Germany’s Olaf Scholz has become a major problem for Ukraine

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Between leaked recordings, loose-lipped press conferences and confused policy, the German chancellor is in serious trouble.

ADVERTISEMENT

After months of what appeared to be an effective stalemate, a new narrative of the Ukrainian conflict is setting in: unless the West both expands and speeds up its support for the Ukrainian military, Russia could soon have a major window of opportunity.

And with the US House of Representatives still yet to clear a new package of American military aid, European NATO allies are moving to ramp up their contributions to the war effort. But not all of them are on the same page – and the continent’s largest economy is suddenly looking like a major political and strategic problem for both Ukraine and NATO as a whole.

Germany has been on a long journey since the Russian invasion in February 2022. The then-relatively new government led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz oversaw a major change in German defence policy by announcing the country would provide Ukraine with military hardware, a move that helped prove how seriously the West as a whole was taking the conflict.

Since then, however, the Germans’ part in the war has been somewhat muddled. On the one hand, German Euros and materiel have been reaching Ukraine, albeit on a stop-start basis. The country’s defence ministry clearly acknowledges the seriousness of the conflict: it has increasingly urged Europe to anticipate a larger Russian threat to countries beyond Ukraine, and is deploying combat-ready battalions to Lithuania, meaning German troops will be stationed just 100km away from the Russian border.

But on the other hand, Scholz’s government has lately been resisting pressure to share one of its most powerful military assets with the Ukrainians just when they need it most. 

The item in question is the Taurus missile, a stealth missile with a 500km range – twice the range of the British Storm Shadow and French Scalp missiles, both of which have been used by Ukraine to hit major Russian military targets.

The Ukrainians have been asking for the Taurus system for months, but Scholz has so far refused. The chancellor has claimed that the missiles cannot be sent to Ukraine because it would entail putting German troops on the ground to programme them, a move that he claimed could threaten a dangerous escalation.

Scholz made a major diplomatic misstep at a recent summit when he implied that French and British forces are operating cruise missiles that are ostensibly under Ukrainian control – something neither country admits is happening. The head of the UK House of Commons’s Foreign Affairs Committee called the remarks “wrong, irresponsible and a slap in the face to allies”. 

But worse than Scholz’s refusal to send Tauruses to Ukraine was the recent leak of a recording in which German air force officers could be heard directly contradicting Scholz’s argument, instead confirming that the missile would not in fact require the deployment of German manpower inside Ukraine.

The recording was revealed in Russian media, with Moscow threatening “dire consequences” for Germany if Taurus is deployed in Ukraine.

Former president Dmitry Medvedev, who has voiced some of the Kremlin’s most extreme rhetoric since the invasion, responded with a pair of nationalistic tirades in response via the messaging app Telegram, sharing a Second World War-era poem entitled “Kill Him!” and writing, “The call of the Great Patriotic War has become relevant again: “DEATH TO THE GERMAN-NAZI OCCUPIERS!”

Caught out

That such a sensitive conversation could be recorded and leaked at all, not least by the Russians, has horrified many in Germany and NATO more widely. But the revelation that Scholz’s public pretext for withholding the Taurus is baseless has caused deep anger.

According to Benjamin Tallis, Senior Fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, the recording shows that the chancellor is not truly committed to a Ukrainian victory.

“Holding back like this risks a Ukrainian defeat, which would put all of Europe at great risk” he told Euronews. “Scholz’s arguments have been dismantled one by one and revealed to be excuses. Allies have sent similar weapons and faced no retaliation. All Scholz is doing is projecting weakness and making Germany more of a target.

“Following the Taurus leak, it seems that what Scholz is really afraid of is the weapon’s effectiveness. This betrays his position of not wanting Ukraine to win – and it’s an approach that lets down all Europeans by making us less safe.”

The saga of the Taurus missile and the leaked recording comes at an extremely inopportune moment in the Ukrainian conflict.

Recent Russian advances in the east of the country have owed a lot to a shortage of ammunition on the Ukrainian side, which Kyiv and some of its allies have attributed to certain Western countries’ slowness to resupply the war effort.

Aside from continuing to inflict major casualties on the Russian military – which Kyiv claims has lost well over 400,000 troops since February 2022 – the Ukrainian Armed Forces are currently focusing on destroying high-value military assets that the Russians will struggle to replace, among them a high-tech Russian patrol ship that was hit by a sea drone on 4 March.

These strikes have multiple benefits: aside from costing nothing in Ukrainian lives, they both undermine Russia’s tactical abilities and challenge the idea that its enormous resources offer anything like a guarantee of victory. The same goes for missile and drone strikes within Russian territory, particularly in the border region of Belgorod, which Ukraine has targeted multiple times.

ADVERTISEMENT

But without enough Western hardware to continue these efforts, and with ever more reports of troops retreating from positions with depleted ammunition, Ukraine will struggle to keep its closest allies’ hopes alive.



Source link

#Germanys #Olaf #Scholz #major #problem #Ukraine

Iran’s upcoming election is a mafia-style tussle of Khamenei’s minions

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

The 1 March election is set to be an insider patron-client fight, with various oligarchic clans competing to have the upper-hand insider hand and ultimately a greater slice of the pie in the kleptocratic so-called “holy system” that is the Islamic Republic, Saeid Golkar and Kasra Aarabi write.

ADVERTISEMENT

Friday marks parliamentary election day in the Islamic Republic of Iran — or so the regime will want the world to believe. 

Cue the staged queues lining up at the ballot box ready to deliver their rehearsed script on “Islamic democracy” to international journalists, who will in turn flaunt their “rare and exclusive” reports in Iran. 

And while some mainstream media outlets in the West will no doubt fall into the ayatollah’s trap, polling day on 1 March is anything but a free and fair vote.

Of course, this will (hopefully) come as no surprise to many: there are no democratic elections in Iran. 

Rather, all candidates are pre-approved by the 84-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — who rules with absolute authority as God’s representative on Earth — and the outcome is manufactured to his taste. 

But even for the standards of the Islamic Republic, election engineering has been unprecedented this time around.

A patron-client fight is about to unfold

The lack of consequences for the Islamic Republic has meant the previously self-conscious Khamenei no longer cares what the world thinks of his regime. 

He has pulled off the veil of electoral “legitimacy” and exposed the naked totalitarianism of his regime.

In the process, we’ve witnessed mass disqualifications and even the boycotting of the vote by some elements of the Islamist left (often wrongly depicted as “reformists”). 

In turn, only the Islamist right — the social base of Khamenei and his all-powerful paramilitary force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — has been permitted to run for office.

But “electoral” competition, if we can call it that, isn’t between political parties. Instead, 1 March will be an insider patron-client fight, with various oligarchic clans competing to have the upper-hand insider hand and ultimately a greater slice of the pie in the kleptocratic so-called “holy system” that is the Islamic Republic. 

Competition is centred on egos, personalities and resources, not political power per se. After all, Iran’s legislature, the Majlis, has very little, if any, authority — and the successful candidates will be nothing more than Khamenei’s minions.

So, who are the patron-client networks battling it out?

The infighting of the old guard

In simplest terms, this mafia-like tussle is between the old cohort of Khamenei absolutists and the supreme leader’s younger generation of zealots.

The figureheads of each clan have produced a list of Khamenei pre-approved candidates that will represent their network on the “ballot”. 

While some of these patrons have entered the race themselves, others have preferred to guide from afar — and, in doing so, present themselves as less opportunistic.

The old guard all fall under three main figures.

The first is none other than Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the incumbent Majlis speaker who has earned the title of the IRGC’s “most corrupt commander” — a remarkable achievement given the already rampant corruption in the Guard. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Ghalibaf’s most recent corruption scandal took place this week, with leaked documents revealing his son laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars in Western banks. 

Until now, Ghalibaf has been continuously bailed out by Khamenei’s close circle each time he has found himself in a corruption scandal. But the latest case may prove too far — and it has provided his opponents with ammo to strike.

Next in line is Gholam-Ali Hadad Adel, a senior adviser to the supreme leader. 

Hadad-Adel is very much in the inner circle of Khamenei connected through family relations, with his daughter married to Khamenei’s power-hungry son, Mojtaba — tipped to be the next supreme leader.

Last but certainly not least is fiery hardline cleric Morteza Aghatehrani. Aghatehrani was the student and protégé of the late Ayatollah Mohammad Taqhi Mesbah-Yazdi, the IRGC’s ideological forefather who once issued a fatwa that encouraged acid attacks on women with “improper” hijab.

ADVERTISEMENT

While this old cohort will be battling out between themselves, their main fight will be with the younger generation of elites who are just as, if not more, radical and extreme. They can be split into two patron-client groups.

The ‘kids’ are not alright

The first falls under Mehrdad Bazrpash, incumbent Minister for Roads and Urban Development and the former IRGC’s Student Basij Organisation for Sharif University — an entity sanctioned for gross human rights violations. 

Bazrpash’s rise took place under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when at only 27, the former hardline president made him head of “Saipa” and “Pars Khodro”, two of the biggest car manufacturing companies in Iran — all as a reward for his ideological commitment. 

While Bazrpash will not be directly participating, he will be fielding candidates under his political faction called “Sharayan”.

And finally, there’s the new crazy on the block: the IRGC-affiliated Ali Akbar Raeifpour. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Raefipour can be best described as a radical antisemitic conspiracy preacher. He has teamed up with Saeed Mohammad — a young and radical IRGC commander who had rising political ambitions that were cut short by the Guard’s old cohort, not least Ghalibaf. 

Despite the noise, Raeifpour’s network is unlikely to mount a serious challenge to the old oligarchic elite. 

But the fact that this radical preacher, whose extremism was once regarded as being “too irrational” even for segments of the hardline clerical establishment is indicative of the “dumbification” of the regime. 

The “dumbification” refers to Khamenei’s systematic effort to replace experience and knowledge for absolute ideological commitment — or what his circle has termed “purification”.

The regime doesn’t care

This mafia-like competition between the supreme leader’s older and younger zealots in the Majlis is identical to that of the coming elections for the so-called “Assembly of Experts”, which are also taking place on 1 March. 

ADVERTISEMENT

In theory, this body is responsible for selecting the next supreme leader, but in practice, it is tightly controlled by Khamenei.

In the past five years, as part of his manifesto for the next 40 years, Khamenei has been able to fully personalise power in the Islamic Republic and “purify” its ranks so as to ensure the triumph of his cult of personality across every branch of government. 

In doing so, the 84-year-old ayatollah’s goal is to both guarantee a smooth succession process — ousting all but absolutists — and to ensure his hardline Islamist ideology outlives him.

While these patron-client oligarchs will be battling it out for a bigger share of the pie, the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people have paid no attention to the election circus. 

According to state-backed figures, which are always inflated, as few as 15% of Iranians in the capital Tehran are planning to actually go to the polls. Not that the regime cares.

ADVERTISEMENT

Inevitably, there will be only one winner from this week’s “vote” — namely, Khamenei himself.

Kasra Aarabi is Director of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) research at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), specialising in Iranian military and security affairs and Shi’a extremism. He is also a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC. Saeid Golkar is Senior Advisor at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and UC Foundation Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Irans #upcoming #election #mafiastyle #tussle #Khameneis #minions

Normalising al-Assad’s regime is dangerous and must be abandoned

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

To all serious policymakers, it is crystal clear that normalising the al-Assad regime is a misguided policy that neglects the fundamental principles of justice, accountability, and the rights of displaced Syrians, Refik Hodžić and Osama Seyhali write.

ADVERTISEMENT

A year ago, in February 2023, in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that hit North West Syria and Southern Turkey, the world witnessed a geopolitical tremor that shook the ground beneath Syrian diplomacy: a sudden rush by regional powers and some Western states to normalise relations with Bashar al-Assad’s regime. 

This move, while seemingly pragmatic, did not resolve nor address any pressing issues or threats affecting the Syrian people or Western stakeholders in Syria. 

At the same time, it threatened to betray the hopes of millions of displaced Syrians who yearn for justice and a dignified return to their homeland.

For example, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) provided $100 million (€92.5m) in earthquake-related humanitarian assistance directly to the Syrian regime, and countries like Saudi Arabia and some European states provided earthquake relief via Damascus. 

Yet, the main affected areas were outside the control of the Syrian regime, and the international community had direct and faster access to those areas. 

This self-imposed and artificially created bureaucracy driven by political agendas contributed to the unnecessary death of thousands of Syrians trapped under the rubble and prolonged the suffering of hundreds of thousands more.

Friends will be friends

A series of diplomatic engagements between Syria and Russia, Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE indicated that a new approach to the Syrian regime may be materialising. 

Saudi Arabia reopened its embassy in Syria in May, while in the same month, the Arab League summit in Saudi Arabia invited Bashar al-Assad as a full member, after 12 years of isolation.

Although the regional normalisation attempts had a mixed reaction in the West, ranging from official silence to mild reservations, there has been expectation to see if such normalisation will yield any tangible effects that could serve the interests of some of the Western governments — serious prospects for the return of Syrian refugees and the prevention of new displacement waves towards Europe.

Amidst the lack of any clear political horizon or seriousness on behalf of the international community in the implementation of UNSC resolution 2245, and the lack of effective monitoring mechanisms to enforce sanctions on the Syrian regime, normalisation of the Syrian regime offered the illusion of peace and stability while ignoring the underlying issues of accountability, human rights abuses, and political disenfranchisement that have plagued Syria for decades.

Bashar al-Assad’s intransigence, the continued production and smuggling of huge quantities of synthetic drugs which are significantly affecting countries like Jordan, and have already reached Turkey and Europe, and the recent adoption of “Assad Anti-Normalisation Act” by the US House of Representatives, have put a spanner in the works of international champions of his regime’s normalisation. 

However, it is not entirely clear that they have completely abandoned this flawed stance.

Legitimising a regime of brutality and repression

This makes it even more important to remind everyone that any policy which seeks to normalise the murderous regime in Damascus disregards the fundamental rights and aspirations of the largest and most directly affected constituency: the displaced Syrians.

Displacement is more than just a physical journey across borders; it leaves deep emotional and psychological scars on individuals and communities. 

A recent survey conducted among displaced Syrians revealed the profound mistrust they continue to harbour towards the al-Assad regime. 

Their distrust is well-founded, given the regime’s history of brutality and repression. 

For displaced Syrians, returning home is not merely a matter of crossing a border; it entails rebuilding trust, ensuring safety, and guaranteeing basic human rights, all impossible under al-Assad’s rule.

Normalisation with the al-Assad regime would effectively legitimise a government that has committed widespread human rights abuses, including the use of chemical weapons, arbitrary detentions, and torture.

ADVERTISEMENT

It would send a disheartening message to the victims of these atrocities that their suffering is overlooked for political expediency. 

The Syrian Association for Citizens’ Dignity’s findings reveal a clear rejection of normalisation by displaced Syrians, with a significant majority ceasing efforts to return due to safety concerns and unresolved issues such as the fate of detainees. 

By sidelining these concerns, normalisation risks further entrenching a regime that has consistently shown disregard for basic human rights and international norms.

Moreover, normalisation without a credible pathway to political transition ignores the root causes of the Syrian conflict. It clearly diverts from the UN Security Council resolutions, like Resolution 2254, which outlines a roadmap for peace, including a ceasefire, humanitarian aid access, and a political settlement reflecting the Syrian people’s will. 

Such political adventurism on the part of the international community further erodes the faith among displaced Syrians in the current political process, driven by the belief that normalisation strengthens al-Assad’s position, further diminishing the prospects for a genuine political solution.

ADVERTISEMENT

What happened to accountability?

The policy of normalisation also undermines the principle of accountability. 

For any durable peace in Syria, accountability for war crimes and human rights abuses is indispensable. 

Displaced Syrians, as highlighted in the survey’s findings, prioritise the issue of tens of thousands of detainees still held in al-Assad’s prisons and the establishment of a safe environment for all Syrians.

By engaging with the al-Assad regime without addressing these issues, the international community fails to uphold justice, potentially fostering a climate of impunity that could have far-reaching consequences beyond Syria’s borders, as it fails to address the humanitarian and security dimensions of the Syrian crisis. 

The conflict has created one of the largest displacement crises globally, with millions of Syrians seeking refuge in neighbouring countries and beyond. The international community’s engagement with al-Assad without a clear commitment to resolving the displacement crisis risks exacerbating the vulnerabilities of refugees, subjecting them to further discrimination and instability.

ADVERTISEMENT

Consequently, the normalisation policy overlooks the strategic error of alienating the most numerous constituency of Syrians — more than 13 million displaced Syrians represent the majority of the country’s population, with deep ties to their homeland and a vested interest in its future. 

Their exclusion from the political process not only negates a wealth of potential contributions to Syria’s recovery and reconciliation but also disregards their right to self-determination. 

The work of organisations and movements representing displaced Syrians continuously emphasises the necessity of including them in any discussions on the country’s future, ensuring their experiences and aspirations shape the path forward. 

It is a grave illusion that this can be ignored without severe consequences for the region and European states.

There are no shortcuts to peace

Seeking shortcuts to peace that bypass the difficult but essential steps of ensuring justice, accountability, and reconciliation is a perilous path. 

ADVERTISEMENT

History has shown us that such shortcuts often lead to fragile and unsustainable peace that collapses under the weight of unaddressed grievances.

To all serious policymakers, it is crystal clear that normalising the al-Assad regime is a misguided policy that neglects the fundamental principles of justice, accountability, and the rights of displaced Syrians. 

It needs to be abandoned in all its shapes and guises. Instead, for a sustainable resolution to the Syrian conflict, the international community must prioritise a political process that includes the voices and concerns of displaced Syrians, aligns with international resolutions for peace, ensures a safe environment for all Syrians, and holds perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable. 

The insights we have witnessed so far serve as a crucial reminder of the stakes involved and the imperative to reevaluate current approaches for the sake of Syria’s future and the dignity of its people.

Refik Hodžić is a transitional justice expert and senior advisor at the European Institute for Peace, and Osama Seyhali is advocacy officer and member of the Board of Trustees of the Syrian Association for Citizens’ Dignity.

ADVERTISEMENT

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Normalising #alAssads #regime #dangerous #abandoned

A Trump win would see Africa (and the world) spiral into climate hell

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Trump’s election victory would see a return to policies that led to a whopping 110 million Africans facing humanitarian and environmental crises today. But what happens in Africa will not stay in Africa, Nathaniel Mong’are writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

African policymakers are bracing themselves for the return of Donald Trump. Having swept the Republican primaries, polls consistently put the former US leader neck-and-neck with incumbent Joe Biden in a presidential rematch. 

Yet, a Trump victory could end up guaranteeing climate disaster for Africa and the world, and Europe must take note.

Of course, at the forefront of most African leaders’ minds is Trump’s undisguised racism, embodied in his expletive-filled rant denigrating African nations back in 2018.

He had also gutted practically all climate funding for dedicated USAID programmes in Africa — programmes initiated under Barack Obama that were crucial to promoting climate resilience by arming African governments with tech, funds and support to fight climate change.

The programme’s departure — although it has shown signs of a recent revival under Biden — marked years lost and contributed directly to the deepening humanitarian and environmental crisis that today impacts more than 110 million Africans.

But what happens in Africa will not stay in Africa. Climate change will intensify, not weaken, migration. 

For US patriots who want to see secure borders, they would do well to recognise that the only way to do so is to support African nations in dealing with climate change.

Climate failure will make the exploitation of grievances worse

That’s why Europeans should equally recognise that Trump’s comeback is a warning signal. 

He represents a new and dangerous trans-Atlantic far-right movement exploiting mounting grievances due to economic challenges which are, ultimately, linked to our chronic dependence on fossil fuels — which has locked us into an inflationary economic crisis.

Trumpist tactics are designed to deflect public attention from this reality, but they are being used across the EU by far-right parties ranging from Germany’s AfD to Geert Wilders Freedom Party in the Netherlands. This requires a concerted fightback, not confused appeasement.

Both US and European progressive parties need to help voters realise that climate failure will set their futures ablaze. According to the Institute for Economics and Peace, business-as-usual will create as many as 1.2 billion climate refugees by 2050.

If Americans and Europeans are worried about migrants now, climate change will make this an insoluble challenge. That’s why the EU must not make the same mistakes as President Biden on climate action.

Washington is not taking things seriously anyway

Under Biden, we’ve seen a record-breaking explosion in approvals for more oil and gas drilling permits — even more than Trump — coinciding with a new, mammoth ad campaign promoting the expanded use of fossil fuels launched by the American Petroleum Institute.

This approach has come at odds with US statements during last year’s UN COP28 climate summit in the UAE. 

The US publicly flirted with the idea of a phase-out of fossil fuels and signed up to the historic “UAE Consensus” agreement to transition away from fossil fuels and triple renewable energy capacity by 2030.

The US was also asleep at the wheel when COP28 broke new ground in operationalising a long overdue Loss and Damage Fund for rapid, disaster-relief support to the global South — the US pledged just $17.5 million (€16.1m), paling embarrassingly in comparison to other contributions from Norway ($25m), Denmark ($50m) and the UAE ($100m). 

And of course, Biden himself was conspicuously absent from COP28.

The EU is in danger of following the same road, however, planning €205 billion in new gas investments, while still offering paltry support for climate investments in the Global South. 

ADVERTISEMENT

We either mobilise trillions or face the same fate

At the International Energy Agency (IEA) ministerial meeting in Paris earlier in February, US and EU policymakers said little about the trillions needed to support clean energy in Africa and elsewhere.

It was only a week later during his first address at the IEA’s Paris headquarters after COP28 that the climate summit’s President Dr Sultan Al Jaber addressed this elephant in the room. 

Urging governments and industries to take “unprecedented action” to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, he pointed to COP28’s launch of Altérra, the world’s largest private investment vehicle for climate action, as a model to be “replicated many times over … The world must raise the bar to address the challenges we face — mobilising trillions rather than billions”.

He also asked industries to “decarbonise at scale” while also calling on governments to invest heavily in expanding national grids so they can absorb new renewable projects at pace.

This is exactly the entrepreneurial mindset that European policymakers must adopt today. And it must prioritise unlocking trillions of climate finance for the Global South.

ADVERTISEMENT

A failure to do so would not only throw Africa into the flames of climate disaster but create the foundations for an unprecedented global migrant crisis that could be a gift to the far-right. 

Whatever fate we face in Africa will rapidly arrive on the shores of the US and Europe.

But the reality is that Africans want to prosper in Africa. So it’s time for Western, and European leaders in particular, to create a new unifying vision for a shared future of clean prosperity — or reckon with the demise of the EU experiment.

Nathaniel Mong’are is Senior Advisor to the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kenya. He also helped organise the first-ever Africa Climate Week in Kenya in 2023.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Source link

#Trump #win #Africa #world #spiral #climate #hell

Russia’s war in Ukraine has been knocking on your door, too

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Two years on, we know that if Russia succeeds, we will find ourselves in a world that will be dangerous for everyone without exception, Oleksandra Matviichuk writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

I don’t know what historians in the future will call this historical period. But we happen to live in rather challenging times. 

The world order, based on the Charter of the UN and international law, is collapsing before our eyes. 

The international peace and security system established after World War II provided unjustified indulgences for certain countries. It did not cope well with global challenges before, but now it is stalling and reproducing ritualistic movements. 

The work of the UN Security Council is paralyzed. We have entered a highly volatile period in history, and now fires will occur more and more frequently in different parts of the world because the world’s wiring is faulty and sparks are everywhere.

A conflict of what makes us human

Samuel Huntington predicted that new global conflicts would arise between different civilizations. 

I live in Kyiv, and my native city, like thousands of other Ukrainian cities, is being shelled not only by Russian missiles but also by Iranian drones. 

China is helping Russia circumvent sanctions and import technologies critical to warfare. North Korea sent Russia more than a million artillery shells. Syria votes at the UN General Assembly in support of Russia. 

We are dealing with the formation of an entire authoritarian bloc. As much as Russia, Iran, China, Syria, and North Korea are “different civilizations”, according to Huntington’s views, they pose a crucial common feature. 

All these regimes that have taken power in their countries have the same idea of what a human being is. That is why this is not a conflict of civilizations. This is a conflict of what makes us human.

Authoritarian leaders consider people as objects of control and deny them rights and freedoms. 

Democracies consider people, their rights and freedoms to be of the highest value. There is no way to negotiate this. 

The existence of the free world always threatens dictatorships with the loss of power. That’s because human beings inherently have a desire for freedom.

Therefore, when we talk about Russia’s war against Ukraine, we are not talking about a war between two states. This is a war between two systems — authoritarianism and democracy. 

If Russia succeeds, we’ll live in a world dangerous for everyone

Russia wants to convince the entire world that freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law are fake values because they do not protect anyone in times of war. 

Russia wants to convince that a state with a powerful military potential and nuclear weapons can break the world order, dictate its rules to the international community and even forcibly change internationally recognized borders.

If Russia succeeds, it will encourage authoritarian leaders in various parts of the world to do the same. The international system of peace and security does not protect people any more. 

Democratic governments will be forced to invest money not in education, health care, culture or business development, not in solving global problems such as climate change or social inequality, but in weapons. 

We will witness an increase in the number of nuclear states, the emergence of robotic armies and new weapons of mass destruction. 

ADVERTISEMENT

If Russia succeeds and this scenario comes true, we will find ourselves in a world that will be dangerous for everyone without exception.

It’s not post-truth, it’s post-knowledge

Public intellectuals say that we live in an era of post-truth. As for me, we live in an era of post-knowledge. 

People with access to Google, who can get the formula for aspirin in a second, forget that this does not make them chemists. People around the world are demanding quick and simple solutions. 

Perhaps in more peaceful times, we could afford it. You can treat a runny nose with squats, and at least it will not harm the body. However, if we are already dealing with cancer, the price of such simple solutions and actual therapy delays will be high.

The problem is not only that the space for freedom in authoritarian countries has narrowed to the size of a prison cell. The problem is that even in developed democracies, forces calling into question the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are gaining strength.

ADVERTISEMENT

There are reasons for this. The coming generations replaced those ones that survived World War II. They have inherited democracy from their parents. 

They began to take rights and freedoms for granted. They have become consumers of values. They perceive freedom as choosing between cheeses in the supermarket. 

In essence, they are ready to exchange freedom for economic benefits, promises of security or personal comfort.

Yet, the truth is that freedom is very fragile. Human rights are not attained once and forever. We make our own choices every day.

The war has come home a long time ago

In such times of turbulence, responsibility-driven leadership is required. Global challenges cannot be resolved individually or on your own. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The efforts of those who worked to build a shared European project were aimed at overcoming the history of wars. But stable growth and peace in the region are impossible while a part of Europe is bleeding. 

People only begin to understand that the war is going on when the bombs are falling on their heads, but the war has dimensions other than the military one: it is an economic war, an information war, a war of values. 

Whether we are brave enough to admit it or not, this war has long since crossed the borders of the European Union.

Because we live in a very interconnected world. And only the advancement of freedom makes this world safer.

Oleksandra Matviichuk is a Ukrainian human rights lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

ADVERTISEMENT

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Russias #war #Ukraine #knocking #door

Russia is now pretending it knows nothing of its colonial legacy

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Russia has always been one of the largest European colonial powers. Yet, its current leaders are engaging in the historical game of geopolitical opportunism that has been a recurring theme in the nation’s grand strategy, Maxim Trudolyubov writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

The ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine in Europe’s eastern fringes, Hamas’ brutal assault on Israel and the ensuing war, and the intermittent clashes between Iran’s proxies and Western forces in the Red Sea beg the question: will these conflicts result in victory, and if so, who will come out on top?

In the West, Ukraine, and even Russia, the anticipation of a victorious outcome is tied to the prevailing understanding of the twentieth century as a master narrative for the future — as a go-to history, which helps to grapple with war and conflict. 

This narrative boils down to defeating one evil in 1945 and another in 1989-1990.

The story of the defeat of evil

In 1945, Germany’s defeat was total. The unconditional victory of the anti-Hitler coalition, which included the United States, the Soviet Union, and China, alongside numerous other countries, followed by initiatives like the Marshall Plan and efforts to prevent new wars, laid the groundwork for the postwar West as well as the postwar Soviet Union.

There was a unanimous agreement on the severity of Nazi crimes, fostering a shared set of values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, allowing people from diverse cultures to find common ground. It paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel — a protected home for the victims of Nazism.

Four decades later, a world divided by the Cold War found unity again. The fall of the Berlin Wall accompanied by a wave of velvet revolutions that witnessed the collapse of communist regimes in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and other Eastern Bloc nations, marked the triumph of the West. 

Many former communist bloc countries joined the European Union. This time Russia was on the losing side, although it did, for a time, become a partner in the restored victorious coalition.

Yet, this historical consciousness often overlooks events that were pivotal for many non-Western countries and cultures. 

The former colonies experienced their unique twentieth century, complete with its own set of heroes and villains. 

In parallel to the Western narrative, the non-Western twentieth century was characterised by the emergence of national consciousness, the struggle for independence from Western colonial powers, and the establishment of their own political systems.

In its essence, it’s a story only tangentially related to, and much less black-and-white than the much-revered Nazi defeat or the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.

Non-Western national resurgence

While for many in the West, the postwar decades were a time of recovery, growth, and eventual victory over communism, for many in Asia and Africa it was an era of battles for independence, civil wars, and political strife. 

Moreover, those who were on the “right side of history” in the Western twentieth century were often on the “wrong side” in twentieth-century Asia and Africa.

The British, who were part of the winning coalition of 1945 in leading roles, crushed the rebellion of the Malayan National Liberation Army, a guerrilla force, shortly after the war. In the 1950s, the British brutally dealt with the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya.

Britain’s hasty partition of India in 1947 resulted in significant displacement of people and mass violence. 

From 1946 to 1954, France attempted to maintain control over its colonies in the Indochina peninsula through military means, leading eventually to the Vietnam War that lasted until 1975. The Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962) also witnessed violence and repression by French troops. 

In the late 1940s Indonesian Revolution, Dutch colonial forces engaged in violent clashes with Indonesian nationalists before acknowledging the establishment of an independent Indonesia.

Although China was not technically a colony, its society felt a sense of humiliation due to the concessions it was forced to make in trade and territory to both the UK and Russia. 

ADVERTISEMENT

As an example, the Convention of Peking in 1860 compelled China to give up portions of what is now known as the Far East to Russia, specifically the territories of modern Primorsky Krai and southern Khabarovsk Krai.

In short, Indian, Chinese, Middle Eastern and various other societies had their unique series of defeats and triumphs, distinctly different from those of Western nations. 

In fact, these experiences often involved confrontations with or victories over Western powers. 

At those moments in history, the Soviet Union often nominally played on the side of what is now called the Global South as part of its greater Cold War strategy. Yet, a collision of these divergent historical experiences and consciousnesses was bound to occur at some point.

Divergent views of history

It did happen, once and again, over the conflicts and wars in the Middle East. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The creation of the State of Israel was the product of a broad international consensus that emerged at a time when the anti-Hitler coalition had not yet disintegrated: both the United States and the Soviet Union voted in favour of establishing the new country.

Western politicians probably also sought to rehabilitate themselves from the fact that their countries had been reluctant in the pre-war and war years to accept Jews fleeing the deadly threat. 

In this context, the emergence of Israel was one of the most important positive events of the Western twentieth century. The efforts of many generations of Jews, a people that had not had their own sovereign state for almost 2,000 years, were crowned with success.

But in the non-Western world, this event appeared in a different light. The creators of the Western twentieth century — the US, the UK, and the Soviet Union — had long been involved in Middle Eastern politics. 

From the perspective of the peoples of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and many others, the policies of the Western powers were pursued in the region primarily for Western — or Soviet — interests.

ADVERTISEMENT

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I was followed by an arbitrary, from this perspective, redistribution of borders and resources in the region. 

The establishment of Israel after World War II and the drawing of the borders of the new country was seen by the inhabitants of the region in this light — as a colonial redrawing of their territories by some outsiders.

In all of that, Russia was hardly the liberator or the supporter of those wronged or oppressed. On the contrary, it sat squarely in the West’s corner.

Could Moscow’s arbitrary game pay off?

The inescapable fact is that Russia stood as one of the largest European colonial powers, especially from the non-Western perspective. This holds true even today. 

Yet, Russia’s current leaders are engaging in the historical game of geopolitical opportunism that has been a recurring theme in the nation’s grand strategy. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Following in the footsteps of Stalin, who initially supported the creation of Israel in 1948 but later assumed a quasi-colonial role as a patron of Egypt, Syria, and other Arab nations, Vladimir Putin’s administration presents Moscow as both anti-Western and anti-colonial. 

And, even more cynically, while aligning with China and Iran — nations characterised by their governments’ distinct anti-Western and anti-colonial sentiments — the Kremlin is waging a colonial war of aggression against Ukraine.

While Moscow’s roots lie in Western colonial power, it skillfully projects a contrasting image to appeal to non-Western nations, successfully garnering “positive press” in the Middle East and beyond.

In the Western world, the concept of victory is deeply ingrained in the narrative of a triumphant twentieth century — a worldview in which evil is punished and its victims are rewarded. 

For Russia, a former totalitarian power, there is no such concept, because it was both a winner and a loser within the West’s historical narrative. 

ADVERTISEMENT

In the contemporary landscape, there is no compelling reason to expect a definitive victory that neatly assigns everything and everyone to predefined roles. 

The post-war world’s contours remain elusive and undefined. And Moscow wants to capitalise on that as we speak.

Maxim Trudolyubov is a Senior Fellow at the Kennan Institute and the Editor-at-Large of Meduza. He is currently a visiting fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna (IWM).

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Russia #pretending #colonial #legacy

The litigation funding industry is abusing the global legal system

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Malaysia’s experience of the Sulu case allowed us to see up close the violation and damage that resulted from the funding of vexatious claims, Azalina Othman Said writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Government of Malaysia is engaged in a $14.92 billion (€13.85bn) legal dispute that challenges the sovereignty of the country. 

The matter involves a group of individuals self-proclaiming to be heirs to the defunct Sultanate of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram II, who received an arbitration award in February 2022 following their claim that Malaysia is in breach of a colonial-era land treaty involving North Borneo or Sabah, which today is an indisputable part of Malaysia.

Since then, Malaysia has faced an arduous and ongoing battle, incurring significant costs and the deployment of government resources to thwart the claimants’ frivolous claims and protect over 16% of our national budget. 

Malaysia’s position is unwavering — the case represents sophisticated abuse of the arbitration process that has no basis in law, and is nothing more than an attempt to extort a sovereign nation. I call this “The Sulu Fraud”.

Profit ahead of justice

One may question what relevance this case has to third-party litigation funding and the EU’s proposed regulation of the funding industry. 

The reality is that the Sulu case would not exist today without the involvement of a litigation funder, Therium, in bankrolling the claimants and their lawyers. Until today, we do not know how much the funder has spent. We do not know how the funder came to be involved. 

And we do not know how the funder came to an arrangement with a group of individuals who largely reside in the Philippines. However, we do know that they are putting profit ahead of justice.

The litigation funding industry has boomed in recent years across the world. According to some research, Europe’s share of the global litigation funding market is projected to reach nearly 16% of a total of $18bn (€16.7bn) by 2025. 

It has been suggested that the global market could surpass $57.2bn (€53bn) by 2035, as the number of individuals and corporations seeking financial investment in order to pursue legal claims grows exponentially.

I understand that litigation funding plays a pivotal role in providing access to justice. In legal disputes around the world, litigation costs can easily add up due to legal fees, the costs of going to court, and often other unforeseen costs when a party intends to litigate.

However, when an industry becomes worth several billion dollars, one begins to question whether access to justice remains a central tenet or if it is simply a convenient soundbite. 

It is evident that litigation funders are betting significant amounts with the hope of collecting a handsome share of the winnings. 

As funding agreements are commonly made in secret, counterparties involved in a dispute, including a judge, may be unaware of what funding is in place, where the money originates, and any potential conflicts of interest that may subsequently arise, unless in rare circumstances where the funded party voluntarily make the necessary disclosure.

Funding as a tool to wage legal warfare

The opaque nature of the litigation funding sector is a crucial factor in explaining why policymakers around the world should be concerned. 

Funding can serve as a tool through which claims receive funding, where the pursuit of justice is tainted by ulterior motives. 

This is even more true when a sovereign state is involved — whether on the receiving end of vexation claims or ultimately acting as a funder themselves to wage legal warfare.

Malaysia’s experience of the Sulu case allowed us to see up close the violation and damage that resulted from the funding of vexatious claims. 

Therium has turned a blind eye to a series of irregularities that have always been at the core of the Sulu case. 

ADVERTISEMENT

These include the sentencing to jail of the arbitrator responsible earlier this year, Mr Gonzalo Stampa, who received over $2.7 million (€2.5m) from Therium for issuing the $14.92bn final award.

Recent decisions from the Paris Court of Appeal and the Hague Court of Appeal revealed that the tide has turned in Malaysia’s favour and the attempts to seize the country’s sovereign assets have also been fought off. 

That being said, it remains to be seen as to whether transparency and ultimately justice will prevail.

It’s time to put a stop to the misuse of third-party funding

As the European Parliament’s proposed regulation of third-party funding demonstrates, we cannot continue with the status quo. I have emphasized this during the series of bilateral meetings in my recent official visit to Brussels. 

I have expressed our interest in understanding in greater detail the European Parliament’s proposed regulation on third-party funding — a regulatory framework that we champion wholeheartedly as a result of the Sulu case. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The bilateral meetings, among others, acknowledged the proliferation of abuses in arbitration, especially in light of the regulatory vacuum in the third-party litigation funding industry.

The time is ripe for transnational cooperation to combat the misuse of third-party funding solely for profit-orientated purposes, which subverts the pursuit of justice. 

In this respect, robust safeguards are urgently required to prevent abusive practices, curb excessive profit-seeking at the expense of justice, and introduce comprehensive oversight mechanisms as the sector matures.

I encourage our EU counterparts to move forward with their efforts to regulate the litigation funding industry, as it is only through concerted global actions and coordinated efforts of global leaders that abuses of the global legal system could be prevented. 

Azalina Othman Said serves as Minister of Law and Institutional Reform in the Government of Malaysia.

ADVERTISEMENT

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#litigation #funding #industry #abusing #global #legal #system

Navalny is the latest martyr of Russian totalitarianism

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

The choice which now has to be made is not whether to appease the Kremlin or go into an open conflict with it. The choice now is either to stop Russia in Ukraine or be forced to fight a resurgent Moscow in defence of Eastern Europe as a whole, Aleksandar Đokić writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

As much as the news of Alexei Navalny’s sudden death on Friday came as an intense shock, it’s hard to escape the blood-curdling shadow of its inevitability. 

It’s as if all democratically inclined Russians, and those who study the Russian society, knew all along that Navalny would be taken out of the picture by Vladimir Putin at some point, but at the same time hoped that it, by some miracle, not come to pass. 

The death of Navalny is not and cannot be treated as an accident. Since no factual and fair investigation can be conducted in the totalitarian Russia of today, the causes of his death will remain a mystery. 

There is no point in believing that even his remains will survive for long after they are laid to rest as they carry important evidence. 

What is true, however, is that, in August 2020, before his imprisonment, Navalny was poisoned by a neurotoxin which left permanent detrimental consequences on his health; he was kept in solitary confinement for most of his prison term, and he complained about the lack of proper medical care. 

Given the facts, his death was premeditated and orchestrated by the Russian machine of repression, even if he was not directly poisoned for the second time (which can still very well be the real cause of his death after all).

A pattern of propaganda reveals a sinister farce

The handling of Navalny’s sudden death by the Russian state propaganda follows the same pattern as in the case of his poisoning. 

There are always two versions of events that transpired — one, it was an accident, and two, it was the work of the “Anglo-Saxon” security services. 

The accidental death is the official version, the narrative which comes from the Russian penitentiary authorities. In the case of Navalny’s poisoning, the official version was that he had a medical condition and was not poisoned at all, which independent medical analysis in Germany later refuted. 

The unofficial version stems from the Russian state media propagandists and state-operated blogs. 

Their narratives coalesce and by the rule of thumb all claim that Russia had no motive to eliminate Navalny so it must have been the “perfidious Anglo-Saxons” who stand to benefit the most. 

Once one analyzes Russian narratives for years, these patterns become obvious and impossible to miss. They can only instill doubt in those outside of Russia who think about Putin’s totalitarian prison camp only in passing.

Make no mistake: The siloviki are in charge in Moscow

The final elimination of Navalny, when he was already exiled to a maximum security prison in the Arctic Circle, sends a clear message that the Kremlin has stopped pretending that it cares one bit whether it’s seen as a civilised country ruled by law or a thuggish concentration camp with neon-lit commercials. 

The great pretence, which lasted in Russia for almost two decades, was founded upon the balance of two wings of its elite — the hawkish siloviki, agents of the security services and high-ranking military officers, and the capable technocrats, disinterested in empire-building as well as in democracy, and concerned only with the continuous functioning of the political and economic system. 

By engaging in a large-scale war he could not quickly win — or win at all — Putin has transferred all the real power to the military-security wing. 

The people like former FSB director Nikolai Patrushev now effectively govern Russia. They have taken over the political sphere, they have captured even the sphere of culture, where blacklists of undesirable actors, directors or performers have already been made and have left, for the time being, only the area of the economy in the hands of the technocrats. 

The siloviki want the West to know that they mean to go all the way, hence the nuclear threats in space, combined by the elimination of Navalny, all taking place during the Munich Security Conference. 

The thugs who now rule Russia are feeling quite confident; they are emboldened by the polling from the United States, which gives Donald Trump a slight advantage over President Joe Biden, and by the fact that much-needed military aid to Ukraine, currently awaiting the approval of the US House of Representatives, has been postponed on the urging of Trump and his allies in the Republican Party. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The siloviki believe that victory is within their grasp. Eliminating Navalny is a clear sign of their confidence.

Between a rock and a hard place, the choice has to be made anyway

In the death of Navalny, however, Russia has gained yet another symbol of democratic martyrdom, as much as it lacks democratic opposition leaders. 

Better yet, it lacks an organised and unified liberal opposition. The million-ruble question is: who is next? Who will step up as the leader of the anti-totalitarian movement in Russia? 

The answer right now might as well be no one — at least in the few years of totalitarianism that are still ahead for Russia. Only the tawing process of transition from totalitarianism and back to authoritarianism can provide enough liberties for the opposition to once again start to form. 

That transition — as undemocratic as it will inevitably be — will most likely come from the top, and in order for that to be induced, Putin and the siloviki, who hold all the power in Russia, must hit a wall in Ukraine. 

ADVERTISEMENT

This has to be a wall made not only of Ukrainian bravery and sacrifice, but of Western resolve to contain Moscow’s aggression before it engulfs more of Europe, and, eventually, most of the continent. 

The choice which now has to be made, first and foremost by the White House and Brussels, is not whether to appease the Kremlin or go into an open conflict with it.

The choice is either to stop Russia in Ukraine or be forced to fight a resurgent Moscow in defence of Eastern Europe as a whole.

Aleksandar Đokić is a Serbian political scientist and analyst with bylines in Novaya Gazeta. Formerly, he was a lecturer at RUDN University in Moscow.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Source link

#Navalny #latest #martyr #Russian #totalitarianism

The Italy-Albania migration deal is cruel and counterproductive

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Deals with non-EU countries simply exacerbate the dangers and suffering that people in need of international protection face by pushing them into the hands of smugglers or traffickers, and onto ever more perilous routes, Harlem Désir and Susanna Zanfrini write.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the Italian city of Trieste, up to 400 people shelter each day in a crumbling, abandoned building next to the train station. 

This is not out of choice. With an average wait of 70 days before asylum seekers can access formal reception facilities, they have nowhere else to go. 

And while the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and other NGOs work tirelessly to provide food, water, information and legal advice, it’s simply not enough to match the soaring level of needs.

It’s clear that EU member states like Italy need to urgently invest in their reception systems, ensuring these are part of a safe, orderly and humane approach to migration. 

Everyone should have a secure place to sleep and access to their basic needs — particularly people with vulnerabilities such as women and children.

However, in the glaring absence of a sustainable EU asylum system rooted in solidarity and relocation, which would ease the pressure on Europe’s southernmost states, many are taking a different path. 

A way of outsourcing responsibility

A number of European governments have instead been exploring deals with non-EU countries intending to stop asylum seekers from setting foot on their soil in the first place.

The most recent of these is Italy’s new agreement with Albania. This would see the majority of people rescued at sea in Italian waters sent directly to Albania, where they would be held in detention centres while their asylum claims are considered.

This is not the first time a member state has looked into the possibility of outsourcing responsibility for asylum and migration management in this way, but there are fundamental reasons why these past proposals have not gone ahead: they are costly, cruel, counterproductive, and legally dubious.

One key concern is that EU states are legally required to uphold the right to seek asylum, regardless of how people arrive on their territory. 

The proposal to send people rescued at sea to Albania is in clear contravention of this legal principle — not to mention the union’s values of respect for human rights and dignity.

Secondly, Italy cannot guarantee that people’s rights will be upheld in their two planned detention centres in Albania. 

While the Italian government has said that its new rules will not apply to pregnant women, children or people with vulnerabilities, the deal does not explicitly confirm this, and huge questions remain as to how this exemption would be implemented in practice. 

Pushing people into harm’s way

Moreover, it is still far from clear how people held in the Albanian centres would access legal advice. 

The IRC’s teams on the Greek islands have evidenced the devastating impact of de facto detention on asylum seekers’ mental health, where 95% of people supported by our psychosocial teams in 2023 reported symptoms of anxiety and 86% of depression. 

It is difficult to see how this will be mitigated in Albania — a country that is not bound by EU rules and regulations.

Thirdly, the EU’s deals with Turkey and other countries such as Libya and Tunisia provide clear evidence that deterrence measures will not stop people from risking their lives in search of safety and security in Europe. 

If anything, they simply exacerbate the dangers and suffering that people in need of international protection face by pushing them into the hands of smugglers or traffickers, and onto ever more perilous routes. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Evidence shows that attempting to deter asylum seekers by creating harsher policies has little to no effect on arrival numbers. 

Not only do these policies push people into harm’s way and violate fundamental rights, but they do not even succeed in their terms of deterring asylum seekers. It’s time for the EU and its member states to forge a different approach.

No one risks their life if there are other options

European leaders should start by shifting their focus away from preventing people from reaching EU territory, to protecting them along their journeys. 

The IRC’s teams in Italy, and more broadly across Europe, see every day the difference that dignified reception can make to the lives of people seeking protection. 

Italy must meet the obligations laid out in the EU Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion to ensure that all newcomers are welcomed with dignity and respect. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Our experience shows that when people are supported to integrate from day one, it brings immense benefits both to new arrivals and their host communities.

More than 3,000 people died or went missing attempting to cross the Central Mediterranean in 2023, bringing the total over the past decade to almost 30,000 individuals — many of whom would have been granted refugee status if they had made it to Europe. 

Nobody puts their lives in the hands of smugglers unless they cannot access other options. The EU and its member states must urgently expand safe routes so people are not forced onto these dangerous journeys.

This will require significantly scaling up resettlement — a vital lifeline enabling the transfer of refugees from their first country of asylum to safety in Europe — on which EU states have failed to meet their joint commitments year-on-year. 

This must be completed by expanding other safe routes such as humanitarian corridors, family reunification and visas for work or study.

ADVERTISEMENT

An opportunity to do things right might just slip away

Last week, the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum — which will pave the way for the EU’s approach to migration in the coming years — was approved by EU states. 

It is crucial to ensure that this does not result in even more deterrence, violence and detention of people entitled to international protection. 

At this pivotal moment, it is essential that EU member states go above the minimum standards set out in the pact, and lose no time in creating the right environment for refugees and asylum seekers to thrive. 

If they fail to do so, they will see the opportunity to create a safe, orderly, and humane asylum system slip ever further from view.

Harlem Désir is the International Rescue Committee’s (IRC) Senior Vice-President, Europe, and Susanna Zanfrini is IRC’s Italy Country Director.

ADVERTISEMENT

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#ItalyAlbania #migration #deal #cruel #counterproductive

The UNRWA case reveals a much larger problem with humanitarian aid

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

The global consensus that humanitarian work is essential too easily surrenders the moral high ground, often with devastating consequences. It is time to recover that ground, Ambassador Mark Wallace and Dr Hans-Jakob Schindler write.

ADVERTISEMENT

Evidence implicating UNRWA employees in the 7 October terrorist attacks should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the activities of the UN’s agency for Palestinian refugees closely. 

Allegations that some UNRWA workers were in fact Hamas operatives are merely the latest iteration of a much larger problem plaguing the international aid sector. 

A stunning lack of oversight and regulation of humanitarian funds over the past several decades has allowed untold billions in taxpayer money to make their way into terrorists’ coffers.

While aid agencies may baulk at what they perceive as burdensome “red tape”, strict oversight and transparency are in fact fundamental to humanitarian work: they ensure that aid is delivered to those who need it, not diverted to extremist and terrorist groups.

Claims of no knowledge increasingly strain credulity

For years, UNRWA has played host to bad actors uninterested in a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

According to a dossier presented by Israeli intelligence, one in ten staff are terrorist “operatives”. 

Some 23% of male UNRWA workers in Gaza have ties to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), compared to 15% of male Gazans as a whole. And 49% are alleged to have “close relatives” also tied to either Hamas or PIJ. 

Claims by UNRWA that it had no knowledge of the vast network of Hamas tunnels under schools and hospitals, funded by billions of dollars of diverted aid, increasingly strain credulity.

Several UNRWA personnel over the years have been discovered to be terrorists or officials of terrorist organisations, including PIJ rocket-maker Awad al-Qiq, former Hamas interior minister Said Siam, and Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a suicide bomber who killed seven CIA employees in Afghanistan in 2009.

On 7 October, 12 UNRWA personnel helped Hamas execute the massacre, or aided the group in the wake of the attack. 

According to the dossier, one of the agency staffers took a woman hostage, another dispensed ammunition, and a third took part in mass murder at an Israeli kibbutz.

This case is no exception

How did humanitarian workers come to play a role in the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? 

The reality is that UNRWA is by no means the exception when it comes to humanitarian terror financing. In the world of international aid, it’s an occupational hazard.

Throughout the 1990s, the Taliban regularly harassed and robbed aid agencies. The current Taliban regime likewise uses a network of sham local organisations to divert aid money. 

In the early 2000s, reports emerged that in Somalia, the al-Qaida affiliate al-Shabaab had siphoned off so much international aid that it established a “Humanitarian Coordination Office”, charging aid groups to “register”. 

Several years later, al-Shabaab continued to extort aid deliveries via roadblocks and so-called “taxes”.

In 2018, a partial audit of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) found that some $700 million (€649m) of US taxpayer-funded programming in Iraq and Syria had been improperly vetted. 

That same year, several dozen individuals and organisations who had received USAID funding in the region were blacklisted, and over $200m (€185.5m) in funds were frozen.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Houthi rebel group in Yemen stifles almost all movement of international aid through the areas they control; they have set up a “humanitarian” agency, the Supreme Council for the Management and Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and International Cooperation (SCMCHA), for the express purpose of re-directing aid toward their own militant ends. The results have been catastrophic for the Yemeni people.

Decisions that didn’t age well

Regulating aid is not simply about alleviating security concerns. On the ground, any dime relinquished to a militant group is unlikely to achieve its stated aims and, as in the case of UNRWA, in fact, exacerbates the conflict it is trying to alleviate.

Just two years ago, the Biden administration began funding UNRWA again on the basis that the organisation had made commitments to “transparency, accountability, and neutrality”. 

Several European governments, including Germany, even increased UNRWA funding in the wake of the October attacks.

Those decisions have obviously not aged well. But they are the result of a steady flow of arguments from humanitarian workers and aid groups who claim that regulations and sanctions, even with humanitarian exemptions, do little more than hamper their work. 

ADVERTISEMENT

This attitude is dangerously dismissive, as former UNRWA General Counsel James Lindsay wrote in a 2009 report: “UNRWA has taken very few steps to detect and eliminate terrorists from [its] ranks…and no steps at all to prevent members of terrorist organisations, such as Hamas, from joining.”

We can’t keep surrendering the moral high ground

Brutal terror groups and extremist regimes will always see humanitarian funds as quasi-piggy banks for enhancing their own power. 

Effective oversight, budget transparency, complete reporting requirements, as well as internal and external controls are indispensable elements to ensure that any developing problems are caught early, aid diversion is mitigated, and guardrails are in place to prevent international aid workers from being involved in terror groups or attacks.

Despite criticism from the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, several European countries, in addition to the US, have now suspended payments to UNRWA. This is a step in the right direction. 

The global consensus that humanitarian work is essential too easily surrenders the moral high ground, often with devastating consequences. 

ADVERTISEMENT

It is time to recover that ground, which has for too long provided cover for the worst acts of terrorism. 

Ambassador Mark Wallace serves as CEO and Dr Hans-Jakob Schindler is Senior Director at the Counter Extremism Project.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#UNRWA #case #reveals #larger #problem #humanitarian #aid