The participating countries are entering the final stretch for the Berlin Conference on the Libyan Civil War. The German initiative to host a conference, aiming to limit the long-lasting violence and unrest in Libya has been scheduled for this Sunday, 19 January 2020. Fifteen parties could participate in the conference, after being invited by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the German Minister of Foreign affairs, Heiko Maas.

In addition to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (United States, Russian Federation, People’s Republic of China, France, and the United Kingdom), requests to attend have been sent to Italy, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, UAE and Republic of Congo. Representatives from the United Nations, the European Union, the African Union, and the Arab League will also take part in the process.

Turkey; not really “internationally isolated”

Turkey has been engaging in some notable political manoeuvring over the last few months, with regards to Libya. Erdogan has been openly expressing his support for the Tripoli government and Fayez al-Sarraj, not only through diplomatic channels but also by providing substantial support on the ground. The talks around Turkish military equipment shipped to Tripoli amidst an active arms embargo and the deployment of Turkish troops to Libya have prompted wide controversy, fueling international criticism. Yet here is Turkey, being one of the main players in the peace negotiations in Berlin.

To the contrary of what Greek sources, and especially the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nikos Dendias, are trying to convince the public, Turkey is not internationally marginalized at all. Despite the provocative Turkish actions in the Mediterranean, that have been occasionally condemned by the EU and the States, Ankara is utilizing an ingenious, albeit risky, foreign policy using a well-balanced combination of political and military means.

The cooperation with Sarraj and – according to Tayyip Erdogan – the deployment of Turkish forces in Libya has created a situation on the ground, where Turkey is a de facto key actor, in all the processes around the Libyan Crisis. Considering the limited territory under Sarraj’s control and Haftar’s backing from Russia, Egypt and the Gulf countries, it is under question if the Turkish involvement could eventually tip the balance in favor of GNA in the case of a decisive escalation; in fact, it is dubious if Turkey was planning to engage in full battle against LNA, in the first place. According to a recent statement from the Turkish Vice President, Fuat Oktay, the large-scale deployment of Turkish Armed Forces in Libya, could be avoided, should the crisis deescalate. In a closer look, this could be just a Turkish well-played waggle, in order political leverage to be achieved in Libya through force projection; so far it has played out quite well for Ankara.

Greece; missing the point once again

Moving to the developments in Greece, things are rather discouraging for Hellenic Diplomacy and the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Both Greek Alternate Minister of Foreign Affairs, Militiadis Varvitsiotis and Government Spokesman Stelios Petsas stated in the previous days that Athens has been persistently pushing for the country’s participation in the Berlin Conference; as it turns out the Greek efforts have been far from fruitful. In the latest statement issued by Berlin, the Memorandum of Understanding, or at least the bilateral agreements over the maritime borders, between Turkey and Libya -the very reason that Greece had to participate- would not be discussed in the Conference and is not deemed relevant to the current peace talks. In this respect, all the EU countries that are not essentially involved in the Libyan Crisis would be represented by the EU delegate, according to the German side.

The German approach is candidly downgrading Athens’ international standing, especially when considering that Greek vital interests are at stake, depending on the developments in the Libyan front. The current situation should be primarily attributed to the failure of the Greek diplomacy to secure a position in the Conference, and secondarily to the unfair judgment of the German Chancellor. The situation is just as disappointing within Greece.

All the opposition parties have missed the point once again and seem unable to understand how important this matter for the country is. Such a critical issue has been treated as an opportunity to criticize the government and eventually has turned into a pointless political debate between the ruling party and the opposition. It’s about time for the Greek side -including parties all across the political spectrum- to carefully reconsider their approach to foreign policy issues and adopt a more responsible and unified stance. For now, all eyes are on Berlin; the decisions to be taken on Sunday, will have a significant impact not only in war-tormented Libya but also in the wider region, definitely including Athens and Ankara.

L'articolo Heading Towards the Berlin Conference proviene da InsideOver.

A few months ago, peace between the Taliban and the US seemed unjust but conceivable. However, after continuous terror attacks, President Trump recanted from his position and ceased the negotiations. Nonetheless, an agreement is likely for the upcoming year.

Since 2001, the US has been present in Afghanistan after an operation that ousted the Taliban regime that had terrorized the country. Today, the radical Islamists have almost regained its strength pre 9/11. In the past two weeks alone, at least 94 government-led forces and 36 civilians have been killed by the Taliban.

The US has been trying to negotiate a peace treaty with the Taliban since summer 2018. After President Trump had ceased the negotiations, the hopes for an agreement decreased drastically. Until two weeks ago, US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad met Taliban representatives again to advance a deal.

However, if the negotiations were indeed to resume, they would be facilitated at a politically explosive time. Presidential elections were held in the country at the end of September. Almost three months later, the election commission has now stated that Ashraf Ghani is ahead with 50.6 percent of the vote. However, the final election result has still not been published. Most importantly, and this illustrates the circumstances in the country, the new President will not have any significant influence on the negotiations, as the Taliban see the government as a western puppet and thus have made it a condition that it cannot participate in the negotiations with the US.

The fact that the self-proclaimed dealmaker himself, President Donald Trump, has agreed to a stipulation as outrageous as this indicates how powerful the Taliban have become again. It is estimated that the Taliban have regained control of between 50-70 percent of the country.

However, the US’ proclivity to facilitate a deal is also based on one only truth: Donald Trump’s promise to bring home the troops. Thus, if an agreement could be reached prior to the 2020 election, it would undoubtedly be found in Trump’s reelection campaign commercials. The fact that the deal is being made with repugnant terrorists, who continue to commit unspeakable crimes is hardly noteworthy at this stage. The latter eludes to the fact that the Taliban possess the leverage in these negotiations, as the whole world is acutely cognizant of the circumstances mentioned above.

However, even for Trump, it would be a reach to spin an immediate withdrawal without any Taliban concessions as a win. Thus, Khalilzad is therefore planning, as a first step, to persuade the Taliban to reduce violence in the country. It is noteworthy that the Taliban have at least avoided major attacks in city centers with many civilians in recent months, which can be interpreted as a signal to the US, even though it merely amplifies the barbarism the US has been facing.

Moreover, the Taliban must promise not to protect terrorist groups that threaten the international community, such as Al Qaeda, once did. The deal also provides for, and this is where it becomes particularly sensitive that the Taliban and central government in Kabul will share power over the country in the future. In view of the current situation, it is hard to imagine how this could work in practice.

In an idealistic world, such a deal would not be worth the paper it is written on. In geopolitics, however, national interests must override morality at times. Thus, the stipulations mentioned above would result in a peace treaty that can secure the ultimate withdrawal of US troops.

Prior to the end of negotiations in September, the roadmap stipulated that after the peace treaty was signed, the Afghan government and the Taliban should conduct negotiations in Afghanistan as a second step. For this, both parties should officially meet in Norway. Then as now, it is difficult to predict what such an agreement could look like.

The situation in Afghanistan remains disastrous. One the one hand, the US should not attempt to keep the peace in a region that is unable ever to become stable and secure. However, a peace agreement with mass-murdering terrorists is a high price to pay for a nation that rightfully prides itself to have brought liberty to many places in the world.

L'articolo What 2020 Holds For US-Taliban Peace Talks proviene da InsideOver.

The 18-year-old war in Afghanistan has become a thorn in the foot for US civil, political and military establishment. The bitter after taste from the never-ending conflict has forced US negotiators into a corner. The US wants the war to end as early as possible even if it means caving into Taliban’s demands.

Even after Trump called off an almost-achieved peace deal with the insurgents after the death of a US soldier in a roadside terrorist attack in September, Washington seems increasingly desperate to continue negotiations with Taliban. In the last two months, news of Taliban and US Ambassador Khalilzad’s unofficial meeting in Islamabad and prisoner swaps are proof that Washington is becoming increasingly timid to secure a deal one way or another.

These developments occurred behind the curtain without attracting much attention although there were sporadic mentions of the need and desire from both sides to resume talks; however, nothing was official yet.

However, Trump’s surprise visit to the Bagram Airfield for the thanksgiving dinner with the troops brought the peace negotiations in the spotlight. Speaking to the troops at the field, Trump, flanked by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani announced that the talks between the US and Taliban have resumed.

“The Taliban wants to make a deal.  We’ll see if they want to make a deal.  It’s got to be a real deal, but we’ll see,” Trump said during his meeting with Ghani. “If they do, they do. If they don’t they don’t. We were getting close.”

Although the announcement did not accompany any details as to how “close” the two sides were to agree on a deal, but it did lay the groundwork for representatives from the US and Taliban to prepare for talks yet again. The Taliban side also reciprocated US overtures and announced they were ready to resume talks without any preliminary conditions.

The statements from the Taliban were wrapped in caution avoiding any brash criticism of the US president laying bare their need for talks to resume. Contrary to the US, the Taliban leadership has found itself in a favourable position.

Their motives from securing a peace deal are to ensure they are accepted as a legitimate political authority in  Afghanistan especially by the United States. The deal allows the insurgent group the global validation it needs to assume a greater role in the country’s affairs.

Despite their willingness to secure a deal from the US, the Taliban seems in no mood to compromise. The death of US soldier and the deadly attack near the Bagram Airfield this week are some examples of Taliban’s callous attitude towards the US.

On the other hand, despite multiple requests from the Afghan political leadership and US for a ceasefire as one of the preconditions for the peace deal, the Taliban have vehemently and repeatedly refused to end hostilities.

A similar demand was also floored by the US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad while meeting the Taliban in Doha last week. Khalilzad visited Kabul and Doha last week to resume talks with the Taliban and Afghan leadership where he met with President Ashraf Ghani and Taliban’s Haqqani.

Although the contents of the meeting were not disclosed, Taliban’s spokesperson Sohail Shaheen confirmed the meeting in a tweet.

After meeting the Taliban and Afghan leadership, the Khalilzad arrived in Pakistan on Friday to meet the country’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Chief of Army Staff Qamar Jawed Bajwa.

Although relations between Kabul and Islamabad have worsened over the last few months after Pakistan embassy officials were harassed by the Afghan security forces, Prime Minister Imran Khan has vowed to secure a peaceful solution to the Afghan problem.

During the meeting, Khalilzad and Pakistani leadership reiterated the need for continuing the peace talks with the Taliban. Qureshi said that reducing violence in neighbouring Afghanistan is in the best interest of Pakistan. He also emphasized the need for inter-Afghan dialogue to ensure all stakeholders in the country agree to the outcome of the negotiations.

But as Khalilzad was preparing to wrap up his visit, the Taliban attacked US Airbase in Bagram. The attack was targeted at an under-construction medical facility near the US base. The insurgents infiltrated the compound and engaged in a ten-hour long firefight with the US and Afghan forces. The attack prompted US military airstrikes.

Lambasting the Taliban, Khalilzad tweeted that, “When I met the Talibs today, I expressed outrage about yesterday’s attack on Bagram, which recklessly killed two and wounded dozens of civilians. Taliban must show they are willing & able to respond to Afghan desire for peace.”

In another tweet, he said that “We’re taking a brief pause for them to consult their leadership on this essential topic.”

And once again, the peace process was paused without any date for resumption. The time, like the last time as well, the blame lies with the Taliban who have repeatedly failed to show any commitment towards achieving a peaceful solution to the war.

L'articolo Afghan Peace Process: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back proviene da InsideOver.

The last round of talks on Syria, the 14^th of its kind to be held in Nur Sultan (former Astana), in Kazakhstan was concluded last week with a framework formula statement endorsed by Russia, Turkey and Iran, the guarantors of the talks aiming at working out a political solution to the nine-year-old Syria conflict. The trilateral talks with the delegates of both Syrian government and opposition factions covered controversial issues such as drafting of a postwar constitution, political transition, security arrangements, resettlement of millions of refugees as well as combatting terrorism. The talks were part of what has become known as the Astana Process which was launched in Turkey in 2017 in support of the UN-sponsored peace talks in Geneva which have since yielded limited fruit and humble success on the ground.

Deputy director of the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies, Sanat Kushukumbaev explained that the meeting aimed to “focus on technical issues, in the northern part of Syria, the area of Idlib, and the banks of the Euphrates. It’s about expanding previous agreements regarding the Safe Zone in northeastern Syria. This is a sensitive area where there are Turks, Kurds, and remaining terrorists from the Islamic State (ISIS).” However, many observers and analysts of the communique issued at the end of the last round of talks in Nur Sultan, and the statement made by the official Syrian delegation at the talks, headed by Syria’s UN ambassador Bashar Jaafari, pointed out that perhaps one of the most important achievements at this round was a unanimous agreement on the need to get rid of terrorists in Idlib and elsewhere in Syria, for any political process to be viable and successful.

A Green Light to Start Mother of Battles in Idlib?

Focus has centred for much of the year on the possibility of an imminent launch of Syria’s last major battle in Idlib, delayed for years by political and demographic complications as well as international pressure, and the fact that the three main players, at long last, might have given the green light for a major military operation by the Syrian army and its allies to liberate Idlib from the firm grip of al Nusra fanatics and other extremists terror groups. However, a side-track distraction might have shifted emphasis, temporarily at least, to Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city and economic capital liberated some two years ago in a landmark turn of tide in the war in favour of the Syrian government and its allies.

The Russian defence ministry has confirmed earlier reports of terrorists amassing their forces in the countryside of Aleppo. The ministry spotted the transfer of MLRS (Multiple Launcher Rocket Systems), tanks and armoured vehicles to the western outskirts of the city. The move coincided with growing warnings of a potential ‘chemical plot’ by terrorists in Idlib -similar to previous fabrications- that have induced US and western military strikes against Syrian airfields and other military installations as well as research centres. Recently released documents and confessions have revealed that the chemical verification reports have been tampered with and that White Helmets chemical ploys were utterly fabricated.

Last-minute Attempts to Side-track the Idlib Big Bang

The announcement came straight after the Astana declaration calling for the need to fight terror groups in Idlib, and the need for return of the city under Syrian government control and that the sovereignty of the Syrian state should be respected and maintained. The communique was signed by Turkey as well as by groups under its control. This was interpreted by many observers as a tripartite green light for the Syrian army, who has mobilized massive forces and overwhelming firepower close to Idlib, to launch its Mother of All Battles in the province which harbours some 10000 terrorists including hardcore anti-government fighters who took refuge in Idlib following military defeats or as part of previous reconciliation deals with the government.

Ruslan Mamedov, an expert at the Russian Council for International Affairs, told the official Syrian news agency SANA that “the outcome of all Astana resolutions call for fighting terrorism and liberation of all Syrian territories from terrorists’ control.” “Any settlement in Syria preserve the integrity of Syrian land as well as the sovereignty of the state over every inch of its territories,” Mamedov maintained. Hence, all eyes – despite marginal issues around Aleppo’s western outskirts and east of the Euphrates river- are focused on Idlib and the long-awaited showdown there. The only remaining question, for the time being, is when does the Syrian army and its allies choose the zero hour for the looming big bang.

L'articolo Astana Statement: A Triple Green Light for Idlib Battle proviene da InsideOver.

For almost six years, Eastern Ukraine has known war. Locked in a seemingly unending cycle of conflict with separatist militias, Kiev’s battalions are battered and bruised – but still they fight on. A ceasefire was signed in 2015, but the breakaway forces, backed, it seems, by Russia, have continued their struggle. In total, some 13,000 have lost their lives. But now, after a period of relative calm, a fresh push for peace is being made.

This week, Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, will – for the first time – meet Vladimir Putin. Held in Paris, the talks will be mediated by France and Germany, and mark the first formal negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in over three years. 

Elected in April, Zelensky stormed the polls with a promise to bring the fighting to an end. A former actor – known best for his portrayal of a fictional president – has worked to bridge the gap with Moscow. Prisoners have been swapped and seized ships returned – and he is said to speak regularly with Putin on the phone. 

But for domestic critics, not least his predecessor Petro Poroshenko, Zelensky is straying dangerously close to over-concession. In October, sporadic street protests erupted when he signed the so-called Steinmeier Formula – a plan for peace endorsed by Moscow. Under the agreement – which isn’t yet binding – Ukraine’s eastern territories would hold elections under Kiev-approved legislation, after which the region would return to Ukrainian control.

It sounds like an equitable piece of diplomacy, but for Zelensky’s opponents, assent to Steinmeier is a woeful capitulation. Emboldened by the Ukrainian man’s ‘peace at any price’ promise, Putin will likely view elections in the Donbass – the eastern provinces’ collective name – as a chance to reassert Moscow’s regional hegemony. At the polls, locals will back pro-Russian parties seeking autonomy from Kiev, the Kremlin believes. 

With sympathetic rulers installed in the East, Putin will have a backdoor to Ukrainian foreign policy and lawmaking. Should the nation push for tighter NATO relations, for instance, the Donbass, under Moscow’s guidance, could invoke their veto. Coupled with the lifting of Western sanctions – a goodwill gesture for his commitment to peace – Putin’s Paris trip might be profitable indeed.

With the involvement of Ukraine’s French and German allies, however, Moscow should, in theory, be pressed to make their concessions. But in France’s Emmanuel Macron, Putin has a friendly ear. The talks’ host is an avowed advocate of closer Euro-Russian relations, going so far as to describe NATO, an alliance loathed by Moscow, as “brain dead”. 

Worried by Russia’s apparent warmongering in Ukraine, Macron’s EU counterparts are wary of getting too close to the Moscow man – but if settlement is reached over the Donbass, the way would be clear for a tightening of bonds. Seeking lucrative bilateral trade and investment opportunities with Russia, this would suit Macron nicely.

A close friend of his, Germany’s Angela Merkel, views Putin with more suspicion – but she too has reason to push for a speedy Ukrainian settlement. The Nordstream 2 project, an off-shore gas pipeline linking Germany to Russia, is on the cusp of completion. Routing fuel directly to Europe via the Baltic Sea, the pipeline is bad news for Zelensky, whose country is currently used in transit. The loss of income would weaken Ukraine’s already vulnerable economy, say international critics urging Merkel to scrap the scheme. A peace agreement with Russia would buy Berlin time to see the construction completed, she hopes.   

Harder to read is her American counterpart – the mercurial Mr Donald Trump. Zelensky launched a US-charm offensive this summer, desperate to win the president’s unwavering support. An official White House invite was the Ukrainian’s wish – a gesture that would’ve given many in Moscow pause for thought. But the offer never came. “I really hope you and President Putin get together and can solve your problem,” Trump said instead. His message was clear: Zelensky, you’re on your own.

In truth, it should have come as no surprise. Ukraine is dangerous political ground for the White House right now. Facing an impeachment investigation into his apparent threat to withhold military aid unless Kiev fulfils political objectives, Trump is wary of aligning too closely with Zelensky. The goal – an equitable peace deal on the Donbass – might be wholly right and proper, but the optics could play poorly in Washington.

And so Zelensky finds himself in an unenviable position. “Committed to seeking an end to the war in the Donbass, he is under strong pressure at home not to give in to Moscow’s bullying tactics,” said Bohdan Nahaylo of the Atlantic Council, a think tank. “At the same time, the Ukrainian leader will also have to watch his back and hope his country’s longtime allies remain reliable.” 

Regardless of the challenges, the inexperienced statesman must prevail. The window for settlement won’t remain open for long – and failure could carry a terrible cost. Like in Israel and Cyprus, a ‘frozen conflict’ might emerge: a bitter, military impasse, defined in all likelihood by the building of walls. Just last week, a senior Zelensky aide to revealed plans for a fortified frontier if the talks falter. If there is a chance to avoid that fate, it must be taken.  

L'articolo New Peace Talks Offer Hope To War-Torn Eastern Ukraine proviene da InsideOver.

North Korea called on the US and its neighbor South Korea to provide a new solution to solve the standoff on the Korean Peninsula, warning that such a hostile policy towards Pyongyang would lead to severe consequences.

Speaking at the Xiangshan Forum in Beijing, Pyongyang’s senior military official Kim Hyong Ryong claimed that North Korea had worked to build a stable cooperation, but the situation had turned into a vicious circle that deteriorated the tensions because of the acts from the North Korean and US administrations.

“Though it has been more than one year since the DPRK-US joint statement was adopted, there is no progress in improving bilateral relations between the two countries, completely because of the US’ anachronistic, hostile policies against the DPRK,” Kim told the forum as Reuters quoted, referring to his country by the initials of its formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Kim accused Seoul of having a double-dealing attitude for continuing a joint military drill with the US and buying military equipment. Last August, North Korea fired two ballistic missiles, considered an act of protest against the military exercise.

Early October, North Korean and American negotiators failed to end the nuclear stalemate during a working-level meeting in Sweden. Both blamed each other for not being flexible and able to present a creative solution.

The first two meetings between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and the US President Donald Trump, in Singapore last year and in Hanoi last February, failed to produce concrete solutions to the denuclearization issue.

The US and North Korea have different interpretations of the definition of denuclearization. The former wants a complete ban on North Korea’s nuclear weapons while the latter wants a guarantee that the sanctions are removed first.

Trump and Jong-un met again at the demilitarized zone dividing the two Koreas last June after the G-20 meeting in Osaka. However, both did not discuss the issue of denuclearization and the removal of the economic embargo.

Should Russia and China be involved in the denuclearization talks?

President Trump appreciated Russia’s and China’s willingness to seek a peaceful solution to the Korean Peninsula following Jong-un’s visit to Vladivostok last April, two months after the collapse of the Hanoi talks.

“I appreciate that Russia and China are helping us,” Trump said, adding that China also is unhappy to see North Korea has nuclear weapons.

Both Russia and China support North Korea’s sanction removal. However, both Moscow and Beijing may compete in exerting their influence in the Korean Peninsula, given that they aim to be an energy supplier in the Peninsula, said Victor Cha, the former official at the White House.

“If this is part of a final deal, Trump could be okay with it if it pokes China in the eye. The Chinese don’t want the Russians on the Peninsula, so if they’re going to be the primary energy supplier, they won’t like it,“ Cha told MSN.

Washington’s mixed reactions on Jong-Un’s ballistic missile test has also raised confusion among Washington’s allies. When Jong-un fired a ballistic missile after his visit to Russia, Trump and the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seemed to downplay the impact of the test on the region.

South Koreans are not happy with Pompeo’s statement saying that the test did not violate the moratorium on the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

“The South Koreans aren’t on board with Pompeo’s ‘test anything you want as long as it can’t reach me’ standard.” tweeted Jeffrey Lewis, another North Korean analyst and Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute.

Back in the past, Washington has not dealt with diplomacy effectively when it comes to North Korea. Pyongyang is always motivated to talk, but the progress gets stuck during diplomacy, and the communist’ state becomes aggressive when the talks fail. Jong-Un’s missile tests after the Hanoi talks show that he still wants to talk.

Therefore, it is time for Washington to involve his allies (Japan and South Korea) and North Korea’s close friends (China and Russia) to listen to them. Pyongyang’s security must be prioritized first before a complete denuclearization (as Beijing advises).

Pyongyang must also be convinced that nuclear war benefits nobody. Yet, the US, Russia, and China (the world’s nuclear powerhouses) must also restrain themselves from taking provocative measures.

L'articolo What Does North Korea Want From the US and South Korea? proviene da InsideOver.