East.

The anti-Iran alliance is not just faltering; it’s crumbling. MBZ (Mohammed bin Zayed, Emirati’s crown prince) has struck his deal with Iran; MBS (Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi’s crown prince is not far behind,” Martin Indyk, a distinguished fellow at Council on Foreign Relations and a former senior diplomat, tweeted as The New York Times quoted.

Despite the ongoing tension involving Iran and the US following the latter’s exit from the Iran nuclear deal, the reconciliation between Tehran and Riyadh is vital for the peaceful Middle East and an end to a humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

L'articolo Will the Improved Iran-Saudi Ties Stabilize the Middle East and End The Yemen War? proviene da InsideOver.

Stark was the reality of the actual decision-makers and operators of all but the Houthis in war-torn Yemen at the signing ceremony held in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Nov. 5. The figurehead Saudi-backed president of the internationally recognized Yemeni government Abd Rubbo Mansour Hadi was present as his government and UAE-backed Transitional Council of South Yemen signed a peace deal following months of intensive fighting for the control of Yemeni strategic cities and ports. Although the man looked incapacitated as the two strong men of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS) and the UAE Muhammad Bin Zayed (MBZ) Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, ran the show.

Personal Agendas Over Conflict

It is not clear how the peace deal orchestrated by the two most powerful players within the Saudi-led coalition in the four-year-old war on Yemen will help end the conflict that has generated one of the worst humanitarian disasters since World War II. While the two Gulf nations and their proxy militias have engaged in bitter fighting for territorial control, Houthi rebels and the Yemeni national army have scored major advances and victories in recent months. Last September alone, three Saudi-backed and coalition brigades fell to the Houthis and thousands of soldiers and proxy fighters surrendered in a humiliating defeat in the Jizan province close to the Yemeni borders with Saudi Arabia. It was then reported that MBS kept the humiliatingly embarrassing news away from his ailing father, King Salman of Saudi Arabia.

Following a series of military blows and a series of successful ballistic missile and suicide drown attacks against vital Saudi oil installations and airports, the United Arab Emirates drew down their troops in Yemen. Most recently, Sudan pulled out many of its forces fighting alongside the Saudis in the country amid signs of deep fractures in the Saudi-led coalition sunk deeper into the Yemeni quagmire for the fourth year running with no sign of a decisive victory yet. In August, the Yemeni separatist movement, backed by MBZ, which seeks self-rule in southern Yemen, targeted government forces as they seized their interim seat in the strategic port city of Aden. The bloody clashes sounded alarm bells in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, raised fears of further undermining the already fractured anti-Houthi alliance along with any chances for working out a negotiated settlement to the catastrophic war in Yemen which has drawn mounting international outrage and criticism.

Therefore, this week’s peace deal between the Yemeni government and the separatists seeking an autonomous rule in the south, seems more of an effort to unite forces and close ranks against their main enemy in Yemen, the Iranian-backed Houthis who reign supreme in the capital Sanaa and other parts in the north. However, the Saudi Crown Prince described the agreement as a crucial step towards a political solution to end a power struggle and eventually Yemen’s bloody war. “This agreement will open a new period of stability in Yemen. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia stands with you,” the Saudi Crown Prince told the Yemeni signatories at the ceremony in Riyadh aired on state television.  Despite this optimistic rhetoric, MBS himself failed to explain how this agreement will effectively help end the war in Yemen at large; that is unless he was referring merely to the southern part of the country and the Saudi-Emirati power struggle there.

Main Points of the Peace Deal

The ‘loosely worded and open to interpretation’ agreement, if successfully implemented on the ground, states that all military and security forces will be incorporated into the defence and interior ministries, introducing a government reshuffle to include the separatists with equal representation, and their armed forces will be placed under government control. It does little more than solve two short-term problems; It prevents a war-within-a-war between the southern separatists and Hadi’s government, and provides more credibility to any future government negotiations with the Houthis.

The UN special envoy for Yemen, Martin Griffiths, congratulated the two sides on the deal. “The signing of this agreement is an important step for our collective efforts to advance a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Yemen,” he said in a statement. “Listening to southern stakeholders is important to the political efforts to achieve peace in the country.”

More realistically, the peace agreement will help the Saudis and Emiratis to refocus on fighting the Houthis on Saudi Arabia’s border, and minimize systematic, painful and embarrassing rebel missile and drone attacks on Saudi cities, airfields, military and oil installations which have remarkably increased both scale and damage-wise in recent months. This is due to seriously shake the Saudis self-confidence and their trust in the massive, mainly US-supplied arsenal that has cost the oil-rich Kingdom trillions of dollars and abysmally failed to shoot down cheap-to-buy Houthi killer drones.

L'articolo Deal Unites Yemeni Government and Separatists Against Houthis proviene da InsideOver.

South Sudan risks witnessing the reignition of a civil war after the main opposition party opposed a Nov. 12 deadline by which day a coalition government should be formed, calling instead for a six-month delay for this crucial step towards a fragile peace deal.

“Suppose we form a government on the 12th, you know what’s going to happen? The ceasefire we’ve been enjoying for over a year will erupt,” said Riek Machar, the exiled rebel leader of, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO) while in Juba, capital of, South Sudan this October 20.

Speaking later at a public event, President Salva Kiir did not directly address the comments from Machar’s camp. He said all parties regarding the agreement had committed to forming the unity government on Nov. 12 and the international community expected that to happen.

“I want to welcome (the opposition) and forget all the bitterness,” Kiir said.

With the US ambassador to the UN, Kelly Craft, saying the Security Council was “disappointed” by Machar’s warnings. The US has said it would reevaluate its relationship with South Sudan if the deadline isn’t met.

The Security Council insists the Nov. 12 should be met. With the South Sudan government spokesman Michael Makuei saying:

No change of schedule nor change of program

Dr. Machar who lives in Khartoum, capital of the neighbouring state of Sudan under house arrest had returned to the country for the second time for a two-day visit beginning  October 19, since inking a revitalized peace deal with President   Salva Kiir, in September 2018, under pressure from international and regional powers.

Gaining independence on 9 July 2011 as an outcome of a 2005 agreement, ending Africa’s longest-running civil war, the relative peace was disrupted again in 2013 when the president fell out with Vice President Machar leading to a conflict that has displaced some four million people to date.

The conflict split from the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led to the formation of the SPLM-IO, also known as the anti-governmental forces (AGF), in 2013.

There were hopes for an end to the hostilities when the pair signed a peace agreement in 2015. A government of national unity was formed and Machar was appointed vice president once again. But the optimism waned when violence broke out in the capital Juba in early July 2016 and forces from both sides battled each other with tanks, helicopters and other heavy weapons.

After the 2015 truce collapsed and fresh fighting broke out at the presidential palace in Juba in July 2016, Dr. Machar fled to the DR Congo on foot. The United Nations later organized for him to be airlifted for treatment in Khartoum, but later the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) partner states decided that he should not stay in any of the countries bordering South Sudan. He was then exiled to South Africa.

The peace deal has to date stopped a five-year civil war that has killed almost 400,000 people. He was briefly released in June 2018 to participate in the peace negotiations held in Addis Ababa, capital of Ethiopia and Khartoum.

Several attempts at peace have since failed but in September 2018, under pressure from international and regional powers, the warring parties signed an agreement to form a unity government.

The deal allowed Machar to return from exile abroad, but he has since gone to Juba just once, in October last year, to celebrate the signing of the accord.

The power-sharing arrangements under the peace deal were supposed to take effect in May which meant that the rebels were to join a transitional government, integrate fighters into the army and settle disputes over regional boundaries. But the process was delayed by six months until November as both sides disagreed over the terms.

A key provision of the peace deal is the integration of former rebels in the army, which has still not occurred

The SPLM-IO demands security arrangements which involve cantonment, screening, training and reunification of the armed groups, the number of states the country should have, and the entrenchment of the September 2018 agreement, must be met before the formation of the transitional government.

“If security arrangements are not implemented, the country will definitely slide back into civil war. We want our country to have a national army that will defend the constitution and protect the people of South Sudan,” says Manawa Peter Gatkuoth, the deputy spokesman of SPLM-IO.

Both sides have disagreed on details of the deal, including how many states South Sudan should have. Under the accord, they have agreed to hold elections after a three-year transition period.

Also, South Sudan’s opposition leaders say that the government’s failure to make funds available for the implementation of a peace accord could plunge the country back into war.

The SPLM-IO accused President Kiir of failing to provide $100 million needed to support the establishment of a transitional government. Emboldening the criticism are reports that Kiir’s administration instead allocated $700 million to build a highway.

“What is the point of saying that we don’t have funds and yet you have heard that the government is going to build a $700 million road? What is the priority, those roads or the peace?” Henry Odwar, deputy chairman of the rebel group, is reported to have asked by Bloomberg.

In the worst-case scenario, the alternative “would be war,” Odwar said in an interview in the capital, Juba. But the government retorted saying development was the remit of the government with Information Minister Michael Makuei Lueth, saying this September as reported by Bloomberg, that government had started the implementation of the peace accord by delivering food to military barracks, the “opposition forces” are not moving in, he said.

South Sudan’s government has said the international community should help fund that process. So far, it has allocated $10 million of the pledged $100 million, according to the international body monitoring the ceasefire.

The militants, who in May asked for a six-month delay because of ill-preparedness, said the situation hasn’t changed much. There is still no confidence in the security arrangement, according to Odwar.

The Security Council “is of the view that nothing is impossible, nothing is insurmountable,” said South Africa’s ambassador to the UN, Jerry Matthews Matjila. The remaining issues can be discussed by an inclusive government, he said.

One South Sudan expert says the international community is making a mistake. “The UN Security Council took the wrong approach,” Alan Boswell, senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, told The Associated Press.

“Rather than be fixated on Nov. 12, everyone should be focused on pressuring the parties to resolve the issues necessary to form a viable government at less risk of collapse,” he said. “There are much worse scenarios than another delay.”

Another expert suggested a different approach. South Sudan’s government “has consistently acted in bad faith,” said Klem Ryan, former coordinator of the Security Council’s panel of experts monitoring sanctions against South Sudan. “They need to be treated as illegitimate through increased international isolation by the diplomatic community until such time as they show a genuine desire to meet the needs of the people of South Sudan.”

For now, Machar, risks isolation by the international community over his ultimatum on joining the transitional government. “Lack of trust is also another element which compromises their willingness to commit to arrangements they themselves agreed upon. This also erodes citizens’ trust in the leaders in whatever they say to be doing. Political trust is supposed to instil confidence in leaders and citizens,” he said.

President Kiir has brazenly underlined the bad blood existing between himself and Machar saying he will go ahead and form a government on November 12 with or without his political nemesis.

This will certainly be a recipe for further trouble ahead for the world’s youngest state.

L'articolo South Sudan Talks to Form Unity Government Collapse proviene da InsideOver.

The next round of talks in Stockholm between North Korea and the US failed on the first day of negotiations after the North Korean side deemed it disappointing. US officials have not yet confirmed a de facto end of the negotiations. Nonetheless, the development stalls President Trump’s attempt to deliver his foreign policy masterpiece: denuclearisation of the North Korean peninsula. It also raises one question in particular: what has been achieved?

“We are disappointed in the US,” North Korean negotiator Kim Myong Gil told reporters on Saturday night following the Stockholm meeting. It was the first negotiation since a summit between US President Trump and North Korean dictator King Jong Un in Vietnam in February. The meeting also failed due to gaps in the issue of nuclear disarmament that were not bridged.

Trump and Kim had agreed on the new working-level negotiations in late June at a meeting at the inter-Korean border. “The negotiations did not live up to our expectations and were therefore discontinued,” the North Koreans said. The US had brought nothing to the negotiating table. Now it was up to Washington to resume the dialogue, he demanded.

Only a few hours earlier, US Secretary of State Pompeo had been confident that initial progress could be made. This first exchange, after a long break, was supposed to form the basis for negotiations in the coming weeks and months.

The modest goal? Cease seven decades of war and hostility on the Korean peninsula. Albeit achieving sustainable process in denuclearizing the regime would have been a decent start.

Surprisingly, the US side stated the nuclear talks with Pyongyang had not failed. Quite the contrary, the more than eight-hour-long talks in Stockholm had been “good,” the US State Department said.

Trump’s strategy on North Korea has frequently been subject to criticism by foreign policy experts. With many of them arguing Kim was playing for time to upgrade his nuclear arsenal while utilising the US President for photo-ops.

Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, for example, said Monday that North Korea would never give up its nuclear weapons program voluntarily, despite summit meetings and negotiations. North Korea remains a grave and growing threat, Bolton opined. He has long been a proponent of a regime change on the island.

North Korea had recently tested several short-range and medium-range missiles. The previous Wednesday, the country tested a new type of ballistic missile type Pukguksong-3, which was reportedly fired by a submarine. It would be a significant step forward for North Korea’s weapons program. The US military denied, however, that the rocket was fired by a submarine.

The UN Security Council condemned the test and suggested that sanctions could be intensified. As a result, North Korea issued a warning to the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany saying additional sanctions would “further urge our desire to defend our sovereignty.”

Donald Trump has put himself in a peculiar situation with North Korea by promising to disarm the country. If achieved, it would become a milestone of modern US foreign policy. Trump could claim to have brought peace to a region. An achievement, none of his predecessors, facilitated.

However, the appeasement of Pyongyang has not worked out, as The United States was not provided anything of relevance in return for meeting with the North Korean dictator. Worse yet, it is unlikely to change till the 2020 elections. Why? Because Trump currently has no tool other than diplomacy available. He cannot and will not risk his election chances by engaging in a lethal and potentially nuclear conflict.

Pyongyang will likely continue to play hardball for another year, in an attempt to receive as many concessions as possible from the US. The North Koreans are, of course, also cognizant, that a second term President is significantly more unpredictable than a first-term one. Not having to win another election makes deploying troops much more manageable, one would think.

The question is, how many concessions is President Trump willing to provide? A continuation of the negotiations provides a guaranteed news flow. Considering his current domestic issues, Trump needs to be successful in North Korea, if only to distract from daily political Washington.

L'articolo Trump’s Signature Foreign Policy Move Begins to Collapse as North Korea Ceases Negotiations proviene da InsideOver.

By this November South Sudan’s warring parties are expected to form a unity government but opposition leaders have said that the government’s failure to make funds available for the implementation of a peace accord could plunge the country back into war.

Initially, a unity government was supposed to have been formed this May, but a deadlock on several key issues forced a six-month extension. Since then, little has changed.

Meeting for the first time in the country’s capital Juba, this September 11 in almost one year President Salva Kiir and opposition leader Riek Machar pledged to resolve all outstanding issues standing in the way of cobbling up a unity government within two months.

Machar, left Juba in 2016 after a renewed fighting forced him into exile and resulted in the collapse of the 2015 compromise peace agreement.

The two rivals last met at the Vatican, Italy by the invitation of Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, in April this year.

President Kiir and several rebel groups signed an agreement a year ago in an attempt to resolve a conflict that erupted in December 2013 and killed an estimated 400,000 people. The government agreed to seek outside support as well as make its financial contribution toward stabilising the country and rebuilding an economy ruined by five years of fighting.

The Special Representative and head of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), David Shearer briefed the council in New York after the momentous meeting between the two leaders this September saying Mr. Machar’s visit to the capital at the invitation of his political adversary “was an important development” noting the apparent “conciliatory “demeanour between the two forces who had spent “several hours in formal and informal discussions.”

“Talks between us are going on well. And we will reach a deal soon, so let’s rest assured that things are going on well,” Kiir told reporters in Juba.

While Machar noted that even though he was to revert to his earlier position of First Vice President, South Sudan descended into war in mid-December 2013 when Kiir accused his former deputy-turned rebel leader for plotting a coup.

In September 2018, the rival factions involved in the conflict ostensibly signed a peace deal to end the conflict but nothing tangible emerged out of the apparent truce.

The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO), also known as the anti-governmental forces (AGF), which is the country’s largest rebel group routinely accuses President Kiir of failing to provide $100 million needed to support the establishment of a transitional government within two months.

Intensifying the bad feeling are reports showing Kiir’s administration had allocated $700 million to build a highway.

“What is the point of saying that we don’t have funds and yet you have heard that the government is going to build a $700 million road? What is the priority, those roads or the peace?” said Mr. Henry Odwar, deputy chairman of the rebel group led by Machar.

With the minister in charge of information, Mr. Makuei Lueth saying it was the government’s responsibility to develop the country and nothing will derail it from delivering services to its citizens.

In the worst-case scenario, Mr. Odwar says the alternative “would be war.”

Under the terms of the accord, the rebels are to join a transitional government, integrate fighters into the army and settle disputes over regional boundaries. The militants, who in May asked for a six-month delay because of ill-preparedness, said the situation hasn’t changed much. There is still no confidence in the security arrangement, according to Mr. Odwar.

Government spokesman Mr. Michael Makuei said the talks between the two warring leaders were “highly successful” and insisted plans to meet the November deadline were still on track. While Mr.Odwar instead described the meetings as “luke-warm”, saying key issues needed to be resolved before a unity government could be formed.

“It’s not clear they made any breakthroughs. Both leaders are positioning themselves to blame the other party if they fail to form a government together in Juba,” Alan Boswell, senior analyst for the International Crisis Group, is reported to have told, The New Humanitarian (TNH), news network. “The peace deal will almost certainly face a major crisis in November. The risk remains substantial that the process breaks down.”

Lasting peace would boost the production of oil, which hovered around 350,000 barrels a day when South Sudan seceded from Sudan in 2011, but then dropped by about half after civil war erupted in 2013. The conflict has also displaced so many farmers that more than half of the nation’s 12.5 million people are now relying on food assistance. The nation could quickly double its production of cereals to meet domestic demand if calm returns, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization’s country representative, Mr Meshack Malo.

During Kiir and Machar’s meeting it was agreed that a screening and a unification of a new military force consisting of 83,000 troops – at least half of those needed ought to be in place by November. Both parties also agreed on a VIP protection force of 3,000 soldiers, with an equal number of opposition and government troops.

After the failed 2015 peace deal, the government expanded the previously agreed upon 10 states to 32 – a move South Sudan experts say was intended to gerrymander boundaries along ethnic lines.

The opposition wants to return to 10 states, but the government is keen to continue expanding the number.

As part of the 2018 agreement, a commission was formed to settle the matter, but it has been unable to come to a consensus.

After Mr. Machar’s visit, both parties announced that a new committee would be formed to investigate the issue.

“If there is no consensus on the number of states by November, we in the (opposition) will not be part of the formation of the government,” said Mr. Odwar.

Part of the problem in moving the peace deal forward is a lack of funds.

While Mr. Kiir pledged $100 million towards the process in May, a little over $10 million has materialised.

The international community, specifically Western countries, has abstained from financially supporting the process. It’s unclear why, specifically, but there have been numerous reports of alleged financial corruption.

As November approaches, the international community is calling on South Sudan’s government to urgently increase the “pace and the quality of implementation”, the EU said in a statement last week.

South Sudan’s government and opposition say their leaders are open to further meetings before November, but no dates have been confirmed.

The peace deal mandates that the transitional constitution and laws that govern the national security agencies, the army and the national police service be amended by parliament ahead of the formation of a unity government.

But the country’s lawmakers are on a two-month recess that began two weeks ago. Last month, civil society activists warned that failure to amend the laws before November would affect the formation of a unity government.

Mr. Odwar said the two leaders discussed the number of states but only agreed to form another committee.

“The two principals have agreed that yes, we will have a committee and this committee will look into the IBC (Independent Boundaries Commission) report and if we reach a consensus that will be great. If we don’t reach a consensus, then the principals will have to come together again and come up with a final statement on the number of states and boundaries,” Odwar told reporters.

Despite reaching no agreement on the unresolved issues, Information Minister Michael Makuei says Kiir and Machar are both confident a unity government will come together on time.

L'articolo Cash Strapped South Sudan Risks Failure of Forming Unity Government proviene da InsideOver.

Jason Greenblatt, US special envoy to the Middle East, announced he will retire at the end fo the month. He revealed his intentions on Sept. 5 and while doing so, explained that the timing of his departure lines up with the peace plan he was helping negotiate between Israel and Palestine. Greenblatt will wait until after the release of that plan before stepping down. US President Donald Trump has since appointed Greenblatt’s replacement, Avi Berkowitz, who like his predecessor, is an Orthodox Jew.

Greenblatt reportedly only planned to stay in his position for two years, but as the negotiating dragged out, he opted to stay on board with the Trump Administration to see it through. Together with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Greenblatt began working on a peace deal nearly as soon as Trump took office. The president famously called the goal the “deal of the century” and charged Kushner with achieving it, despite Kushner’s lack of experience in foreign affairs. 

Greenblatt also came into his position with little knowledge in the field of international politics; his career before serving in The White House was predominantly highlighted by his tenure as Chief Legal Officer for the Trump Organization. Most of his day-to-day work, however, consisted of real estate business for which Trump had become known for. 

Inexperienced Replacement

In locating a suitable replacement, Trump chose Berkowitz, a 30-year-old friend of Kushner. Berkowitz only graduated law school three years ago and, with a concise career history, has not even had time to establish a proper résumé by which to draw a fair opinion of him. After university, he joined the Trump campaign, serving as assistant director of data analytics. His main responsibility was creating live Facebook shows before and after the presidential debates. Following the electoral victory, Berkowitz transitioned to The White House, working under Kushner as what could aptly be described as an “administrative aide.”

Somehow, all of this has prepared Berkowitz for the monumental task of forging peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. Former Middle East envoy Martin Indyk was unimpressed with the choice. 

“If Avi Berkowitz is [Greenblatt’s] replacement, it’s a considerable downgrade in the position … Nice guy, but does not have the weight or experience of Trump’s former real estate lawyer,” Indyk said.

Joining Kushner and Berkowitz is Brian Hook, Trump’s envoy for Iran. Hook has served on several levels of the Trump administration, first as Director of Policy and Planning under former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, then as Senior Policy Advisor under his successor, Mike Pompeo. He has been in Washington for a decade, serving in the Bush administration and working as consultant and lawyer. Hook’s experience begs the question, “Why not choose Hook as the special envoy?” 

Firstly, Berkowitz is Jewish, which could explain why he was chosen over Hook. While Kushner, and possibly Trump himself, tends to prefer working with other diplomats of his religion, it could very well hurt the chances of a Middle East peace plan succeeding. Already there was a questionable bias to the American team with two Jews leading it, but Trump amplified these optics when he moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Furthermore, his unwavering support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly as the annexation the Golan Heights, reeks of favouritism. 

Another possible reason is that Hook is either satisfied with his current role under Pompeo, or simply too vital to the State Departments ongoing international efforts. Since Trump came into office, the department has been severely understaffed which does not bode well for an administration that is trying to broker new deals with nations all over the globe. Put simply, the State Department needs all the help it can get and certainly Hook is a huge asset for it. 

Doomed from the Start

The Middle East peace plan promised by Trump is reportedly already finalised, but even as early as June, Pompeo was forced to start defending it against allegations of one-sidedness. In closed-door meetings, he spoke pessimistically about the probability of Palestinians accepting the deal, saying he understood why it might appear as a pro-Israel deal instead of a mutually beneficial accord. Even so, Pompeo is hoping that both sides give it a chance, but the Palestinians already appear ready to boycott any future discussions. 

“[This appointment] makes it very clear that the administration has no real interest in seeking a just resolution but are essentially just stepping back and allowing the right-wing fanatical fringe in Israel and the US to dictate what the reality on the ground is for Palestinians,” said Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights.

Another way of looking at the appointment is that it is simply a way for Kushner to consolidate his power. By installing a young, low-level assistant, he can maintain a grasp on the situation in a way that he could not do if Trump had appointed someone with more experience, said Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. 

Trump’s Middle East “deal of the century” was likely doomed from the beginning due in part because of biased negotiators and also due to his pro-Israel policy agenda. It is possible that Greenblatt and Kushner put together a worthy plan, but it is telling that Greenblatt never intended to stick around to see it through. Under the assumption that the peace accord is already dead, Berkowitz’ appointment seems less impactful. The better question is how he will shape US policy on other regional issues.

L'articolo US Envoy To Middle East Steps Down proviene da InsideOver.