The late Muammar Gaddafi erred in many policies and positions, but he was very correct in his lack of faith in the Arab League. Despite his discontent with it and its accumulated flaws, and despite his repeated threats over the years to withdraw from it, Gaddafi did not have the courage to withdraw from this crumbling league. He did not find an alternative, in his direction towards the depth of Africa. This is a sign of the difficulty of the trap of belonging to the Arab League and the almost impossibility of escaping from it.

The League was in better regional political condition than it is now and it did not encourage the divorce of the Arab League. Today, given the deterioration and fragmentation of Arab relations, withdrawal seems less difficult to implement and promote.

At the time of Gaddafi, it was possible to reform the Arab League, albeit with difficulty. However, some members, led by Egypt, refused to open the door to talk about any reform because it would have meant reconsidering the General Secretariat and the rest of the leadership positions and how they are assumed. This would have affected the sanctity of Egypt's monopoly on the General Secretariat and its control over the organisation's work mechanisms and positions.

Today, there is neither hope nor an opportunity for reforming the Arab League. It should be dissolved, and its employees and diplomats should be returned to their homes and countries. Algeria's relentless pursuit of hosting the next Arab summit, and its insistence on making it a success, is an unrealistic thought. The so-called Arab ranks no longer exist, and President Abdelmadjid Tebboune's talk about its unification is also far from reality and political realism.

Even if Algeria hosted the summit, its success remains a completely different story – and the terms of its success and failure need to be defined in this context. The fault is not in Algeria's intentions as much as it is also in other objective data, and in the members, their positions and their political mentalities.

The Algeria Summit, if and when it is held, will be the most difficult and dangerous. It may be the lowest ranking in terms of official representation (the quality of attendance has become the only measure of the Summit's success).

Aside from limited exceptional cases, such as the summits that followed major events, such as the "Three No's" summit in Khartoum after the setback of 1967, the Tunis Summit (1979) following the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel and the Fez Summit (1982) following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, it has not witnessed a summit of kings and presidents at the level of gravity of the awaited summit in Algeria this year.

The difference today is that the Khartoum, Tunis and Fez summits, for example, were held against the background of the dangerous events that preceded them and were punctuated by similar feelings and moods that led to similar positions. However, the 2022 Algeria summit is being held amid unprecedented division. It is also held to save face and show off, and not against the backdrop of dangerous unilateral decisions such as the normalisation of the UAE, Morocco, Bahrain and Sudan with Israel (does anyone know what the Arab League's position is on this normalisation?). These decisions are comparable in severity to the Camp David Accords at the time, and are even more than that.

The Arab region today is drowning in quantity and type of crises that cannot be solved. Syria needs a special summit. Libya as well; Yemen, Iraq, Tunisia, Lebanon, the Moroccan-Algerian crisis and the relationship with Iran. This is in addition to the crises of health, education, poverty, hopelessness, and illegal migration, which are concerns far more dangerous than politics and threaten human beings in their existence.

The other danger is that Arab governments and regimes are deeply divided over each of these crises, without exception. There is no similar Arab position (let alone unified) regarding any of these crises, and there will not be. Some crises were created by Arab countries, and they played dangerous sabotaging roles in them, so are we waiting for the wolf to assume the role of the shepherd?

There is a fact that Algerian officials need to consider seriously, which is the absence of any noticeable influence for them in the Arab environment. The centres of influence and their tools in the Arab world have changed and moved to other countries. This happened in the absence of Algeria, either because of the civil war in the 1990s, or when Bouteflika monopolised everything and decided to paralyse the country as soon as he was paralysed by illness.

Influence over the Arabs today is monopolised by certain countries, and Algeria is not one of them. This includes Saudi Arabia due to its economic and spiritual power, the UAE, by virtue of its economic strength and daring to engage in strategic risks, and Egypt is trying to hold on to the remnants of its traditional influence, supported by the Gulf. Then there are other countries like Qatar, Kuwait and Oman.

Algeria does not have the new tools of influence. It does not have the economic power to compete with the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Its diplomatic traditions inherited from the Cold War are crippling it, and these traditions themselves discourage it from any diplomatic boldness. All this makes Algeria incapable of imposing its word in a forum such as the Arab Summit.

Algeria should think of finding a suitable excuse to give up hosting an Arab Summit that may not take place, and if it does, it will be nothing more than an occasion to exchange hollow diplomatic words and take pictures for memory. Then each guest will go back to their country at lightning speed. If Algeria cancels the Summit at all, no one will be sad, but rather it will lift the embarrassment from many Arab leaders.

If the Algerian authorities want to restore their place in regional diplomatic work, the Arab League is not the best door to this. Even worse, the Arab Summit is a trap, not a launching pad. Algeria should stop waiting for something from the Arab League. It should pay attention to Africa, and it should also fix its relationship with France, the European Union and other economic and strategic spaces on the five continents.

( This piece was first published by the Middle East Monitor on 03 February 2022)

About the author

Tawfiq Rabahi is an Algerian journalist.

Any war scenario between Ukraine and Russia would undoubtedly imperil European energy security. Existing energy supplies in the region are still not enough, filling only 38 per cent of Europe's storage capacity, according to Gas Infrastructure Europe. But the shortfall compared with previous winters is narrowing, and prices are retreating from record highs. Against this background, the emir of Qatar was invited by US President Biden to the White House this week to discuss opportunities for the country to adequately supply liquified natural gas (LNG) to Europe.

Speaking alongside Qatari leader Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad during the Oval Office meeting on Monday, President Biden designated Qatar a "major non-NATO ally", thus putting it in a top-tier position of US security partners who are not NATO members. This, it seems, would be a well-earned status if Qatar were to address Europe's energy security needs in a time of acute crisis.

In the event of such a short-term solution, some of the long-term Qatari LNG buyers will need to be willing to divert shipments to Europe. The government in Doha would prefer that any diversion requests come directly from the US to buyers.

Comparably, seeking Qatar's support for future supplies, should the energy crisis in Europe worsen, is a major geo-economic step to mitigate in the wake of Russian aggression on Ukraine. "No discussions have taken place… this has not happened," QatarEnergy Chief and Minister of State for Energy Saad Al-Kaabi told Reuters.

According to an Atlantic Council report, Qatar sells most of its LNG to Asia on long-term oil-indexed contracts. Therefore, it is important to ask, will Qatar approach its Asian customers over diverting gas supplies to Europe? At present, this seems unlikely, and most Europeans can expect a limited increase of gas from the Gulf state.

Minister Al-Kaabi has already made it clear that if Russia cuts its supply to Europe, no one country will be able to fill the gap. This statement shows that Qatar is still in the stages of finalising the selection of its commercial partners for the upcoming trade. It is still having discussions with client countries to supply gas and would not name the selected buyers, apart from the UK.

In late 2021, following COP26, Qatar rerouted four LNG tankers to the UK to assist with the energy shortage. Additionally, LNG relations between the two nations go back to former UK Prime Minister Theresa May's term in office. In 2008, Britain received the first LNG ships from a dock at the South Hook terminal near Milford Haven, one of Europe's largest LNG terminals, which Qatar owns. Qatar invested in the UK with the launch of LNG terminals, being the majority owner of South Hook LNG terminal in Wales. Meanwhile, the UK's energy and services company Centrica has a long-term Qatari LNG import agreement for delivery into the Isle of Grain terminal. Therefore, it is most likely that Qatar's LNG diplomacy in the UK might end Britain's energy supply crisis, regardless of what happens in Europe.

On the other hand, despite the worsening energy crisis in Europe, Germany is preparing to apply sanctions on Russia. In the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany would be forced to halt the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, within the context of the European Union (EU)'s political or military sanction strategy. This scenario would further intensify Europe's energy crisis. However, the EU is just one stakeholder of this Nord Stream project signed during Angela Merkel's period. As such, Russia can bargain with other parties to protect its own interest.

Seemingly, luck is not a long-term strategy for energy security in Europe. It is clear that Putin's gas weaponisation tactics and Europe's clumsy mistakes regarding energy prices could harm Europe's energy security. The US and Europe will need to convince Qatar's LNG clients to reroute some supplies to Europe, as any deal struck between the emir and the Biden administration relies on the willingness of client countries to reroute, as well as the availability of unallocated LNG.

Ultimately, the US will have to compensate Qatar and its client countries. This might be tough, but it is possible to some extent, as Qatar did reroute its LNG supplies in 2011, prioritising Japan after the tsunami of that year. It may just be able to keep some parts of Europe warm if war does break out between Russia and Ukraine.

(This article was first published by Middle East Monitor in London, on 5 February 2022)

About the Author

Elif Selin Calik is a Research Fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues (Afrasid).  She holds a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).  She is a regular contributor to publications like TRT World, Daily Sabah, Rising Powers in Global Governance and Hurriyet Daily News. She was one of the founders of the In-Depth News Department of Anadolu News Agency. 

Global Covid-19 politics appear to have awakened Africa’s liberation spirit: the continent’s leaders and citizens are united in their censure of the West’s response to the Omicron strain as an “African variant”.

African leaders have used strong terms – “travel apartheid”, “unscientific”, “discriminatory” and “unjust” among them – to condemn travel bans instituted by some developed countries after the strain was identified and flagged by South African scientists on 24 November 2021.

What particularly incensed African countries was that blanket bans came at a time when Covid numbers were far higher in parts of Europe than in any African country. In early December, the UK was registering more than 50 000 new cases a day, while the figure was 6400 in South Africa, only 19 in Botswana and a paltry 16 in Malawi.

The fast-spreading variant emerged quickly around the world but, despite it being detected in more than 40 countries (among them the US, the UK, and swathes of both Asia and Europe) in the days after South Africa’s announcement, only travel to and from the African continent was restricted.

Dr Akinwumi Adesina, President of the African Development Bank, summarised many people’s complaints when he tweeted on December 6: “Now that omicron has been found in many non-African and developed countries, why are travels from those countries not banned? Why single out African countries? Singling out African countries is very unfair, non-scientific and discriminatory. Lift bans on African countries!”

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa slammed the travel restrictions on his and other African countries as “unscientific and discriminatory”. He also suggested that South Africa was being punished for discovering the variant.

“We in the South have proven that we’ve got the scientific capability to identify a very threatening variant of Covid-19. It is out of our transparency and our responsibility to the world to demonstrate that we’ve found this variant, and we least expected to be punished by the various countries for what we have disclosed very transparently,” said Ramaphosa.

Speaking to Afrasid, leading South African analyst and academic Professor Somadoda Fikeni echoed Ramaphosa’s sentiments, saying South Africa and its scientists deserved praise, not censure, for having swiftly alerted the world about the Omicron variant.

“South African scientists have done excellent work in discovering this variant early and alerting the world to it,” Fikeni said. “Remember, China was heavily criticised for being perceived as slow in telling the world about this disease.”

“I view (travel bans and related censure) as unjust and a mirror of the West’s prejudice to have reacted in that manner to a global pandemic,” he said.

Botswana’s President Mokgweetsi Masisi, in a televised national address, pointed out that travel bans defeated the spirit of multilateral cooperation needed for dealing with the pandemic.

“The decision to ban our citizens from travelling to certain countries was hastily made and is not only unfair but is also unjustified. While remaining confident that reason and logic will prevail, the harshness of the decision has the effect of shaking our belief in the sincerity of declared friendship and commitment of equality and economic prosperity for us,” Masisi said.

It wasn’t just African leaders who questioned the wisdom and logic of travel bans. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said: “What's unacceptable is to have one part of the world — one of the most vulnerable parts of the world economy — condemned to a lockout when they were the ones that revealed the existence of a new variant that, by the way, already existed in other parts of the world, including in Europe, as we know.”

He acknowledged that the disease was highly transmissible but pointed out that border closures would not magically keep it at bay: “We have the instruments to have safe travel. Let's use those instruments to avoid this kind of, allow me to say — travel apartheid — which I think is unacceptable.”

The World Health Organisation’s Director, Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus, was another powerful voice against travel bans and took aim at how some European media organisations reported on the variant.

In a tweet after a Spanish newspaper published a racist cartoon about African people bringing the variant to the rest of the world, Ghebreyesus said: “It pains me that shows of racism like this still plague the challenges facing the world today. Caricaturing people crammed in a boat bringing a virus to Europe is disgusting. We can only advance, as one community, by promoting solidarity, not stigma.”

South African analyst Fikeni suggested to Afrasid that the prejudiced reaction of many countries towards Africa should not be viewed entirely negatively.

“It is a wake-up call,” he said.

“There are many African leaders that lived under the illusion that the solution to African problems lay in the West. I am glad this disease has shown that Africans should look for answers to their problems within themselves. Firstly, Africa was side-lined when it came to vaccine distribution and now their economies have suffered from being painted as the face of the omicron virus.”

And he is adamant that Africa’s scientists should continue to behave openly and honestly.

“There are already positive responses to Africa reporting omicron early. Transparency should always lead because early warnings help countries to mitigate the devastation of the disease.”

“I know there are some, especially those in the tourism sector, that believe African scientists should in the future keep information about new diseases they discover secret. This is near impossible because our scientists are in the labs with Europeans working together. I think African countries will continue to share information about the disease with the world. It is the right thing to do.”

About the author

Phathisani Moyo is a research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues (Afrasid).  He is a communication strategist at International Trade Centre (ITC).  He has worked for a number of media organisations and has served at various levels including as the news editor for The Star newspaper in South Africa. He holds a Honours degree in political science and administration from the University of Zimbabwe. 

The UK based Uighurs Tribunal ruled on 7th December 2021 that China “committed genocide” against the Uighurs and other ethnic Muslim minorities in the country’s Xinjiang province. The report concludes that China’s President Xi Jinping, Xinjiang Autonomous Region’s Communist Party, Secretary Chen Quanguo as well as other People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) senior officials bear “primary responsibility for brutal acts in Xinjiang. The tribunal is chaired by a prominent British Barrister, Sir Geoffrey Nice. Many human rights organisations have in the past reached similar conclusions on the issue, including the Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASP), United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales. The World Uyghur Congress (WUC) leader Dolkun Isa told the BBC that the tribunal’s judgment represented a “historic day” for the Uighur people.

Xinjiang is located in the north-western region of China close to Central Asia and home to about 11 million Uighurs. It makes up one-sixth of China’s landmass and borders eight countries, including Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan.

Over two million Uighur people and other Muslims, including ethnic Kazakhs and Uzbeks, have been detained by China’s government in Xinjiang since April 2017. The Tribunal on Uighurs is made up of lawyers and academics. It received testimonies from more than 70 witnesses during its June and September 2021 hearings’ in London and consulted hundreds of pages of documentary evidence. The evidence received details incidences of mass internments, family separation, sterilizations, sexual violence, forced labours and destructions of cultural cites by the government of China. According to The US State Department, China’s government kept more than two million Uighur and other Muslim minorities in detention centres without charge.

President Joe Biden responded swiftly to the report by signing a bill banning goods from China’s Xinjiang region. The US House of Representatives’ passed the “Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act” by an overwhelming of 428–1. This was the second action by the US on China in this regard. In March 2021, the US government, the European Union, Canada and the UK announced sanctions on Chinese government over human rights violations in Xinjiang. On 06 December 2021 the US announced that it would not send official US delegation to the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics because of “ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang”. However, US’s athletes will still be allowed to compete in Beijing. It is not only the US that is exerting pressure on China, the UN have also demanded access to the camps. The European Union (EU) has called on China to respect religious freedom. Moreover, parliament in the Netherlands passed a non-binding motions to use the genocide label when referring to events in Xinjiang.

The US ban on Chinese goods has angered Beijing. China’s Ministry of Commerce described the US’s ban as “economic bullying”. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian meanwhile has called the tribunal a “pure anti-China farce.” China has denied the human rights abuses in Xinjiang, it insists that the detention centres are “vocational training centres” designed to stamp out religious extremism and terrorism. Consequently, China has responded to the report by issuing sanctions against Sir Nice and several British individuals.

In March 2020, The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) identified 83 foreign and Chinese companies which have allegedly directly or indirectly benefited from the forced labour of the Uighurs. Included in the 83 companies identified are 11 Japanese companies, subsequently pressure has been exerted on Japan to stop doing business in Xinjinag.  Meanwhile, Turkish born National Basketball Association (NBA) player at Boston Celtics, Enes Kanter, joined calls for boycott of Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter Games due to take place in February 2022. Kanter has called on Nike’s co-founder Phil Knight to reconsider the company’s business with China.

The plight of the Uighurs will be at the centre of the US’s ongoing economic war with China. Multinational companies doing business with China will soon find themselves in a predicament. The US Department of Commerce has already blacklisted 67 Chinese companies and other entities for their alleged involvement in the abuse of the Uighurs. China’s business relations have also worsened in Europe. The European Parliament froze an investment agreement with China insisting on the country to lift sanctions on European Union politicians who are currently under China’s sanctions.

In conclusion, Xi Jinping’s hard-line politics on Uighurs will continue to isolate China, a country that has become the factory of the world for the past four decades. The pressure on China from the US, the Europeans and others will certainly impact on China’s economic growth. Moreover, China’s continued criticism on its treatment of the Uighurs will also impact on its socio-political standing around the world.

About the author

Turkmen Terzi is a research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues (Afrasid) and a Turkish foreign journalist based in Johannesburg, South Africa. He reports on Southern Africa and Turkish politics. He holds a Master’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Johannesburg. He is a contributor to an online publication www.Turkishminute.com. He serves on the board of Foreign Correspondents Association of Southern Africa.  

Egypt has reached an agreement with Lebanon to export natural gas to the country in the first quarter of 2022.

The agreement was announced to the to the public by the US State Department's senior advisor for global energy security, Amos Hochstein.  The announcement was a clear indication that the plan was essentially a US construct, a measure designed to decrease the impact of Lebanon's economic free-fall.

Apart from an overarching dominance of Hezbollah, whose prolonged regional wars have stifled economic growth, Lebanon's latest political nightmare has been further exacerbated by the energy and electricity crisis.  The state owned electric company, Electricité du Liban, has been overwhelmed.  There has been a complete shutdown of the country's electricity grid after two main power stations ran out of fuel.

According to Bel Trew, a Beirut-based journalist, “Lebanon has zero state power,  the entire country is running on private generators.  The generators are prohibitively expensive; my last month's bill was 3.75 million Lira which is $2,500 on official rate and about $250 on the black market. How is the airport running? What about hospitals?".

Whilst Lebanon continues to experience the energy crisis, it is also engaged in a bitter dispute with Israel over the East Mediterranean's energy reserves.  Attempts to resolve the maritime border dispute between Lebanon and Israel are in a state of constant flux.  In 2019, Lebanon refused to sign the East Mediterranean Forum Agreement sponsored by Israel.  On the other hand, US is one of the main sponsors of the proposed gas pump from Egypt.  This has given rise to a number of questions regarding the US’s power broking role in the region, particularly in forcing Lebanon into negotiations with Israel on East Mediterranean maritime boarder dispute.  The unwillingness of Lebanon to enter into discussions with Israel on East Mediterranean energy reserves is because the country is still technically at war with Israel.

The US, it appears, is prepared to help Lebanon in return for certain political benefits.  Ultimately, the US’s assistance to Lebanon will benefit Israel by providing a soft landing in the negotiations with Lebanon on East Mediterranean maritime boarder dispute.  Second, it is likely to increase political influence of the US in Lebanon.  For the US, it is also vital to support the "wave of normalisation" between Israel and Arab states, Lebanon being one of the Arab states.  Last September, when Ambassador Dorothy Shea met with the energy ministers of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt, she said “her country had a plan through which Washington would facilitate energy payments to Cairo, on behalf of Beirut, using World Bank assistance funds budgeted for Lebanon”.  After that statement was made, President Michel Aoun of Lebanon, boasted that “Lebanon's electricity crisis was soon coming to an end”.  Third and most important,  the easing of energy problems in Lebanon will certainly ease economic difficulties, which could mean strengthening of relations between Lebanon and Egypt and importantly improved political imagery of the US not only in Lebanon but also in the region.   

Syria will also benefit from the agreement.  According to the agreement, Egyptian natural gas pipeline to Lebanon will via through Jordan and Syria.  This will assist to alleviate electricity output challenges of all countries concerned.  Furthermore, the agreement could further facilitate easing of tensions between the government of Lebanon and Syria.  The flip side is that Hezbollah, Syria’s closest ally, in Lebanon could gain additional power in the country’s politics.  In conclusion, by using the electricity crisis as a tool of conflict resolution, Washington stands to gain a huge mediating role between Israel and Lebanon not only in the East Mediterranean energy dispute, also in other areas of disagreements.  Secondly, the inclusion of Syria in the process would in effect recognise and grant support to Assad’s regime.  Lest we forget, Syria under the presidency of Bashar al Assad, is responsible for killing more than 500,000 people during in the last 11 years.

(This article was first published by the Middle East Monitor on 25 December 2021)

 About the Author

Elif Selin Calik is a Research Fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues (Afrasid).  She holds a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).  She is a regular contributor to publications like TRT World, Daily Sabah, Rising Powers in Global Governance and Hurriyet Daily News. She was one of the founders of the In-Depth News Department of Anadolu News Agency.