David Hearst is co-founder and editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He is a commentator and speaker on the region and analyst on Saudi Arabia. He was The Guardian’s foreign leader writer, and was correspondent in Russia, Europe, and Belfast. He joined the Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi at the UN in New York in 2019 (AFP)
When a 35km expansion of the Suez Canal was opened six years ago, banners appeared on the streets of Cairo proclaiming it to be Egypt’s “gift to the world“.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi welcomed foreign leaders on a yacht. Helicopters and jets performed a fly-by. The expansion was hailed as a national triumph and a turning point after years of instability.
The Egyptian government is a practised liar. It lies to its own people every day, but in times of crisis, it also lies to the international community
When the Suez Canal was closed unceremoniously by a 400-metre container ship hitting the bank in a dust storm on Tuesday, there was silence. For 26 hours, there was not a word about the closed canal, the shipping backing up in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, or of the Ever Given itself.
Instead, the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) issued a media statement announcing the successful transit of an Italian cruise ship with 65 Covid-19 cases aboard.
There was a media blackout. It was only on Wednesday that the lying started in earnest, with the first official statement noting that efforts were “continuing to reopen the canal”. The SCA downplayed the impacts on navigation, sending a “message of assurance that the navigation will continue as usual”. As if to reinforce that message, the authority allowed a convoy of ships to enter from the northern end in Port Said on 24 March.
Feeding the propaganda mill
The authority warned journalists not to heed any news or rumours about the most serious incident to block the canal since the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, other than statements coming from them. Egyptian journalists did not need any encouragement to toe the line. They fed the propaganda mill, celebrating the SCA’s statement and claiming the ship had been refloated. They even tried to demonstrate this with satellite images, although the images themselves still showed the ship firmly wedged in place.
The truth was even concealed from international shippers. The Gulf Agency Egypt shipping company quoted the SCA as saying that the container ship stranded in the canal for more than a day had been partially refloated and was standing alongside the bank, and that traffic would resume shortly.
The same story was fed to Lloyd’s List, which reported seeing an email from the Egyptian company sent to the China Shipowners’ Association: “We are still waiting confirmed information for the towing direction. Convoy and traffic will be back to normal within [a] very short time as soon as the vessel is towed to another position,” read the email, based on information provided directly by the SCA early on Wednesday.
Satellite imagery shows tug boats and dredgers attempting to free the ship that ran aground in the Suez Canal on 26 March 2021 (Satellite image c.2021 Maxar Technologies/AFP)
On Thursday, two days after the chaos had started, the SCA officially announced that navigation had been suspended.
The Egyptian government is a practised liar. It lies to its own people every day, but, in times of crisis, it also lies to the international community.
When a Russian passenger jet was brought down in 2015 by an Islamic State (IS) missile 23 minutes into a flight from Sharm el-Sheikh to St Petersburg, Russia and the UK instantly cancelled all flights to the Red Sea resort.
Two harsh lessons
But it is difficult to keep maintaining that a ship the size of the Ever Given is floating, when it so evidently isn’t.
However the Suez Canal crisis is resolved, this incident has taught the world two harsh lessons: how important the canal and Egypt still are for international shipping, and how disastrously and incompetently both are being run.Egypt’s Suez Canal: Why does its closure matter?
The incompetence of Sisi’s dictatorship, in other words, is not just a matter of international concern on the issues of human rights and the rule of law. Sisi’s incompetence threatens a major international waterway.
In the immediate future, this week’s Suez crisis could not have happened at a worse moment. It reinforces the interest of oil-and-gas-producing Gulf states in exploring ways to bypass the canal by routing their product through Israel. The Emirati normalisation deal with Israel has led to a tidal wave of contracts and projects, each of which spells an existential threat to Egypt’s monopoly on this traffic.
Whether through a long-neglected pipeline built by the shah of Iran, new internet cable or a railway line, or even a canal through the Negev desert – no greater push could be given to finding ways of bypassing the Suez Canal and Egypt than by the Egyptian reaction to an incident of this magnitude.
Sisi’s disastrous rule
In the longer term, there is now a clear pattern of decline and disaster to Sisi’s rule. Above and beyond all the other issues in which he has embroiled his country – backing the wrong side in Libya, a witch hunt against the Muslim Brotherhood at home and abroad – Sisi really had two existential things to worry about. He has failed in both.
The first was the Suez Canal; the second was maintaining the water levels of the Nile. Sisi laughed and ridiculed his boss, former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, for raising concerns about the dam Ethiopia was building in 2012, and arranged for a leak of a private meeting to embarrass the president.
The line from the Egyptian army was that the issue was too serious for a mere Muslim Brotherhood president to handle. So they shelved the issue, and Sisi then compounded his mistake by signing away Egypt’s claim in an agreement with Ethiopia and Sudan in 2015. Now, he is reportedly considering military action, just weeks before the dam – which has long been completed – gets its second crucial filling.
Instead of concentrating his meagre resources on the two issues that really matter to his country, Sisi has spent all his time obsessed with his image
Instead of concentrating his meagre resources on the two issues that really matter to his country, Sisi has spent all his time obsessed with his image.
A revealing window into Sisi’s real priorities in the years in which he has run Egypt into the ground can be seen in the official record of lobbyists working for the Egyptian government, filed with the US Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
An investigation of these official records conducted by a group of Egyptian journalists at Sasapost reveals how the lobbying operation in Washington went into overdrive after the 2013 Rabaa massacre and the suspension of $260m in US military aid, a fraction of the total $1.3bn package.
Sisi’s government paid the Glover Park Group $250,000 a month to lobby senior members of Congress who opposed him, such as Senators Lindsey Graham and the late John McCain. Glover Park spent two years working on Graham until he reversed his position, Sasapost reported. Between 2013 and 2019, Sisi paid this company alone $13.25m – a huge price in the Washington lobby market.
Whitewashing the regime
What were Egypt’s concerns in Washington? Whitewashing Sisi’s image, targeting the American right and Israel’s supporters, and focusing on “religious rights,” with Joe Biden about to enter the White House. In other words, everything that Sisi has spent his money on has been about his image. None of it has had anything to do with what really matters to his country.
But these are Sisi’s priorities. He has not uttered one word about the crisis going on in the Suez Canal.
It is now commonplace to hear that Egypt is a failing state – a state that fails its citizens, one with depleted resources, a weakened economy plundered by the Egyptian army, and growing levels of poverty affecting tens of millions of people.
The international community, however, has yet to wake up to the fact that Sisi is a danger not only to his people and his country but also to international trade and stability. Perhaps a big ship jammed into a tight space will do that for them.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
هذه معادلة تعيد الى المشهد السياسي للمنطقة العربية الصراع العثماني، الاوروبي الذي يعمل على السيطرة على المنطقة العربية منذ ستة قرون متواصلة وسط «غربة» كاملة من اهل المنطقة.
فما الفارق بين سليم الاول ووريثه المعاصر الرئيس التركي رجب طيب أردوغان على مستوى المشروع السياسي؟ وهل هناك من تغيير جذري في السياسات الاميركية – الاوروبية المعاصرة عن الاحتلال البريطاني الفرنسي منذ القرن التاسع؟ وهل هو مختلف عن حروب الفرنجة التي احتلت الشرق العربي 192 عاماً ولم تتركه إلا بعد هزيمة تلقتها من المماليك، على الرغم من أن صلاح الدين سبقهم في ضربها في معركة حطين، لكن أولاده أعادوا تسليم المنطقة الى الفرنجة.
بذلك ينتقل هذا الشرق من احتلال عسكري الى سيطرة اقتصادية ملتزماً صمت الضعفاء والمساكين في إطار معادلة قوامها تحالف الخارج الغربي او التركي مع أنظمة الداخل لقهر شعوب هذه المنطقة. والهيمنة عليها اقتصادياً فتصبح جزءاً من النفوذ الجيوبوليتيكي الخاص بأي منتصر.
التاريخ هنا مستمر بأسماء جديدة وبالمعادلات القديمة نفسها، سليم الاول يعود متسللاً من مرج دابق نموذج 1516 الى سورية عبر إرهابيي الاخوان المسلمين وسراج ليبيا واخوان العراق واليمن ومصر متسربلاً بقناع الرئيس التركي أردوغان انما مع المشروع التاريخي نفسه.
وها هو الرئيس الفرنسي ماكرون يستعمل حادثة قتل مروّعة قتل فيها اسلاموي شيشاني مدرساً فرنسياً، ليؤسس فرصة تاريخية لإعادة تنظيم الفرنجة الجدد، هؤلاء بحاجة الى ايديولوجيا تختبئ المصالح الاقتصادية في زواياها؛ الامر الذي دفع بماكرون الى توجيه اتهامات الى الاسلام باعتبار انه يجتاز ازمة تاريخية على حد قوله وكانت كافية لتحريض الشارع الفرنسي أولاً والأوروبي ثانياً والغربي عموماً في دفاع عنيف عن طروحات ماكرون بدت وكأنها مشابهة للتحريض الذي أطلقته المراكز الدينية في الغرب لاستيلاد فكرة «الفرنجة» الأوروبيين الذاهبين الى الشرق لتحرير «الصليب» كما كانوا يزعمون.
بدورهم رفع العثمانيون شعار الخلافة الإسلامية كتبرير لاحتلالهم للشرق وشمال افريقيا مهددين اوروبا بإدراكهم أسوار فيينا العاصمة النمساوية.
هذا الصراع انحسم لمصلحة الغرب في القرن التاسع عشر بعد هيمنة تركية دامت أربعة قرون ونيف.
لكنه يعود في هذه المرحلة عبر الصراع على البحر المتوسط وسواحل بلدانه المليئة بالغاز، فكان لا بد من شعارات تبريرية وجدها أردوغان التركي في الدفاع عن هجمات غربية مفترضة على الإسلام. ودخل فيها ماكرون الفرنسي فريقاً أوروبياً يرى أن الإسلام اصبح يشكل ازمة عالمية.
اما أصحاب المنطقة وهم الغرب فيلوذون في صمت المذعورين، موجهين رفضاً ضعيفاً لهجوم ماكرون على الإسلام ومنتقدين الأداء التركي لمحاولاته احتلال مناطق عربية.
على المستوى العملي، لا يساوي موقف الدول العربية شيئاً، لأن الطرفين المتقاتلين يعبثان بأمن العالم العربي لأسباب تتعلق بنهجيهما الاستعماريين، فلا ماكرون عائد لاستعادة الصليب ولا أردوغان يريد حماية ديار الاسلام.
هناك اذاً إصرار من الطرفين على التهام العرب بالتبريرات التاريخية وما يؤكد ذلك هي تلك الاندفاعة الهجومية من مستشارة المانيا ورؤساء النمسا وفنلندا ورئيس وزراء بريطانيا باتجاه تأييد موقف ماكرون وكأن المرحلة مماثلة لمراحل تشكيل الفرنجة قبل تسوية قرون تقريباً.
ان ما يشجع هذه الدول على التستر بغطاء ديني، هي تلك الدول العربية التي لا تعمل إلا لحماية عائلاتها المالكة ورؤساء جمهورياتها على حساب المصالح الفعلية للدول.
وسد النهضة مثال على الانكسار العربي الراهن، لأنه يحتجز 74 مليار متر مكعب من مياه النيل في هذا السد الاثيوبي متسبباً بقطع اكثر من ثلاثين مليار متر من حصة مصر من هذا النهر البالغة 55 مليار متر مكعب تشكل 90 في المئة من المياه في مصر، وتهددها بضرب 70 في المئة من قطاعها الزراعي.
للتوضيح فإن اثيوبيا ابتدأت ببناء السد منذ تسعة عشر عاماً وخاض معها عهد الرئيس السيسي مفاوضات عميقة، تبين فيها أن إثيوبيا كانت تستعمل لعبة تقطيع الوقت لاستكمال السد، وهذا ما حدث على حساب الأمن الوطني المصري المهدد بشكل فعلي وسط لامبالاة عهد السيسي.
هناك اذاً معوقات امام العرب، تحتل فلسطين رأس لائحتها الى جانب الصراعات الدولية والإقليمية الأميركية والاوروبية والتركية والاسرائيلية على مواردها والتخلف الاقتصادي العميق، والديكتاتوريات والخلافات الداخلية، هذه عوامل تؤسس لأكثر من عثماني جديد وآخر من الفرنجة مع استمرار التموضع الاستراتيجي الاميركي في عشرات القواعد على اراضي العرب.
لا بد أيضاً من لفت النظر الى أن التذرع الغربي بالإرهاب الإسلاموي هو ذريعة لتبرير الاستعمار الغربي لأن هذا النوع من الاسلام هو غربي التأسيس يرقى الى الدعم البريطاني للوهابية في مطلع القرن العشرين، والاستثمار الاميركي في منظمة القاعدة في سبعينيات القرن الماضي بالاشتراك مع المخابرات السعودية.
كما يعود الى الاستثمار الاميركي – الاوروبي التركي في منظمات داعش وأشباهها في افغانستان والعراق وسورية وليبيا ومصر.
فهل يمكن للعرب مجابهة هذه المشاريع؟
وحدها سورية القادرة على تشكيل جبهة قوية في وجه الإرهاب الذي هزمته في ميادينها اكثر من مرة ولم يعد موجوداً إلا في مناطق السيطرة التركية والأميركية.
هي اذاً سورية التي يستطيع العرب دعمها لتواصل حملة التصدي للإرهاب الذي يكمن خلفه الاميركيون والاتراك المسنودون حالياً من الفرنجة الجدد.
وكما رحلوا بالقوة قبل ثمانية قرون، فلا بد أنهم راحلون مع مشاريعهم بقوة التضامن السوري بين الدولة والجيش والشعب.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a news conference following political consultations between the foreign ministers of Russia and three African Union countries (South Africa, Egypt and the Congo) via videoconference, Moscow, July 8, 2020
Colleagues,
Today, we held the first political consultation meeting at the foreign minister level between Russia and three members of the African Union. This mechanism was established after the first Russia-Africa Summit held in Sochi last October. These countries are the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of South Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They are the former, current and next presidents of the African Union.
Russia and Africa are linked by traditional friendly relations, strong political dialogue and extensive trade, economic and investment ties. We have even more ambitious plans in all of these areas. Today, Russia and these African countries expressed their reciprocal interest in further building up cooperation in all areas, including the economy, humanitarian ties and political consultations.
We discussed the priorities of developing cooperation through the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum established by the Russian Foreign Ministry. It was set up for daily contact with the foreign ministries of various African countries and the mechanisms of the African Union and other integration associations in Africa. The Secretariat will oversee the organisational and practical preparations of new initiatives for the next Russia-Africa Summit scheduled for 2022 in accordance with the Sochi agreements.
Having met in Sochi, the heads of state decided that it was expedient to hold these summit meetings once every three years.
We also discussed the energy requirements of the African states. They are growing fast given the African countries’ development rates. We reviewed opportunities for enhancing the energy security of African countries, in particular, by supplying them with hydrocarbon resources and especially by developing the nuclear power industry. Rosatom Director General Alexey Likhachev gave a relevant presentation. Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Alexey Gruzdev spoke about industrial cooperation at our videoconference.
The issues formulated by our African partners today and initiatives on the best ways to develop investment, trade and economic ties will be discussed at the Association of Trade and Economic Cooperation with African Countries. This was established last month by the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum. Large Russian companies are members of this association. They are interested in developing cooperation with African states. In addition to Rosatom, it brings together ALROSA, Gazprombank, Transmashholding, and the Innopraktika development institute, to name a few. As I mentioned, the association will be used as a platform for helping Russian companies that want to work in individual African countries or with the integration associations on the African continent.
We also discussed humanitarian issues focusing, for obvious reasons, on the spread of the coronavirus. The pandemic has made a tangible impact on many aspects of interstate relations and has done harm to the economy. This is also being felt in Africa. Our African colleagues expect this damage to be heavier than it is now.
They expressed gratitude to the Russian Federation for the assistance that our departments have rendered to African states. We continue receiving requests for additional aid. Over 30 countries have sent requests. We are reviewing them as quickly as possible. Deputy Head of Rospotrebnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Protection and Welfare) Alexander Simanovsky talked about this in detail today.
We agreed to continue our assistance in countering the coronavirus infection, in part, via African and global multilateral associations. We will support the adoption of decisions that favour the African nations at the UN, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
We emphasised our mutual interest in further cooperation in developing vaccines against such pandemic threats, in particular, by using the very helpful and effective experience of our cooperation (several years ago) in combatting the Ebola virus.
As part of our political dialogue, we focused on the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This anniversary is marked this year. It is a historically meaningful document that played a critical role in breaking down the world colonialist system. It was the Soviet Union which played the lead role in adopting that declaration. We stressed the need for preserving the historical truth about colonial times. Now, many of our Western colleagues, who have a colonial past on the African continent, prefer to forget where the problems of contemporary Africa largely come from. We believe it is unacceptable to forget about that period or turn a blind eye to the neocolonial practices that continue in Africa, the harmful effects of which were mentioned by our interlocutors today.
We agreed that the establishment of the UN played a decisive role in the upcoming process of decolonization, and the UN itself appeared as a result of defeating Nazism and the Victory in WWII. There is an interesting connection: the countries that try to rewrite the history of World War II try, at the same time, to forget the consequences of the colonial past on the African continent.
We shared the opinion, and Russia made it a point, that decolonisation cannot be declared completed. UN General Assembly resolutions and the International Court of Justice demand the completion of this process, specifically, with respect to the Chagos Archipelago. Mauritius’ sovereignty over it should be restored. The sovereignty of Madagascar should be restored over the Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean and Comoros’ sovereignty over the island of Mayotte. This French territory preserves its status despite numerous UN General Assembly resolutions.
We think it is important to continue these discussions at the UN’s Special Committee on Decolonisation. Together with our African and other partners we will promote implementation of the existing decisions made by the world community.
In general, the talks were very useful. We agreed to draft relevant proposals that would let us start working on the agenda for the next summit, which, as I have said, is scheduled for 2022 pursuant to the understandings reached in Sochi last October. I mean that the next summit will be held in Africa.
We have adopted a joint statement following our discussions which will be distributed to the media. You are welcome to read the document.
Question: I would like to ask you about the situation in Libya. This is a source of constant concern for the international community because of the differences between the confronting parties and the discord among their supporters. Moscow keeps talking about the need to conduct a direct dialogue based on the Berlin Сonference. Russia has also backed Cairo’s initiative – recently the Foreign Ministry has started talking about the need to enhance the UN role in a Libyan settlement. How can this be done in practice when nothing really changes?
Sergey Lavrov: In practice this can be done in only one way – both sides must immediately stop the hostilities and their attempts to move armed units westward and eastward, respectively, or in any direction. Regrettably, the statement of obvious fact by our partners, notably, that the Libyan conflict has no military solution, is not leading to practical actions. At some point, last January before the Berlin conference, we invited the main parties to Moscow: Commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA) Khalifa Haftar, Head of the Presidential Council and the Government of National Accord Fayez al-Sarraj, and Speaker of Parliament in Tobruk Aguila Saleh. At that time, the LNA believed in its superiority on the ground and did not want to sign a document that suited al-Sarraj. In our estimate, the LNA is now willing to sign a document on an immediate ceasefire but the government in Tripoli is now reluctant to do so in the hope of a military solution once again. This is the main reason for what is happening there.
In the framework of a dialogue as sanctioned by our presidents, we and our Turkish colleagues are coordinating approaches that would make it possible to immediately announce a ceasefire and embark on resolving the other issues, including those mentioned at the Berlin Conference and reaffirmed at the meeting in Cairo in the so-called Cairo Declaration. This is the main problem now.
Recently, we spoke in Moscow with Speaker of the Libyan Parliament in Tobruk Aguila Saleh. We stay in touch with Fayez al-Sarraj who heads the Government of National Accord in Tripoli and, of course, with Marshal Khalifa Haftar, the LNA commander. We express to them that an announcement of the complete cessation of hostilities must be the first, indispensable step and that this has no alternative. Our Turkish colleagues are working with the National Transitional Council towards the same end. I hope they will manage to achieve the only correct solution under the circumstances.
As for the UN’s role and the need to increase it, we do want the UN to be more active here. Unfortunately, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Libya Ghassan Salame resigned soon after the Berlin Conference, almost half a year ago. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been unable to appoint a successor so far. His first proposal to appoint Foreign Minister of Algeria Ramtane Lamamra was supported by most countries except our American colleagues. They refused to support his nomination. Almost two months ago a proposal was put forward to appoint former Foreign Minister of Ghana Hanna Tetteh but for some reason Mr Guterres has failed to have her nomination approved. We tend to think that the US representatives are trying to “hobble” him.
Now the situation is like this. After Salame resigned, the UN mission was headed by the acting special representative. By circumstance, this position is now occupied by an American citizen. We don’t want the US to hold the UN Secretariat by the hand and prevent the appointment of a full special representative in the hope that their compatriot will resolve some objective that we fail to understand.
I say this in the open because it is no secret. I am hoping that commitment to multilateral principles will still prevail in this case, and that the UN Secretary-General will fully display his responsibility for the functioning of this mechanism. I am convinced that this position must be occupied by a representative of the African Union.
Question: Can you comment on the UN commission report that says Russian and Syrian aircraft strikes against civilian infrastructure in Idlib are equated with military crimes?
Sergey Lavrov: You, probably mean the commission that calls itself an international independent commission of inquiry on Syria. This commission was not set up by consensus decision, and its mandate raises many questions as does its methodology. The decision to establish this commission was pushed through primarily by the Western countries, which wanted to change the Syrian regime. They didn’t hide this. Using a vote at the UN Human Rights Council, they provided a mechanism with the established purpose of searching for evidence against and discrediting Damascus and those whom they call its allies.
The commission never went to Idlib like many other entities employed by the West in the non-government sector to gather information compromising the activities of the legitimate Syrian authorities. This so-called independent commission uses facts taken from social networks, from some sources they ask to remain anonymous referring to security considerations. These are the same methods as are currently used by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Our Western colleagues are trying to jam through a resolution based on the report prepared in gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention based on information taken from social networks, civil society partners, whose names and addresses they refuse to give saying that it would subject their security to risk and threat. This is why we proceed from the exclusive need to resolve and consider any issue concerning the Syrian or any other conflict based on hard facts alone, and on information for which the relevant entity is ready to be responsible. This independent commission just cannot be responsible for its statements, as has been proven on many occasions.
Question: Mark Esper has said that in the year since he became head of the Pentagon the US Department of Defence successfully restrained Washington’s main strategic rivals – Russia and China. How would you comment on this statement?
Sergey Lavrov: I do not see that there is anything to comment on here. If he thinks the Pentagon’s main objective is to “restrain” Russia and China, then this is the philosophy of the current US administration. It is really burning with a desire to “restrain” everyone except for themselves, and is seeking to get rid of everything that could restrain its freedom to act with impunity on the international stage, such as the INF Treaty, the TOS, the CTBT, UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council and the WHO. If this is the case, this is rather regrettable. We believed that the military act much more carefully than politicians in situations that can erupt into a conflict, especially a hot conflict.
This mood and this philosophy of the Pentagon chief are really regrettable, because we are interested in developing a normal dialogue with all countries, including the United States. Telephone contacts between Mark Esper and Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu were highly professional and based on mutual respect. We would like the foreign policies of all countries not to be aimed at “restraint” but at strategic stability based on a balance of interests of all states, including the world’s leading powers. The phrase “strategic stability” is being replaced with “strategic rivalry” in our dialogue with the Americans. In other words, this philosophy shows that the Americans are preparing for conflicts with any country that will attempt to defend its interests.
This is bad for the United States itself. Maybe Washington is using the alleged threats coming from Russia and China to distract the Americans from the incredible problems we see unfolding in that country. Maybe this is part of the election campaign, for the contenders need to gain points. It would be regrettable if they did this by removing all checks and balances on the international stage and by taking the freedom to venture into risky projects in the hope of getting more votes. We stand for dialogue and strategic stability, as President Putin has noted, including when he proposed a summit meeting of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Question: It has been reported today that Ukraine plans to withdraw from the 2012 memorandum on counterterrorism cooperation with Russia. The interpretative note reads that “this decision will allow for the creation of additional legal and political grounds for protecting the national interests of Ukraine in conditions of Russia’s armed aggression and enhancing Ukraine’s prestige.” Will you comment on this, please?
Sergey Lavrov: I am not aware of our Ukrainian neighbours’ decision to withdraw from the memorandum on counterterrorism cooperation. They are withdrawing from many documents now, which they have a right to do. They also have a right to present their decisions to terminate cooperation in any way. If they think this will help them to protect their national interests more effectively, be that as it may. But it is obvious to us that counterterrorism must not be a victim and hostage of geopolitical games. Any more or less well-read person can see that the Ukrainian authorities are playing geopolitical games. Just look at the statement made by President Vladimir Zelensky, who has said that the Minsk Agreements are only needed to ensure Western sanctions against Russia. This statement is self-explanatory. I leave this on the conscience of the Ukrainian leadership.
We continue our contacts in the Normandy format. The advisers and political aides of the Normandy format leaders have recently had a meeting. It has reaffirmed that the Ukrainian side categorically refuses to honour the Minsk Agreements, which have been approved by the UN Security Council. It has refused to answer the direct questions of our representatives to this effect. We hope that Germany and France as the parties of the Normandy format will take their share of responsibility for Kiev’s position regarding the vital document titled the Minsk Package of Measures.
Question: Is there any chance of a ceasefire in Libya and that the forces of the Government of National Accord will not cross the Sirte – Al Jufra red line, given yesterday’s reports of attacks in Al Jufra, which neither side in the conflict has confirmed?
Sergey Lavrov: I cannot say if the ceasefire has a chance or not. There is always a chance, but it is difficult to say if it will be used. There was such a chance half a year ago, as well as two, three and four years ago when conferences on Libya were held in Paris, Palermo and Abu Dhabi. A conference was also held in Berlin half a year ago, and before that there was a meeting held in Moscow. A document was adopted, an open and simple document that was only a page and a half long, which stipulated a ceasefire in the first place. One of the sides invited to Moscow and Berlin did not use that chance. Now the other side does not want to use this chance, which still exists. As I have mentioned, it is not simply a chance but a demand which has no alternatives and which must be implemented if we want to start settling the situation in Libya.
As for the military situation on the ground and which side’s forces are preparing to cross any lines, this is of secondary importance. If we agree – and it appears that all sides agree that there is no military solution in Libya – the only thing to do is to stop fighting now. Next we can use the tried and tested mechanisms such as the 5+5 Libyan Joint Military Commission and the proposals sealed in the Cairo Declaration, including the proposal recently advanced by the head of the Tobruk-based House of Representatives Aguila Saleh, who has recently visited Moscow. I am referring to the establishment of truly collective and equal bodies of power where all the three historical regions of Libya will be represented based on a balance of interests. I regard this as an absolutely reasonable proposal.
Question: Is Russia ready to act as a mediator in the conflict around the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam?
Sergey Lavrov: We have offered our assistance, including in the form of technical support, to the conflicting parties. We can do useful things. They know this. The United States has offered its assistance as well. Several meetings have been held in the United States. We welcome the progress achieved so far.
It is encouraging that the sides have recently agreed to stimulate contacts between the concerned ministries. This topic has been discussed at the UN Security Council upon Egypt’s initiative. During the discussion held there, we proposed accelerating the coordination of mutually acceptable approaches based on the existing norms of international law and the interests of the parties involved in this dispute.
استطاعت معاهدة كمب ديفيد التي وقّعها الرئيس المصري السابق أنور السادات مع الكيان الإسرائيلي في 1979 إلغاء الدور الإقليمي الكبير لمصر وحولته بلداً ثانوياً في الشرق الاوسط مستتبعاً لدول الخليج النفطية والأميركيين و»إسرائيل».
هذا ليس اتهاماً بقدر ما هو وصفٌ دقيق للوضع السياسي لمصر من كمب ديفيد وحتى الآن.
إلا أن معاهدة جديدة تلوح في الأفق، قد يكون له أثر وتداعيات أعمق من كمب ديفيد حتى على مستوى تهجير المصريين من بلدهم.
وهذه الخطة ليست جديدة لأنها بدأت قبل ثماني سنوات بمشروع بناء سد النهضة على نهر النيل في جانبه الإثيوبي ما أحدث في حينه اضطراباً في العلاقات المصرية الإثيوبية استدعت سلسلة لقاءات بين البلدان التي يعبرها نهر النيل العظيم. وتعهّدت فيها إثيوبيا باحترام المعاهدات والأعراف والقانون الدولي الذي ينظم اقتسام المياه بين البلدان ذات الأنهار الدولية العابرة للحدود.
ومنها نهر النيل الذي يعبر ست دول أفريقية قبل وصوله الى مصر، يكفي أن أبا التاريخ هيرودوت اليوناني الإغريقي قال إن مصر هبة النيل.
يمكن هنا الاضافة أنها من دونه لا قدرة لها على الاستمرار ككيان سياسي لأن المصريين ينفقون 90 في المئة من الكميّات التي تصلهم وهي 55,5 مليار متر مكعب على مياه الشرب والزراعة أي أن مئة مليون نسمة من المصريين يرتبطون بهذا النهر بشكل حيوي استراتيجي.
وبما أن مصر هي البلد الأكبر بين دول النيل وذات القدرة السياسية الأكبر في حوضه، فإنها ظلت قادرة على استهلاك معظم حاجاتها من النيل بمعدل 90 بالمئة منه و10 في المئة من مياه الأمطار.
ما كان ينظم تحاصص مياه النيل هي معاهدة رعتها الدولة المستعمرة في حينه بين بلدان الحوض، اشارت صراحة الى ضرورة امتناع اي بلد من بلدان النهر بأي بناء عليه تسيء الى حصة مصر. هذا الى جانب الأعراف والعادات المعتمدة تاريخياً وهو ما يشير اليه القانون الدولي ايضاً، واخيراً يرى القانون الدولي ان غياب المعاهدات والأعراف تفرض اللجوء الى معايير نسبة عدد المستفيدين ومرور النهر في كل بلد ومراعاة بلدان المنشأ والمصب.
وهذه عناصر تدعم بشكل واضح مصر التي يزيد سكانها عن سكان كل بلدان عبور النيل، كما أن مجراه فيها هو الأكبر لأنه في البحر المتوسط بعد اختراقه الحدود السودانية.
لكن كل هذه المعطيات القانونية لم تمنع إثيوبيا من بناء سد النهضة أكبر سد في افريقيا لحجز كميات ضخمة من مياه النيل أكبر من الحصة المصرية، وبشكل لا يراعي ضرورة التخزين في مدد طويلة وليس بسرعة لأنها تنعكس سلباً على مياه الشرب والزراعة في مصر.
سياسياً دعمت «إسرائيل» إثيوبيا في سدّ النهضة هندسياً وتمويلياً بالإضافة الى تجاهل أميركي لم يكلف نفسه عناء تدبر أي تسوية بين مصر والحبشة، أما الأكثر طرافة فجاء في بيان أميركي صدر بعد لقاء ثلاثي بين مصر وإثيوبيا والسودان في الخرطوم لم يتوصل الى اي اتفاق وسط انسداد كامل في المواقف، لكن البيان الأميركي رأى في هذا اللقاء عنصراً إيجابياً يعكس حسن العلاقات بين أطرافه.
أما الأكثر طرافة فبيان للرئيس المصري السيسي اعلن فيه عدم التوصل لأي اتفاق مع إثيوبيا واعداً المصريين بأنه لن يسمح لسد النهضة بتعطيش مصر.
لذلك فهناك موقفان مشبوهان: الاول هو الموقف الأميركي المحتجب في هذه الأزمة، تواطؤ مكشوف. وموقف الدولة المصرية التي سمحت لإثيوبيا بالتعاون مع «إسرائيل» ببناء سد النهضة منذ ثماني سنوات وهي الملمّة بأضراره الأكيدة على الاستقرار الاجتماعي المصري هذه المرة، وليس لتخفيض زيادة مائية مصرية تأخذها ارض الكنانة من مياه النهر الخالد. وهي عملياً بحاجة لكل قطرة ماء لتلبية الزيادة المرتفعة للسكان.
أما المعطيات التي تثير المزيد من القلق فتبدأ بعرض إثيوبي لمصر بتزويدها عشرين مليار متر مكعب فقط أي بخفض 35 ملياراً، مما تستهلكه حالياً ورفضته مصر بحدّة.
كما أن السودان بدوره عرض على مصر حصة تصل إلى 35 ملياراً بخفض نحو عشرين مليار عن استهلاكه الحالي.
إلا أن تطويق مصر مائياً لا يقتصر على إثيوبيا والسودان بتشجيع أميركي، فهناك «إسرائيل» التي طالبت بقناة من مياه النيل تصل الى فلسطين المحتلة عبر سيناء، وذلك مقابل دعمها حصة مصر في إثيوبيا.
فماذا يجري؟
سدّ النهضة هو الجزء الثاني من كمب ديفيد وربما يشكل خطراً اكبر منه لأن إنقاص حصة مصر من نيلها يؤدي الى تراجع كبير في قطاعها الزراعي وتهجير الفلاحين فيها الى اقصى زوايا العالم، باعتبار ان الاقتصاد المصري مضطرب ومتراجع وعاجز عن تلبية أي تدهور اقتصادي، خصوصاً في قطاع الزراعة الذي لا يزال يشكل عمود الاقتصاد المصري، لذلك فإن سد النهضة هو في جانب من جوانبه مشروعاً لإنماء إثيوبيا لكنه في جوانبه الاخرى يؤدي الى إفقار مصر وتهجيرها ووضعها في خدمة الأميركيين والخليج و»إسرائيل» في آن معاً.
فهل ينزح المصريون؟ هناك اعتقاد بأن النظام المصري هو المهدّد بالنزوح لعجزه عن الدفاع عن بلده ومكانتها الإقليمية ومياه نيلها واستمراره في التبعية لـ»إسرائيل» والأميركيين، ما يبقي مصر في دائرة الدول المنصاعة والفقيرة ولا حلّ إلا بعودتها من كمب ديفيد و»إسرائيل» الى بلدها العربي للعودة الى قيادة الإقليم نحو مستقبل تتعاون فيه الدول العربية لتحقيق التطور في الشرق الأوسط وصون النيل من كل مكروه.
During WWII, the leaders of the World Zionist Movementrefused an offer by London to help European Jews to immigrate to British occupied Palestine. But they refused the offer. Why? Because they were only interested in the creation of a Western post in the heartland of Islam – Palestine. Their agenda had nothing to do with the creation of a ‘safe heaven’ for the European Jews.
Currently, the pro-Israel Ethiopian minority governmenthas repeated the same story by refusing neighboring Muslim-majority Eritrea’s offer to let its two large ports bring in food aid into Ethiopia and clear a backlog of food aid at the small Djibouti port.
Ethiopia rejected the offer under pressure from Israel and American Jewish Lobby that want a regime change in Eritrea.
According to aid agencies more than 10 million Ethiopians are facing starvation and more than $1.4 billion is needed to deal with the crisis. Only half of that has been secured so far.
But as famine ravaged the horn of Africa nation, aid ships are waiting for days to unload food aid at the Djibouti port, the only that serves the landlocked nation of about 96 million people.
What kind of leaders refuse to save the lives of thousands of their own citizens to die of starvation to please their masters in Washington and Tel Aviv?
The answer comes from Thomas C. Mountain, an investigative journalist living in Asmara (here).
“Why isn’t the USA and its lickspittles in the EU pressuring the Ethiopians, who are supposed to be under UN Article 7 Sanctions for their refusal to accept final and binding peace and border agreements, and entirely dependent on foreign loans to keep running ($11 billion in 2015)? The politics of famine is what it’s all about as death from starvation stalks Ethiopia, again.” Mountain said.
The US and Israel which are world’s greatest human rights abusers, have always been in the forefront for waging so-called ‘humanitarian wars’ against regimes that refuse subservience to the world Zionist power. Like Sudan, Eritrea had been accused of human rights violations, and supporting al-Shabaab in Somalia. The country has been under the US sanctions even though all the allegations have been refuted by the UN officials.
The so-called ‘terrorist group’ al-Shabaab was created and is funded by the USand Israel to demonize Muslims and destabilize African Muslim majority nation-states just like the ISIS/ISIL in Iraq and Syria.
The Zionist enemies of Eritreans don’t want them to live under an independent sovereign government that refuse to take orders from the anti-African Western colonial powers. But Eritreans will not surrender their sovereign rights nor they will abandon their support for the government’s independent political stance under any PR lies including the human rights violations.
A new video released by the so-called Islamic State’s affiliates in Libya purports to show the killing of two groups of Ethiopian Christians.
The 29-minute video shows two groups of captives held by the Islamic State (IS, formerly known as ISIS/ISIL), described by onscreen text as “followers of the cross from the enemy Ethiopian Church.” It says one group is being held by an ISIS affiliate in eastern Libya and the other in the south of the country. Each group has about 15 captives.
A spokesman for the Ethiopian government said he cannot confirm his country’s citizens were the ones killed in the video.“We have seen the video but our embassy in Cairo has not been able to confirm that the victims are Ethiopian nationals,” Redwan Hussein told Reuters. “Nonetheless, the Ethiopian government condemns the atrocious act.”
In the video, a masked fighter brandishes a pistol, threatening Christians must convert to Islam or pay with their lives. He describes Christians as crusaders whose goal is to kill Muslims. The footage then shows both groups of captives being killed by the terrorists, one group is beheaded and the other shot dead.
The new video bears similarities with another one, released in February, where militants beheaded 21 Egyptian Christians. Both videos were stamped with the logo of Islamic State’s media wing, Al-Furqan.
IS managed to gain a foothold in Libya amid the chaos and infighting following the end of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. They have been using the internet to spread their message, often in the form of videos showing the killings of those they deem “enemies.” The militants are also active in social media, and have hackers operating on their behalf.
“There is no compulsion in religion,” – Holy Qur’an
“ISIL” terrorists in Libya shot and beheaded groups of captive Ethiopian Christians, a video purportedly from the extremists showed Sunday.
The attack widens the circle of nations affected by the group’s atrocities.
The release of the 29-minute video comes a day after Afghanistan’s president blamed the extremists for a suicide attack in his country that killed at least 34 people – and underscores the chaos gripping Libya after its 2011 civil war and the killing of dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
It also mirrored a film released in February showing militants beheading 21 captured Egyptian Christians on a Libyan beach, which immediately drew Egyptian airstrikes on the group’s suspected positions in Libya. Whether Ethiopia would – or could – respond with similar military force remains unclear.
While the militant in the video at one point said “Muslim blood that was shed under the hands of your religion is not cheap,” it did not specifically mention the Ethiopian government’s actions.
The video, released via militant social media accounts and websites, could not be independently verified by the Associated Press. However, it corresponded to other videos released by “ISIL” and bore the symbol of its al-Furqan media arm.
The video starts with what it called “a history of Christian-Muslim relations”, followed by scenes of militants destroying churches, graves and icons. A masked fighter brandishing a pistol delivers a long statement.
It shows one group of captives, identified as Ethiopian Christians, purportedly held by an “ISIL” affiliate in eastern Libya known as Barqa Province. It also shows another purportedly held by an affiliate in the southern Libyan calling itself the Fazzan Province. The video then switches between footage of the captives in the south being shot dead and the captives in the east being beheaded on a beach. It was not immediately possible to estimate how many captives were killed or confirm their identities.
Ethiopia’s options to retaliate remain slim, given its distance from Libya. However, Egyptian Ambassador to Ethiopia Mohammad Edrees said his country could partner with Addis Ababa to strike the militants.
“That could be an option,” Edrees said. “We will see and explore what is possible to deal with group.” Edrees said Ethiopian officials had yet to approach Egypt to discuss the idea.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 