Young Diplomats

In the year 2014, the BJP sat in the Parliament with a un-precedented
thumping majority, while the opposition was whittled down to being
insignificant. The former Chief Minister of Gujarat and now the Prime
Minister of the largest democracy roared from the ramparts of the Red
Fort at Delhi. The genome of Indian politics had undergone a mutation.
Suddenly, Modi made Nehruvian socialism seem too small and tepid.
His words were emphatic and a rational persuasion to the poor, the

despaired and the destitute who now saw the main opposition party-
Congress as a giant octopus slumbering supinely, with overgrown

tentacles spread over a span of 70 years. The puissance of his diction left
the opposition with puckered faces, as he promised the people a war

against black money, corruption, inflation, women’s rights, poverty, un-
employment, farmer friendly schemes- a plethora of promises.

People swayed and even the literate class swooned under the spell. The
idea of a homogenized Hindu Rashtra was ingrained in the psyche of
the people, and it catalyzed Modi’s rise in the new savior avatar; as if he
and only he could save the nation and create a new social order. His
campaign had kick started with the saffronisation of Indian politics, and
by the time he took his oath of allegiance to the Constitution, he had the
whole nation delirious with the fever of hyper-nationalism. The
invincibility of Modi became a cliché.
Rabindranath Tagore, the legendary Nobel laureate considered
nationalism to be a passion without compassion. He even went to the
extent of calling nationalism a crude epidemic of evil. He strongly
believed in the community of a nation, and populist nationalism a threat
to the harmony of the nation.
Soon thereafter, humanity was hurtled in a fit of fury unleashed by the
Hindutva elements throughout India. Rule of law went to the winds as
India was encompassed in violence against women, against minorities-

the Dalits and more specifically the Muslims; venerating the cow and
lynching human beings based on hideous assumptions, parochial biases
and religious prejudices. The insidious indifference of the government
and its machinery jerked the people out of the illusory utopia. The
anatomy of this ‘New Democracy’ now lies exposed and bare, even
though this regime tried its best to humor the ghost framers of the
Constitution and the liberal glitterati of India.
In the political jungle amidst the power tussle polemic petti-foggery has
become the new normal to hoodwink the people. High pitched speeches

reached the crescendos of bigotry; rhetorical sermons of hyper-
nationalism created a sense of false bravado. Crafty discourse and

engineered outlooks impaired rationale, and hence the judgment; only
to leave the common-man who voted for Modi high and dry.
Henchmen, the road soldiers intoxicated by power in their communal
frenzy wounded the pluralistic ethos characteristic of mutual existence.
Well playing the egoist politics of hyper-nationalism, the jingoist media
soldiers landed in the lap of this governing regime wrangling absurd on
the TV shows, thus, strangulating the weak voices of the liberal
dissenters. These media honchos furthermore confused and
camouflaged the ineffectiveness of the government policies, yet extolled
the illusory development. The promised melodramatic ‘good days’ are
yet to arrive even when the term of this government is coming to an end.
The Bhartiya Janta Party is an extremist Hindutva ideologue, and as
such the government has a fixed stand viz a viz the internationally
accepted unresolved territorial dispute of the State of J&K. However,
their ignorance of history and the majoritarian pursuit of power
triggered off a tidal wave of anger in the disputed State. The 2018 will be
remembered as the bloodiest year ever in the history of J&K. The harsh
militaristic policy has however failed to stifle the discontent, or muzzle
the voices seeking resolution of the dispute; rather the State has
descended into the cosmos of chaos. The 14th February suicide bomber

3.

attack on the military convoy at Lethpora, Pulwama was only a
consequence of this prevalent chaos.
Since 2014, Modi government has been consistently building the war
rhetoric against Pakistan, and Lethpora attack provided an opportunity
for the same. We almost went to war had Pakistan not returned the
forbidden fruit-Air Commodore Abhinandan. This regime has no scope
for introspection nor for a peaceful dialogue neither will it accept any
third party arbitration as suggested by Norway and Russia. The logjam
between the people of the state and the government at the centre; then
the simultaneous stalemate between India and Pakistan relations has
banished peace to an obscurity, even though a lull exists. Peace as a
paradigm does not exist.
However, pertinently in the context of the state of J&K whichever
regime comes to power in India, the dispute even if through dialogue
cannot be expected to be resolved to any ending unless all mainstream
political parties at the Centre come to a consensus that it has be resolved
through referendum/plebiscite which in the given scenario appears
improbable. The change of regime implies only softer and harsher
approach in dealing with the issue and not the actual outcome.
On a broader front the anemic policies, moral bankruptcy and narrow
bigotry of this ruling regime have legitimized injustice. And, when a
sense of injustice prevails in the society, the road to ruin opens for that
nation. So, calling the bluff! Modi’s promise of a political nirvana proved
to be a hoax.
New elections to the parliament have ensued. He promised to be a
prophet of change yet Modi’s politics is too trapped in unreason. It has
seethed into the executive organs too: the bureaucracy, the enforcement
agencies and even the judiciary. All efforts of the ruling regime were
directed to build Imperialism with the help of these organs and the
favorite crony-capitalists. The misadventure of war with Pakistan was to

protect its imperialistic designs, and logically to save its fascist face by
selling to the nation the cryptic-currency of emotions.
It is incumbent upon every government to frame policies and operate
from the notional perspective of harmony in relations whether internally
within the State or externally between different States. The power of
superiority over other nations comes not from the heavy devastative
machinery, but from a stronger economy, stable politics and a peaceful
society. Power of the people still exists. Therefore, sovereignty vests in
them and not the head of the State. He or She is merely the trustee of
such an authority entrusted by the people for the well being of the
community-nation. The very idea of India as an imperialist nation is a
farce. The sub-continent needs a liberal India and a politically stable
Pakistan; an adjuvant patron China and a progressive Afghanistan. I am
sure the respective leaders can make it happen. India chose wisely!
While the keys to PEACE lie in the hands of the people of these nations.
Let the floodgates open and let harmony usher in.

Troops loyal to Libya’s internationally recognised government have shot down a fighter jet belonging to the eastern forces under the command of General Khalifa Haftar, on the same day the renegade military leader held talks with Egypt’s president in Cairo.

Military sources within the United Nations-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) said the jet operated by the self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA) was downed on Sunday in Tripoli’s southern outskirts, as fighting for control of the capital rages.

Al Jazeera’s Mahmoud Abdelwahed, reporting from Tripoli, said LNA sources confirmed one of the LNA’s fighter jets was shot down but added the pilot had “escaped” after using a parachute to eject from the unit.

Pro-government forces said they were “searching for the pilot”, he added.

No other details were immediately available.

Mass displacement, hundreds wounded

The downing of the LNA jet came after Haftar’s forces stepped up air raids against pro-GNA troops in recent days as part of a campaign launched on April 4 to wrestle control of the capital.

“Haftar’s warplanes have been targeting several locations in and around Tripoli and also warplanes with the GNA have been targeting Haftar’s locations south of Tripoli,” Abdelwahed said.

Libya, which has been mired in chaos since the NATO-backed toppling of longtime ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, has been split into rival eastern and western administrations since 2014.

In March 2016, GNA chief Fayez al-Sarraj arrived in Tripoli to set up a new government, but the Haftar-allied administration in the eastern city of Tobruk refused to recognise its authority.

However, Haftar’s push on the capital threatens to further destabilise the oil-rich country and reignite a full-blown civil war.

At least 121 people have been killed and 561 wounded since the LNA started its offensive on April 4, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Both sides accuse each other of targeting civilians.

About 15,700 people have been forced to flee their homes because of the conflict, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), with a “significant number” of others still stuck in conflict zones.

The situation remained “very tense” on Tripoli’s southern outskirts, Abdelwahed said, with the mass displacement constituting a “crisis” for authorities attempting to rehouse those forced to flee.

Sisi-Haftar meeting in Cairo

The eruption of conflict has forced the UN to abandon its plans for a conference aimed at brokering an agreement to hold elections as part of a solution to the long-running crisis.

The meeting was scheduled to bring Haftar and al-Serraj together in the southwestern town of Ghadames from April 14 to 16.

Instead, Haftar met on Sunday with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Cairo.

A statement from Sisi’s office following the pair’s meeting did not mention Haftar’s offensive directly but “confirmed Egypt’s support for efforts to combat terrorism and extremist groups and militias in order to achieve security and stability for the Libyan citizen”.

Haftar, who casts himself as a foe of “extremism” but is viewed by opponents as a new authoritarian leader in the mould of Gaddafi, has vowed to continue his offensive until Libya is “cleansed” of “terrorism”.

Egypt has close ties with the LNA leader but also publicly supports the UN-led peace efforts in Libya.

Coinciding with the Sisi-Haftar meeting, the UN’s envoy to Libya said on Sunday that the body’s position on ending the country’s turmoil would “not change”.

“You’ve learned and tasted war. No matter how obstinate one becomes, there is no solution except a political one,” Ghassan Salame, a Paris-based Lebanese academic, saidin a Twitter post.

Hesitant great powers

Besides, it has to be said that great powers are very reluctant to get involve in this conflict. As we’ve mentioned earlier, Westerners did push Libya in this complex situation. Italy and Germany did express their opposition towards the military assault launched by Hafthar. Nevertheless, no foreign power would be crazy enough to fully interfere with the affairs of Libya.

 

A major part of this article was originally found here https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/haftar-meets-sisi-gna-forces-shoot-lna-fighter-jet-190414162825555.html

Young Diplomats Celebrates the International Day of Sport for Development and Peace in Chad

 

As a member of Peace and development movement, Young Diplomats has held celebrations in Africa to mark the United Nations’ International Day of Sport for Development and Peace (IDSDP) on 6 April. The IDSDP was celebrated for the first time in 2014. It celebrates the role of sport in development, social cohesion, reunification of the people in the world and peaceful coexistence for the Sahel countries.

Throughout this day, Young Diplomats seeks to raise awareness – as it has been supportive of this initiative and continues to support it based on the values and roles sport has on the positive contribution to social change, human and economic development and to foster peace around the world, also contributes to the achievement of millennium goals.

Young Diplomats Africa Regional Director, Zackaria Idriss, argues that the International Day of Sport for Development and Peace is the perfect platform to highlight sport’s power to create positive social change. “The main goal of this day is to develop sport for young people, promote tolerance and respect for other cultures. The core values ​​promoted by the participants includes: friendship, honor, devotion, peace, gender, victory, tradition, justice, equality and health. ” Zackaria added.

Young Diplomats celebrated the International Day of Sport for Development and Peace through panel discussions on the theme of “the importance of sport in achieving the Millennium Development Goals”. Youth competitions, art events followed by a football tournament for children in N’Djamena, Chad.

Abakar Allamine Mahamt, representative of the Chadian Football Federation, thinks that celebrating the IDSDP is a unique opportunity for the Chadian children who participated in the program “we look forward to continuing to reach to all children in different regions of the country and establishing programmes – so that our youth can experience the same happiness and joy that we have all experienced from this beautiful sport” Mahamat said.

Sport has proven to be a cost-effective and flexible tool in promoting peace and development objectives, it has historically played an important role in all societies, as it promotes ideals of peace, fraternity, solidarity, non-violence, tolerance and justice.

By Idriss Zackaria

The 100-mark bears enormous symbolism in politics. While there’s nothing particularly special about it—after all, a presidential term is 1,461 days long—the milestone is often used to assess how an administration is doing and to observe if any real changes have been put into action from the previous administration.

It is also believed to be the best window for a new administration to pass unpopular legislation or reforms. After all, the new leader traditionally enjoys popular support from a recent election win, and there has rarely been enough time for grudges with Congress to develop. Furthermore, the next election is far away, meaning there is time to recover from any political hit unpopular measures may cause.

Jair Bolsonaro set a high bar for himself. He promised to end corruption and horse trading, recover the sluggish economy, and put an end to political correctness. So far, however, the government has little to show for.

The patchwork of different—and often conflicting—political forces has proven to be ineffective. With different wings bickering with each other, the administration has made a habit out of starting unnecessary fires. As political scientist Maurício Santoro told The Brazilian Report, if the first 100 days are a honeymoon period, “for Mr. Bolsonaro, this honeymoon started with an incident of domestic violence, and someone trashing the hotel suite.”

In all areas, the government’s performance seems to have been affected by officials’ lack of experience (in some areas, of competence, too). Even the economic team—one the most prepared ever assembled—has wasted time. Instead of tweaking the pension reform bill presented by former President Michel Temer, the sitting administration decided to present a new bill from scratch—pushing the process back to square one. This has proven to be a mistake, given the government’s inability to negotiate with Congress.

If markets began 2019 euphoric about Mr. Bolsonaro, they now seem to look at the president with less kind eyes: a survey by investment bank XP shows that support for the government among market operators has quickly eroded.

The Brazilian Report‘s Natália Tomé Scalzaretto has spoken to a dozen experts from various fields about Jair Bolsonaro’s first steps as president.
The first 100 days

• Economy
• Foreign Affairs
• Brazilian politics
• Pension reform
• Society

 

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) sharply lowered its growth forecasts for the euro zone as its German engine shows serious signs of weakness while Italy seems set for stagnation.
The Eurozone should see its gross domestic product grow by only 1.3% this year, after 1.8% last year. Yet, the IMF expected a more modest deceleration to 1.6% in its last forecast in January.

The deterioration is due to two heavyweights in the region: Germany, whose growth should slow to 0.8%, and Italy, expected at only +0.1%.

France (+1.5%, -0.2 points) is seeing the social movement of “yellow vests”, which had disrupted its economy at the end of 2018, run out of steam, and Spain (+2.5%, -0.1 point) continues to grow faster than its neighbours.

Germany and Italy 

Far from evaporating with the new year, the “temporary factors” that shook German industry at the end of last year are proving to be more lasting than expected, the institution notes.

The “weak foreign demand”, linked to the general slowdown, is putting a severe strain on German companies with high export exposure. This trend has turned the country’s main asset into a drag since the 2000s.

Germany, on the other hand, can count on solid domestic consumption, driven by historically low unemployment (4.9%), which creates a favourable balance of power for trade unions and drives wages up.

The situation is quite different in Italy. The country entered into a technical recession at the end of 2018, posting two consecutive quarters of GDP decline, and which is suffering from depressed domestic demand.

A time bomb for the euro zone, Italy’s public debt also represents 130% of the country’s GDP, and its populist government fought with Brussels in the autumn before agreeing to reduce its deficit forecast.

In view of this overall picture, “monetary policy will have to remain accommodative” in the euro zone “until inflation shows clear signs of recovery”, the IMF believes.

Unpredictable Brexit

The European Central Bank, which is meeting on Wednesday, is precisely on this line: not only has it postponed the time to raise rates until next year, but it will launch a new giant lending programme for banks in September.

However, by 2020, the IMF expects the economy to reaccelerate in the euro zone (+1.5%), including Germany (+1.4%) and Italy (+0.9%), while France and Spain are expected to see their GDP grow by 1.4% and 1.9% respectively.

On Brexit, the IMF has considered three scenarios: departure from the United Kingdom with an agreement, Brexit without an agreement with an increase in customs duties, or Brexit without an agreement that also creates a mess at the borders.

The geopolitical consequences

Geopolitics is deeply related with economics. Within the frame of the European Union, negotiations between States often take into account good economic results. If prolunged, a recession can be dramatic in terms of influence and image in the European Union. For instance, Germany is used to base its power on economics and on its formidable industry. Thus, a less flourishing German economy will erode the ability of the German government to discuss and carry its voice.  More broadly, the Eurozone’s economy is facing hard challenges. Among many factors Brexit is the one guaranteeing that the slowdown is not about to stop.

In February, Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit announced that Benjamin Netanyahu will be indicted on accounts of fraud and breach of trust, casting a new light on the election coming up on April 9th in Israel. Despite the news, it is hard to believe that such an event might make a drastic difference in future Israeli policy, particularly for what concerns the geopolitical arrangements so far defended by Bibi. If on one hand the judiciary’s threat provides grounds for further gains among the opposition forces, on the other hand Likud’s Chairman has strengthened his influence in the region to the point of no-return. No future candidate can truly propose a new approach without dealing with Netanyahu’s 10-year legacy, de facto focing any newcomer to play the – involuntary – role of Bibi’s heir.

As a result, the investigation may not prompt significant revolutions, for these political apples will not fall far from the Netanyahu tree. Benny Gantz, who is at the moment reputed to be the closest replacement for the outgoing Prime Minister, is himself an executor of Netanyahu’s design despite his leftist tendencies. He was a leader in the 2014 Operation Brother’s Keeper, during which 350 Palestinians were held prisoner following the murder or three West Bank Israeli teenagers by alleged Hamas members. His defence of a unified Israeli capital in Jerusalem and the settlements created under Bibi’s tenure, which has also seen the 2017 retroactive legalisation of seized lands, has been justified in terms of “Israeli security” vis-à-vis Hamas.

But this principle is not limited to the domestic question only: it is instead a key concept linking the PM and his potential successor in many ways, especially in regards to the multi-sided relationship with Teheran. Netanyahu has been vocal about his disrespect of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, throwing accusations in 2018 of a nuclear enrichment plan being underway in Iran for the purpose of future regional conflict. Gantz has not at all changed the tone, defining Iran as “maleficent” in an intervention at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year. It is nothing too distant from the relentless support for the Begin Doctrine, of which Netanyahu has been a defender, which sees Israel taking a harsh approach to WMD by using preventive strikes as a routine measure.

How would that play out in the future? Gantz’s “Israel-or-no-one” mantra will likely imply a painful reinforcements of Bibi’s achievements, even though his electoral campaign may accuse the adversary of ruining the country for his personal ventures. The truth is that Netanyahu’s superman status has been even more consolidated by Donald Trump’s rise and will continue to affect Israeli geopolitics for even longer. Last week, the United States recognised Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, a controversy keeping the region hostage since 1981. The formal acceptance is an American gift for a country that perceives the territory as an operational haven for Iran-backed militias to create military networks. At the same time, it has sparked a televised reply by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who called for “resistance” and echoed Syria’s request for a UN Security Council meeting to discuss sovereignty infringement.

Potentially speaking, the outrage confirms Israel’s idea that a buffer zone in an Iran-friendly state is only a blessing, in line with Israeli bombings on key sectors of Syrian cities relying on Iranian supplies. Not too long ago, Gantz accused Hezbollah of possessing facilities for missile production in the suburbs of Beirut: if he were to become the prime minister his rhetoric would provide continuity in Israeli targets. It would further support the round of attacks against a group of enemies scattered across a moon-shaped ‘wall’ on all borders. In this context, Gantz’s innovation might consist in updating the means through which to pursue this regional strategy rather than any significant change of direction. No matter whether this will happen through a more intense series of military operations in the Syrian scenario, or through extensive diplomatic cooperation with President Trump, Netanyahu’s past efforts will provide the footprint for it.

One element of novelty, however, may be finally appropriated by Gantz. In recent months, despite the lack of official relations, Israel seems to embrace the possibility of approaching Saudi Arabia in the common struggle against Teheran. Interviews with key staff at the Israeli Defence Force and the national diplomatic service suggest there has been covert sharing of intelligence between the two countries to tackle Iranian interference. And Netanyahu publicly defended Mohammad bin Salman from the Khashoggi affair storm, advocating for the stability of the Kingdom all the while calling for an inquiry into the murder. Those may be small details, but they hint at an Israeli willingness to create a bloc of the “little devil” against the Islamic enemy.

If Gantz wants to, Israeli security can go through a new partnership based on shared interests, in a grand realpolitik scheme that could seal a deal against Shiite adversaries.  It is a challenge that could revolutionise the country’s approach to its own survival as much as the survival of its neighbours. In any case, the threat of a Saudi move towards civil nuclear power might get into the way of such a project, since the Israeli primacy in that sector and the broader regional design would be challenged.

Will Gantz move on from Netanyahu’s legacy and create his own? It will all depend on his ability to shift the focus and be innovative. Nothing short of an absolute nightmare.

International Humanitarian Law (1/3)

Note: This article will explain the first international recognition of the Humanitarian Laws.

However, a distinction should be made before starting:

–       International Humanitarian Law (called by the experts IHL) applies in armed conflicts

–       International Human Rights Law (IHRL) applies all the time, in peace and war.

 

 

After the Second World War and a disastrous number of 70 million casualties (including 50 million civilians), humanity became strongly aware of the need for human rights’ recognition.

 

This led to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and its well-known first article: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.’

 

However, the international acknowledgment of humanitarian law had already been achieved a long time before, thanks to the vital role of the Red Cross.

 

Everything began in 1859. Henri Dunant, a Swiss businessman, is on his way to meet the French emperor Napoleon the Third. In the Italian city of Solferino, he’s the witness of a massacre: the Austrian forces are fighting against the French-Sardinian coalition. 40 000 men lied dead on the battlefield, or wounded. The lack of medical assistance is striking.

 

Henri Dunant forgot all his business projects, and started to put the wounded in the church of the village, asking the inhabitants for help. He looked after the soldiers without any discrimination based on their nationalities.

 

After his return to Switzerland, he stayed haunted by what he watched in Italy, and wrote ‘A memory of Solferino’. In this book, he asked for the creation of a group of volunteers who could rescue the wounded soldiers without fearing for their lives.

 

One year later, 12 nations adopted the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick of Armies in the Field, insuring a nonpartisan help from medical personnel marked with a red cross. As Henri Dunant was from Switzerland, this symbol – the Swiss flag in reverse – was privileged.

 

In 1901, Henri Dunant, who had fallen into misery, was recognized by a journalist as the founder of the Red Cross, and received the Nobel Price for Peace.

 

Nowadays, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has the exclusive mission of protecting the lives of victims during armed conflicts, and has a staff of approximately 15,000 people around the world.

How did Lybia get there ? 

Libya’s institutions, divisions and power structures are incredibly nuanced, but here is a broad view of the situation.

After the Arab Spring uprisings and the subsequent fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, Libya was forced into a power vacuum and instability. It has since been ravaged by turmoil and strife, splintered across political, military and power lines.

The fractures in the north African state allowed space for a militant uprising.

The strong man from eastern Libya, Marshal Khalifa Haftar saw a campaign through against this rise of Islamist militias in and around Benghazi. It took more than three years to complete and left parts of Libya’s second city in ruins.

Affiliates of the self-styled Islamic State group were expelled from Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte in 2016 by local forces supported by U.S. air strikes. Oil production partially recovered as blockaders were sidelined, and migrant smuggling networks were curbed under strong Italian pressure.

But while power remains split between two main factions, these victories cannot truly come to fruition.

A divided country

Forces of Hafthar, are approaching the capital Tripoli, seat of the Government of National Unity (GNA), raising strong concerns of a military conflagration in this divided country. According to diplomats, the UN Security Council is expected to meet urgently on Friday at the request of the United Kingdom.

Two authorities have been fighting for years for power in this chaotic country: in the west, the GNA led by Fayez al-Sarraj, established in late 2015 by a UN-sponsored agreement and based in Tripoli; in the east, a rival authority controlled by the Libyan National Army (LNA), self-proclaimed by Marshal Khalifa Haftar. On Thursday evening, LNA forces took position on a security roadblock 27 km west of the Libyan capital Tripoli, according to an AFP journalist. At least 15 pick-ups armed with anti-aircraft guns and dozens of men in military uniforms took up position at this checkpoint known as “Bridge 27”.

Earlier, Haftar had ordered his forces to “advance” towards Tripoli. “The time has come,” said the Marshal, ordering his loyal troops to “advance” on Tripoli in a sound message, promising to spare civilians, “state institutions” and foreign nationals.

On the GNA side, Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj ordered his troops on Wednesday evening to be ready to “face any threat”. Powerful armed groups in the western city of Misrata, loyal to the GNA, said on Thursday they were “ready[…] to stop the cursed advance” of the pro-Haftar, asking Sarraj to give its “orders without delay”. On Thursday evening, the Tripoli Protection Force, a coalition of pro-GNA tripolitan militias, announced on its Facebook page the launch of an anti-Haftar operation.

Emergency meeting

In a joint statement, Washington, Paris, London, Rome and Abu Dhabi called on Thursday on “all Libyan” parties to bring down tensions “immediately”. The UN Security Council is scheduled to meet urgently on Friday evening at the request of the United Kingdom to discuss the Libyan situation, diplomats said.

This rise in tensions coincided on Thursday with the second day of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ visit to the country. During a press conference in Tripoli, he made a “firm call” for “the cessation of all military movements,[…] restraint, calm and de-escalation, both military and political”. “There is no military solution in Libya. The solution must be political,” he repeated.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Tensions between the United States and two key allies in NATO , Germany and Turkey, threw a chill on Wednesday’s celebrations of the Alliance’s 70th anniversary, despite calls for “unity” in the face of the Russian “threat”.

However, everything had started well.

While some feared that he would be a troublemaker after constantly pushing NATO to establish a “fairer burden sharing”, Donald Trump on Tuesday gave the Allies an unprecedented satisfaction for their financial effort –which the President of the United States certainly gave himself the credit.

Finally, it was its Vice-President, Mike Pence, who raised his voice on Wednesday as the foreign ministers of the 29 countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization met for two days in Washington.

First target: Germany, accused of continuing the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project with Russia and not meeting the target of a defence budget of 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2024.

“It is simply unacceptable that the first European economy continues to ignore the threat of Russian aggression and neglects its own defence and our common defence,” said Mike Pence. “Germany must do more.”

While promising to increase military spending to 1.5% of GDP in 2024, German diplomat Heiko Maas criticized an accounting vision, while NATO is “above all an alliance of values”.

“Those who talk about burden sharing must look at the full spectrum of resources, means and contributions,” he argued, referring to “solidarity with our American friends” after the September 11 attacks and the German contribution to the Allied operation in Afghanistan.

– S-400 or F-35? –

Between the United States and Turkey, it is at first sight a battle of obscure acronyms that is being played out: Ankara has undertaken to buy, at the same time, Russian S-400s and American F-35s, which does not please Washington at all.

But the stakes are strategic. The S-400s are a Russian anti-missile system, which is in itself an affront to an alliance born to counter the Soviet Union. Above all, the Americans fear that he will uncover the technological secrets of their F-35s, ultra-sophisticated fighter jets.

The Trump administration therefore suspended this week the delivery of equipment related to its aircraft to the Turkish government, “until” it gives up “unequivocally” on the S-400s.

“We will not go back,” replied Turkish diplomacy chief Mevlut Cavusoglu.

For Mike Pence, “Turkey must choose: does it want to remain a crucial partner in the best military alliance in history, or jeopardize the security of that partnership through thoughtless decisions that undermine our alliance?

Turkish Vice President Fuat Oktay’s immediate response on Twitter. “The United States must choose, do they want to remain Turkey’s ally, or jeopardize our friendship by forming a common front with terrorists who undermine the defence of its ally,” he questioned in an allusion to the American partnership with Kurdish forces in Syria.

The meeting in Washington between Mevlut Cavusoglu and his American counterpart Mike Pompeo did not seem to ease the tensions. According to the US diplomatic report, the Secretary of State warned Ankara about the “potentially devastating consequences of unilateral Turkish military action” in northeastern Syria.

– New Cold War? –

Faced with these differences, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called for “preserving unity”.

“We have overcome our disagreements in the past and we must overcome our differences in the future,” he said in a solemn speech to the US Congress.

While Donald Trump has more than once doubted the usefulness of the Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg earned standing ovations from Republican and Democratic parliamentarians by saying that NATO was “good for the United States”, because “it is good to have friends”. And recalling the “solemn promise” made on April 4, 1949 in the American capital by the twelve founding countries: “One for all, all for one”.

The dissensions have overshadowed the “threat” that Russia continues to pose to Americans and Europeans, but it will be a priority as of Thursday, with the adoption of measures to strengthen surveillance in the Black Sea.

“We don’t want a new Cold War,” but NATO doesn’t

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on 27th of March that “the time has come” for the former Basilica of Saint Sophia in Istanbul to become again “a mosque”, considering that its transformation into a museum had been a “very big mistake”.

The museum qualification “will be removed” from the monument’s status, President Erdogan said in an interview on A Haber television. “We will call Ayasofya [the Turkish name of Saint Sophia] a mosque”.

An old basilica from the 6th century

Built in the 6th century at the entrance to the Bosporus Strait and the Golden Horn, this former basilica is where the Byzantine emperors were crowned. This basilica was converted into a mosque in the 15th century, after Constantinople was taken by the Ottomans in 1453.

Transformed into a museum under the secular regime of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the 1930s, Hagia Sophia is regularly the subject of controversy between Christians and Muslims due to the multiplication of activities related to Islam within it, such as sessions of reading verses from the Quran or collective prayers.

The status of this monument, classified as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and visited by millions of tourists every year, allows believers of all religions to meditate, reflect or simply enjoy its architecture.

“A request” from the Turkish people, according to Erdogan

Mr. Erdogan was campaigning to avoid a punishing vote against his Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Sunday’s local elections.

Affirming that “the time has come to take such a step” to change the name of Saint Sophia “given that there is a request” from the Turkish people. He indicated that it would be examined after the election.

This measure could provoke Christian anger and heighten tensions with neighbouring Greece, which has repeatedly expressed its concern about initiatives aimed at questioning the status of Saint Sophia, one of the emblematic places of Istanbul’s Orthodox past.