ACTIVE ARAB PARTICIPATION NEEDED IN LIBYA: NATO CHIEF

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

ABU DHABI: (MARCH 24, 2011) In an exclusive interview to ECSSR Website, former Secretary General of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) His Excellency Jaap de Hoop Scheffer spoke on critical and burning issues facing the Arab world presently, namely the NATO intervention in Libya and the unrest in Bahrain. The interview was conducted on the sidelines of ECSSR’s 16th Annual Conference entitled “Global Strategic Developments: A Futuristic Vision”. Following is the edited version of the interview:

Question: Sir, do you think Western intervention in Libya has been fully thought through? Have Western powers accounted for the possibility that the crisis could prolong and demand greater international involvement in the future?

Answer: In the case of Libya, one has to understand that the international community had to act quickly as thousands of innocent civilians had already succumbed to the brutality of Qaddafi’s forces. When a major humanitarian crisis unfolds in real time, decision-makers have to take immediate and effective action. Sometimes every aspect cannot be fully thought through, but the right thing needs to be done. I am teaching nowadays, but I know from my experience that reality can sometimes be very different from the dry casuistry of textbooks.

I would also add here that this time the West acted only after receiving the clear support of Arab states, who correctly understood the enormity of the situation. Moreover, military action was taken to implement the UN resolution 1973. I would also compliment here the role of GCC states, particularly the UAE and Qatar for their rightful stance to stop the crisis from worsening. Moreover, the United States and its allies rightly thought through that they would not engage in any intervention without clear Arab support and UN mandate.

Question: But is it not true that NATO forces are already overstretched and that it is possible they might be drawn into other theatres of conflict in the region, such as Yemen.

Answer: Without condoning the violence against civilians in Yemen, I would say that the situation there is currently not comparable to the situation in Libya. Meanwhile, one cannot overemphasize in this regard the need for active Arab participation in settling their own conflicts. This year has witnessed, what many people are calling, a remarkable political awakening in Arab world. Therefore, it is time Arab states actively participate in enforcing UN Resolution 1973 on the Libyan regime. Otherwise, I am afraid the present intervention in Libya would be seen by many in the Arab world, as another Western action in the region, which is simply not true.

It is also important to note that my good friend Mr. Amr Moussa (Secretary General of Arab League) has now clarified that the remarks on his purported reservations over the ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya were misconstrued. This is welcome news, as it is important that the international community takes a united stand and Arab states in particular play a pro-active role with the international community in settling this crisis by enforcing the UN Resolution.

Question: It is said that ‘no-fly zones’ have seldom proved effective. There was a no-fly zone over Iraq for over a decade, but it could not avert a showdown. Thus, when President Bush went to war he was criticized around the world. Is President Obama being inadvertently drawn into a similar situation in Libya?

Answer: The no-fly zone over Iraq was in place to stop Saddam Hussein from attacking the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south. It was effective in that respect but he war could not be averted. However, it would not be correct to compare the Iraq war with the current situation in Libya, or to even compare the two US Presidents you have mentioned. It is clear to all that President Obama, unlike his predecessor, does not follow interventionist policies.

Question: But people are asking the rationale of another military engagement at a time when NATO forces appear overstretched, are bogged down in Afghanistan, and there are major financial and resource constraints. Questions are also being asked about the goals and endgame of the mission in Libya.

Answer: I think the goals of the mission are clear. It is not regime change but the protection of civilians from the violence perpetrated by the Qaddafi regime. There is no denying some of the issues you have mentioned, but the international community could not have allowed the killings to continue before its eyes and do nothing about it. As I said reality is at times completely different from all that is written in books.

Question: There has not been a clear and categorical US position over the unrest in Bahrain. There have been a lot of conflicting messages emanating from the Obama administration in this regard. Do you agree?

Answer: I agree that there has been lack of clarity in this regard. However, it is my personal view, that Bahrain has sovereign right to call upon its allies in times of crisis for its defense. Having said that, I believe that violence can never solve anything. I sincerely hope that a non-violent solution will soon be found in Bahrain. I have the privilege of knowing His Majesty the King of Bahrain and His Highness the Crown Prince, and I know they would be inclined toward a non-violent solution. Bahrain has to be mindful that it cannot offer any excuse or argument to Iran on a silver platter that the latter might exploit in international forums.

http://www.ecssr.ac.ae/ECSSR/print/ft.jsp?lang=en&ftId=/FeatureTopic/ECSSR/FeatureTopic_1384.xml

A New Berlin Wall

By Adil Rasheed

 August 27, 2014

Although the Berlin Wall fell a quarter of a century ago, German hearts still appear divided between the West and Russia. On the face of it, Berlin has taken center-stage in the West’s diplomatic offensive against Kremlin’s intervention in Ukraine and in the imposition of sanctions against Russia over its ‘annexation’ of Crimea. However, this new-found German assertiveness is beginning to take a toll on its fledgling economic recovery, if not its strategic interests.


Initially, Berlin’s break from its much criticised ‘self-serving passivity’ in international affairs was well-received by its allies. However, Germany has found it difficult to fill in for the US, with the latter’s influence being in perceptible decline. The over 30 highly fraught phone calls between Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin have only resulted in the hardening of Kremlin’s stance. The unprecedented fall in bund yields in the wake of sanctions has put an additional strain on the economy and the wedge between supporters and detractors of US policies in Germany is widening.

In its July 10 edition, weekly Der Spiegel carried a cover story audaciously titled: “Germany’s Choice: Will it be America or Russia?” It also featured results of its poll, which showed that 57 per cent of Germans feel their country should become more independent of the US when it comes to foreign policy.

 In fact, much vitriol has been spilt in the country’s newspapers over the current foreign policy with two of the leading dailies Handelsblatt and Frankfurter Allgemeine (FAZ) engaged in a fierce debate over it. While writers in the FAZ want Germany’s position against Russia to be more strident, Handelsblatt’s columnists like Gabor Steingart have issued a stark warning of the country sleepwalking toward militarism and war. Others believe that Germany’s current diplomatic engagement is not provocative but designed to avert major war and find a solution to the Ukraine crisis.

It is noteworthy that Germany depends heavily on Russia for oil and gas, which caters to a third of its energy needs. Germany also accounts for 31 per cent of all European exports to Russia (amounting to $52.75 billion in 2012). About 6,200 German companies employing 300,000 workers operate in Russia, selling a wide range of products such as machine tools, pharmaceuticals and cars.

Post-sanctions, these exports have suffered an alarming drop with the German national statistics office Destatis estimating 15.5 per cent fall (to the tune of $20.6 billion) in the first half of this year. More notable has been the decline in the German automobile sector, sliding by a mindboggling 24.4 per cent. These German car manufacturers include the likes of Renault, GM and Peugot Citroen. The prospect of Russia imposing a ban on all car imports has caused an even greater scare in EU markets.

As the economy falters, many Germans are criticising the Merkel government for reversing the ‘Ostpolitik’ with Russia that the country has pursued for over four decades. In fact, since the end of the Cold War, has Berlin struck close economic ties with Moscow, as exemplified in the construction of gas pipelines (like the Nord Stream which connects the two countries directly).
It was this growing relationship that spawned anti-Americanism in Germany in the early 2000s. When President George W. Bush declared war on Iraq, then Chancellor Gerhard Schroder vehemently opposed it.

Thereafter, the Bush administration branded France and Germany as ‘Old Europe,’ unlike the more forward-looking eastern European states opposed to Russia. It is believed that even now Schroeder’s Social Democratic Party (currently in opposition) is not supportive of Merkel’s turning the heat on Russia. Recent diplomatic squabbles with the US and Turkey on spying scandals have further strained Germany’s relations with its Nato allies.

There has also been some alarm over the government’s announcement of sending arms to war zones in Iraq. According to pundits, the move constitutes a fundamental break with the country’s old policy of banning weapons supply to crisis-ridden regions. It is charged that the decision requires Bundestag’s mandate.

In sum, the Fatherland would have to fight many of its inner demons before it charts its way forward. Just as Germany’s ontological struggle shaped the course of history in the last century, its current existential issues would influence the future. As the legendary US statesman Henry Kissinger wryly puts it: “Germany is doomed in some way to play an increasingly important role in the world.”

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2014/August/opinion_August39.xml&section=opinion