Perspectives: OPEC+ and U.S.-Saudi Relations

A Fractious, if Enduring Partnership

Professor David Des Roches, Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Gulf International Forum and an Associate Professor at Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies

Like any close bilateral relationship, the U.S.-Saudi partnership has experienced peaks and troughs, and due to misperceptions on both sides, Washington and Riyadh are currently in a trough. The Biden administration believed that meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in July would wipe the slate clean and return relations to a familiar pattern, wherein the Kingdom responds favorably to American requests regarding the global oil market. The Saudis, on the other hand, seem to feel that Biden’s discussion of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi immediately after the meeting was a breach of protocol, negating any positive effect the meeting may have had. The Biden team returned to Washington, having irritated much of their domestic base while mistakenly feeling they had improved their relationship with the Kingdom when in reality they had not.

On the other hand, the Saudis seem to have once again mistaken their demonstrable influence in American security and foreign policy circles for influence over America at large. Outside of narrow government and foreign policy elites, there is no constituency in America —outside of narrow government and foreign policy elites—that is sympathetic to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis also appear to have missed the widely held American conviction that high energy prices only bolster Vladimir Putin, and maintaining these high prices serves only to perpetuate Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The pressures of upcoming midterm elections have only exacerbated the rift between Washington and Riyadh. The upcoming vote has always looked difficult for the ruling Democratic Party—the opposition party has gained ground in every midterm election since 2006— but now price increases in that most inelastic and price-visible commodity, gasoline, have only fueled their electoral worries. Having prematurely drawn from the strategic petroleum reserve over the summer, the Biden administration appears to have no option other than to weather the storm. This is cold comfort for legislators such as Rep. Tom Malinowski, who is considered by pollsters to be the most vulnerable Democratic member of Congress and who, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, has proposed legislation aimed at curtailing U.S.-Saudi ties. More reckless legislation has been proposed in Congress by other legislators, most of whom lack Malinowski’s long commitment to human rights work, in the full knowledge that these performative acts stand little chance of passage.

When misperceptions collide, the results are rarely pretty. Both sides will feel aggrieved and may speak out against each other in less-than-diplomatic terms. Bills that restrict the United States’ relations with the Kingdom will be opposed by the administration on institutional grounds, as the executive generally resists restrictions on its conduct of foreign policy. The few Saudis who speak on behalf of the Kingdom’s leadership will continue their customary silence. Both sides recognize the strategic importance of the bilateral relationship, and both sides know that the relationship is one based on interests, not sentiment, and that the partnership must endure moments of friction and disagreement such as this.

At the same time, both sides must remain free to signal their displeasure to the other, as well as to their respective publics. The difficulty both sides face lies in announcing dissatisfaction without causing permanent damage to the relationship. It is unlikely that drastic actions that permanently alter relations will take place today; the U.S.-Saudi partnership has been carefully developed and maintained over decades, and survived extreme Congressional and bureaucratic scrutiny in the past. Observers can expect to see the suspension of high-level visits and talks, which many within the U.S. government already regard as burdensome and ineffective. Though cold winds may be blowing now, this weather will change with a new season, and the shared interests which bind the United States and the Kingdom will continue to bring the two countries together. The relationship may need calibration, but it will endure.

Little Time, Even Less Political Capital

Dr. Courtney Freer, Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Gulf International Forum and Provost’s Postdoctoral Fellow at Emory University

In light of the recent U.S.-Saudi spat over oil prices, Saudi Arabia has two paths forward. Riyadh may continue its policy of determining oil production and pricing independent of Washington, while deflecting criticism that this policy aims to influence American domestic politics, or it may side more decisively with Russia to achieve its own economic and geostrategic objectives. The problem is, however, that the trust deficit between the two countries has grown so great that either course of action is unlikely to change U.S. perceptions. Indeed, the Saudi delegation at the UN General Assembly last month voted in favor of a U.S.-drafted resolution condemning Russia’s invasion, occupation, and annexation of parts of Ukraine. Earlier this month, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman promised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky $400 million in non-lethal humanitarian aid. In spite of these actions, seemingly calibrated toward currying favor in the United States as much as helping Ukraine, American political leaders and media institutions have continued to argue that the recent OPEC+ production cuts have imperiled the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

In an attempt to move beyond the recent impasse, the Saudi leadership could try to change the conversation about the U.S.-Saudi strategic partnership, as the bilateral relationship rests on shared strategic interests, not simply oil prices. Focusing on multilateral security cooperation in the Gulf, or attempting to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, could be useful in this regard. Thus far, however, each side seems insistent on emphasizing its right to pursue independent and self-serving foreign policies, rather than seeking a means to work through their differences.

The Twilight of American Power in the Gulf

Dr. Mohammad Alrumaihi, Former Advisor for Kuwait’s Council of Ministers and Professor at Kuwait University and Professor of Sociology at Kuwait University

The current diplomatic crisis between the United States and Saudi Arabia over the price of oil is not the first bilateral schism and will not be the last. In the 1980s, I published a volume that analyzed the politics of oil and international relations. The work discussed the relationships between oil-producing countries and British and American oil companies, with an emphasis on how interests affected the durability of these relations. Production of oil in the last century was subject to the whims of British and American oil companies. This dynamic had a significant impact on the relations between the West and non-Western oil-producing states. For instance, in the last century when Saudi Arabia requested that the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) reallocate oil dividends more fairly, Aramco agreed. However, when other oil producing countries made similar requests of British oil companies, they were often rejected. This deprived these fledgling states of economic resources vital to their development. In turn, oil-producing states suffered from political unrest and revolutions, and they often took the drastic step of nationalizing their oil sectors. During this era, the U.S. was at the peak of its power in the Middle East and was comfortable making concessions and reaching compromises with the states it favored. By contrast, the UK was a declining power—a fact that led to intransigence from London, which felt that it had to preserve its fleeting status through tough negotiations and stonewalling.

Today, the U.S. is acting like the UK of the 20th century. In its dealings within the Middle East, it has been stubborn, loath to compromise, and suspicious of a wider erosion of American power. The last few administrations have exhibited an increasing tendency toward obstinacy. Many internal and international developments—the rise of China, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and domestic inflation chief among them—have led to the relative decline of American power, prompting Washington’s harsh reaction to the OPEC+ oil production cuts.

It is also noteworthy that Saudi Arabia is only one of 14 countries in OPEC+. In their public statements, Saudi officials have emphasized the collective decision-making of the group and argued that Riyadh has been unfairly singled out for criticism by Washington. At the same time, the United States continues to benefit from increased natural gas exports to Europe while gas prices are at a record high, leading some U.S. partners in Europe to complain about high U.S. gas prices.

In the end, the overreaction to the OPEC+ decision is the clearest indication yet of a political bubble that has enveloped Washington. If the Biden administration views the OPEC+ production cuts as a tool to weaken the White House ahead of the midterm elections, it has sorely misjudged the situation.

What to Expect From the Re-evaluation of U.S.-Saudi Ties

Charles W. Dunne, Non-Resident Scholar at the Middle East Institute

Is this a crisis point in US-Saudi relations? President Joe Biden promised to review bilateral relations with the Kingdom after it recently sided with Russia within OPEC+ to restrict global oil supplies, ignoring pleas from Washington to delay the move. The Saudis, in their own passive-aggressive way, have made clear their disdain for Biden, and today appear to be drawing closer to both Russia and China. The fabric of bilateral relations between the two long-term partners has been frayed as never before. Where do the United States and Saudi Arabia go from here?

If it is to be taken seriously by Riyadh, the Biden administration must make good on its pledge to impose “consequences” for the OPEC+ decision. There are a number of levers Washington could pull to punish Saudi Arabia. Suspending all arms sales while reviewing whether these support broader U.S. regional goals, instead of simply fulfilling royal wish lists, would be one course of action. Another would be a serious, public consideration of downsizing the U.S. military and training presence in the Kingdom and transferring assets elsewhere in the region—, for example to Qatar, which already hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East and was recently declared a major non-NATO ally. A third would see the United States push back more aggressively against Saudi repression at home and intimidation of dissidents abroad, both of which are affronts to international human rights standards and the Biden administration’s foreign policy goals. Such actions should be accompanied by a comprehensive review of the overall Saudi-American political-military relationship, analyzing whether it continues to serve U.S. interests to the extent it once did.

We should not expect fundamental changes to America’s relationship with the Kingdom, however. The accumulated weight of decades of U.S. acquiescence to Riyadh’s wishes, and the largely unquestioned linkage of U.S. and Saudi interests, may prove highly resistant to strategic restructuring. In spite of surface-level tensions between Washington and Riyadh, most policymakers at the State Department and the National Security Council continue to assume that Riyadh remains an indispensable bulwark of regional stability and will obligingly support the United States on the most important issues. These voices find support from the U.S. defense industry, as well as the dozens of former senior American military officials who have found lucrative employment in the service of the Kingdom. In any case, the Biden administration’s promised “review” of U.S.-Saudi relations appears to have no structure, momentum, or timetable at present, and may very well fail to get off the ground.

One thing is certain: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is undertaking his own re-evaluation of the bilateral relationship, and he appears to be working from a different set of assumptions. Biden and his administration would do well to hasten their own review before MBS makes all the decisions for them.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Gulf International Forum.

News, opinion 0

Usa secretary of defense : We will support Tunisia…

U.S. Africa Command is a small combatant command with a large mission that they are doing deftly, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said today at the command’s headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.

Austin and Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke as Army Gen. Stephen J. Townsend turned over command to Marine Corps Gen. Michael E. Langley.

1:21:34PlayVideo Player

The command is only 15 years old and has embraced its mission of “working shoulder-to-shoulder with our partners” to make all nations safer and more prosperous, Austin said.

America’s most important advantage is its unparalleled network of allies and partners that is at the heart of U.S. National Defense Strategy.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III delivers remarks.

Africa is a huge and diverse continent with hundreds of languages, multiple ethnic backgrounds, different religions and a range of cultures. The nations of the continent have much promise, but also face many threats. “The continent is on the front lines of many of this century’s most pressing threats — from mass migration to food insecurity, from COVID-19 to the climate crisis, from the drumbeat of autocracy to the dangers of terrorism,” Austin said. “These challenges threaten us all together. So, we must tackle them all together.”

Africom is a prominent portion of this effort alongside U.S. partners from the State Department, the Agency for International Development and more, Austin said. “Every day, Africom works alongside our friends as full partners — to strengthen bonds, to tackle common threats and to advance a shared vision of an Africa whose people are safe, prosperous and free to choose their own future,” he said. “We’ve seen the power of partnership in Somalia, where Africom supports our partners as they lead the fight against al-Shabaab. That cooperation is especially crucial as its attacks on civilians grow more lethal, brazen and cruel.”

A service member climbs across rope as fellow service members watch.

Al-Shabaab is only one terrorist threat on the continent. There are many groups — including al-Qaida and the Islamic States — exploiting weak governance and political turmoil in the Sahel region that stretches across the continent just south of the Sahara Desert. “These groups have taken thousands of lives — and the havoc that they cause threatens to spill across borders to undermine security in Southern Europe and beyond,” Austin said.

Africom is also supporting other efforts to make Africa safer including efforts to unlock the continent’s opportunities, to deepen military interoperability and build stronger democratic institutions. “This work isn’t easy,” the secretary said. “Across Africa, those who support democracy, freedom and the rule of law are battling the forces of autocracy, chaos and corruption.”

He specifically mentioned Tunisia where events are working against the dream of self-government. “But the United States stands committed to supporting our friends in Tunisia — and anywhere in Africa — who are trying to forge open, accountable, and inclusive democracies,” Austin said.

Two men face each other holding a flag.

Every day, Africom works alongside our friends as full partners — to strengthen bonds, to tackle common threats and to advance a shared vision of an Africa whose people are safe, prosperous and free to choose their own future.”

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III

In other parts of Africa, there are other threats to democracy. In some nations, leaders are cracking down on civil liberties, giving in to corruption or stifling the will of the people. And some African militaries have pushed out civilian governments. “Let’s be clear: a military exists to serve its people — not the other way around,” Austin said. “And militaries must play their legitimate role. That means defending human rights and protecting the rule of law, not toppling civilian governments and wallowing in corruption.”

Soldiers move through desert terrain while green smoke rises behind them.

The secretary said it is particularly important now as “autocracy is on the march around the world, and that includes outsiders who are working to tighten their grip on the continent.”

The People’s Republic of China is expanding its military footprint, seeking to build bases in Africa and undermine U.S. relations with African peoples, governments and militaries, the secretary said. “Meanwhile, Russia is peddling cheap weapons and backing mercenary forces. That’s yet another reminder of Moscow’s willingness to sow chaos and threaten the rules-based international order — and it goes far beyond [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s reckless invasion of Ukraine.”

Four aircraft fly in formation.

Africa deserves the protections of the international rules and norms that advance safety and prosperity for all. “That gives the nations of Africa a clear-eyed choice of partners,” Austin said.

Milley stressed that Africom works to counter terrorist networks that challenge freedom and stability with a small footprint. The chairman called the command “responsive and adaptive” well able to cope with the changing landscape on the ground. “This command acts at the speed of relevance,” the general said.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III shakes hands with Marine Corps Gen. Michael E. Langley.

Africom continues to thwart the Islamic State and al-Qaida and other terror groups, he said. Much of the action is taken by partner nations with help and training from Africom including U.S. Army security force assistance brigades, special forces soldiers executing joint combined exercise training programs, and from the U.S. National Guard working through state partnership programs.

In his remarks, Townsend said his three years in Africom have been an education. “Africa is fascinating — the continent is big, complex and diverse,” he said. “America cannot afford to ignore Africa. The continent is full of potential but also full of challenges and it’s standing at a historic crossroads. On one side is authoritarianism and foreign malign influence, along with the terrorism and food and economic insecurity that goes with it. On the other side is peace, security, democracy, development and rule of law. Africa’s future will have global impact.”

Soldiers operate a mortar system at night creating a small explosion.

Africom must continue to work with allies, partners and inter-agencies across the continent to secure enduring peace and prosperity — for Africa and for America. “America’s future security, and I believe prosperity, depends on a more secure and prosperous Africa,” he said. “A few bucks and a few troops can go a long way there — we can afford it.”

The change of command ceremony was itself significant. A senior defense official traveling with Austin told reporters that African leaders see an African-American secretary of defense, an African-American commander of U.S. Africa Command and a deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs of African descent.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III meets with service members.

“There’s probably a sense that they have a connection to the diaspora that they should be tapping into,” the official said. African leaders see these leaders “focusing on the security challenges which are most important to our African partners.”

Langley kept his remarks on point. He thanked Townsend for his efforts at the command and vowed to continue the work to build partnerships in Africa.

Langley’s father — an Air Force master sergeant — raised the general and his three siblings alone after the general’s mother died. “Dad, this one’s for you,” the general said.

Related Speech: Remarks by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III at U.S. Africa Command’s Change of Command Ceremony (As Delivered)

Related News Release: Readout of Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III’s Visit to United States Africa Command

austin defense secretary africa command marine corps

Subscribe to Defense.gov Products

Choose which Defense.gov products you want delivered to your inbox.

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

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

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)

News, opinion 0

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.

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.

News, opinion, Perspectives 0

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

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

Home World News

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 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.

@BradBlank_

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.

OPED

You can share this story on social media:

Trends:Global warming US US Supreme Court

RT Features

Dmitri Trenin: Russia has made a decisive break with the West and is ready to help shape a new world order FEATURE

Nuclear family: How Ukraine helped North Korea develop the world’s deadliest weapons FEATURE

‘Russian-speakers will be second-class citizens unless they give up their language’: A view on Ukraine’s future from Donbass FEATURE

Podcasts

All podcasts

No faith in politics? Hussein Solomon, Senior Professor, Department of Political Science, University of the Free State

0:00

28:59

CrossTalk, HOME EDITION: EU-NATO circus

0:00

26:24

News, opinion, Perspectives 0

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:

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

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).

Watch Video

Shadi Hamid

Senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, and an assistant research professor of Islamic studies at Fuller Seminary

Watch Video

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.

Watch Video

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).

Watch Video

Interviews, News, opinion 0

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.

U.S. Department of State

Sec Antony J Blinken

U.S. Embassy Tunisa

#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.

News 0

European Parliament to Hold Consultations on Political Reforms in Tunisia

Members of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee will travel to Tunis for consultations on Tunisia’s path towards political reforms and a return to institutional stability.

During the visit, from April 11-13, a high-level delegation of the European Parliament will meet the Tunisian president, representatives of the government, political parties, and civil society to discuss how the EU can continue to support Tunisia in the process of political reform and democratic consolidation.

This ad-hoc delegation will also provide the opportunity to discuss with relevant interlocutors if and how the European Parliament can support Tunisia in preparing for the planned elections at the end of 2022.

In addition, the delegation will pay special attention to the economic situation in Tunisia and on how the EU can best support Tunisian authorities in the implementation of economic reforms for the benefit of all Tunisians in light of the economic and food security crises, the global pandemic and the effects of the Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Due to the suspension of the parliament, Tunisian authorities, and several parties loyal to the president had previously rejected a similar visit by European Parliament members to the country.

Category: News

Perspectives: OPEC+ and U.S.-Saudi Relations

Usa secretary of defense : We will support Tunisia…

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

Putin claims progress made in talks over lifting Ukrainian wheat blockade

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

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

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

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

Top stories

RT Features

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

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

European Parliament to Hold Consultations on Political Reforms in Tunisia

Members of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee will travel to Tunis for consultations on Tunisia’s path towards political reforms and a return to institutional stability.

This ad-hoc delegation will also provide the opportunity to discuss with relevant interlocutors if and how the European Parliament can support Tunisia in preparing for the planned elections at the end of 2022.

Due to the suspension of the parliament, Tunisian authorities, and several parties loyal to the president had previously rejected a similar visit by European Parliament members to the country.

They viewed the visit as meddling in Tunisia’s internal affairs.