Nigeria-UAE airport slot row

(Link on Daily Trust)

Just as regular passenger flights between Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) began to gradually pick up following several months of disruption over a row on Covid-19 travel protocol, yet another row broke out over airport slots between Air Peace, a Nigerian-registered airline, and the UAE’s Emirates. 

The Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) between Nigeria and the UAE allows international airlines from both countries to request and obtain airport slots in each other’s international airports. 

However, in the absence of a strong Nigerian competitor, the UAE’s Emirates has for years dominated the lucrative Lagos-Dubai and Abuja-Dubai routes. In addition to UAE-bound passengers, many travellers from Nigeria opt for Emirates to get to their respective destinations across the world via Dubai. 

Emirates maintains two Dubai-Lagos and one Dubai-Abuja flights daily making it 21 flights per week. Also, the Abu-Dhabi-based airline, Etihad equally dominates the Nigeria-Abu-Dhabi route, which further consolidates UAE airlines’ virtual monopoly on the Nigeria-UAE route.  

It was only in 2019 that a Nigerian-registered airline, Air Peace commenced passenger flights to UAE’s Sharjah Airport instead of neighbouring Dubai Airport apparently to save a fortune on airport charges, which are obviously higher in the latter. 

The airline recently requested two additional slots to make it three per week, which the UAE denied. Nigeria retaliated by reducing Emirates slots in Nigeria to only 1 per week. Enraged, Emirates suspended its operations in Nigeria and, of course, Air Peace operations in UAE, which triggered a row that almost affected diplomatic relations between the two countries less than two weeks after President Buhari’s state visit to the emirate. 

Though UAE’s recent allocation of seven slots in Dubai Airport to Air Peace suggests an imminent resolution of the row, the incident highlights the struggle over flight frequency among airlines, which sometimes affect diplomatic relations. 

The UAE has had a similar row with other countries including the United States, Canada and some major European countries whose airlines have accused Emirates of practices inconsistent with free-market values to outcompete them on many lucrative international routes in the US, Europe, Canada and elsewhere. 

They have, for instance, alleged that Emirates enjoys subsidy under the table from the deep-pocketed Dubai government, which has enabled it to offer customers unmatched quality services at unmatched rates at the expense of its competitors. However, Emirates has always denied the charges arguing that its operations are guided by standard free-market practices.

Whatever the case is, Emirates has been able to grow from an airline with only two planes leased from Pakistan in 1985 into arguably the world’s largest international airline with more than 260 planes covering more than 150 international destinations. Equally, its base, the Dubai Airport has grown from a literally glorified airstrip in the desert into currently the world’s busiest international airport handling about 800 flights per day at its peak.  

After all, though airlines compete on quality and efficiency in their struggle to outcompete one another in the increasingly thriving hence equally increasingly competitive airline business, they also engage in under-the-table arrangements and other forms of discreet manipulation to disadvantage one another. Besides, notwithstanding relevant international legal and regulatory provisions, governments the world over favour their respective locally-registered airlines against their foreign competitors. 

Anyway, from the celebratory tone of the Nigerian media and the general public following UAE’s allocation of seven slots to Air Peace, more than the three it had requested, it’s obvious that the underlying aim behind UAE’s action is comprehended only by a few, if at all. That explains why Nigeria’s media coverage of the development simplistically suggests that the UAE has conceded and that Air Peace and Nigeria have prevailed. 

Whereas, it’s probably a trick aimed at frustrating Air Peace out of the Nigeria-UAE route all together eventually. It’s what the Hausa describe as “kora da hali” Because restricting the slots to Dubai Airport only exposes Air Peace to direct and unavoidable competition with Emirates, which the former, of course, may not survive in the long run. Air Peace may not afford sustained operation in Dubai Airport due to high airport charges, which are the reasons why it wants to remain in Sharjah Airport in the first place. 

Faced with this, competing with Emirates in ticket pricing would pose a big challenge to Air Peace considering the disproportionately huge disparity in service quality, efficiency and sophistication between the two airlines. 

Besides, Air Peace cannot maintain seven flights to Dubai per week in the first place. Even if its request for two additional Lagos-Sharjah flights to make it three per week were granted, it may not be able to sustain them after the current seasonal travel peak when the UAE receives the highest number of visitors from all over the world each year.  

Now, it remains to be seen whether or not the Air Peace management and the Nigerian government realise the trick and its implications, and indeed how they would react. 

Saudi palace politics

(Link on Daily Trust)

Mohammad bin Salman, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia

The circumstances surrounding the rise of Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia have brought the dynamics of the palace power struggle in the monarchy to the fore. 

The Saudi ruling dynasty Al-Saud is currently the most powerful ruling dynasty in the world considering the sheer religious, economic and geopolitical significance of the domain it rules over without being subject to any authority. 

The dynasty founded the kingdom. It had, at two separate points in history, founded two emirates in its native Najd region. The first was in 1774 when Mohammad bin Saud and an Islamic scholar-revivalist Sheikh Mohammad bin AbdulWahhab co-founded the Emirate of Diriyah, which lasted until 1818. 

The second was in 1824 when a grandson of bin Saud, Turki bin Abdullah restored the Al Saud reign and founded the Emirate of Najd, which, however, also collapsed in 1891. Yet, 11 years later, Abdul-Aziz bin Abdurrahman Al Saud managed to reclaim it and kept expanding it until he founded the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932. 

Interestingly, the ibn Saud-ibn AbdulWahhab alliance has grown into a kind of intergenerational kinship between their descendants i.e. Al Saud and Al Ash-Sheikh. The former has kept the kingship while the latter has kept the symbolic scholarly authority in the kingdom. Al Saud means the descendants of ibn Saud while Al Ash-Sheikh means the descendants of ibn AbdulWahhab. The current Grand Mufti of the Kingdom, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah Al Ash-Sheikh is a lineal descendent of ibn AbdulWahhab. 

Anyway, over the course of Abdul-Aziz’s struggle before and after he founded the kingdom, he kept marrying daughters of Arab tribal chiefs and influential tribal figures to secure the unwavering loyalty of the unpredictable Arab tribes without which he couldn’t have achieved his mission. He was said to have married more than 20 women, of course, maintaining not more than four at once; and had more than 60 children.  

As is the case with all ruling dynasties, wings and individuals among King Abdul-Aziz’s lineage have always been locked in the palace power struggle over positions of influence including kingship. Wings within the dynasty have always developed based on shared maternal backgrounds among his children whose mothers came from different Arab tribes. A wing’s influence is primarily determined by the amount of their mother’s tribal, clannish or familial influence. 

The most influential wing is the Sudairi wing generally and the Sudairi Seven particularly. Their mother, Hassa bint Ahmad As-Sudairi was widely believed to be King Abdul-Aziz’s favoured wife. Her children were equally the most influential particularly the Sudairi Seven who formed a clique of extremely rich princes with networks of highly influential connections within and outside the kingdom. They were Fahd, Sultan, Abdurrahman, Naif, Turki-ath-Thani, Ahmad, and Salman, the current king. Also, their families have over the decades collectively maintained that influence dominating the other wings. 

However, things began to change following the death of King Fahd and the ascension of the then Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz to the throne in 2005. Abdullah wasn’t a Sudairi; he was the only male child of his mother; he was, however, very influential within the country’s elite National Guard force, which was responsible for protecting the ruling dynasty. His appointment as the Crown Prince despite his relative disadvantage was seen as a tactical move by King Fahd to preserve the intactness of the Guard’s loyalty and Abdullah’s knowing that, barring any unforeseen circumstances, his turn would come in due course. 

No sooner had Abdullah settled on the throne than he embarked on subtle but obvious moves to promote his own family at the expense of the Sudairis. He appointed some of his children to some very important positions, and though he reluctantly appointed a Sudairi, Sultan as the Crown Prince, he relieved a number of them from important positions.  

He also created a whole new position, the Deputy Crown Prince, to which he appointed Muqrin bin Abdul-Aziz who was supposed to become the Crown Prince once the latter’s position became vacant for whatever reason. Like Abdullah, Muqrin was the only son of his Yemeni mother hence equally considered relatively less advantaged. It was alleged that the plan was to somehow get Abdullah’s son, Mut’ib appointed the Deputy Crown Prince once King Abdullah passed away and Salman became King while Muqrin became the Crown Prince. That way Abdullah’s wing would be in a position to compete favourably with other wings for kingship eventually. Consequently, the Sudairis influence diminished considerably during Abdullah’s reign. 

However, things never went as the Abdullah wing had planned because no sooner had Salman become King following Abdullah’s death than he equally relieved many of those Abdullah had appointed to various important positions including his sons. He also relieved Muqrin of the Deputy Crown Prince, appointed his nephew Mohammad bin Naif and his son Mohammad bin Salman the Crown Prince and the Deputy Crown Prince respectively. Likewise, other Sudairis were appointed or reappointed to various top positions in the kingdom.  

Moreover, two years later he abolished the position of the Deputy Crown Prince, relieved Mohammad bin Naif of the Crown Prince and elevated his son Mohammad bin Salam to the Crown Prince who has since then acted as the de facto King. 

Since then the power struggle has been within the Sudairi wing exclusively especially between the Salman sub-wing, the Sultan sub-wing, and the Naif sub-wing from where the deposed Crown Prince Mohammad bin Naif comes. Many including some highly influential Sudairis have been relieved of their positions. Those who are rightly or wrongly perceived to be harbouring resentment against MBS are being persecuted; many have been imprisoned including bin Naif himself while others have fled the country. 

Lobbying in Washington

(Link on Daily Trust)

To put it simply, lobbying is a deliberate effort to influence the process of government policymaking or legislative enactment in favour of particular business, political or other interests. 

Lobbying thrives not only in the corridors of power; it’s equally used to influence public perceptions on particular issues by way of lobbying influential public relations firms and media organizations.

In fact, even highly reputable research institutions including scientific research centres aren’t completely invulnerable to lobbying, after all. Many supposedly objective pieces of research and findings on various issues including scientific findings by many reputable institutions and centres are somehow influenced by underlying interests of various lobbyists’ clients. 

Though lobbying business flourishes more in the capitals of the particularly capitalist Euro-American axis e.g. London, Brussels, Paris, and, of course, Washington, it’s also quite common in other major capitals like Beijing and Moscow. It’s, however, particularly established in the United States being the world’s strongest military power and largest economy. 

In Washington, well-connected persons many of whom have held various legislative offices in the US Congress, or important political or bureaucratic positions in the White House transform into lobbyists to leverage their respective connections in lobbying on behalf of big corporations, foreign governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other interest groups.

Though lobbying is supposedly regulated by relevant laws to ensure transparency by enabling hired professionals to make a case for proposals on behalf of their respective clients, that isn’t always the case in reality.

In typical lobbying, the quality of a proposal argument per se doesn’t necessarily guarantee its acceptability. It’s an open secret that many a time, Congressmen, policymakers and high-ranking White House officials are influenced by way of inducement and/or tacit blackmail or both.

The amount of resources that corporations, foreign governments, cartels, NGOs, and interest groups invest in lobbying in the United States far exceeds the official figures, which only reflect reasonable payments for services rendered within the legal scope of lobbying. Whereas, in reality, much more than that is spent under the table in inducements. 

Lobbying is the real manifestation of capitalism (jari-hujja) or “iya kudinka, iya shagalinka”. It’s is effectively a “legalized” form of corruption. In the US, for example, various industries e.g. Banking, Manufacturing, Energy, Real Estate, Food, Insurance, pharmaceutical, Hollywood, etc. maintain high-paid lobbyists lobbying on their behalf for legislation and government policies advantageous to their collective interests. 

In the meantime, there is an equally fierce struggle within each industry with each corporation and cartel maintaining its own lobbyists in its struggle for advantageous regulatory measures at the expense of the others. 

Usually, an industry, cartel or corporation has its way depending on the amount of its lobbying budget and the effectiveness of the blackmailing tools at the disposal of its hired lobbyists.

Regulators induced in lobbying turn a blind eye to cases of cutting corners, exploitation and other unethical practices regardless of their implications on public health, safety and other interests. 

Scandalous practices of such nature are occasionally exposed either accidentally or as a result of discreet investigations some of which are secretly sponsored by rival corporations and cartels, which have lost out in lobbying struggle.

Foreign governments equally maintain lobby firms in Washington; they invest hugely in lobbying not only to influence US foreign policy on particular issues but also to secure US active or tacit support on specific issues involving the interests of other countries. 

Lobbyists in Washington can get a US administration to literally do the bidding of their respective foreign clients by way of inducing and/or blackmailing members of the US House of Representatives, the Senate, and appropriately influential officials in the White House.  

Foreign governments with the highest spending on lobbying in Washington include Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, Qatar, South Korea etc. Interestingly, even some supposedly non-US allies e.g. China, Iran and Russia equally spend hugely on lobbying in Washington.    

Also, though Israel maintains the most influential lobby in Washington, its case is particularly interesting, because, ironically, its influence isn’t linked to its spending on lobbying, if at all it spends. Its influence over the US political establishment, media and entertainment industries is so deep-rooted that no one can afford to be rightly or wrongly linked to anti-Israel sentiment, for it may simply mean the end of his political career. In the US political circle, everyone, including the president, is easily blackmailable when it comes to Israeli interests.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other interest groups equally maintain lobbyists in Washington. Groups and organizations hell-bent on promoting moral decadence and undermining ethical values are particularly active in lobbying for legislation and/or government policies favourable to their causes. 

After all, the rate at which they are having their ways not just in Washington but other capitals across the world suggests the sheer influence of their backers. For instance, the so-called LGBTQ rights groups have grown so influential that criticizing their mission of promoting absolute rebellion against moral standards is now considered a form of primitive intolerance. 

Sub-Saharan Africa in global politics

(Link on Daily Trust)

The United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken is on a diplomatic tour in Sub-Saharan Africa visiting Kenya, Nigeria, and Senegal. As expected, the officially stated mission of his tour revolves around the US commitment to partnering with the countries and the region at large in tackling various challenges bedevilling them. 

Tours by leaders and high-ranking officials from major international players and ambitious developing countries in Sub-Saharan African countries often prompt curiosity not only about the obvious absence of the countries’ influence in global affairs but also practically the absence of their uninfluenced influence in their own affairs, for that matter. 

It’s a tradition in Washington that once a new US administration is done settling down and rolling out its foreign policies on major issues e.g. relations with Russia and China, the Middle East issues, relations with US major European and Asian allies, and regional powers in various continents, it then attends to Sub-Saharan African countries. 

Usually, the Secretary of State would embark on a tour covering a number of countries to reiterate the US “commitment” to helping them tackle poverty, insecurity, corruption, among other things. Also, at some point, the President may equally embark on a similar tour. 

Secretary Blinken’s ongoing tour in Sub-Saharan Africa simply comes in the context of that tradition, for, in reality, the countries command no respect on the global stage due to the sheer failure of their power elites. This is not necessarily because they do things that their counterparts elsewhere don’t do after all, but largely because of how they do theirs. For instance, their penchant for reckless misappropriation of public resources in grossly unsophisticated hence effortlessly exposable processes is particularly peculiar. 

Besides, though they are extremely greedy, their ironically very limited ambition explains why they always end up with peanuts compared to what they cost their respective governments. This is quite clear especially in their dealings with ruthlessly ambitious and fast-growing countries like India and China that owe a great deal of their success to Sub-Saharan African natural resources and raw materials, which they acquire under largely questionable deals, to say the least. 

Likewise, Euro-American countries, which had literally plundered Sub-Saharan African countries' natural resources and raw materials, and exploited their people for a very long time until only six decades ago use subtle but systematic blackmail on account of their governments’ real or alleged human rights abuse, undermining democracy, and lack of transparency to extort huge concessions from them in favour of their (Euro-American) corporations.  

Consequently, while Sub-Saharan African countries remain grossly deficient in the strategic infrastructure necessary for sustainable industrialization, which is indispensable for sustainable economic development, their massive consumer markets continue to rely on imported products and critical services provided by foreign corporations. 

Also, the characteristic deficiency in dynamic creativity that Sub-Saharan African countries’ elites betray has further made it easier for such developed and developing countries and their corporations to manipulate them.  

Though corruption and other challenges persist in all countries, they never frustrate development as it’s obtained in Sub-Saharan African countries. While power elites elsewhere are creative enough to come up with and pursue strategic development policies according to their peculiar challenges, their Sub-Saharan African counterparts are largely too literal in their understanding of the standard textbook ideas they have imbibed, which were written in and for environments with absolutely different socio-political, economic, cultural, environmental and attitudinal challenges.  

One easily observable thing about every ambitious developing county is the flexible creativity of its elite. China, for example, is basically a communist country with a single party system, yet thanks to its ability to creatively add appropriate capitalist touches to its economic system, it has been able to dominate global industrialization and overtake Japan as the world’s second-largest economy after the United States.  

It’s the same thing with the likes of India, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. Even the relatively less industrialized countries in, say, the Middle East owe their success to the creativity of their respective power elites. The particularly remarkable success of the Gulf countries, in particular, says it all in this regard. 

Whereas, in Sub-Saharan Africa, even the supposedly more enlightened intellectuals are largely intellectually confined within the limits of literal meanings of either liberal capitalist or Marxist theories. In a typical Sub-Saharan African country, proposing solutions to common challenges in the light of either unrealistic Marxist populist rhetoric or inconsiderate elitist capitalist ideas, mere fluency in, say, the English or French languages, and tendency to determine the worth of things on the bases of Euro-American standards, are all that it takes for one to be recognized as intellectual and progressive.  

That explains why even after six decades of independence, power elites in Sub-Saharan Africa still betray an inferiority complex towards particularly their Euro-American counterparts; they behave as though they are still under colonial rule. In Nigeria, for instance, there have been instances where some rightly or wrongly aggrieved individuals among the political elite blatantly reached out to the US ambassador, the UK high commissioner, and the EU office in Abuja literally begging for their intervention in their favour in purely local affairs. 

Now, though I may have digressed too far, it’s only intended to shed some light on why the Sub-Saharan African countries are practically worth nothing in global politics, and indeed why racists and other chauvinists assume that Sub-Saharan Africans are inherently inferior to other human races.     

Migrants as blackmailing tools

(Link on Daily Trust)

Over the past few months, there has been an upsurge in the number of migrants stranded on the Belarus-Polish border desperate to cross over into the European Union (EU). Poland is an EU member-state but the richer EU countries like Germany are their targeted destinations. 

Migrants, both those with genuine reasons and those with pretences, prefer the richer EU countries due to their particularly attractive provision for migrants and enabling migration policies. However, since the number of migrants always outweighs the resources budgeted for those provisions, the screening is quite strict. Consequently, only a tiny fraction eventually makes it, which explains why thousands of migrants go to the extent of endangering their lives in their desperate attempts to migrate to those countries and other wealthy nations elsewhere. Some of them somehow manage to make it to their respective destinations while many die in the sea, desert and other terrains, or end up stuck in exploitative conditions.  

It’s in this context that thousands of migrants mostly from Syria, Iraq and other war-torn and unstable Middle Eastern, Asian and African countries are currently on the Belarus-Polish border kept off Polish territory by a barbed-wire fence and Polish security personnel. Belarus isn’t allowing them back either. They have been piling up there amid deteriorating conditions. In a video call with the BBC, an Iraqi migrant lamented that "There's no way to escape; Poland won't let us in. Every night they fly helicopters. They don't let us sleep. We are so hungry. There's no water or food here. There are little children, old men and women, and families." Also, out of desperation, there have been repeated but failed attempts by the migrants to force their way through. 

Now, while on the surface this situation may look like any typical migrant issue, it’s actually an orchestrated blackmail attempt. 

Belarus President, Alexander Lukashenko rose to power in 1994. The country was part of the Soviet Union that had collapsed in 1991. However, President Lukashenko has maintained an underlying Soviet communist tone in his style, which has kept him at loggerheads with the EU countries and their US ally. 

Also, since the rise of Vladimir Putin to power in Russia, President Lukashenko found a reliable ally in him for his obsession with reviving and exercising as much former Soviet influence as possible. 

President Putin supports but also manipulates Belarus in countering the expansion of the EU-dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) towards where he believes should be Russia’s exclusive sphere of influence. 

The EU imposed sanctions on Belarus last, which, in turn, decided to, among other things, manipulate the migrant card to blackmail it (EU) into lifting it. Belarus began facilitating the exodus of migrants into its territory for onward illegal crossing over into the EU via the Polish border. Hundreds of migrants were flown into Belarus capital, Minsk, on direct flights from Baghdad and other cities only to be systematically escorted by the Belarus security personnel to the border with Poland to cross over. The aim is to create migrant crises in some countries in the EU zone and expose their governments to unnecessary legal and economic dilemmas associated with handling the migrants, which may have serious economic and political repercussions on the governments.    

President Lukashenko is perhaps inspired by the success of some leaders in manipulating migrants as blackmailing tools, e.g. his Turkish counterpart, Tayyip Erdoğan. As an opportunistic politician par excellence, President Erdoğan has fetched Turkey tremendous economic benefits and political concessions from the EU, by manipulating migrants as blackmailing tools.

Since the escalation of the Syrian crisis that triggered waves of migration from the country and other countries towards Turkey for onward crossing over into the EU zone, the Turkish government has managed to extort billions of Euros and significant concessions from the zone in return for controlling the exodus of the migrants into it. For instance, a five-year agreement reached between Turkey and the EU in 2006 in this regard saw the former reaping 6 billion Euros. Under the agreement, the EU also reluctantly agreed to simplify the Schengen visa process for Turkish citizens and to reactivate talks over Turkish ambition to join the zone. 

Yet, as negotiations continue over the renewal of the agreement, which expired earlier this year, President Erdoğan had already threatened to let the migrants into the zone in a tactical move to extort commitments for more funds and more concessions on other issues especially considering the fact that the EU hasn’t delivered on its commitments regarding the Schengen visa and Turkish EU ambition.     

Similarly, in 2010, former Libyan leader, Gaddafi equally managed to blackmail the EU into considering paying Libya billions of Euros in return for preventing the exodus of African migrants into the zone through the Libyan Mediterranean coast. He had warned the EU governments that the zone would turn “black”, as he put it, in view of the sheer number of African migrants desperate to migrate there unless it (EU) agreed to pay Libya at least 5 billion Euros a year to stop them. The arrangement was, however, overtaken by the 2011 uprising in the country that ended his life. 

Seeds of water war

 (Link on Daily Trust)

There have been persistent tensions between Egypt, Sudan, on the one hand, and Ethiopia, on the other, which observers warn may escalate into skirmishes and even full-scale war. 

The countries have been locked in disputes over the Nile River since Ethiopia began the construction of its almost five billion-dollar gigantic Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on its part of the river. After a decade of construction, the dam is 80 per cent done, and the process of filling it with water has already begun.   

The Nile River flows across northeastern Africa through many countries flowing from Ethiopia into Sudan, then Egypt. Its freshwater constitutes a significant percentage of the already extremely scarce natural freshwater in the world. 

Interestingly, though water makes up about seventy per cent of the Earth’s surface, natural freshwater is less than three per cent; more than ninety-seven per cent is salty hence basically unsuitable for human consumption, agricultural and most industrial purposes. 

Anyway, all along, Egypt and Sudan kicked against the GERD project arguing that it would hugely obstruct the flow of the Nile water into them. 

Egypt, in particular, almost entirely depends on the Nile River water, which covers more than 90 per cent of its agricultural, industrial and, of course, consumption needs of its more than 100 million people. It, therefore, considers the dam an existential threat to it. It’s also worried that it may end up at the mercy of Ethiopia and indeed vulnerable to blackmail not only at its hands only but other countries with influence over it, as well.  

For over a decade, Egypt had tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to foil the construction of the dam; and since its completion, it has engaged various global, continental and regional bodies, and various countries to impede its commissioning. It has equally maintained a threatening rhetoric warning of its readiness to go to the extent of taking military measures against Ethiopia. 

On its part, Ethiopia has insisted that it needs the dam to improve its poor electricity generation among other developmental purposes for its almost one hundred and twenty million people. It has, therefore, resisted Egypt’s moves to frustrate the dam project while equally reiterating its readiness to engage militarily. 

Though militarily speaking, Egypt is by far stronger than Ethiopia, realistically speaking, military measures cannot stop the dam operation. Also, though Egypt could, at some point, and out of sheer frustration, disrupt the dam operation by military attacks on it, which would certainly trigger Ethiopia’s retaliation hence war, it’s not likely to change the situation in the long run anyway.  

Besides, now that Ethiopia has already begun filling the dam with water, attacking the dam may cause devastating floods in the surrounding areas within both countries, Sudan and perhaps beyond, which would expose Egypt to an international backlash among other measures.  

Furthermore, the involvement of other countries in the underlying politics of the dam construction and its operation further complicates the situation. For instance, for its own strategic and geopolitical interests, Israel has been deeply involved in ensuring the success of the project; it has already installed advanced air defence systems all around the dam in anticipation of possible attacks by Egypt to blow it up. 

Interestingly, though Israel and Egypt are supposedly friends since the end of the war era between them and the start of their diplomatic relations in 1979, yet, they have been locked in a geopolitical struggle. 

As it has planned all along, and thanks to its sheer financial, diplomatic and strategic investment in the dam project, Israel is now literally in a position to influence, if not dictate, the amount of Nile water that would be released into Egypt. It’s indeed a highly effective blackmailing tool against Egypt, which Israel can manipulate to blackmail it into concessions on many issues including the Palestinian issue.  

After all, some developments suggest that the strategy seems to have already begun to prove its effectiveness. For example, Israel that has for decades yearned for access to the Nile freshwater for which it necessarily needs Egypt’s cooperation due to geographical constraints, appears to be finally getting its way. After decades of successive Egyptian governments’ refusal to cooperate, Egypt is now reportedly building six gigantic underground tunnels to channel the Nile water into Israel. 

The obvious explanation of this development is that having come to terms with the reality about the Ethiopian dam, Egypt is, apparently, reluctantly pursuing a compromise with Ethiopia to secure the inflow of the maximum possible share of the Nile water. And considering the influence that Israel has over Ethiopia, Israel’s interests apparently influence Ethiopia’s terms. 

Anyway, Turkey equally supports Ethiopia against Egypt to spite the latter in the context of the Cairo-Ankara geopolitical face-off. Turkish particular interest in Ethiopia is partly informed by its desire to equally be in a position to likewise blackmail Egypt over the Nile water-sharing arrangement. After all, with the recently signed defence agreement between it and Ethiopia, it may support it militarily in the event of a military confrontation between it and Egypt.

What Erdoğan pursues in Africa

(Link on Daily Trust)

Notwithstanding the officially stated mission of the Turkish President Erdoğan’s recent tour in Africa where he visited Angola, Togo and Nigeria, it was in further pursuit of his country’s interests in Sub-Saharan Africa in particular.

Over the past three decades, many developing countries with an ambition to achieve accelerated economic growth in the shortest time possible have exploited Sub-Saharan African countries to achieve their economic and other strategic interests with disproportionately little or no benefit for the countries in return. 

Until their independence respectively, Sub-Saharan African countries’ human and natural resources had been savagely exploited by European colonial powers. Yet, their departure did not end the exploitation; it has persisted albeit in “civilized” and “sophisticated” ways.

Since then, many developing countries have equally followed suit in various ways and under various disguises. A typical ambitious developing country would somehow gain access to a Sub-Saharan African country’s natural resources and raw materials under various so-called win-win arrangements, to embark on systematic plunder of the resources while also flooding the country with its industrial products. China and India have been particularly involved in this regard; they owe a great deal of their respective economic achievements to such arrangements.

Other countries, including some non-Sub-Saharan African countries e.g. some Arab countries, equally partake in the plunder through their various activities ranging from infrastructure provision, services and distribution of industrial products from their respective countries.  

Whether those Sub-Saharan African countries’ power elites realize that but simply turn a blind eye in return for kickbacks, or are simply too incompetent to realize it, their countries remain a mere steppingstone and a shortcut for many equally developing but determined countries to achieve faster economic development.

Turkish growing involvement in Sub-Saharan Africa is equally in that context. Since Erdoğan’s rise to power two decades ago, and having been particularly hell-bent on securing geopolitical and potentially global influence for his country, Sub-Saharan Africa has been of particular interest to him. Over that period, Turkey has increased its embassies in Sub-Saharan Africa from only 4 to 43. However, over the past decade particularly, Turkish economic involvement in Sub-Saharan Africa has been increasingly driven by its geopolitical power struggle with particularly France, Russia and Egypt over Libya and the Mediterranean Sea.

Since the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime a decade ago, which plunged the country into chaos, the struggle for influence between foreign governments involved in the crisis has been particularly fierce among those four countries; they have been struggling to drive one another out of the country.

Libya is of paramount significance to Turkey, because it targets its massive oil and gas resources; and its dominant influence there would guarantee it a more reliable energy source that’s invulnerable to geopolitically motivated manipulation and blackmail at the hands of its main current suppliers e.g. Russia and Iran. 

Therefore, in its strategy against France in particular, Turkey has been leveraging its growing economic commitments in Sub-Saharan Africa in undermining France influence in the region, which is considered its exclusive sphere of influence. It’s determined to eventually replace France as the most influential foreign government in the core Sahel countries e.g. Chad and Niger Republic, which share borders with Libya. Turkish first military base in the Sahel is expected to be established in Niger following the ratification of a pact to that effect between the two countries last year. It will also be the third of its kind after those in Libya and Somalia. 

With established military bases and intelligence-gathering and processing units in Niger and potentially Chad, and diminished France influence in the region, Turkey’s mission in Libya would be hugely facilitated. 

What makes Erdoğan’s involvement in Sub-Saharan Africa particularly different from that of China and India, for instance, is its political undertones, which bring to memory similar involvements by President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt who managed to mobilize considerable sympathy across Sub-Saharan Africa for Arab countries in their conflict with Israel, and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, the self-appointed “King of African Kings” as he called himself. 

However, the relatively smarter Erdoğan is pragmatic par excellence for his exceptional ability to effortlessly fluctuate between contradictory characters and stances. He is skilled at assuming the character of either an uncompromising Islamist, conformist secularist, sympathetic populist, insensitive elitist, or Pan-Turkic chauvinist, depending on the situation, interests he pursues and his audience at a given time. 

That’s why during his recent visit to Nigeria, and even though he realizes how millions of Nigerian Muslims are carried away by his Islamist rhetoric, he never addressed any issue in that context, for he realizes its potential implications on the country’s delicate ethnoreligious sensibilities. 

Unlike in other Sub-Saharan African countries, Erdoğan’s mission in Nigeria, at least so far, was to further deepen the penetration of the Nigerian market with Turkish industrial products and services. As expected also, he further pushed for Nigeria’s cooperation to close down Nile University and the network of NTIC schools linked to Fethulah Gulen who he accuses of being behind the 2016 coup attempt against him.    

Looming US-China Cold War

(Link on Daily Trust)

The breakup of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1991 marked the end of the Cold War era between it and the United States, which had lingered for more than four decades. 

The world had split into two main blocs: the Western Capitalist bloc led by the United States, and the Eastern Socialist block led by the USSR. That was notwithstanding the so-called Non-Allied Movement, which, though included most of the world’s countries, couldn’t defuse the then prevailing Cold War tensions in the world. After all, they were mere developing countries, which rightly realized that their individual and collective interests lay in being on good terms with both superpowers. Yet, hardly any of them was neutral in the real sense; each country actually aligned with either the US or USSR but without being openly unfriendly to the other. 

It was an era of constant tensions between the two military superpowers that kept the whole world in the persistent nightmare of a looming full-scale war between them; a war which would have caused the annihilation of most of mankind, not necessarily due to direct exposure to the actual battle but the due to the sheer damage that radiological, chemical, biological, nuclear and other weapons of mass murder would have inflicted on the nature and natural resources. 

Interestingly, however, though both countries were always threatening each other, neither was actually serious after all, for both, deep down, realized that a full-scale war between them would definitely end as what military strategists call Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Besides, the fear both countries had subjected the world to enabled them to economically exploit and politically manipulate their respective allies on the pretext of protecting them. 

Anyway, though many countries sprang out of the collapsed Soviet Union, Russia, in particular, ended up inheriting all the Union’s most dangerous weapons including nuclear weapon stockpiles. Yet, the Cold War vanished as socialism, the driving ideology of the USSR, fizzled out.

Since then, the United States has enjoyed practically unrivalled influence on the world stage. This is even though over the past two decades President Vladimir Putin of Russia has managed to assert Russian influence in international politics by leveraging the legacy of the former Soviet Union. However, being economically too far behind the US, Russia doesn’t have what it takes to rival the US in global influence, in the long run. The economy of the US state of California alone, for instance, is larger than the whole Russian economy even though Russia is the largest country in the world.

That’s why the US is particularly worried about China’s potential to grow into a formidable challenger to its global influence. After all, unlike Russia, China, which already has the world’s second-largest economy after the US, and is, in fact, expected to overtake it, has what it takes to indeed rival the US in this regard, and even overtake it eventually. 

Besides, China’s ambitious and relentless military buildup and growing commitment to manufacturing super sophisticated conventional and non-conventional weapons and other military equipment suggest its determination to rival the United States in military power. Also, though it’s still quite far from there while the US continues to advance further militarily, the rate at which China is equally advancing poses a serious challenge to the US military superiority in the world. 

The US is increasingly concerned anyway knowing the implications of China’s potentially dominant economic and military power on its global influence. Interestingly, as I have always argued, notwithstanding the supposed sophistication of the modern age, military power remains the underlying determinant of a country’s influence in international politics. That’s why, due to their relative weakness militarily, countries like Japan and Germany, which have the third and fourth world’s largest economies respectively, lack influence befitting their respective strength economically and technologically. That also explains why countries with geopolitical or global ambitions prioritise appropriate military buildup, sometimes even at the expense of their economic wellbeing, in pursuit of geopolitical or global influence. 

Anyway, since the beginning of the Joe Biden administration earlier this year, the US-China face-off has persistently escalated. His predecessor, Donald Trump focused more on the trade aspect of the face-off. Because the Wall Street-inspired businessman-President, who looked at things strictly from a profit-loss perspective, wasn’t enthusiastic about any US foreign commitment he believed wasn’t worth the funds spent on it, regardless of its real or perceived significance in maintaining US dominance on the global stage. Instead, fetching money to the US treasury was all that mattered to him. He was ruthless in his characteristic extortionist approach that spared no one including the US traditional allies in Europe, who he insisted increase their budgetary contribution to NATO to keep US commitment to “protecting them”, and other US allies in the Middles East and Asia e.g. the Arabian Gulf States, Japan and South Korea, which he equally demanded pay more in return for continued US military “protection”. 

However, with the return of the status quo ante in Washington, which President Biden represents, the US is now fully back on its established foreign policy; it’s now particularly hell-bent on undermining China’s rise in military power. It has been reducing its military commitments in various parts of the world and reinforcing its naval, ground and air force bases scattered all-around China and international waters. 

Meanwhile, as tensions grow between the two giants, another Cold War-era looms on the horizon while proactive countries are considering different strategies that would safeguard their respective interests in the imminent China-US Cold War without having to align with either against the other. 

Geopolitical dynamics of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

(Link on Daily Trust)

Renewed tensions have risen over the past few weeks on the Azerbaijan-Armenia border as Turkey and Pakistan joined Azerbaijan in joint military exercises to emphasize their commitment to supporting it against Armenia in their lingering conflict over the mountainous Nagorno-Karabakh enclave in the South Caucasus between Eastern Europe and Western Asia. 

Another intended recipient of the message behind the joint military exercises is Iran, being particularly committed to providing military support to Armenia against Azerbaijan. And it obviously got the message hence responded by conducting unprecedented military exercises on its border with Azerbaijan. 

By the way, in international politics, a publicized military exercise is always meant to convey some subtle but serious warnings to the intended target. And depending on the situation, the intended target may condemn it, or react with a counter publicized military exercise, or simply feign indifference to save face and avert further escalation. 

In addition to Iran, Russia has equally supported Armenia in the conflict even though, unlike Iran, it has obviously relented in recent years to the extent of appearing practically neutral, which partly explains the relative ease with which Azerbaijan, albeit supported by Israel and Turkey, managed to reclaim almost the entire enclave last year after thirty years under Armenian occupation.  

Though the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave is an Azerbaijani territory, it’s largely populated by the Armenian ethnic minority. Also, though the conflict is more than a century old, it had been overtaken and contained by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic’s annexation of both Azerbaijan and Armenia. It only began to resurface towards the collapse of the Soviet Union when the first ethnic conflict between Azeris and Armenian secessionists erupted in 1988. 

Under the then steadily weakening Soviet Union, and shortly before its collapse, Azerbaijan declared its independence while the Armenian-dominated parliament of the then autonomous Nagorno-Karabakh voted for annexing the enclave to Armenia. Also, in a controversial referendum, which was boycotted by the Azeris, the Armenian ethnic minority voted for secession from Azerbaijan.  

Following the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Armenia and Azerbaijan, among other former constituents of the Union, emerged as duly recognized sovereign states. However, a few months afterwards, war erupted between them and lasted until 1994 within which both ethnic Azeris and Armenians perpetrated ethnic cleansing against each other.

Now, as in every conflict with external dynamics, foreign governments motivated by their respective legitimate and illegitimate interests have been partly responsible for the protraction of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. 

All along, Russia, which rightly or wrongly considers itself the patron of Orthodox Christianity in the world took sides in favour of Armenia, which is equally a predominantly Orthodox Christian country. Also, with its sheer economic and political influence in Armenia, Russia regards it as part of its exclusive sphere of influence. 

On the other hand, Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan against Armenia is partly motivated by the historical hostilities between Turks and Armenians, which have always been the underlying dynamics behind the protracted tensions between Turkey and Armenia. Besides, Turkey has always considered itself the patron of the ethnic Azeris among other ethnicities across the South Caucasus who were historically Turks. Azerbaijan is also one of the sources of natural gas for energy-hungry Turkey. 

On its part, Pakistan’s support for Azerbaijan against Armenia is basically in reciprocation for Azerbaijan’s support for Pakistan against India in their dispute over the disputed Kashmir region. Yet, its increased military involvement in Azerbaijan- Armenia conflict against the latter suggests a deliberate move to secure a firmer foothold in the region’s geopolitical power struggle. 

Likewise, Iran is deeply involved in the conflict and has hugely supported Armenia militarily. Interestingly, though Iran views itself as the patron of the Shi’a in the world, it ironically supports Orthodox Christian Armenia against Azerbaijan, which is not only equally Shiite but the biggest Shiite country in the world for that matter, percentage-wise, for the Shi’a constitute more than 85% of its almost 10 million population. However, it does not recognize the spiritual supremacy of Iran’s Supreme Leader, while Iran, as it does everywhere, maintains a militia called Husainiyyoon in the country, which is loyal to the Supreme Leader in Tehran.    

Anyway, though Iran is a Persian elite-dominated theocracy, ethnic minorities in the country constitute a sizeable percentage of its population. The Azeris constitute more than 20% and may amount to 40% when combined with other Turkic-origin ethnic minorities in the country. Also, while they are largely marginalised, a few individuals among them who have discarded their ethnic origins and effectively turned Persian have held important positions in the theocracy. The Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is himself ethnically Azeri. 

Iran has always been worried about the steady rise of a nationalist tendency among its ethnic minorities, especially the Azeris who the regime suspects of harbouring secessionist tendency to form a separate entity or merge with their fellow Azeris across the border in Azerbaijan. It’s equally worried about the growing Turkish influence among the Azeris and other Turkic-origin ethnic minorities in Iran, which Turkey may manipulate to politically blackmail it.  

Meanwhile, Israel, which already has diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan, took advantage of the situation supporting Azerbaijan with advanced weapons and intelligence thereby achieving its main objective i.e. securing a foothold in Azerbaijan to run its subversive operations against Iran just across the border. Israel has been desperate to secure as many military footholds as possible across Iran’s borders to counter its similar footholds across Lebanon-Israel and Syria-Israel borders. 

With active Israeli Mossad and military presence in Azerbaijan, it’s believed that Israel’s recurrent attacks on selected targets in Iran have always been launched from neighbouring Azerbaijan. Likewise, Mossad’s assassinations of Iran’s nuclear program officials were believed to have been masterminded from there. 

Now, though the United States and other major players in international politics pursue their respective interests in the conflict, it’s obvious that it’s not of particular concern to any of them anyway.

Return of Taliban: The Doha deal

(Link on Daily Trust)

As expected, the Taliban’s dramatic and largely unresisted advance has culminated in their return to power in Afghanistan 20 years after they were overthrown by the US invading army in pursuit of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida members who it believes were behind the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington and New York. 

Interestingly, contrary to the general assumption, the United States has never designated the Taliban as a terrorist organization; it only accuses the group of cooperating with some of the most dangerous groups on its terror list i.e. Al-Qaida and its affiliates; an inconsistency that can best be described as “ba cinya ba, kafar baya”. 

Just like every other country, the US only designates a group or individual as a terrorist based on its interests. The lack of absolute unanimity on the definition of terrorism explains why a terrorist in the eyes some may be a freedom fighter according to others. 

Now, as much as the return of the Taliban to power has generated all sorts of explanations, it left many people wondering what explains the circumstances surrounding the development as a whole. 

Though the US overthrew the Taliban regime in 2001, it soon began to realize that the country was too complex for a mere regime change to change it. Also, after pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the country over two decades to create and nurture a reasonably stable US-allied state with adequately equipped and well-trained security personnel, the country’s underlying ethno-cultural and socio-political peculiarities, which the US couldn’t take into consideration, undermined and eventually frustrated its efforts. 

Following their defeat in 2001, the Taliban turned to guerilla warfare tactics killing more than 2,000 US military and security personnel over the two decades, and, of course, exhausting the Afghan army and security personnel.

The US began to grow increasingly frustrated as it was spending massive resources and losing its military personnel to the Taliban attacks in an impoverished and landlocked country with neither instantly exploitable resources nor or any strategic importance to it. Besides, the country had ceased to pose any significant threat to the US following its elimination of Al-Qaeda and other foreign fighters in the country. 

Also, the largely apathetic Afghan military personnel were still incapable of tackling the Taliban unaided. Equally, the largely corrupt Afghan military and political elite were neck-deep in systematic misappropriation of the country’s already meagre and mostly US-provided resources. They also couldn't grow beyond their respective, tribal, regional affiliations and other deep-seated prejudices. 

Therefore, and clearly with prior approval, if not an order, from Washington, Qatar reached out to the Taliban to broker a deal between it and the United States. 

Interestingly, Qatar is a tiny but superfluously rich Arab Gulf state hugely obsessed with geopolitical influence disproportionate to its size. It pursues its agenda by investing massively in sponsoring anti-establishment political groups and non-state actors in various countries across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA region). It equally provides them with media platforms on its influential Aljazeera satellite television network, which it also uses to glorify them and demonize their respective governments thereby constantly putting itself at loggerheads with various governments in the region.   

Anyway, around the beginning of 2010, Qatar effectively adopted the Taliban, following which the group’s leaders were politically refined in its capital, Doha, over the subsequent years within which talks were held between the group’s representatives and their US counterparts. 

Also, in 2013, Qatar established the Taliban’s political bureau in Doha, which was the first and only one of its kind, to institutionalise contacts between them and the United States in the atmosphere of irresistible luxury and glamour away from Afghanistan.  

Since then, the Taliban has been increasingly involved in international diplomacy acquiring considerable skills in the process that on different occasions it managed to blackmail the US into making concessions by capitalising on its desperation to pull out of Afghanistan without jeopardizing its interests. 

The Taliban representatives also visited the capitals of some major international and regional players for talks with governments’ officials and representatives of international bodies. 

Besides, all through the US-Taliban negotiations in Doha, the former had effectively treated the latter like a substantive government, not a group, leading to the ratification of the deal between them in February 2020. For instance, the deal provides, among other things, that the US would withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, while the Taliban, in return, agreed not to harbour or allow anyone or group threatening the security of the United States or its allies to operate in the country.  

After all, from the way the US pulled out of the country, it was clear that it effectively handed it to the Taliban on a silver platter. Equally, the reactions of the other world powers, which suggest no surprise, imply that they were at least privy to, if not part, of the whole thing all along.  

Now, though the new Taliban government would be different from the pre-2001 Mullah Omar-led government, it wouldn’t necessarily live up to the US expectations. Yet, as long its grip on power doesn’t threaten the US security or jeopardise its interests, any other excesses it may commit would be overlooked.