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.