News, opinion, Perspectives 0 comments on The Non-Alignment Posture of Algeria’s Foreign Policy ..By Dr. Arslan Chikhaoui

The Non-Alignment Posture of Algeria’s Foreign Policy ..By Dr. Arslan Chikhaoui

The map of geopolitical alliances is being reshaped following the Russia-Ukraine Crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic. With the potential development of a multi-polar world, Algeria is reaffirming its affiliations and defining its strategic and geo-economic areas of interest yet remains committed to its positions of non-alignment. It is clear that Algeria will continue to defend and promote the resolution of crises and conflicts of varying intensities, in particular, in the Arab World, Africa, the Sahel, and the Mediterranean through political solutions rather than military ones. Inclusive dialogue and political reconciliation are the paths that Algeria will continue to advocate. Despite this new geopolitical dynamic, Algeria undoubtedly remains a key player in the processes of reconciliation and stability given its experience and its proven expertise over the past fifty years.

Since its independence in 1962, Algeria has mobilized and will certainly continue to deploy its diplomacy to promote the principles of self-determination, respect for borders inherited from colonial divisions, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, non-interventionism, and non-alignment posture. Its struggle for independence produced an uncompromising foreign policy against foreign interference. Faced with the new challenges of a rapidly changing region, issues of security, integration, and regional convergence, Algeria is in a phase of adapting and consolidating its foreign policy doctrine for its strategic repositioning on the international scene which is being “reshaped”.

The diplomatic dynamic initiated by Algeria since the Covid-19 health crisis with its economic diplomacy, proximity diplomacy, parliamentary diplomacy, civil society diplomacy, preventive diplomacy, and multilateral diplomacy, shows its desire to position itself on the international scene as a key partner in the region without calling into question the fundamental doctrinal principles of its foreign, defense and security policy in the face of new emerging players such as China, India, and Turkey, who are shaking up the established order.

In the absence of a systematic alignment which would be synonymous with a denial of the doctrinal principles on which Algeria has built its foreign policy since its independence, or an intransigent opposition which would isolate it, Algeria seems to be moving more and more toward a policy of non-dogmatic interests.

Breathing new life into the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and defining new paradigms for its adaptation to the new era would be the approach for which Algeria seems to be opting. As a result, it clearly displays both its posture of non-alignment, as is the case of the Russia-Ukraine Crisis, but also its belonging to areas of strategic interest such as the Mediterranean, the Sahel, Africa, and the Arab World. The visit in June 2022 of Venezuelan President Maduro to Algiers and the signing of a strategic cooperation agreement between the two countries is a clear message of the revitalization of the Non-Aligned Movement. Algeria’s membership to this movement and its commitment to its objectives are enshrined in the founding act of the Algerian State, which is the Declaration of November 1954 to recover its independence from French colonialism

Today, and taking into account a context carrying the risk of confrontation between the actors of world powers and for many African or Asian countries which refuse to choose to belong to one camp or another, Algeria is called upon to sponsor this movement of non-aligned countries which was born with the Afro-Asian Conference of Bandung in 1955. Algeria’s commitment is part of the logic of its geostrategic repositioning as a pivotal actor thanks to its attachment to the three demands defended by this movement, namely: decolonization, multilateralism, and economic development.

During his visit to Turkey in May 2022, Algerian President Tebboune stated that: “Our policy is Non-alignment and we are not going to give it up”. Since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine politico-military crisis and despite the historical relations that bind it with Russia, Algeria has remained equidistant from the belligerents. As proof, at the end of March 2022, Algeria welcomed the visit of the US Secretary of State Blinken, followed in May by that of the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov. On these occasions, Algerian President Tebboune declared that: “Russia and the United States are our friends, all the others are our friends, except the one with whom we have a problem because of Palestine. Whoever wants to judge us let him do it. We are trying as best we can to reinvigorate the Non-Aligned Movement. We see where the world is heading. Regardless of the number of poles, we are equidistant from all. Our commercial interests work with everyone, but when it comes to political interests and stability, we look first and foremost at our interests, the interests of the Algerian people.” Concomitantly, the Chief of Staff of the Algerian Army, General Chengriha, had also reaffirmed the neutrality of Algeria vis-à-vis international conflicts, when he received the Director General of the International Military Staff of NATO, General Wiermann: “On the international level, Algeria continues to adopt a policy of neutrality. Our country takes care to exclude itself from the tensions that oppose the different parties.” For his part, the President of the Senate (Upper House) Goudjil indicated to the Cuban Ambassador in Algiers, Vergara, the need to draw inspiration from the principles of the non-aligned countries and that the countries of the Third World will have to better prepare themselves for profound changes that the world is currently experiencing. The Speaker of the Upper House, during a recent telephone conversation with his Turkish counterpart Sentopa, also stressed: “the need to work together to develop a new concept of non-alignment which is adapted to the new international situation.”

All these concomitant political statements show that there is a consensus among the Algerian ruling elite on the issue of the non-alignment posture of Algeria and its desire to bring the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries up to date.

In addition, by organizing the meeting in Algiers of the Arab League scheduled for 01 November 2022 aligning with the celebration of the 68th anniversary of the outbreak of the revolution against French colonization and also the 44th anniversary of the Declaration of Algiers of November 15th, 1988 by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) retained by the State of Palestine as its declaration of independence, marks the constancy of Algeria’s position for the self-determination and independence of the peoples. Moreover, by organizing the Mediterranean Games in June 2022, Algeria marks its membership of this strategic space in which it is one of the important players with regard to the issues and challenges that will be faced by the two shores bordering the Mediterranean Sea commonly referred to as “the Lake”. Conflicts and their malevolent corollaries around the Lake are becoming serious issues for the development of renewed, peaceful, and balanced cooperation between the northern and southern shores. The Mediterranean remains an issue at three levels: strategic, economic, and ecological. All this means that Algeria cannot be on the sidelines and clearly affirms it.

Algeria is gradually moving towards a new era where it is trying to adapt to the new global context. It displays it with some signals to the international community such as, for example, its adherence to NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue; its call for the resolution of low and medium intensity conflicts in Libya, Mali, and Yemen through inclusive political dialogue; and to offer its good offices as a facilitator with regard to its experience and expertise in this field (e.g. Iran-Iraq, Iran-USA, Ethiopia-Eritrea, and others); the implementation of Arab and African free trade agreements (GZALE and ZLECAf); its desire to revisit the Association Agreement with the European Union to adapt it to the new challenges; and resume dialogue with WTO for its possible accession to membership status. Algeria is already relying on privileged platforms to activate at the regional and sub-regional level (African Union, 5+5 Cooperation, CEMOC, Trans-Saharan Counter Terrorism Initiative, Afripol) and intends to re-launch with new paradigms.

In short, the global geopolitical and geo-economic context is shifting and Algeria’s positions of principle remain irrevocably constant, which explains its commitment to energizing a new concept of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.

The views presented in this article are those of the speaker or author and do not necessarily represent the views of DoD or its components.

This entry was posted in Africa, Algeria, Alumni Publications and tagged Africa, Algeria, Arab World, COVID-19 pandemic, diplomacy, Foreign policy, non-aligned countries, non-alignment, Russia-Ukraine Crisis, the Mediterranean, the Sahel. Bookmark the permalink.

Interviews, News, opinion, Perspectives 0 comments on Putin claims progress made in talks over lifting Ukrainian wheat blockade

Putin claims progress made in talks over lifting Ukrainian wheat blockade

Russian president makes comments in Tehran, where he had a meeting with leaders from Turkey and Iran

Russia-Ukraine war: live news
Vladimir Putin leaves his presidential plane after arriving in Tehran on Tuesday.
Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor
Tue 19 Jul 2022 19.58 BST
Vladimir Putin has claimed on a trip to Tehran that progress has been made that may allow Russia to lift the blockade on Ukrainian wheat, an issue that is threatening famine across Africa.

“I want to thank you for your mediation efforts,” the Russian president told Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, his Turkish counterpart, in comments released by the Kremlin.

Advertisement

“With your mediation, we have moved forward,” Putin said. “Not all issues have yet been resolved, but the fact that there is movement is already good.”

It was only Putin’s second visit outside Russia since his invasion of Ukraine and reflected his determination to show he is not as isolated as the west claims, but retains an influence in the region after the visit to the Middle East last week by Joe Biden.

Putin held bilateral talks not only with Erdoğan, but also with the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the new hardline president, Ebrahim Raisi.

Khamenei offered Putin support over the Ukraine conflict. “War is a harsh and difficult issue, and Iran is not at all pleased that ordinary people suffer from it, but in the case of Ukraine, if you had not taken the initiative, the other side would have caused the war with its own initiative,” he said.

“If the road is open to Nato, it knows no boundaries and if it was not stopped in Ukraine, they would start the same war some time later under the pretext of Crimea.”

Advertisement

Putin was reported to have replied: “No one is in favour of war, and the loss of ordinary people’s lives is a great tragedy, but the behaviour of the west made us have no choice but to react. Some European countries said that that they had been against Ukraine’s membership of Nato, but then agreed under American pressure, which shows their lack of independence.”

Although there was broad agreement about Ukraine, tensions were on display when Khamenei warned Turkey against an incursion into northern Syria.

Erdoğan, possibly taking advantage of Putin’s distractions in Ukraine, has been threatening a new military offensive in northern Syria to drive away US-backed Syrian Kurdish fighters from Turkey’s borders. The operation is part of Turkey’s plan to create a safe zone along its border with Syria that would encourage the voluntary return of Syrian refugees, a move that would be popular inside Turkey as Erdoğan prepares for difficult elections next year.

But in a meeting with Khamenei he was warned against such a move. “Any sort of military attack in northern Syria will definitely harm Turkey, Syria and the entire region, and will benefit terrorists,” Iran’s leader said, stressing the need to “bring the issue to an end through talks”. He said he also opposed any threat to the integrity of Syria.

Advertisement

In recent weeks Syrian Kurds have asked Iran and Russia to defend them against Turkish threats. Russian military officials have flown to the region in a bid to broker a deal between the Syrian government and the Syrian Kurds that would make a Turkish incursion more difficult.

Erdoğan was also seeking a signal from Putin that he is willing to lift the Russian naval blockade preventing Ukrainian grain from leaving Black Sea ports. The EU said on Tuesday it is prepared to lift some sanctions on Russian banks in relation to the trade of food.

Turkey, a Nato member, has a special responsibility under the 1936 Montreux convention for naval traffic entering the Black Sea. It is proposing that Russia allows the Ukrainian grain ships to leave Odesa on designated routes so long as checks are made that the vessels are not carrying arms.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – the world’s biggest wheat supplier – has sent prices of grain soaring across the world, compounding pre-existing food crises. Dozens of ships have been stranded and 22m tonnes of grain are stuck in silos at Ukrainian ports.

Hulusi Akar, the Turkish defence minister, has said Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and the UN will sign a deal this week on the grain exports corridor after talks in Istanbul. A coordination centre is to be opened in Istanbul allowing routing of those exports via the Black Sea.

Erdoğan also signed economic and trade cooperation agreements with Iran, and said he opposed western sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme. The US has again threatened to increase sanctions on Iran if it does not agree to revive the nuclear deal.

Putin was looking to use the talks to bolster regional opposition to any US-proposed defence pacts between Gulf states and Israel, an idea that some in Washington see as a necessary bulwark if Iran was to go ahead with its nuclear programme. Russia is a party to the nuclear talks that are stalled in Vienna due to a US refusal to lift sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards. The US says these sanctions were not imposed due to the nuclear deal but due to the Revolutionary Guards’ malign activities across the region.

In a memorandum of understanding sealed before Putin’s arrival, the National Iranian Oil Company signed an agreement potentially worth $40bn (£33bn) with Russia’s Gazprom.

Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BST

The talks may also touch on Iran’s long experience of circumventing US sanctions, and whether there is room for cooperation between Moscow and Tehran on defeating US measures. The long-term vision is for the two countries to reduce dependence on the dollar for trading, but in the short term there may be discussions over Russia buying Iranian drones for use in Ukraine.

The Russian ambassador to Tehran, Levan Dzhagaryan, said in an interview with Iran’s Shargh newspaper last Saturday that Iran and Russia were now in a “single fortress”.

… we have a small favour to ask. Millions are turning to the Guardian for open, independent, quality news every day, and readers in 180 countries around the world now support us financially.

We believe everyone deserves access to information that’s grounded in science and truth, and analysis rooted in authority and integrity. That’s why we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This means more people can be better informed, united, and inspired to take meaningful action.

In these perilous times, a truth-seeking global news organisation like the Guardian is essential. We have no shareholders or billionaire owner, meaning our journalism is free from commercial and political influence – this makes us different. When it’s never been more important, our independence allows us to fearlessly investigate, challenge and expose those in power. Support the Guardian from as little as $1 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you.

Support the Guardian
Remind me in September
Accepted payment methods: Visa, Mastercard, American Express and PayPal
Topics
Russia
Vladimir Putin
Turkey
Iran
Ukraine
Syria
Iran nuclear deal
news
Reuse this content
Most popular
WorldEuropeUSAmericasAsiaAustraliaMiddle EastAfricaInequalityGlobal development
News
Opinion
Sport
Culture
Lifestyle
Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning
Sign up for our email
Contact us
Complaints & corrections
SecureDrop
Work for us
Privacy settings
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Terms & conditions
Help
All topics
All writers
Digital newspaper archive
Facebook
YouTube
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
Newsletters
Advertise with us
Search UK jobs
Back to top
© 2022 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. (modern)

opinion, Perspectives 0 comments on Will Biden’s Regional Tour Revamp Declining Ties with Arab States?

Will Biden’s Regional Tour Revamp Declining Ties with Arab States?

The fast-moving transition of the world from unipolar order in which the US has economic and political dominance to the decline of the Western civilization and rise of a multipolar order caused many countries in the last decade to move to renew the regional and international alliances in line with rapid dynamics of the international order.

Though late, the Persian Gulf Arab countries have taken steps towards adjustment to the major changes of the international order, with the main example being the boost of their partnership with the emerging world powers like China, Russia, and India. The trade exchanges between China and the (Persian) Gulf Cooperation Council members have increased to $92 billion in 2010 and at least to $350 billion in 2020 from $6 billion in 2002.

Still, analysts suggest that the key driving force behind the US President Joe Biden’s current tour in the region and arranging a summit with (P) GCC plus Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan is gaining assurances about continuation of strategic cooperation of these countries with Washington and their avoidance of sliding into China-Russia camp.

Here is a question: Can Biden’s tour rebuild the badly damaged trust between the US and the Arab world?

The fact is that the divisive factors outweigh the uniting ones between Washington and the Arab states.

The US decline: No longer the world’s cop

After World War II, the US tried to establish its foothold around the globe by strengthening its military. Today, the Pentagon controls about 750 military bases in about 80 countries and foreign territories.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once haughtily said: “We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future… During this period, the American officials’ presumption of playing the world policeman role has been that were not for the US military, the world would be a lawless and dangerous place.”

She seems to have referred to a common law according to which the US military has the self-granted mandate to deploy forces to any point in the world and set up military bases wherever it wishes.

But just as the murder of the African-American man George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota by a police officer during arrest exacerbated the crisis of legitimacy for the American police at home, Trump’s presidency also stirred a crisis for the world’s most powerful military, as it was no longer able to demonstrate its ability to play the role of global policeman.

Disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan, fruitless presence in Syria in terms of equations on the ground, receiving blows from Axis of Resistance regional bloc, and the European drift to an independent defense mechanism build a belief in the Arab world that the US will cut its military in West Asia. Although Washington wants to show that in the absence of its forces on the ground, air power, especially drones, can provide support for the allies, the Arab countries are confident that its security guarantees are not as reassuring as in the past.

China, a rising economic superpower

The essential and key factor driving the White House push to stop growing Arab partnership with the American global rivals is economy. China is increasingly expanding its presence and economic partnership with regional states. As the 21st century is called the “century of Asia,” the rapid strengthening of China’s position in the world economy has led experts to suggest that Beijing will unseat Washington as the world economic leader sooner than predicted.

Just one aspect of China’s importance for the Coordination Council is its oil consumption growth rate which is currently 5.7— seven times faster than that of the US. The number of cars in China in 2010 was 90 time larger than in 1990 and it is predicted to outnumber the US in 2030. The car sales growth rate in China is 19 percent annually. The Asian power is resolved to copy South Korea and Taiwan economic and industrial growth models— indeed a domesticated model— to devise creative and sustainable growth as part of a tech-propelled economy. China’s growing demand for oil is a determining factor in its foreign policy. According to statistics, its need for oil in 2010 was between 4.5 to 7 million barrels and in 2020 between 8.6 to 9.10 million per day with a growth rate of 9.7 percent.

Furthermore, Chinese relations and exchanges with the Persian Gulf states goes beyond oil. China, for example, is the main destination of Saudi non-oil exports, especially plastic and petrochemical products. Chinese companies have a large presence in the Persian Gulf, especially in Dubai. Now, with the increasing global acceptance of participation in China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, Persian Gulf Arab states are striving for a share to not fall behind.

US interventionist policies

It should be known that the difference of political systems of the Persian Gulf Arab states with the Western countries and particularly the US has always been a disruptive factor in the ostensibly strategic relationship between the two sides. When facing questions from public opinion, support for democratization and human rights makes the main foreign policy pillars of the US justification of cooperation and alliance with largely suppressive and authoritarian Arab dictatorships. Despite sham and biased pro-rights advocacy of Washington, some criticism occasionally fray the ties with the Arab monarchies. An example is Biden’s raising of Khashoggi murder case during visit to Saudi Arabia. Jamal Khashoggi was a vocal Saudi critic of the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and was assassinated by a Saudi death squad in his country’s consulate in Istanbul in 2018.

Also, the dictation of policy by the US to the Arab countries sometimes causes difficult conditions for Arab rulers. For instance, the Arab states are pressed by Biden during his visit to normalize with the Israeli regime and scale down all-out cooperation with China, and even to increase their oil output to fill the market void amid Ukraine war. These pressures do not exist in Arab relations with such powers as China and Russia and this is an encouraging factor for them to lean to Beijing and Moscow for sustainable economic and military cooperation.

Increasing distrust in the US

And finally, the diminishing Arab trust in the American military, security, and political support is a teaching result of fate of actors that involved in military and security challenges with their hopes set to Western support but received no assistance in the times of need. Ukraine and Afghanistan governments and Syrian Kurds are good examples of such frustrated actors. The distrust is also a result of the damaging experience of the US plans in the region, like invasion of Iraq, and decline to fulfill security promises when their security is endangered. After Yemeni retaliatory missile and drone strikes on Aramco oil facilities in 2019, Riyadh expected direct American engagement in a response but was let down by Washington inaction.

In their view of ties to the US, the Arab countries find return to the past status impossible, and, keeping up with the rapid international developments, they bolster relations with other important global powers.

News, opinion 0 comments on John Bolton says he ‘helped plan coups d’etat’ in other countries Former national security adviser to Donald Trump says US Capitol attack was not a coup because it was not carefully planned

John Bolton says he ‘helped plan coups d’etat’ in other countries Former national security adviser to Donald Trump says US Capitol attack was not a coup because it was not carefully planned

Former national security adviser to Donald Trump says US Capitol attack was not a coup because it was not carefully planned

John Bolton, a former national security adviser to Donald Trump and before that ambassador to the United Nations under George W Bush, said on Tuesday he helped plan coup attempts in other countries.

He said: “While nothing Donald Trump did after the election, in connection with the lie about the election fraud, none of it is defensible, it’s also a mistake as some people have said including on the committee, the commentators that somehow this was a carefully planned coup d’etat to the constitution.

“That’s not the way Donald Trump does things. It’s rambling from one half-vast idea to another plan that falls through and another comes up.”

His host, Jake Tapper, said: “One doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup.”

Bolton said: “I disagree with that, as somebody who has helped plan coups d’etat, not here, but you know, other places. It takes a lot of work and that’s not what [Trump] did. It was just stumbling around from one idea to another.

“Ultimately, he did unleash the rioters at the Capitol, as to that there’s no doubt, but not to overthrow the constitution, to buy more time to throw the matter back to the states to try and redo the issue.

“And if you don’t believe that you’re going to overreact, and I think that’s a real risk for the committee, which has done a lot of good work.”

Tapper returned to Bolton’s remark about having helped plan coups.

Advertisement

Bolton said: “I’m not going to get into the specifics.”

Tapper asked: “Successful coups?”

Bolton said: “Well, I wrote about Venezuela in in the book and it turned out not to be successful.

“Not that we had all that much to do with it, but I saw what it took for an opposition to try and overturn an illegally elected president and they failed. The notion that Donald Trump was half as competent as the Venezuelan opposition is laughable.”

Bolton devotes considerable space to Venezuela policy in The Room Where It Happened, his 2020 memoir of his work for Trump.

In 2019, the US supported the Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido’s call for the military to back his ultimately failed attempt to oust the socialist president, Nicolas Maduro, arguing Maduro’s re-election was illegitimate.

Before Bolton joined the Trump administration, it was widely reported that Trump wanted to use the US military to oust Maduro. In August 2017, Trump told reporters: “We have many options for Venezuela, this is our neighbour.”

Among other gambits, Bolton’s book describes work with the British government to freeze Venezuelan gold deposits in the Bank of England.

In his newsletter, The Racket, Jonathan M Katz, author of the book Gangsters of Capitalism, said: “The United States has indeed sponsored and participated in lots of coups and foreign government overthrows, dating back to the turn of the 20th century [and] Bolton was personally involved in many of the recent efforts – in Nicaragua, Iraq, Haiti and others”.

But, Katz added: “Generally, officials do not admit that sort of thing on camera.”

The Room Where It Happened review: John Bolton fires broadside that could sink Trump
Read more
Katz wrote: “Keep in mind that throughout the 2019 crisis, Bolton insisted that the Trump administration’s support for … Guaidó … was anything but a coup. He literally stood in front of the White House at the height of the affair and told reporters: “This is clearly not a coup!”

In those remarks, in April 2019, Bolton said: “We recognize Juan Guaidó as the legitimate interim president of Venezuela.

“And just as it’s not a coup when the president of the United States gives an order to the Department of Defense, it’s not a coup for Juan Guaidó to try and take command of the Venezuelan military.

“We want as our principal objective the peaceful transfer of power but I will say again, as [Trump] has said from the outset, and Nicolas Maduro and those supporting him, particularly those who are not Venezuelan, should know, all options are on the table.”

On CNN, Tapper said: “I feel like there’s like this other stuff you’re not telling me.”

Bolton said: “I think I’m sure there is.”

… we have a small favour to ask. Millions are turning to the Guardian for open, independent, quality news every day, and readers in 180 countries around the world now support us financially.

We believe everyone deserves access to information that’s grounded in science and truth, and analysis rooted in authority and integrity. That’s why we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This means more people can be better informed, united, and inspired to take meaningful action.

In these perilous times, a truth-seeking global news organisation like the Guardian is essential. We have no shareholders or billionaire owner, meaning our journalism is free from commercial and political influence – this makes us different. When it’s never been more important, our independence allows us to fearlessly investigate, challenge and expose those in power. Support the Guardian from as little as $1 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you.

News, opinion, Perspectives 0 comments on The war in Ukraine: A test for Algiers’ non-alignment doctrine

The war in Ukraine: A test for Algiers’ non-alignment doctrine

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine in late February could have unprecedented consequences for North Africa. Algeria will be swept up in the resulting shifts, forcing the country’s civilian and military leadership to make difficult international calculations.

Algeria abstained from voting on the United Nations resolution to condemn the war in Ukraine on March 2. Little more than a month later, Algeria joined Syria and 23 other member states in a vote against excluding Russia from the U.N. Human Rights Council. Some observers took these votes as a sign of Algiers’ support for Moscow’s geopolitical aspirations. Algeria’s recent positions, however, can only be understood in light of the country’s attempt to find the golden mean between siding with Russia and siding with Europe. Algeria has sought a middle ground between the Eastern and Western camps since independence in 1962. The newly independent state offered its mediation services and energy resources to the United States and Europe and sought to expand its security cooperation with Russia, maintaining its sovereign foreign policy stances. Algeria’s decision-making is now further complicated by the emergence of China as a major power. Understanding Algiers’ objectives requires an analysis of the various security, economic, and diplomatic dynamics at play.

Strategic interests

Algeria’s post-independence political establishment cultivated strong military bonds with the Soviet Union and later the Russian Federation. This historical partnership provided Algeria with a continuous and preferential flow of military equipment with no end-user license agreement, and this later benefited the Algerian security forces when Western partners imposed an undeclared arms embargo during the 1990s. Between 2016 and 2020, Algiers spent approximately $34 billion on Russian weapons, cementing Moscow’s place as its primary arms supplier. Amid rising tensions with Morocco, maintaining these links with Russia is more essential than ever in the eyes of the Algerian military. In fact, reports indicate that the two armies will hold joint counterterrorist exercises in November 2022 on Algeria’s western borders. This is unsurprising considering the regional agreement between Algiers and Moscow on issues such as Western Sahara. Moreover, statements by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggest that Algiers seeks to deepen its relations with Moscow in spite of the potential international backlash. This could raise concerns about Algiers’ willingness to gravitate toward Moscow’s strategic pole at the expense of other partners.

In recent years, the Algerian establishment’s approach to foreign policy has focused on avoiding major crises with international partners. Despite occasional hiccups and underdeveloped regional cooperation, Algiers has largely succeeded in its mission. Through this strategy, it developed a lucrative energy export market, geared toward southern Europe in particular, that helped to boost its foreign exchange reserves to almost $200 billion by 2012. Over the past decade, during a time of growing geopolitical disorder, Algeria has served as a stable and committed energy supplier for the Mediterranean. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this encouraged unrealistic expectations in the West about Algeria’s short-term ability to replace Russian gas now subject to a partial ban. The Algerian government fed this delusion in talks at the presidential palace with senior Western officials like U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi. At the same time, the authorities have shown a readiness to cut loose European partners that oppose Algeria’s regional interests. During its recent dispute with Madrid over Western Sahara, Algiers suspended a two-decades-old friendship treaty. Hence, the country’s leadership may view the Ukraine war as a suitable moment to rehabilitate and strengthen its global standing, capitalizing on Europe’s desperate need for gas as it seeks to replace imports from Russia.

On March 20, Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra travelled to Beijing for a three-day visit. Since the signing of the 2014 “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership,” cooperation between Algiers and Beijing has extended beyond commercial activity into the realms of culture, politics, and the military. Against this background, Minister Lamamra’s trip concluded with a bilateral statement that rejected the “misuse of unilateral sanctions” while fast-tracking the Belt and Road Initiative. This announcement aligns with President Abdelmadjid Tebboune’s willingness to tolerate foreign debt for the sake of developing local infrastructure as well as his directive to focus on a $7 billion phosphate deal with China.

While joint projects could provide a momentary boost for Algeria’s economy, they also offer a window of opportunity for Chinese expansionism. Algiers has so far defended its “neutral” stance on the great power competition, reiterating its commitment to the non-alignment philosophy that has shaped its diplomacy since the Cold War. Still, Algeria today faces a new reality with international and domestic impediments that will determine the cost of its geopolitical choices. The circumstances, impact, and narratives around the war in Ukraine require an adapted doctrine in line with today’s events.

Emerging impediments

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Tebboune administration restricted its official response to the Arab League initiative that created a Ministerial Contact Group uniting Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, and Egypt. Minister Lamamra joined his counterparts in Moscow and Warsaw to meet with Russian and Ukrainian officials. Furthermore, Army Chief of Staff Said Changriha reiterated, in the presence of a senior NATO official, Algeria’s non-involvement in global conflicts. Changriha’s statement builds off of Algiers’ tried-and-true narrative about its foreign policy, but maintaining “diplomatic flexibility” may become increasingly difficult, especially if the war drags on through next winter. Despite the official rhetoric, the military and economic rapprochement of convenience between Algiers, Moscow, and Beijing is likely to turn into a strategic liability. This will be particularly true as the global battle for influence expands to regions like the Sahel and the Mediterranean. Moreover, the historical and post-colonial lenses through which Algiers perceives the West and the international balance of power could hinder the Algerian establishment’s regional interests and efforts to ensure domestic sociopolitical harmony.

Since coming to power in 2019, Tebboune has declared his intention to revive Algiers’ diplomatic corps and defend its national interests. The administration is convinced of its status as a “regional power” and has staked a claim to leadership over several dossiers, including Arab attempts at mediation between Russia and Ukraine. Yet this ambitious agenda cannot be achieved without an international consensus lead by the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The Western bloc’s blessing is not forthcoming, as cozy relations between Algeria and the Eastern camp are apt to be taken as a sign of geopolitical alignment. Moreover, the recent participation of Tunis and Rabat in NATO military talks on Ukraine undermines Algiers’ old assumptions about the security order in North Africa. The emerging strategic shifts, therefore, impose serious limitations on the current administration’s vision for both its immediate neighborhood and the region at large.

Defense and foreign policy issues have clearly captured domestic public attention because of regional tensions and the administration’s focus on its diplomatic posture. Traditionally, the Algerian establishment shaped the country’s international direction according to its desires and with little regard for criticism, capitalizing on the silence of elites and the disinterest of citizens. But the 2019 Hirak protest movement and generational changes will result in calls for more accountability on all levels, making the usual carte blanche a thing of the past. Thus, the policies of the Tebboune administration are likely to face greater scrutiny as the political elite and social actors re-evaluate Algeria’s international stances through a more pragmatic and inclusive strategic lens. As a case in point, the recent round of talks between President Tebboune and the local political class demonstrated an unusual focus on geopolitical developments. In view of the rapidly changing environment, a popular foreign policy would need to provide both stability and socioeconomic relief for the silent majority.

Potential outcomes

The war in Ukraine poses an unconventional test for Algiers’ sovereigntist and principled doctrine. It is safe to say that Algeria is interrogating itself about its regional and international roles, which implies a sober assessment of its needs and comparative advantages. Senior officials, including President Tebboune, have repeatedly referred to the emergence of a new post-COVID global order. Within this context, regional shifts and domestic consensus will determine the administration’s next steps. And while Algeria knows it cannot replace Russian gas, it is still seizing the opportunity to attempt to reform its outdated energy sector and to deliver diplomatic messages. Algiers’ response to the Ukraine war is to walk a fine line between Europe’s gas needs and Russia’s strategic orbit, which may facilitate energy deals, such as that recently signed with Italy. Such steps will not, however, guarantee that Algeria has lasting regional influence.

Finally, the misconceptions at home and misunderstanding abroad about Algiers’ “non-alignment doctrine” highlight a bigger debate regarding its foreign policy. This reflects the new diplomatic dynamics that will be “negotiated” with international partners in the context of the process of recovery from the era of former President Abdelaziz Bouteflika. While Algiers does not respond well to pressure, the continuation and deterioration of the war in Ukraine will force the Tebboune administration to make some hard choices. This will likely trigger an unofficial dialogue within the establishment in anticipation of Algeria’s 2024 presidential elections, and only a national agreement can prevent dangerous sociopolitical polarization and mitigate underlying geostrategic risks.

Zine Labidine Ghebouli is a political analyst, postgraduate scholar at the University of Glasgow, and research assistant with the North Africa and Sahel Program at the Middle East Institute (MEI). His work focuses on Euro-Mediterranean cooperation and Algeria’s political and security dynamics. The views expressed in this piece are his own.

Photo by APP/NurPhoto via Getty Images

MEI is an independent, non-partisan, non-for-profit, educational organization. It does not engage in advocacy and its scholars’ opinions are their own. MEI welcomes financial donations, but retains sole editorial control over its work and its publications reflect only the authors’ views. For a listing of MEI donors, please click here.

The Middle East Institute (MEI) is an independent, non-partisan, non-for-profit, educational organization. It does not engage in advocacy and its scholars’ opinions are their own. MEI welcomes financial donations, but retains sole editorial control over its work and its publications reflect only the authors’ views. For a listing of MEI donors, please click here.

News, opinion 0 comments on The US Supreme Court’s carbon emissions decision impacts the whole world

The US Supreme Court’s carbon emissions decision impacts the whole world

 

 

Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for Chrome. Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

5 Jul, 2022 12:29

The US Supreme Court’s carbon emissions decision impacts the whole world

By shooting down federal-level environmental regulations, the court undermines Washington’s global reliability
Bradley Blankenship

Bradley Blankenship is an American journalist, columnist and political commentator. He has a syndicated column at CGTN and is a freelance reporter for international news agencies including Xinhua News Agency. 

The US Supreme Court’s carbon emissions decision impacts the whole world

The US Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings that seriously upset the rule of law in America. Most notably, the court stripped women’s rights to abortion at the federal level. Other rulings on issues such as gun control and secularism have curtailed the country’s forward progress.

All of these are seriously damaging to US civil society. But another recent ruling by the Supreme Court on climate change will impact the world. On June 30, the court ruled that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have the authority to broadly limit carbon emissions for existing power plants. This is a major blow in the global fight against climate change and will challenge administrative power in the US in the future, affecting issues such as food safety and workers’ rights.

The justification of this decision, written under an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, is that the public and its representatives should have the final say over administrative power. Roberts said that capping carbon emissions to the point of forcing a national transition from coal may be “sensible,” but that “it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.”

“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.

What’s most surprising about the Supreme Court even taking this case to begin with is that there is no current EPA nationwide regulation on the books. Central to the legal battle was an interpretation of the 1963 Clean Air Act, which had only been interpreted to introduce statewide regulations at its height under the administration of former President Barack Obama, and then narrowed to individual plants under the administration of former President Donald Trump.

That is to say that the court issued a decision on a hypothetical EPA regulation, one that had been under discussion by President Joe Biden and his team, which is a serious break from the court’s tradition prior to this case.

The Supreme Court typically only chooses to issue decisions on existing matters, leaving political discussions and hypothetical scenarios to Congress. This ruling now strips administrative power from the other branches of government, subverting executive administrative power and the legislature’s mandate issued under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. As mentioned before, this now has implications for all federal regulatory agencies, like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

This should be absolutely terrifying for the US and its citizens. It will usher in an environmental disaster for many communities, particularly those of color. It will undoubtedly open the door for the degradation of food safety standards, worker safety regulations, and personal data protection. The damage this can deal to average people is essentially limitless.

On the specific issue at hand, it seriously raises the question of how the US can be considered a reliable partner in the international fight against climate change if its government essentially has no power to cap emissions. Indeed, the US has already lagged far behind comparable countries in terms of implementing relevant regulations or transitioning to a green economy – but this is a nightmare scenario.

For example, the current administration of President Joe Biden has used climate change as a central fixture of its diplomatic discussions with countries around the world. This is understandable because it is probably the most consequential issue of our time, at least to every single country besides the US. How can the US government be considered a relevant player now after this Supreme Court decision?

Note that this is not the first time something like this has happened. Washington diplomats were seriously undermined after Congress failed to pass the Biden climate agenda. Now the last remaining branch of the US government has shot down a bare-minimum climate policy.

This is extraordinarily embarrassing for the US as a global leader and underscores the need for democratized global leadership. As one of the leaders in global emissions, the US has a duty to the planet to curb emissions. The court’s decision will be felt around the world – not just in Washington. There must be consequences for such irresponsible and foolhardy governance, which is why the global community must act independently of Washington on the issue of climate.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

 

Podcasts
0:00
28:59
0:00
26:24

News, opinion, Perspectives 0 comments on The Future of Tunisian Democracy: US Policy and Tunisia’s Current Political Crisis

The Future of Tunisian Democracy: US Policy and Tunisia’s Current Political Crisis

Summary:
On June 2, Arab Center Washington DC (ACW) organized a virtual panel titled:
Panelists were Monica Marks, Professor of Middle East Politics at New York University Abu Dhabi; Radwan Masmoudi, President, Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy; and Jacob Walles, former US Ambassador to Tunisia and Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Daniel Brumberg, ACW Nonresident Senior Fellow and Director of Democracy and Governance Studies at Georgetown University, moderated the event.
Jacob Walles began by outlining current US policy toward Tunisia, which he called “a policy of ‘on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand.’” While the Biden administration has criticized Tunisia’s democratic backsliding and called for an inclusive dialogue, it has not conditioned assistance to the country or criticized President Kais Saied himself. Walles supposed a reason for this hesitancy is to avoid getting too involved and noted a mistaken assumption in many American and European policy circles: that Saied’s actions have broad public support. This, he argued, confuses support for Saied for the popular dissatisfaction that undermined support for parties like Nidaa Tounes and Ennahda. While Saied rode into power on a wave of popular distaste for the political class, he has no answers for the country’s serious economic problems, and his support has waned significantly.
Walles detailed Saied’s apparent attempts to avoid dialogue in ramming through his proposed constitutional revision. He described the upcoming July 25th referendum as reduced to plebiscite, a yes-or-no vote on a document no one has seen. He suspects that Saied will capitalize on low turnout for this referendum and upcoming parliamentary elections to push through his reforms with a compliant parliament. While cutting off avenues to dissent in this way may benefit Saied in the short term, this will likely lead to further instability and repression as the opposition is forced onto the streets. Drawing on the efforts of the National Dialogue Quartet during the 2013-2014 crisis, Walles explained that unilateral attempts at dialogue by either Saied or outside powers would be viewed as illegitimate by the Tunisian populace, and that the international community should support grassroots Tunisian alternatives to Saied. He concluded by saying that “the failure of Tunisia’s democratic experiment would be a tragedy, not only for Tunisia itself but also for the cause of democracy in the region and beyond.”
Monica Marks began her presentation by saying that the United States should not allow itself to be complicit in what is obviously a move toward authoritarian rule in Tunisia. She said that the US response to Saied’s announced roadmap last September was totally inadequate in that it expressed a false sense of relief when there was genuine belief that things were not going in the right direction. She added that there have been many abuses since the coup of July 25: stripping the judiciary of its independence, the takeover of the functions of the electoral commission, going after critics in military courts, and other practices that indicate that Saied is not interested in restoring democracy or in allowing the smooth functioning of constitutional institutions. She affirmed that “it is beyond clear for many months now that Saied is a nascent dictator, and that Tunisia is no longer a democracy.”
Marks repeated her assertion that Saied’s roadmap of last year is not democratic in any shape or form, a reality that she said does not seem to have been internalized in Washington, among policy circles who should know better. She said that Saied is dangerous in how he interprets any scant positive signs as support for his behavior and program. She said he is able to make mountains out of very small pockets of support and build policies on this mistaken understanding. She said that Saied needs to be pushed to allow more inclusivity. Carrots and sticks must be used with him to force him to change course, such as talking to him, allowing conditional IMF economic assistance, sanctioning military officers close to him but not the Tunisian army, and encouraging alternatives to provide clear political and economic visions for the future. She said that the Tunisian economy must be helped because people are hurting, but the US should not provide Millennium Challenge Corporation funds which would send the wrong signal because these are to support democratic governance.
Radwan Masmoudi reminded the audience of the dangerous situation in Tunisia today and of the current quick slide toward authoritarianism. He said that Kais Saied has just fired 57 judges because they do not agree with him; an act that is unconstitutional because he has no authority over the judiciary. Saied is also amending the law governing the work of the High Judicial Council and the electoral law without any consultation. He called for a national dialogue but only asked those who support his moves to be part of it. Masmoudi asserted that building a democracy in the Arab world is a very difficult undertaking. Tunisia’s experiment was essential and its democracy was not perfect. He said that “there were shortcomings, there were weaknesses, there were mistakes made in the last ten years. Of course, it is not an easy process.” He added: “we cannot improve our democracy by going back into dictatorship.”
Masmoudi asserted that the United States must have a clear vision and position about what is going on in Tunisia. The same applies to the European Union. He said that the US and the EU should do the following: 1) declare that Saied’s move on July 25 was indeed a coup, which would be a strong message to Tunisians and the international community; 2) condition assistance to Tunisia on progress on democratic change and restoration of constitutional life in the country; 3) oppose any IMF loans to Tunisia if that progress is not made; 4) invite and meet with members of the opposition; and 5) demand that the Tunisian army stay out of politics. Masmoudi thinks that Saied may not want to be offered an off-ramp to reinstate democratic institutions because he wants to rule by decree.
Finally, Masmoudi disagreed with propositions that the opposition is not unified; he said they are united in opposing the coup and against all the unconstitutional steps to which Saied has resorted.
VIDEOS
We are happy to send you these links to four excellent presentations by FOUR TOP EXPERTS on Tunisia and on democracy, namely:
Sharan Grewal, Shadi Hamid, Sarah Yerkes, and Larry Diamond
The next couple of months are going to be critical and vital for Tunisia’s nascent and fledgling democracy, so, please watch these short videos (15 minutes each) and please forward them to anyone you think can be interested in helping to save the “only successful” democracy in the MENA region.
Sharan Grewal
Assistant Professor of Government at the College of William & Mary,nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution, and nonresident senior fellow at the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED).
Shadi Hamid
Senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, and an assistant research professor of Islamic studies at Fuller Seminary
Sarah Yerkes
Senior fellow in Carnegie’s Middle East Program, where her research focuses on Tunisia’s political, economic, and security developments as well as state-society relations in the Middle East and North Africa.
Larry Diamond
Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI).
Interviews, News, opinion 0 comments on An open letter from the Presidency of Parliament to the US State Department

An open letter from the Presidency of Parliament to the US State Department

In the name of Allah the Merciful
#Tunisia on May 11, 2022.
#An open letter to Her Excellency Mrs. Yael Lambert
#Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.
#Dear Mrs. Yael Lambert Assistant Secretary of State, and welcome to Tunisia, the country of Jasmine.
#Dear Honorable Assistant Secretary of State for the US Department of State.
#In the name of the presidency and members of the Assembly of People’s Representatives of the Republic of Tunisia we renew our highest expressions of thanks and appreciation to the American people and their friendly government, especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Embassy of the United States of America in Tunisia, for your unwavering support to our national effort to resist this pandemic crisis with 3 million necessary vaccinations and vital medical aid.
#While we recall with gratitude your joint efforts to strengthen the long-standing and deep foundations of our strategic partnership in our security challenges, especially economic and social challenges, we today look forward more than ever to a solid stance and clear alignment to our common values in support of our fundamental freedoms and the preservation of our young representative democracy. The difficult and complex challenges during this historical juncture exposed our country to real threats to the foundations of its modern state and the modernity values of its ancient republic and its emerging democracy since the coup against the constitution that the President perpetrated on July 25, 2021.
#Since the first days of the coup against the constitution our country has been honored to receive a distinguished group of American legislators and senior officials in the American administration, and the Embassy of the United States of America in Tunisia issued several statements, individually or collectively, accompanied by the embassies of friend countries, in which it expressed its bias to the aspirations of the Tunisian people for the return of the constitutional path, elected institutions and their legitimate right to an elected government in order to lead a broad internal Tunisian national dialogue that includes all political, social and civil components, and leads to the return of legitimate institutions through a collective Tunisian roadmap backed by an international effort to save Tunisia from the specter of bankruptcy Supporting economic recovery efforts …
#We value all these efforts and consider them sincere and commendable.
However, the systematic demolition process led by Mr. Qais Saied of all constitutional and democratic institutions, including the Assembly of the Representatives of the People, the elected government, the Constitutional Law Monitoring Authority, the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Supreme Judicial Council, and last but not least, the Independent High Authority for Elections, in addition to the threat to our political parties and all manifestations of free and independent civil society under the watchful eye of the Tunisian people and international public opinion, and in the absence of any conscious will from the part of Mr. Qais Saeed to save the country and counter the serious financial, economic and social problems facing our country and start any measure of reform to restore the Tunisian economy to the gradual recovery and then the desired growth,
#The Tunisian people invite you and all friends of Tunisia to redouble your efforts to stop this dangerous path that threatens the societal peace and civil stability in Tunisia and destabilizes the state and its institutions in general.
In line with your message in Tunisia today, and the efforts of the American administration to support the aspirations of the Tunisian people in restoring democracy and saving from the real dangers of the complex constitutional, financial, economic and social crisis, we call upon you to:
1- Alert Mr. Qais Saeed of the seriousness of the financial, economic and social risks resulting from the continuation of the state of exception, and the need to end it as soon as possible by signing Law No. 01 of 2022, and stop perusing his personal agenda the failure thereof has become apparent by the little participation in his electronic consultation and the very weak popular support that was clearly demonstrated by the small picket organized by the state on May 08, 2022.
2- Pressure Mr. Qais Saied to review his authoritarian approach and give up his ambiguous form of ruling derived from the bad heritage of Colonel Gaddafi, and to stop all military trials and his personal insistence to bring 121 Tunisian deputies to trial without the slightest constitutional reason Or legal charges that carry the death penalty. And to stop all prosecution procedures against all members of the Assembly of the Representatives of the People, activists and politicians, in order to preserve his reputation as a man of law, and to preserve the values of the Tunisian Republic and the principles of the peaceful Tunisian revolution.
3- We stress the role of Tunisia’s loyal friends in supporting all national efforts and humanitarian aid, for all the constitutional, political, economic, social and civil components of Tunisian society to sit in a broad and comprehensive Tunisian national dialogue, with close follow-up from the Tunisian people through the national media and the components of its active civil society to come up with a constitutional, legislative and political roadmap and urgent rescue measures, then financial, economic and social reforms agreed upon by a broad consensus.
#The Assembly of the Representatives of the People represents a necessary constitutional bridge to ratify it, elect a new government, and then prepare to go to premature presidential and legislative elections under the supervision of the internationally recognized Independent High Authority for Elections.
4- We call on the United States of America, and all the friends of Tunisia, to invite the United Nations, the international community and the financial institutions for an international investment conference to help Tunisia overcome the financial, economic and social dangers it is currently facing and help restore our sustainable development and social justice, and to stop the accelerating decline under the current leadership of Mr. Qais Saeed.
#Maher Medhioub, Assistant to the Speaker of the Assembly of People’s Representatives in the Republic of Tunisia.
Perspectives 0 comments on Let’s pray the ‘Cold War’ between America and Russia doesn’t turn hot

Let’s pray the ‘Cold War’ between America and Russia doesn’t turn hot

Robert Bridge

Robert Bridge 

In April 1947, the term ‘Cold War’ was uttered for the first time to describe the geopolitical rift between the US and the Soviet Union.

The confrontation supposedly ended with the fall of the USSR. But did the cessation of tensions happen only in our imagination?

While Washington and Moscow made invincible allies in the battle against Nazi Germany, the two ideological foes could no longer conceal their mutual enmity when World War II came to a close in 1945. Then, a severe chill swept the planet for nearly half a century that many feared would end in nuclear disaster.

Seventy-five years ago this month, Bertrand Baruch, the American financier and statesman, coined the term ‘Cold War’ to describe this protracted standoff. Speaking before a delegation of US lawmakers, Baruch, foreshadowing the Red Scare of the McCarthy years, told his audience: “Let us not be deceived, we are today in the midst of a cold war. Our enemies are to be found abroad and at home. Let us never forget this: Our unrest is the heart of their success.”

Historians tend to agree that the Cold War began in 1947 with the so-called Truman Doctrine, a program of ‘containment’ against America’s arch enemy as recommended by the US diplomat George Kennan, until December 26, 1991, when the Soviet Union gave up the ghost. Others argue that it actually began as early as 1945 when Washington dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the final days of World War II.

That dreadful act, which took Moscow and the world by surprise, compelled Joseph Stalin to ramp up the Soviet nuclear program. On August 29, 1949, Moscow tested its first nuclear weapon, thereby achieving strategic balance with the US.

It appears that the West doesn’t want peace in Ukraine

Read more

It appears that the West doesn’t want peace in Ukraine

For millions of people around the world, this was the start of the real Cold War, a veritable nightmare out of Dr. Strangelove that saw two nuclear-armed camps locked in an ideological battle over their preferred -isms. In the US, as in the USSR, schoolchildren regularly participated in emergency drills (cowering under wooden desks apparently protected one from radiation) in preparation for the totally unthinkable.

Perhaps the closest the world has ever come to a full-scale nuclear war was during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis (called the ‘Caribbean Crisis’ in Russia), which saw US President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev take nerve-wracking steps to walk away from a standoff without losing face that involved removing American ballistic missiles from Turkey and Soviet missiles from Cuba.

Fast forward 30 years and the USSR was relegated to the history books. What remains questionable, however, is whether the Cold War joined it there, or are we merely living through a continuation of those dark times?

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia faced the monumental challenge of transitioning from a command-and-control economy to a market one. At this point, Russians and Americans put aside their past animosities (personified by the jovial relationship between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin) as Western advisers arrived on the scene to help reform the economy. The fruits of those efforts have been hotly disputed ever since.

Employing the so-called “shock therapy” techniques of IMF-sponsored liberalization, Russia gave up price controls and state subsidies while offering a “loan for shares” scheme for privatizing previously public-owned assets. The end result was, among other disasters, massive inflation, unemployment, endemic poverty, the rise of an oligarchic class and an unprecedented surge in the death rate, which at least one study blamed on the reckless rate of liberalization. Needless to say, this first instance of post-Soviet cooperation between Russia and America did not represent a promising start. Nor would things get better.

Why do Europeans have to sacrifice hot showers to ‘stick it to Putin’?

Read more

Why do Europeans have to sacrifice hot showers to ‘stick it to Putin’?

The pivotal moment in modern US-Russia relations came following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Despite Vladimir Putin being the first global leader to telephone US President George W. Bush and offer Russia’s unconditional support, Washington returned the gesture in a way that Moscow would not soon forget. Just a few short months later December 13, 2001, Bush gave formal notice that the US would be withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Signed by Moscow and Washington in 1972, the ABM treaty maintained strategic parity – and more importantly, peace – between the nuclear powers, a type of balancing act that has been described as ‘mutually assured destruction’.

What did the US proceed to do shortly after walking away from the 30-year-old treaty? It went ahead with plans to bolt down a sophisticated anti-ballistic missile system in Poland, a mere stone’s throw from the Russian border. To which they deployed soldiers this year.

“The U.S. Navy recently moved sailors aboard its newest base, a strategic installation in northern Poland that will support NATO’s European missile defense system,” Stars & Stripes reported in January. “Citing operational security, the Navy would not say how many personnel were assigned to the base or provide … details about the installation’s size or structure.”

Last year, Mikhail Khodarenok, a retired Russian colonel, discussed in an RT op-ed what this system means for Russia and European security.

“The development of the Aegis Ashore complex in Poland worries Russia,” Khodarenok wrote“Here is the problem. The Mark 41 launching system can be quickly adjusted, and the SM-3 would be replaced with Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles.”

'I couldn't comprehend why we were there': Many Americans hated the Vietnam War but then forgot about it

Read more

‘I couldn’t comprehend why we were there’: Many Americans hated the Vietnam War but then forgot about it

“What is Russia supposed to do in this situation, when such a transformation of the land-based Aegis system in Poland could pose a very real threat to its national security,” he asked.

Nobody should think, however, that Moscow has not been busy finding ways to respond to the US and NATO efforts at building anti-ballistic systems in Eastern Europe. In fact, Moscow immediately got to work on ways to overcome the US anti-missile systems once Washington pulled out of the ABM Treaty. Those efforts paid off in ways that the US may not have anticipated.

In 2018, Putin delivered a rather unorthodox State of the Nation speech in which he announced the creation of hypersonic missiles that travel so fast that “missile defense systems are useless against them, absolutely pointless,” he said.

“No, nobody really wanted to talk to us about the core of the problem [US anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe], and nobody wanted to listen to us,” the Russian leader stated defiantly. “So listen now.”

Moscow’s concern over the strategic military architecture being constructed in its ‘near abroad’ is no secret. Back in 2007, Putin delivered a speech to the Munich Security Conference in which he emphasized that for Russia, NATO expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.” He went on to ask the rhetorical question: “against whom is this expansion intended?”

At this point, many more pages could be written on other areas of US-Russian relations that demonstrate the two nuclear superpowers may have survived the Soviet times, each in their own way, but the vestiges of the Cold War continue to live on. From unproven accusations that Russia interfered in the 2016 US presidential election to Washington’s unconcealed displeasure over Russia’s decision to intervene in the Syrian civil war against Islamic State, tensions between the US and Russia are reverting back to Cold War levels, and then some.

And now, with hostilities in Ukraine threatening to spill over into something beyond control, it may be a good time to pray that it remains a Cold War and doesn’t turn hot.

opinion 0 comments on Tunisia’s political crisis: Between autocracy and economic collapse

Tunisia’s political crisis: Between autocracy and economic collapse

President Kais Saied has dissolved the parliament of Tunisia, eight months after he suspended it in a power grab last summer, deepening the political and institutional turmoil in the north African country. The move comes as Saied prepares to overhaul the political system while taking the country down a risky road back toward autocracy.

The abrupt move, the latest in a series of increasingly authoritarian decisions by Saied, came after a quorum of MPs held a virtual session in defiance of the parliamentary suspension and voted to repeal presidential decrees that cemented the head of state’s one-man rule.

He justified the decision by invoking Article 72 of the Tunisian charter, which stipulates his role as guarantor of state’s “independence and continuity” and “respect for the constitution”. However, under Article 80, parliament cannot be dissolved if the president holds “exceptional powers.”

Since 25 July 2021, President Saied has seized legislative and executive powers and disbanded an independent judicial council in what his rivals have labelled as a coup, threatening democracy in the birthplace of the 2011 Arab uprisings. Under a presidential ruling, issued on 22 September, he suspended much of the 2014 Constitution and entitled himself to rule and legislate by decree.

“President Saied has seized legislative and executive powers and disbanded an independent judicial council in what his rivals have labelled as a coup, threatening democracy in the birthplace of the 2011 Arab uprisings”

Shortly after the announced dissolution, the president ordered investigations against the 121 parliamentarians who attended the online plenary session, accusing them of “conspiring against the state’s security”, which prompted anti-terrorism police to start summoning the participating deputies for questioning.

The threats of bulk legal action against the more than half of the members of parliament on charges that risk carrying the death penalty signalled a new escalation in Saied’s crackdown on the opposition as more political parties have been more openly confronting him.

Although many Tunisians welcomed the president’s decision to dissolve the legislative body, expressing distrust in their elected representatives, many too have been critical as he has seized more power.

In July, the head of state received overwhelming support from ordinary Tunisians when he froze the largely unpopular parliament, which he blamed for years of political paralysis and economic stagnation.

While Saied retains public support, more citizens have shown apathy vis à vis his project of rewriting the constitution with the economy sinking and food prices rising.

Tunisians protest against President Kais Saied's seizure of governing powers near the parliamentary headquarters in Tunis on March 20, 2022. [Getty]
Tunisians protest against President Kais Saied’s seizure of governing powers near the parliamentary headquarters in Tunis on March 20, 2022. [Getty]

The national e-consultation on a new constitution launched in January only saw 5 percent participation of the electorate, a disappointingly low turnout analysts attribute to popular fatigue and the increasing disapproval of the chief of state who has so far proved incapable of improving the country’s situation despite he promised to tackle political corruption and prioritise economic growth.

Adding to that, Tunisians have been severely affected by delays to salary payments, shortages of wheat-based staples and medicines and soaring food prices in the past weeks.

Though decreeing the dissolution of the assembly should trigger a new legislative vote to be held within 90 days, as constitutionally required, Saied stressed that he will stick to his roadmap to draft a new constitution which will be put to a national referendum on 25 July, and maintain the 17 December date for a parliamentary poll.

In the current environment, analysts believe that this would very likely lead to unfree and unfair elections resulting in a parliament aligned with the presidency. Various parties and civil society groups have been united in calling for early elections within three months.

Saied’s order to terminate the parliament has further put Tunisia’s democratic future in doubt. What is going to happen regarding the political system is thought to depend on how capable civil society and other major players will be in striking a balance between the president and the opposition.

Observers say one main variable that may play a decisive role is the powerful UGTT labour union which, despite criticising Saied’s measures, has been broadly supportive. It backed the president’s latest action describing it as “necessary”, but also demanded that he end his accumulation of powers and resume the course of democracy. The trade union leadership could gain his consent to hold a national dialogue, but whether the process will be inclusive remains the crucial question.

In recent days, the Tunisian leader said he would only talk to parties that were not responsible for the country’s crisis, an approach the labour union has rejected. To what extent he may be willing to negotiate with all political parties along with civil society organisations is still unclear.

The union has leverage over mediating a resolution. According to Riadh Guerfali, a Tunisian lawyer and human rights activist, the regional and local UGTT branches, rather than the union’s national executive board, could potentially play a major part to that effect.

“To what extent [Saied] may be willing to negotiate with all political parties along with civil society organisations is still unclear”

“The UGTT can act as an arbiter in the current political standoff if it preserves its neutrality,” Guerfali told The New Arab.

Analysts believe the other variable to watch in the coming period is the army, which has until now mainly favoured Saied’s moves. The chief of state is relying on the support of the security forces as he becomes increasingly isolated, and while the military establishment seems to back his power grab, it does not necessarily stand by him unequivocally.

“Saied’s options to crush Tunisia parliament are not as wide-ranging as he suggests. Army is not wholeheartedly with the coup. If MPs hold their nerves and close their ranks, they can push Saied into corner”, Sami Hamdi, Editor-in-Chief of the International Interest, tweeted last week.

As explicitly stated in Article 18 of the constitution, the army is “required to remain completely impartial”. But since 25 July the parliament building has remained closed off and guarded by security forces, preventing its elected members from entering. The military has the power to restore access to its members, yet it is hard to predict what its position will be.

Guerfali explained that it is essential that the military keep away from political matters, adding that the only “red line” would be resorting to force in the event of protests.

“The army must stay out of politics and adhere to its role of defending the nation. Though it can disobey orders from the president when asked to fire on protesters”, he underscored.

How the trade unions and the military are going to behave is uncertain, the civil society member pointed out.

Last week’s developments risk not only exacerbating polarisation in Tunisian politics but also further complicating the situation in terms of obtaining a rescue package amid ongoing talks with the IMF over a $4 billion loan. An agreement would involve austerity measures such as subsidy cuts and a public sector wage freeze, which the UGTT has already rebuffed.

Several economists warn that the country will be forced to default on its debts if it does not quickly agree on a deal with the fund.

“The country is passing through its worst economic crisis in recent history, and many ordinary citizens are struggling to afford basic necessities”

Credit rating agency Fitch forecasts Tunisia’s public debt to GDP to reach 84 per cent this year. Earlier this month, it downgraded its sovereign debt rating to junk status. The country is passing through its worst economic crisis in recent history, and many ordinary citizens are struggling to afford basic necessities.

Tunisia’s key partners, particularly the United States, the EU and its member states have called on Saied to return the country to its democratic path. International donors have clearly required a more inclusive and participatory dialogue that should take place ahead of his planned constitutional referendum.

Yet, if Saied continues to discard an inclusive political process, external partners will likely consider withholding assistance or oppose an IMF deal. The US has the power to block a possible agreement if it wants to.

Exerting economic pressure on the Tunisian government could also lead to reductions in bilateral funds. The European Commission recently announced that it would lend Tunisia’s government €450 million in budget support. Either losing European financial assistance or failing to secure a loan would expectedly hit the Tunisian people harshly.

“Kais Saied’s plan for transition is raising concerns among international donors. If the US were to block a rescue package, such a move could spark protests across the country,” Nate Grubman, a teaching fellow in Civic, Liberal and Global Education at Stanford University, said to The New Arab.

For Grubman, if social tensions continue to build up in the short to medium term, the UGTT will become an increasingly key partner for the president who may at that point accept to sit down with the relevant parties and discuss the country’s pressing problems.

“There seems to be declining enthusiasm for Saied’s political project as Tunisians are more concerned about what he could offer for addressing social and economic issues. That created a little extra space for Western powers to criticise his actions,” he contended.

On the other hand, Grubman maintained that the opposition, however growing, remains divided and has not put forth, to date, a “credible and broadly supported alternative” to Mr Saied’s plan which he believes makes it difficult for Western states to put more pressure on the country’s leader.

 

THE NEW ARAB

By Alessandra Bajec