Libya, Turkey and us

After Syria, Libya has become the new confrontation ground between Russia and Turkey. In both cases, confrontation means bullets, military deployments, and death. In Libya, Russia supports the Benghazi-based Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and his forces, whilst Turkey has come into the country to fight side by side with the Tripoli-based Unitary provisional government, led by Fayez al-Sarraj. For the time being, the Turkish side of the conflict has gained more ground than the men Moscow has bet on.

 All this has a strategic impact on Europe and should be seen with great concern. Any decision and any critical move by these two countries might become a serious threat to Europe’s stability and security. Vladimir Putin and Recep Erdogan are no friends of Europe. I say so, and at the same time, I do not forget that the latter is the leader of a country that is a member of the NATO Alliance. Erdogan is the peril within.

First, the confrontation between both can bring Europe into a clash with Russia if Turkey invokes its membership of NATO and calls for assistance. However, I am not particularly worried by such possibility as I expect the key leaders of the Alliance to find a way of saying no to a Turkish request for assistance against Russia. Therefore, this prospect is rather remote.

The real problem is that President Erdogan is now in control of the two main migratory routes that bring illegal immigrants into the European Union. The Eastern one runs through his own country and he knows how to make use of it to put pressure on the European politicians. And now, being heavily present in Tripoli and the surrounded areas, his men and their Libyan allies are in command of the Central Mediterranean migratory lane. That gives President Erdogan enormous leverage when dealing with European countries. Mass migration remains a major issue that can seriously undermine the unity and the continuation of the EU. The Turkish President knows it and will keep playing that destabilising card to his own advantage.

Here, like in other areas, the EU foreign policy is being outsmarted by our adversaries.

The health challenges in the refugee camps

How is the coronavirus situation in the refugee camps around Syria? What is the risk level? Are the host governments, the UN and the NGOs prepared to deal with such threat?

I do not have an answer to these questions. And I am afraid we have lost sight of them, as well.

President Erdogan's visit to Brussels

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was in Brussels today.

First, he met the Secretary-General of NATO. He got a very simple message. NATO is already doing quite a bit for Turkey, in terms of deployment of radars and other means of defence. But it can’t do much more, particularly in support of Turkey’s campaign inside Syria. That would bring the Organization, sooner or later, into a direct clash with Russia. Nobody within the Alliance wants that to happen. Moreover, many within NATO are yet to understand the special defence relationship President Erdogan has developed with the Russian President. He seems to have one foot in NATO and the other in Moscow. That’s certainly a strange policy.

Second, he spent time with the EU leaders, Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen. The meeting came to no real conclusion. There is little love left within the EU for Erdogan’s actions, in particular for his manipulation of the migrant and refugee populations. Erdogan is seen by many as a problem, a big challenge at the gates of Europe.

If there is one conclusion to take from the visit, I would say that in Europe there is no trust on President Erdogan’s ambitions. That should be clearly stated.

Immigrants at the EU gates

Political pundits keep repeating, since the massive arrival of immigrants and refugees in 2015, that the European Union has no unified policy on the matter. And it is true, in so many ways. Mass immigration and refugee flows are issues that have a serious impact on the stability and moderation of the EU. But there is no overall agreement among the member States on how to deal with the issues. The approach has been to sweep it under the carpet and let the frontline countries manage the challenge. That’s what has happened with Italy and Greece, among others. They were left alone with the problems and no real EU support.

What’s happening now at the Greek-Turkish border adds another element to such approach. Close the border crossings, respond by deploying large numbers of police and soldiers, keep the immigrants on the other side of the barbed wire. That is the policy, a policy that is closer to a common one. A no-entry policy.

But is it sustainable? That’s one of the key questions. The other one is about the humanity of such policy. Is it coherent with the values we say we defend? Third point: can we rely of dictators and other strong men, when we ask them to keep the refugees in their countries and add to that a few billions to pay for the camps?

I recognise this is a complex matter. And I see, once again, that when the issue is complicated, we tend to use a hammer to sort it out.

A challenging March

As we get into March, we can be sure we will have major challenges in front of us. The coronavirus will probably be the most critical. It has all the key ingredients to confuse many of us. People will keep pressing the panic button and the political leaders will be jumping in all directions, just to show to the citizens that they are moving as required. Then, there will be the economic impact. On the economic side, the crisis can be multifaceted. There will be less demand, the supply chains will be disrupted, and many enterprises will face serious cash problems. In addition, the stocks will not be able to recover the immense value that has been lost during the past week and probably the week ahead.

Obviously, the health systems will be under serious stress. They will become distorted as much of the resources will be focused on the Covid-19 pandemic.

Adding to the above, we will see an escalation of the conflict between Turkey and Syria, supported by Russia, a new migratory crisis and a Brexit on the rocks.

This is a time that calls for a new type of leadership.

Assad and Erdogan meet in Idlib

Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his Russian friends have been planning the Idlib campaign since December. He does not know about negotiations and compromises. Assad only understands the language of force, the crushing of his opponents. Therefore, he can only trust what comes from a military victory. His Russian supporters follow the same political philosophy. Politics is about absolute power. That’s why all of them are so committed to the Idlib war campaign.

The Russians control the air space. That gives a major advantage to Assad’s troops. They follow the bombings and complete the groundwork. The civilian population is caught in between the bombs – they fall all over, including on hospitals and school buildings – and the foot soldiers. People are also trapped by the rebel groups that have sought a final refuge in the province. The result is widespread human agony, disruption, and death.

The Turkish army has deployed to the province as well. They have about twelve positions in this corner of Syria. That was President Erdogan’s decision. He thought the Syrian army and the Russians would refrain from attacking Idlib because of the Turkish presence. And that would help the rebel groups that are allied to the Turks. In addition, it would keep the internal displacements to a minimum. Mistake. The military offensive keeps moving forward, the populations are displaced and trying to beat death daily. And now, the Turkish soldiers are being targeted as well. They will remain in Assad’s crosshairs. Assad knows he can count on Vladimir Putin’s backing. He also knows that Erdogan has very few powerful friends in the international circles. Erdogan’s ambition and arrogance ended up by isolating him.

Erdogan has only one option. To withdraw from Idlib and let the local refugees cross into his country. The rebels will come along with them to escape the Assad troops. And soon or later the confrontation will resume.

Just about Idlib in Syria

We cannot forget the human crisis that is taking place in the Idlib Province of Syria. The international headlines have been focused on the coronavirus epidemic. When that happens, the media becomes too obsessed with one theme, that is treated from every angle and with plenty of unnecessary details and erases other major issues from the screen. Idlib should remain within our radar. There is tremendous suffering going on over there.

Idlib and the divided Security Council

The UN Security Council today met on Syria. One more meeting for nothing. The humanitarian situation in the Idlib Province is desperate for around 900,000 people, many of them children. That was one of the reasons for the meeting. The other is that a growing military offensive is under way. The leadership in Damascus is convinced that they can win and retake the province. For Assad, there is only one solution to the rebellion, a military one. His allies, the Russians, share the same view. And that is what is being implemented.

The Council could have adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire. It did not happen. The Russians have opposed it. The only thing the Council did was to recall the peace process it had approved four years ago, in December 2015, and insist on its implementation. That’s a ridiculous approach. Today’s situation is very different from the one in 2015. For instance, now there is a heavy involvement of Turkey in this corner of Syria. There is a serious risk of clashes, even confrontation, between the two sides. That means, there is an enormous potential for escalation. That and the humanitarian crisis are the two dimensions that require immediate attention.

But the UN Security Council is too divided. The bet must be placed in another forum.

Idlib and its humanitarian tragedy

Today, I must write about the situation in the Idlib Province of Syria. Following the military operations ordered by President Bashar al-Assad and supported by the Russian air force, there is a major humanitarian crisis in Idlib. Hundreds of thousands of people – the more accurate figure must be close to a million – are just caught in between the advancing regime forces and the border with Turkey, that remains closed. These people require urgent assistance. The UN and the key NGOs could provide much of needed help but can’t operate when there are bombardments going on. We must advocate for a temporary halt. And let the civilians move on.

This tragedy should be brought to the attention of the UN Security Council. I have no illusion about the Council. But I think the European countries that sit in the Council should urgently table the situation. That’s a moral move. A necessary one. It might also get us to a short humanitarian window of opportunity.

No to Erdogan's resettlement plan

President Erdogan of Turkey wants to repatriate a large number of Syrian refugees. His plan is to create several resettlement camps on the Syrian side of the border, in the “safe zone” his troops control, between the towns of Tel Abyad and Ras al-Ain.

He is putting a lot of pressure on the UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The President wants the Secretary-General to bless the plan and convene a donor meeting to raise money for its implementation. Erdogan met Guterres yesterday and the meeting was vintage Erdogan: either the UN does it, or I will.

Things do not work like that when it comes to repatriation of refugees and the role of the UN. The Secretary-General must make it clear. Repatriation must take place on a voluntary basis, with strong security guarantees, and it cannot disturb the very fragile ethnic balances that define Northern Syria. It is also true that traditional donors are not ready to finance any plan imposed by force. But that is not the key issue. The point is that people must be willing to go back. I am sure that point is not met today.

Supporting the Kurdish people in Syria

Turkey’s military invasion of North-Eastern Syria is illegal, from the international law perspective. It is also a tremendous political mistake, with many possible consequences. I have not seen a single country, among those who matter in international affairs and in the region, that has supported President Erdogan’s decision.

In this kind of dangerous military interventions experience has taught us that we know when the operation starts but nobody can predict when it will end. Erdogan’s people can find themselves caught in a never-ending drama.

Moreover, the Kurds of Syria have been brave allies of the anti-terrorist forces that have fought the Islamic State criminals. They have generated a very important capital of sympathy in Europe and the US. It is not only that we are indebted to their courage and fighting spirit. It is also that we all recognise that they have created a space of tranquillity and some type of normalcy in a country that has been in chaos. It is that order that President Erdogan is now destroying with his heavy artillery and fighter planes.

It is unacceptable.

The situation in Northeastern Syria

At the end of the day, there is a lot of confusion regarding what could be next in Northern Syria, at the border with Turkey.

Over the weekend, the US President seems to have told his Turkish counterpart he would not oppose any military action Turkey might take against the Kurds that live on the Syrian side of the border. It was like giving a green light to President Erdogan to move in and attack the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurdish-dominated group that was a major ally of the Western powers in the battle against ISIS.

Now, and in view of the outcry his decision has arisen, including within the leadership of his own Republican Party, President Trump appears to be backpedalling. He even tweeted that the Turkish economy would be brought to its knees if something very wrong – what that means is unclear – would happen in Northern Syria.

Well, if there is an invasion of the Syrian territory, many wrong things will happen. One of them is about the message the West will be sending across the globe that they do not protect those who fought along side them. The other one concerns the fate of the ISIS prisoners. Thousands of them are being kept by the Syrian Democratic Forces/YPG. They would run away if the Kurds are under attack. That would bring back a number of terrorist cells to the region. In addition, any new war front in the region would certainly generate more displacements and human suffering. The civilian populations in Northern Syria would pay a high price for the Turkish invasion.

Besides the confusion, EU leaders must be clear and state without hesitation that any Turkish offensive in Northern Syria would be unacceptable. It is time to be firm with Erdogan. And unequivocal as well.  

South of Europe

In the Southern flank of the EU, just next door to all of us, the instability and systematic violations of people’s rights are growing by the day.

The area is a combination of several active political volcanoes. It is the situation in Libya and in most of North Africa plus the Sahel, vast area of absence of government. The Sahel was a semi-desert, now is a full-fledged governance desert. It is the deepening of the conflict between Israel and her neighbours. It is the all-out conflict in Yemen and the war crimes in Syria. Add to that, Iran and its fast deteriorating economic circumstances plus the armed competition with the vicinity and beyond, the violence in Afghanistan, the mess in Pakistan. And, of course, the crazy political line President Erdogan is following in his country.

The different components of this Southern neighbourhood are all extreme violent and with far reaching consequences. Mass movements are one of them. The complexity calls for a much better-defined EU political approach. It also requires more public attention. Leaders in Brussels and the capitals should be speaking about these matters more often and with better words. The words must be explicit, comprehensive and coherent.

Our role is to put pressure on our leaders for lines of action to be defined and the narrative to become strategic. And we should act with a strong sense of urgency.

Munich and the annual security debate

Once more, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not on the agenda of this year’s Munich Security Conference. 

This annual conference started today and runs up to Sunday. It’s a key international meeting on security. 

This year, Syria and Ukraine are again on the menu, as it is the insecurity situation in the Sahel, the nuclear weapons issue and the security dimensions of climate change. The exclusion of the Palestinian crisis from the debates is deliberate, of course. For many, it’s too delicate a subject. For others, and I am among those, it’s a never-ending conflict. Better move on and deal with those that have a chance of being resolved.

Supporting the Kurds in Syria

All indications, facts and intelligence, and independent media reports, show that the so-called Islamic State is still a serious threat in North-Eastern Syria. It would be utterly irresponsible for any democratic leader do deny it.

Moreover, all the support that can be provided to those inside Syria that have demonstrated their determination to effectively fight the IS terrorists should be sustained. That’s the case of the Kurdish fighters under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces.

That support must include political negotiations with the Turkish government, even if one knows that such initiative is not easily accepted by President Erdogan. Without ignoring Erdogan’s belligerent approach towards the Syrian Kurds, my recommendation is to keep the strategic liaison with Ankara as close as possible. Turkey must be part of the Syrian stabilization process. There should be no doubt about that, as there is no doubt about the critical role played by the Syrian Kurds and their fellow allies. All this, as we make sure everyone understands that any form of terrorism, war crimes and violence are absolutely unacceptable. 

Syria: looking ahead

Regarding the Syrian complex crisis, it´s obvious that Assad and Putin believe in the military solution. And they are now close to achieve the military control of a good deal of the territory.

That option might result for a while, but it cannot resolve the deep divisions existing in the country. It does not address the overwhelming call for inclusiveness and democracy coming from so many segments of the population. It only suspends and postpones the crisis.

I am not sure Bashar al-Assad realises he must open up and engage in political dialogue, after winning on the military front. This should be the key message the EU leaders should put across to him. For that, they have no alternative but to re-engage the contacts with the strongman in Damascus. The channels of communication between the EU and Syria ought to be re-established.

That´s my advice as the EU prepares to chair another conference on Syria.

Such conference must not be just about humanitarian assistance coupled with a mere statement reiterating past options. Options that time has shown to be as good as dead ends.

Moreover, it is not a great idea to link in the same conference two different matters: humanitarian needs should be discussed in a different forum. Not good to mix them with politics.

Friendly journalism

It can take months for a well-known, credible journalist to get a visa to enter Syria. Most of the times, the answer is no, no visa. Therefore, be on guard if one news person not only manages to get in but is also given a free hand to roam around as he pleases. Including to walk without a chaperon the streets of Douma, a township that remains out of reach for the UN chemical inspectors.

What do you expect from such a journalist? He is certainly a friend of the Assad circle of power. He will write stories that will go along with the regime´s narrative.

That will be highly appreciated by Assad and his supporters. And even more, if the said journalist comes from the UK or another major Western nation.

We should always keep in mind that the war is also about the way the stories are told and by whom. Propaganda is key in any war effort.  

Bringing the bullies together

When I scrutinise the foreign policies of permanent members of the UN Security Council I find no real differences, when it comes to the pursuit of their national interests. Each one of the five States is ready and willing to make use of force and go beyond the diplomatic conventions, tread into illegality, when its leaders think that the country´s national interests are at play. That´s particularly true for each country´s area of influence and strategic importance. It´s the case with China in the South China Sea, with Russia in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, the US in Syria and Iran, the UK in West Africa and the Gulf Cooperation countries in the Persian shores, and with France in the Sahel Region of Africa.

The strategic options of these powerful countries take the primacy over the workings of the UN or other international organisations. It´s a fact, as well, that some of them do it more often than others. But when necessary, they will go for it. Norms and international law are to be respected as long as they do not collide with the views, ambitions and vital interests of the big five.

The primary role of the UN Secretary-General and other international voices, as well as the leaders of some key States such as India or Japan or South Africa, is to constantly recall the international norms and obligations. But it is also to look for points of equilibrium among the interests of the permanent members. Their critical geopolitical interests are known. The challenge is to negotiate taking them into account.

Focus on a conflict at a time

The recent US statements on the current status of the Iran Nuclear deal are not wise. They contradict the position of all the other signatories of the agreement, leaving the US alone on such a delicate matter. That´s what I would call to paint oneself into a corner by trying to appear smarter and bolder than the other key members of the international community.

Furthermore, the new war of words coming from Washington towards Iran opens an additional front of conflict at a time no one has a clear understanding of the Trump Administration's strategy on Syria and North Korea. Why should they want to have one more problem on the table at this stage when the two others are already complex and dangerous enough? And confusing, as well. 

Trump´s most pressing international challenges

This week, President Trump has been directly trapped by Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Kim Jong-un of North Korea. Both dictators decided to challenge the incoherence that defines the global policy of the new US President. Assad with sarin, the gas that he dropped from his airplanes and killed scores of innocent people. A true war crime, by all measures. Kim by firing a new missile towards the Sea of Japan, just a few days prior to his powerful neighbour´s visit to Florida for a first meeting with the big man from Washington.

He is also being challenged by Vladimir Putin. This special, unique strongman created the most absurd “explanation” to excuse the war crime committed by his ally in Syria. And decided to continue to block any action the UN Security Council could have taken on this appalling crisis.

The US President cannot limit his response to these major challenges to words of condemnation and expressions of outrage. They are essential, indeed, but not enough at this stage. He came to the White House as man of action and determination. He has now to show his resolution. Actions ought to match the promises.

But he has very narrow options.

The first one is about prioritising. He has to focus on one of his challengers and show that man that Trump means business. And that priority as things stand now should be about Assad. It must combine diplomatic initiatives, including a serious push for an international commission of inquiry, with other political measures and direct military pressure. The package has to be multifaceted, clear in its purpose, well explained to everyone but also limited in its range, in its initial stage.