Growing number of countries ready to recognize Palestine

The leaders of Spain, Ireland, Slovenia and Malta have announced they stand ready to recognize the State of Palestine as the only way to achieve peace and security in the war-ridden region.

The four leaders gathered on the margins of a summit in Brussels on Friday to discuss their readiness to recognize Palestine, adding they stand ready to do so when it can make a positive contribution and the circumstances are right.

“We are agreed that the only way to achieve lasting peace and stability in the region is through implementation of a two-state solution, with Israeli and Palestinian States living side-by-side, in peace and security,” a joint statement by the four heads of government reads.

Speaking after the summit, Slovenian Prime Minister Robert Golob said he believed a lot could be done in the next week to strengthen political backing for a Palestinian state in the United Nations. Golob added he was sure that the moment when conditions for establishing a new government in Palestine will be ripe could be a few weeks, maybe a month away.

Nine of the EU’s 27 member states currently recognize Palestinians’ right to a state according to the so-called 1967 borders, which includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

Malta, along with eastern states such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia, have recognized the Palestinians’ right to statehood since 1988. In 2014, Sweden became the first member state to unilaterally recognise Palestinians’ right to statehood while a member of the bloc.

The Slovenian premier confirmed a representative also attended the meeting on behalf of the Belgian government, seen as another staunch supporter of Palestinians’ fight for statehood.

Belgium currently holds the 6-month rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU, responsible for overseeing its work and therefore likely restricted from signing such declarations.

Although the European Union supports the two-state solution – which would deliver statehood for Palestinians – and is the single biggest donor of aid to Palestinians, it has not yet unanimously backed the recognition of a Palestinian state.

“The debate on the recognition of Palestine was not on the table,” European Council President Charles Michel explained on Friday.

“But I will share with you what I think about it. I think that if the idea is to start a kind of process so it’s possible to take into account steps that could be made on both sides – by the Palestinian Authority, for instance, and by Israel – then it could be a useful process.”

Since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, both Ireland and Spain have repeatedly expressed readiness to recognize Palestine, and spearheaded efforts to toughen the EU’s stance on Israel in response to the excessive loss of life in Gaza.

In a breakthrough on Thursday, the EU’s 27 leaders unanimously called for a ceasefire in Gaza for the first time since the outbreak of the war between Israel and Hamas.

Last November, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez vowed that his newly formed government would make the recognition of Palestinian statehood its main priority in terms of foreign policy.

Speaking after the Brussels summit on Friday, Sánchez suggested to reporters that Spain preferred to move in lockstep with other EU countries rather than recognizing a Palestinian state unilaterally, an idea it has flirted with in the past.

“We want to take this step united. It’s a decisive step in order to lay the foundations of a lasting peace,” he said, adding that the EU should carefully calibrate the right moment to take the step.

Sánchez also suggested that the fact the four leaders represented all sides of the political spectrum – with Spain and Malta governed by centre-left parties, Slovenia by a Liberal party, and Ireland by a centre-right party – showed there was broad political consensus that the recognition of Palestine is necessary for any future peace process.

In February, Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar also confirmed a group of member states were in talks to formally recognize Palestine to enable a more equal negotiation to happen when the war raging in Gaza comes to an end.

 

US allies reluctant to join Red Sea task force

The response to the mantra of US President Joe Biden regarding formation of response force to Yemen's Houthi attacks on ships passing through Red Sea is disappointing. It seems many allies don't want to be associated with it, publicly, or at all.

Two of America's European allies who were listed as contributors to Operation Prosperity Guardian - Italy and Spain - issued statements appearing to distance themselves from the maritime force.

The Pentagon says the force is a defensive coalition of more than 20 nations to ensure billions of dollars' worth of commerce can flow freely through a vital shipping chokepoint in Red Sea waters off Yemen.

Nearly half of those countries have so far not come forward to acknowledge their contributions or allowed the US to do so. Those contributions can range from dispatching warships to merely sending a staff officer.

The reluctance of some US allies to link themselves to the effort partly reflects the fissures created by the conflict in Gaza, which has seen Biden maintain firm support for Israel even as international criticism rises over its offensive, which Gaza's health ministry says has killed more than 21,000 Palestinians.

"European governments are very worried that part of their potential electorate will turn against them," said David Hernandez, a professor of international relations at the Complutense University of Madrid, noting that the European public is increasingly critical of Israel and wary of being drawn into a conflict.

Reportedly, Houthis have been alleged for attacking or seizing a dozen ships with missiles and drones since November 19.

The navies of the United States, Britain and France have each shot down Houthi-launched drones or missiles.

The US believes escalating Houthi attacks call for an international response separate from the conflict raging in Gaza.

However, this kind of propaganda is being highlighted in US sponsored/ supported media. It may be recalled that Hothis has announced to target Israeli ships of vessels carrying to and from Israel.

Denmark's giant container firm Maersk said on Saturday it would resume shipping operations in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. But Germany's Hapag Lloyd said on Wednesday it still believes the Red Sea is too dangerous and will continue to send ships around the Cape of Good Hope.

While the US says 20 countries have signed up for its maritime task force, it has announced the names of only 12.

Although Britain, Greece and others have publicly embraced the US operation, several mentioned in the US announcement were quick to say they are not directly involved.

Italy's defense ministry said that it would send a ship to the Red Sea following requests from Italian ship owners and not as part of the US operation.

France said it supports efforts to secure freedom of navigation in the Red Sea but that its ships would remain under French command.

Spain has said it will not join Operation Prosperity Guardian and opposes using an existing EU anti-piracy mission, Atalanta, to protect Red Sea shipping.

But on Wednesday, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said he was willing to consider the creation of a different mission to tackle the problem.

Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates earlier proclaimed no interest in the venture.

There is also the risk that participating countries become subject to Houthi retaliation. The person familiar with the US administration's thinking says that it is this risk - rather disagreements over Gaza - driving some countries to steer clear of the effort.

That appears to be the case for India, which is unlikely to join the US operation, according to a senior Indian military official. An Indian government official said the government worries that aligning itself with the US could make it more of a target.

In reality, many European and Gulf countries already participate in one of several US-led military groups in the Middle East, including the 39-nation Combined Maritime Forces (CMF).

The EU's Atalanta operation already cooperates in a reciprocal relationship with CMF, according to a spokesperson for the group.

That means that some countries not formally joining the Red Sea maritime task force could still coordinate patrols with the US Navy.

NATO members scramble to support Ukraine amid Russian threat

The threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine has sent NATO countries scrambling to provide military support to Kyiv. In recent weeks, Spain, France, Estonia, the United Kingdom and the United States among others have provided varying kinds of military support to Ukraine in anticipation of Russian aggression.  

NATO is under no treaty’s obligation to defend Ukraine because the ex-Soviet country is not a member of the alliance, but the group has made clear that it stands with Kyiv and has called on Moscow to de-escalate tensions. 

Some military movements appear to be posturing, aimed at deterring Russia from any aggressive actions, but other steps appear to be prepared for a serious conflict. Either way, experts say, the assistance could show Russian President Vladimir Putin that the cost of an invasion of Ukraine is too great.   

“There's clearly a sense that the military support provided to Ukraine would help Ukraine raise the cost to Russia of military aggression,” said former US Ambassador William Courtney, a senior fellow at RAND Corporation.  

Ukraine has asked to join NATO, a move that is staunchly opposed by Russia. Russian officials have demanded that NATO not extend further east, but the alliance has rebuffed these demands. The Kremlin has used this refusal as a justification to amass forces at the border, claiming unspecified security concerns. 

Russia has amassed at least 100,000 troops near its border with Ukraine, and US officials have warned that an attack could likely occur by mid-February.  

In recent years, the Ukrainian forces have been able to increase operability and protect itself against another invasion. Still, the Russian military is far more dominant and capable than its opponent.  

Courtney confirmed that NATO has no formal obligation to defend Ukraine, but added that the West’s military support to the Eastern European country has been “quite substantial” since 2014. 

At the time, Russian forces invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula.    

“Europe and the United States, over time, developed an increasing desire to help Ukraine advance internally both through reforms democratic and economic reforms, and also to move closer to the West which seems to be Ukraine's interest,” he said.  

One goal of aiding Ukraine is centered on the concept of “porcupine defense,” the idea that a country makes itself as difficult to invade as possible.  

“You provide security assistance and arms that are lethal that complicate Russia's ability to take large parts of Ukraine without getting beaten up in the process,” said Rachel Ellehuus, deputy director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

“So, they can certainly withstand a Russian incursion for a limited period of time, but not forever,” she continued.  

This method, combined with the alliance’s threats of severe economic consequences should Russia invade, could make Putin think twice about doing so.  

“The issue is helping to deter Russian aggression by making clear that the cost to it economic, military and the human costs of casualties will be greater than maybe expected before,” Courtney said.  

While the alliance is behind Ukraine, countries thus far have varied on the extent of their support.  

Over the past couple of weeks, Denmark decided to send four additional F-16 fighter jets to Lithuania for air policing and a 160-man frigate in the Baltic Sea. France, for its part, has offered to send troops to Romania.  

The United Kingdom also announced that it is sending Ukraine light, anti-armor defensive weapons systems, as well as a small number of UK personnel to provide training.  

Meanwhile, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania recently received approval from the US to send American-made weapons to Ukraine for additional defense.  

Estonia is providing Javelin anti-armor missiles, while Latvia and Lithuania are providing Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and adjacent equipment.  

“We sincerely hope that Ukraine will face no need to use this equipment and call on Russian Federation to seize its aggressive and irresponsible behavior,” the Baltic nations said in a statement.  

Spain announced that it is sending warships to bolster NATO’s naval forces in the Mediterranean and Black Seas and is mulling sending its own fighter jets to Bulgaria.  

But countries sending assistance must strike a delicate balance — helping Ukraine without doing anything that could provoke the Kremlin.  

Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council for Foreign Relations, explained that recent efforts to provide assistance have been defensive in nature for this reason.  

“Given that diplomacy continues and that the preferred outcome by NATO countries is a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, NATO members are trying to find the right balance between improving the capabilities of the Ukrainian military to resist Russian aggression and taking steps that the Russians would see as a provocation,” Kupchan said.  

Further complicating matters is uncertainty about how Russia would invade Ukraine, should it choose to do so.  

Moscow has largely positioned troops along Ukraine’s northeastern border. On Tuesday, it announced that it is moving troops to Belarus for military drills that are scheduled for next month, when the West fears an invasion could occur.  

The drills put more pressure on NATO nations, as it puts Russian troops on Ukraine’s northern neighbor, giving Putin more options for a possible invasion.  

“I think the dynamic really changed when Russia sent forces into Belarus,” Ellenhuus said. “A lot of allies now worry that Russia is somehow preparing to invade Ukraine, both from the south and then also from, from Belarus.”  

A Russian invasion of Ukraine could trigger a rush to ensure that countries on its eastern flank are defended.  

The US, for its part, has no intentions of sending troops to deter an invasion, but has said if Russia invades, then it would send troops to bolster NATO’s forces along the Eastern Flank.  

President Biden has also repeated several times in recent weeks that if Russia decides to invade Ukraine, the US will slap devastating economic sanctions on the country. Vice President Harris echoed this same sentiment in an interview with Savannah Guthrie earlier this week.  

The US military has already sent the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier strike group to take part in a NATO naval exercise in the Mediterranean, though Pentagon officials insist the drill are not in response to Russia’s recent aggressions. 

Escalating tension between Algeria and Morocco

On 24th August 2021, Algeria broke off its already minimal bilateral relations with Morocco, declaring this was due to the kingdom’s “hostile actions” and accusing it of involvement in the wildfires that struck the Kabylia region earlier that month. 

The heightened tension between the two countries brings into focus regional uncertainty and may spell the end of their limited collaboration in the energy sector.

The two countries have a long history of tense relations, behind which lie issues of political ideology, border demarcation, and competition for regional influence. Morocco and Algeria fought a short border war after the latter’s independence from France in the fall of 1963, and Algeria has long supported the Polisario Front in its struggle against Morocco for control of the Western Sahara.

The land border between the two countries has officially been closed since 1994; a decision Algeria made unilaterally following Moroccan accusations that the Algerian military was behind a terrorist attack in Marrakesh in 1994. The Moroccan leadership, including King Mohammed VI, has repeatedly called for re-opening the border, something Algerian leaders have consistently rejected. Still, the two countries have managed to find limited avenues for cooperation around a gas pipeline that transports Algerian gas through Morocco and on to Spain and other European markets, although the future of this arrangement is now in doubt.

Lately, tensions between Algeria and Morocco reached a level unseen in past, though an all-out military confrontation remains unlikely. Both governments have increased their military presence along the border, and while the prospects of armed conflict remain low, the growing tension provides each enough fodder to distract from more serious domestic issues. Indeed, the biggest challenge for Algeria’s military leadership has remained how to convince an inwardly focused population that Morocco is a greater threat to their well-being than internal economic, political, and security challenges.

The Algerian military and ruling elite’s dislike and suspicion of Morocco runs deep and goes back to the border conflict of the 1960s and Cold War-era ideological tensions. Old Algerian fears of Rabat’s designs for a “Greater Morocco” are no longer realistic — if they ever were — but nonetheless hawkish views of Morocco and concerns over its expansionist plans persist among Algeria’s military top brass. Morocco’s growing ambitions to increase its regional political and economic influence therefore remain alarming to some in Algeria’s military.

Recent domestic, regional, and global events have added to this ongoing suspicion and tension between the two neighbors. The US recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara dealt a blow to Algerian efforts to keep Morocco isolated on the issue. Although the conflict is by no means resolved, US recognition is a major win for Morocco — and therefore, in this zero-sum game, a loss for the Polisario.

Algeria is also extremely wary of growing Moroccan-Israeli cooperation. The two countries normalized relations as part of the deal struck with the Trump administration that granted Morocco US recognition over its Western Sahara claims. Algeria remains a staunch ideological supporter of the Palestinian cause, and was extremely critical of Morocco’s decision to normalize relations.

Adding to Algeria’s outrage, Morocco’s alleged involvement in the Pegasus spyware scandal prompted condemnations and accusations of spying on Algerian officials and top military brass. Algerian Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra’s fiery back and forth with Morocco’s ambassador to the UN, Omar Hilal, in July regarding the Western Sahara further amplified tensions. In response to Lamamra’s reaffirmation of Algeria’s support for self-determination, Hilal, as he has provocatively done before, called on Algeria to adopt the same support for self-determination for its own long-restive Kabylia region.

Despite their sharp jabs against Algeria, the Moroccan leadership blames Algeria for the escalation and interprets it as a way for the Algerian leadership to save face while shunning King Mohammed VI’s recent calls for the reopening of the border and improved relations.

In August, as wildfires swept through the Kabylia region, Morocco offered Algeria two of its firefighting Canadair aircraft. Algeria, despite having no firefighting fleet of its own, rejected the offer.

As tensions escalate, one of the key uncertainties with broader implications is the future of the Maghreb-Europe Gas (MEG) pipeline that began operations in November 1996 to export gas to the Spanish and Portuguese markets. The pipeline crosses through Morocco and in return Morocco receives 7% of the gas transported, which it uses for domestic consumption. The agreement has weathered previous diplomatic crises. However, this time, its future is more uncertain.

In addition to the MEG pipeline, Algeria also currently exports through Medgaz, an underwater pipeline that bypasses Morocco and is under expansion to handle higher flows. MEG pushes through 13.5 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Algerian gas yearly, while Medgaz has capacity for 8 bcm a year. Medgaz has announced plans to boost its export capacity to 10 bcm a year, but the expansion will not be operational until the end of the year at the earliest. The MEG transit agreement between the two states is up for renewal in October.

For Morocco, if the deal falls through, this would deprive it of a key source of energy. Gas accounts for 10% of its domestic energy consumption, and the loss of access to Algerian gas would particularly impact two power plants located in northern Morocco — south of Tangier and south of Jerrada respectively — both of which rely on imported gas.

Over the past couple of years, with the pipeline agreement coming up for renewal, Morocco has signaled its intention to strike a more advantageous deal with Algeria, bolstered by the fact that the full ownership of the pipeline will pass from the Spanish company Naturgy to the Moroccan government as of 1st November 2021. Morocco wants to boost its own access to gas as an important energy source, despite ongoing domestic efforts to diversify its energy mix and increase the share of renewables.

If the two countries fail to reach an agreement, Morocco could face energy shortages that it might struggle to make up in the short to medium term, while Algeria would deprive itself of an important income source. For their part, Spain and Portugal would likewise have to make up energy shortages from a different supplier. If Morocco and Algeria take a hard-nosed approach, Algeria could deprive Morocco of a key bargaining chip, but it would be at the expense of its own domestic economic considerations.

Algeria cannot afford to lose this access, particularly considering the crippling economic losses the country has faced in recent years. Although Morocco has promised to keep the pipeline open, it could risk being seen as blocking access to gas for European markets. Coming on top of its recent woes with European partners over migration, spying allegations, the Western Sahara, and the upcoming European ruling on the fisheries agreement, this could seriously damage Morocco’s ties with the EU.

As the three partners — Algeria, Morocco, and Spain — continue negotiations on this agreement that they all need, geopolitical considerations are not to be overlooked. Algeria is growing more anxious to reassert itself as a regional power following two years of turmoil at home and a longer-standing retrenchment from regional affairs.

Cutting ties with Morocco, even at the risk of potentially jeopardizing its critical energy exports, is about drawing a line in the sand, a total unwillingness to allow Morocco any leverage, as well as an effort to draw the attention of domestic audiences away from problems at home and rally against an external enemy.

For Morocco, these old conflicts and tensions that it wishes to leave behind create a challenge to its domestic and foreign ambitions. They stand as a reminder that the country is vulnerable, and that its regional and local stability are not to be taken for granted — something Algeria is keen to emphasize as it seeks to restore its wider regional role.