The matter of attitude of administration of the D. Trump towards Africa and its problems for the long time was on the fringes of interest of world media mainly because of scandals which shook Washington after the inauguration of the new US President because of alleged “Russian trace” in his election. Many events in the world politics were considered from this perspective. However, relations of the USA with the African continent were far from these associations.

The status of the American-African relations as a subject has recently drawn attention of experts only because in the second decade of March, just before the resignation, the now former Secretary of State R. Tillerson visited a number of the African countries.

They have thrown a cloak of mystery and a set of rumors on this trip as on many other US foreign policy plots of recent time. Initially it was unclear what countries will be visited by R. Tillerson. In February many journalists believed that he would visit Liberia, Kenya, Uganda, the Republic of South Africa and Senegal. Confidentially discussed routes of the Secretary of State leaked to media caused the indignation storm in Washington.

However in reality within the period from March 6 to March 13 he has visited absolutely other countries: Nigeria, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, including the African Union Headquarters, where meetings with the leadership of Somalia and Uganda were scheduled. Thus, from the original assumptions only mentioning of Uganda was correct, though the meeting with its leadership took place in Ethiopia. Why this intrigue was necessary for Washington is still unclear, as well as many other grimaces of the current US diplomacy.

The possibility of meeting of R. Tillerson with the Minister S. Lavrov who approximately at the same time made a tour across a number of African countries (from March 5 to March 9 he visited Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Ethiopia) and on March 7-8 has absolutely accidentally (?!) appeared to be in Addis Ababa at the same time as R. Tillerson, became another spicy puzzle. And both leaders of Foreign Ministries spent the night literally in one hotel! However the meeting predicted by so many people did not take place. Although, even if it occur, then it would hardly be related to Africa after the well-known speech of the President V.V. Putin in Federal Assembly.

Returning to Washington’s concerns on Africa, it is necessary to note that R. Tillerson’s trip stayed well within the logic of actions of the USA towards Africa and added to the meetings both of D. Trump and R. Tillerson with the leadership of the African States in autumn of 2017, when the new administration for the first time designated the priorities on Africa.

The USA has only partially reviewed the priorities in relation to the African continent, in comparison with the previous administrations as D. Trump’s meetings during the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 20 with leaders of Ghana, Guinea (at that time – the Chairman of the African Union), Côte d’Ivoire, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda, Ethiopia and the Republic of South Africa have shown. The main component of revision is sharp cutting down of expenses by Washington for the UN peacekeeping operations in Africa.

It was dressed up in the beautiful garb: like, as African Union, just then converted from the Organization of African Unity, has proclaimed in 2002, the Africans themselves should be engaged in peacemaking.

Already at the end of 2017 it became obvious that D. Trump’s course in Africa, on the one hand, is closely related to the changes, which he has started within the country; on another hand, it is connected with tough opposition with China. Concentrating efforts on the changes inside the USA, D. Trump’s administration significantly cuts down expenses not only on peacemaking, but also on external financial assistance including to the African States. So, financial assistance from 8 bln. US Dollars in 2017 is cut to 5,2 bln. US Dollars in 2018. The USA intends to support only those who follow their ‘democratic’ standards. They intend to lean on them as well.

Besides, Washington demands from the African partners to reinforce fight against corruption and threatens that without it there will be no investments, and actively insists to cooperate with the American immigration and other authorities in deportation of illegal immigrants. The USA will continue to assist in agriculture, power industry, development of transport infrastructure of the African States. For example, the US Agency for International Development has allocated 575 mln. US Dollars for humanitarian assistance to South Sudan, Nigeria and Somalia.

Let’s turn back to the visit of the now former Secretary of State. Nearly all last foreign tour of R. Tillerson to Africa was concentrated around anti-terror matters and tasks of counteraction to growing influence in the region of the People’s Republic of China. The illustrative case was his arrival on March 9 to Djibouti, a small, but strategically important country of the Horn of Africa, where Camp Lemonnier, the only full-scale US military base on the African continent (it is used for transit of special troops; constantly there are 4 thousand US servicemen and 20 UAVs), is located. If to trust official press releases, issues of military and technical cooperation, safety, fight against terrorism and violent extremism were discussed during negotiations with Djibouti leaders. At the press conference R. Tillerson has stated readiness of Washington to continue to provide support to the countries of the region in fight against Al-Shabaab which will be coordinated with AMISOM (the peacekeeping mission of the African Union in Somalia) and has also noted the US desire to keep and reinforce the military presence in the country and in the sub-region in general. Publicly nothing was said on the role of China, but this matter, of course, was discussed, especially taking into account that Beijing builds the naval base in Djibouti and implements large infrastructure projects in this small African country.

Negotiations in Nigeria on March 12 were going on the similar scenario. They have taken only several hours and apparently have brought not much result. The main ‘public’ outcome is the US decision to provide humanitarian assistance to Nigeria and other countries of the basin of the lake Chad for the amount of 128 mln. US Dollars. Nevertheless the anti-Chinese message was the main in speeches of R. Tillerson. He has read to the Nigerian partners a lesson concerning ‘harmfulness’ of the Chinese investments and indisposed them to refuse financial and investment cooperation with Beijing.

The visit of the American politician to Chad on March 12 took place under the same slogans. R. Tillerson talked a lot about strengthening of the bilateral relations, however, first of all, in the sphere of fight against terrorist threat. And in Chad there were big expectations from the visit of the American voyager, however on absolutely other issues; first of all they hoped for lifting of restrictions on migration (travel ban), imposed by D. Trump’s administration. At the final press conference Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chad M.Z. Sharif has expressed a regret concerning inclusion of Chad into the list of countries, ‘immigrationally dangerous for the USA’ as Chad is deeply involved “in fight against terrorism”. R. Tillerson has extensively answered that this question will be reviewed anew in April after receipt of the FBI and State Department joint report on the measures taken by the authorities of Chad to reinforce safety. The Head of the Department of State has said that at establishment of effective information exchange on security issues with Chad and after completion of development by security services of Chad of modern system of issuing passports protected according to modern technologies, the travel ban for the country will be lifted in the nearest future.

Within the framework of R. Tillerson’s visit, in March, 2018 Washington has also let know that along with Ethiopia, Chad and Nigeria it intends to intensify military assistance programme to Nairobi as well as training of the Kenyan military personnel, and also to reinforce the capacity of the US UAVs bases located in Kenya. The announced purpose is to use Kenya for fight against Al-Shabaab and other terrorist groups.

The first impressions of results of the last trip of R. Tillerson to Africa is that so far it is impossible to convince Africans on necessity to review relations with China (and this question was behind all talks on possible assistance). They look at all these attempts with mistrust. And it is in spite of the fact that all ‘airtight’ arguments have been used: commercial relations with China were showed as fraught with long-term negative consequences; Beijing was accused of desire to financially enslave regionals through granting large credits under low interest rates and the conclusion of transactions on ‘unfair’ terms; China allegedly interferes in traditional zones of the US interests, it is engaged in colonial expansion, turns the region into its resource colony, undermines sovereignty of the countries of the continent.

In parallel to this, R. Tillerson has put forward the thesis on readiness of the American companies to enter the African markets more actively, however only with improvement of investment climate there, which is closely connected with reduction of scales of corruption. Washington demands structural reforms and everything that assumes conformity to the requirements of the IMF from the countries of the region.

And if everything is clear with the anti-Chinese fervour of the US Secretary of State, then what does huge attention, which has been paid during the trip to anti-terror, mean?

This is slightly more difficult. It seems that the anti-terrorist rhetoric and particular offers to render assistance to Africans in fight against extremists are at once dictated by several motives.

The first of them is to legitimize military presence in Africa. And in truth it is already rather big. In addition to above-mentioned base in Camp Lemonnier, Washington has established more than 60 outposts on the African continent in 34 or 35 countries (depending on the way of counting). Part of them is used, others are closed or preserved, but may be re-activated at any moment. Formally these posts aren’t considered as bases, but as Co-operative Security Locations (CSL).

The USA declares that these ‘locations’ defend crucial communications; they are involved in peacekeeping, conflict prevention in Africa and in fight against threat of terrorism or piracy. The USA declares that they combat against 4 main organizations of terrorist character (ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Al-Shabaab) and against 48 more that are affiliated with them.

Until the end of 2018 Washington plans to start the ‘West African logistics system’ providing rear supply of the US contingents in 13 countries of the Western and Central Africa. The network of the ‘collective security centres’, which are military facilities in joint use with armed forces of countries of stay, will be expanded. Niger is considered to become a nodal military hub in this part of the continent. 800 American servicemen that deployed on 4 strongpoints of special troops are already located in Niger; there are also two UAV airfields there. The USA accelerates construction of UAVs military base in Agadez.

Within the framework of ‘The Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership’ program, the Pentagon accelerates training of the African armed forces and arms delivery to them. Only in 2017 Chad was provided with 60 IFVs. The Americans plan to increase military and technical cooperation with Nigeria in the Western Africa.

Washington has UAVs bases for ‘fight against terrorists’ not only in Niger, but also in Cameroon. And besides, there are reconnaissance airplanes in Burkina Faso. The Americans conduct operations openly in all Western Africa and secretly in Mali, Niger, Cameroon and Chad.

There is large-scale US military presence in the Horn of Africa. For example, there are 400 American servicemen in Somalia (it is remarkable that Somalia President M. Mohamad has the American citizenship). After the large-scale terrorist attack in Mogadishu in October, 2017 the USA decided to reinforce military presence there even more and the authorities, naturally, agreed to that. The USA carries out arms deliveries to AMISOM.

The US Ministry of Defence wants to develop diagnostic laboratory ‘for counteraction of the possibility of propagation of infectious diseases’ in the territory of Uganda, and that is already Central Africa. In October, 2017 the USA, after Russia, has successfully tested Ebola vaccine.

Within the framework of Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP) the USA has completed modernization of medical and veterinary laboratories in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Re-equipment of the biological centres in Ethiopia, Cameroon, Senegal, Gabon, Sierra Leone, and Liberia has begun.

Since 2009 the Americans trained more than 250 thousand African soldiers and officers for peacekeeping operations, and the contingent of high- readiness forces of the African Union, having spent 892 mln. US Dollars for it.

As we see, there is large-scale and more and more diversified military presence of the USA on the African continent, not to mention 12 large military cooperation programs which are implemented together with the African countries.

There are all reasons to believe that these bases, laboratories and programs, except fight against terrorism, which is often used as a bugaboo, have a task to reinforce the military-political presence of the USA on the continent and to prevent penetration of competitors, first of all the China, as well as maintaining its interests concerning the raw material resources of Africa, which are interesting for Washington. The USA critically depends on deliveries of many minerals, including graphite, magnesium and tantalum, platinum group metals from Africa, to sum up, of many minerals which are important for maintaining the military industrial complex and transition of the country to the new technological mode. It is typical that in recent years the Pentagon is more and more actively engaged in protection of national interests of the USA in the region, in defending of strategic resources deposits and transportation of them into the USA.

Along with fight against terror, reinforcement of the military-political presence on the continent, defending of strategic reserves of the mineral resources necessary for the USA, displacement of the People’s Republic of China, Washington also has another task, i.e. not to allow undesirable regimes to come to power in certain African States. Having hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers and officers from the countries of the continent as the assets, the USA considers that with them they have sufficient resources to prevent ‘changes’ undesirable for them.

However there is a risk that inability of Washington, despite all the efforts, to stop triumphal advance of the People’s Republic of China on the continent, and notably peaceful, economic, trade, investment, will push it to the practice of ‘colour revolutions’ tested in the Middle East. The USA will provoke instability and splitting of the African States as it has already occurred and not without interference of Washington in Libya and Sudan, weakening possibilities of China of a long-term settlement on the continent.

Apparently, planners in Washington are already engaged in preparation of these destructive scenarios and Africans have to understand that.

Pogos Anastasov, political analyst, Orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Вопрос об отношении администрации Д.Трампа к Африке и ее проблемам длительное время оставался на периферии интереса мировых СМИ во многом из-за скандалов, которые сотрясали Вашингтон после вступления нового американского президента в должность по причине якобы существующего «русского следа» в его избрании. Многие события рассматривались в мировой политике именно через эту призму. Однако связи США с африканским континентом от этих ассоциаций оказались далеки.

Тема состояния американо-африканских отношений привлекла внимание экспертов в последнее время лишь потому, что во второй декаде марта, непосредственно перед своей отставкой, в ряде африканских стран побывал теперь уже бывший госсекретарь Р.Тиллерсон.

Как и многие другие американские внешнеполитические сюжеты недавнего времени, эта поездка была окутана множеством слухов и некоей завесой таинственности. Изначально было неясно, какие страны посетит Р.Тиллерсон. В феврале многие журналисты полагали, что он побывает в Либерии, Кении, Уганде, ЮАР и Сенегале. Утечка в СМИ конфиденциально обсуждавшихся маршрутов передвижения госсекретаря вызвала бурю негодования в Вашингтоне

Однако, на деле он посетил в период с 6 по 13 марта совсем другие страны: Нигерию, Чад, Джибути, Эфиопию, включая штаб-квартиру Афросоюза, где были предусмотрены встречи с руководством Сомали и Уганды. Таким образом, из первоначальных предположений верным оказалось лишь упоминание Уганды, да и то, встреча с ее руководством состоялась в Эфиопии. Зачем Вашингтону понадобилась эта интрига, так и осталось непонятным, как и многие другие гримасы нынешней американской дипломатии.

Другой пикантной загадкой стала возможность встречи Р.Тиллерсона с министром С.В.Лавровым, который приблизительно в то же время совершал турне по ряду стран Африки (с 5 по 9 марта он посетил Анголу, Намибию, Зимбабве, Мозамбик и Эфиопию) и совершенно случайно (?!) 7-8 марта оказался в Аддис-Абебе вместе с Р.Тиллерсоном. Причем оба руководителя внешнеполитических ведомств ночевали буквально в одном отеле! Но прогнозируемая многими встреча так и не состоялась. Однако, даже если бы она произошла, то вряд ли имела бы отношение к Африке после известного выступления президента В.В.Путина в Федеральном собрании.

Возвращаясь к африканским заботам Вашингтона, надо сказать, что поездка Р.Тиллерсона укладывалась в логику действий США на африканском направлении и стала продолжением встреч как самого Д.Трампа, так и Р.Тиллерсона с руководством африканских государств осенью 2017 года, когда новая администрация впервые обозначила свои приоритеты на африканском направлении.

США лишь частично пересмотрели свои приоритеты в отношении африканского континента, по сравнению с предыдущими администрациями, как показали встречи Д.Трампа еще в ходе 72-й сессии Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН 20 сентября с лидерами Ганы, Гвинеи (на тот момент – председатель Афросоюза), Кот Д`Ивуара, Намибии, Нигерии, Сенегала, Уганды, Эфиопии, ЮАР. Главный компонент пересмотра – резкое снижение затрат Вашингтона на миротворческие операции ООН в Африке.

Сделано это под красивым соусом: мол, миротворчеством должны заниматься сами африканцы, как это и провозгласил в 2002 году Африканский союз, тогда только-только преобразовавшийся из Организации африканского единства.

Уже в конце 2017 года стало очевидно, что курс Д.Трампа в Африке тесно связан с затеянными им преобразованиями внутри страны, с одной стороны, и жестким противостоянием с Китаем – с другой. Концентрируя усилия на внутренних преобразованиях в США, администрация Д.Трампа существенно сокращает расходы не только на миротворчество, но и на внешнюю финансовую помощь, в том числе и африканским государствам. Так, финансовая помощь с 8 млрд. долл. в 2017 году сокращается до 5,2 млрд. долл. в 2018 году. США намерены поддерживать только тех, кто следует их «демократическим» стандартам. На них же они намерены и опираться.

Кроме того, Вашингтон требует от своих африканских партнеров усилить борьбу с коррупцией, без чего, грозит он, не будет инвестиций, и настаивает активно сотрудничать с американскими иммиграционными и другими властями в деле депортации незаконных иммигрантов. Помощь же США будут продолжать оказывать в сельском хозяйстве, энергетике, развитии транспортной инфраструктуры африканских государств. К примеру, Агентство по международному развитию выделило Южному Судану, Нигерии и Сомали 575 млн. долл. на гуманитарное содействие.

Вернемся к визиту теперь уже бывшего госсекретаря. Практически всё последнее зарубежное турне Р.Тиллерсона в Африку было построено вокруг тезисов об антитерроре и задачи противодействия росту влияния в регионе КНР. Характерный пример – его приезд 9 марта в маленькую, но стратегически важную страну Африканского рога Джибути, где находится единственная полноформатная военная база США на африканском континенте Кэмп-Леммонье (используется для транзита спецназа; там на постоянной основе находится 4 тысячи военнослужащих США и 20 беспилотников). Если верить официальным пресс-релизам, то в ходе переговоров с джибутийским руководством обсуждались вопросы военно-технического сотрудничества, обеспечения безопасности, борьбы с терроризмом и насильственным экстремизмом. Р.Тиллерсон на пресс-конференции высказал готовность Вашингтона продолжать поддержку странам региона в борьбе с «Аш-Шабаб», которая будет координироваться с АМИСОМ (миротворческая миссия Афросоюза в Сомали), а также отметил желание США сохранить и укрепить свое военное присутствие в стране и субрегионе в целом. Публично о роли Китая ничего не говорилось, но эта тема, конечно же, обсуждалась, особенно с учетом того, что Пекин строит в Джибути свою военно-морскую базу и осуществляет в этой маленькой африканской стране крупные инфраструктурные проекты.

По похожему сценарию были построены переговоры 12 марта в Нигерии. Они заняли всего несколько часов и результатов, судя по всему, принесли мало. Главный итог «на публику» – решение США оказать гуманитарное содействие Нигерии и другим странам бассейна озера Чад на сумму 128 млн. долл. Но основной пафос речей Р. Тиллерсона был все же антикитайским. Своим нигерийским партнерам он прочитал нотацию по поводу «вредоносности» китайских инвестиций и настраивал их отказаться от финансово-инвестиционного сотрудничества с Пекином.

Под теми же лозунгами прошел визит американского политика в Чад 12 марта. Р.Тиллерсон много говорил об укреплении двусторонних отношений, но опять же, прежде всего, в сфере борьбы с террористической угрозой. Причем, со стороны Чада были большие ожидания от приезда американского вояжера, но совсем по другим вопросам, Там надеялись в первую очередь на снятие ограничений по миграции, введенных администрацией Д.Трампа. На итоговой пресс-конференции мининдел Чада М.З.Шариф выразил сожаление по поводу включения Чада в список «миграционно опасных для США стран», поскольку Чад «глубоко вовлечен в борьбу с терроризмом». Р.Тиллерсон пространно отвечал, что этот вопрос-де будет заново изучен в апреле после получения совместного отчета ФБР и госдепартамента о мерах, принятых властями Чада для усиления безопасности. Глава госдепартамента заявил, что при налаживании с Чадом эффективного информационного обмена по вопросам безопасности и после завершения разработки службами безопасности Чада современной системы выдачи защищенных с использованием современных технологий паспортов, возвращение позитивного миграционного статуса стране будет осуществлено в самое ближайшее время.

В контексте визита Р.Тиллерсона Вашингтон в марте 2018 года дал также понять, что намерен наряду с Эфиопией, Чадом и Нигерией активизировать программы военной помощи Найроби и подготовку кенийских военнослужащих, а также усилить потенциал развернутых в Кении американских баз БПЛА. Объявленная цель – использовать Кению для борьбы с «Аш-Шабаб» и другими террористическими группировками.

Первые впечатления от итогов последней поездки Р.Тиллерсона в Африку состоят в том, что убедить африканцев в необходимости пересмотра связей с Китаем (а за всеми разговорами о помощи скрывался именно этот вопрос) пока не получается. На все эти потуги там смотрят с недоверием. И это несмотря на то, что в ход были пущены все «зубодробительные» аргументы: торговые связи с Китаем подавались как чреватые долгосрочными негативными последствиями; Пекин обвинили в желании финансово закабалить регионалов через предоставление крупных кредитов под низкий процент и заключение сделок на «нечестных» условиях; Китай, мол, вторгается в традиционные зоны интересов США, занимается колониальной экспансией, превращает регион в свой сырьевой придаток, подрывает суверенитет стран континента.

Параллельно с этим Р.Тиллерсоном продвигался тезис о готовности американских компаний активнее выходить на африканские рынки, но лишь по мере улучшения там инвестиционного климата, который тесно связан с уменьшением масштабов коррупции. От стран региона Вашингтон требует структурных реформ и всего, что предполагает подчинение требованиям МВФ.

Но если с антикитайским запалом американского госсекретаря все понятно, то что означает огромное внимание, которое было уделено в ходе поездки антитеррору?

С этим несколько сложнее. Похоже, антитеррористическая риторика и конкретные предложения оказать содействие африканцам в борьбе против экстремистов продиктованы сразу несколькими мотивами.

Первый из них – легитимизировать свое военное присутствие в Африке. Оно и так надо сказать немаленькое. В дополнение к вышеупомянутой базе в Кэмп-Леммонье Вашингтон создал более 60 своих форпостов на африканском континенте в 34 или 35 странах (в зависимости от того, как считать). Часть из них используется, часть – закрыты или законсервированы, но могут быть активизированы в любой момент. Формально эти пункты не считаются базами, а «точками сотрудничества в области безопасности» (Co-operative Securitylocation CSL).

США заявляют, что эти «точки» защищают критически важные коммуникации, задействованы в поддержании мира, предотвращении конфликтов в Африке и борьбе с угрозой терроризма и пиратства. США заявляют, что ведут борьбу против 4 основных (ИГИЛ, Боко Харам, Аль-Каида исламского Магриба и Аш-Шабаб) и еще 48 аффилированных с ними организаций террористического характера.

До конца 2018 года Вашингтон планирует запустить «западноафриканскую логистическую систему», обеспечивающую тыловое снабжение контингентов США в 13 странах Западной и центральной Африки. Будет расширена сеть «центров коллективной безопасности» – военных объектов, находящихся в совместном с вооруженными силами стран пребывания пользовании. В качестве узлового военного хаба в этой части континента рассматривается Нигер. В Нигере уже размещены 800 американских военнослужащих, дислоцированных на 4 опорных пунктах спецназа; там также существуют два аэродрома для запусков БПЛА. США форсируют строительство военной базы в Агадесе для запуска беспилотников.

В рамках программы «транссахарского контртеррористического партнерства» Пентагон форсирует подготовку кадров для африканских вооруженных сил и поставку им вооружений. Чаду только за 2017 год было передано 60 БМП. В Западной Африке американцы планируют нарастить военно-техническое сотрудничество с Нигерией.

Для «борьбы с террористами» у Вашингтона есть базы БПЛА не только в Нигере, но и Камеруне. А ведь есть еще самолеты-разведчики в Буркина Фасо. Операции американцами проводятся открыто во всей Западной Африке и скрытно – в Мали, Нигере, Камеруне и Чаде.

Масштабным является военное присутствие США на Африканском роге. В Сомали, например, находятся 400 американских военнослужащих (примечательно, что президент Сомали М.Мохамад имеет американское гражданство). После масштабного теракта в Могадишо в октябре 2017 США решили еще больше усилить там свое военное присутствие, на что власти, естественно, согласны. Осуществляются поставки вооружений США для АМИСОМ,

На территории Уганды, а это уже Центральная Африка, Минобороны США хочет развернуть диагностическую лабораторию «для противодействия возможности распространения инфекционных заболеваний». В октябре 2017 года США успешно, вслед за Россией испытали вакцину против Эболы.

В рамках программы Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP) США завершили модернизацию медицинских и ветеринарных лабораторий в Кении, Уганде, Танзании. Началось переоснащение биологических центров в Эфиопии, Камеруне, Сенегале, Габоне, Сьерра-Леоне, и Либерии.

С 2009 года американцы подготовили более 250 тысяч африканских солдат и офицеров для Операций по поддержанию мира и контингента сил постоянной готовности Африканского союза, затратив на это 892 млн. долл.

Как видим, военное присутствие США на африканском континенте носит масштабный и все более разнообразный характер, не говоря уже о 12 крупных программах военного сотрудничества, которые реализуются совместно с африканскими странами.

Есть все основания полагать, что эти базы, лаборатории и программы, кроме борьбы с терроризмом, который зачастую используется как жупел, имеют задачу укрепления военно-политического присутствия США на континенте и недопущения проникновения туда конкурентов, прежде всего того же Китая, а также обеспечения своих интересов, касающихся сырьевых ресурсов Африки, интересующих Вашингтон. Ведь США критически зависят от поставок из Африки многих полезных ископаемых, в том числе графита, магния и тантала, металлов платиновой группы, короче многих минералов, которые важны для обеспечения военно-промышленного комплекса и перехода страны к новому технологическому укладу. Характерно, что Пентагон в последние годы все более активно привлекается для защиты национальных интересов США в регионе, охраны месторождений стратегических ресурсов и их транспортировки в США.

Наряду с борьбой с террором, усилением своего военно-политического присутствия на континенте, защитой стратегических запасов минеральных ресурсов, необходимых США, вытеснения КНР, у Вашингтона есть и другая задача – не допустить прихода к власти в тех или иных африканских государствах неугодных режимов. Имея в своем активе сотни тысяч подготовленных солдат и офицеров из стран континента, США считают, что располагают достаточными ресурсами для того, чтобы с их помощью предотвратить неугодные для себя «перемены».

Однако есть риск, что неспособность Вашингтона, несмотря на все свои усилия, остановить триумфальное продвижение КНР на континенте, причем мирное, экономическое, торговое, инвестиционное, толкнет его к опробованной на Ближнем Востоке практике «цветных революций». США будут провоцировать нестабильность и дробление африканских государств, как это уже произошло не без вмешательства Вашингтона в Ливии и Судане, ослабляя возможности Китая по долгосрочному утверждению на континенте.

Судя по всему, планировщики в Вашингтоне подготовкой этих разрушительных сценариев уже занялись и африканцы должны это понимать.

Погос Анастасов, политолог, востоковед, специально для интернет-журнала «Новое Восточное Обозрение».

Surprisingly enough, last week introduced drastic changes in the balance of powers existing across the Middle East. There has been a whole series of both unexpected and predicted events, which have left many analysts utterly puzzled.

You can judge for yourself, as we mention seemingly unconnected events that have affected the state of affairs in this volatile region: the murder of the former Ali Abdullah Saleh committed in Yemen was almost immediately followed by the announcement by the Trump administration that Washington is going to transfer its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. On the next day Russia would announce that ISIS has suffered a crashing defeat on the field of battle with the forces supporting Damascus that was made just a day before the announcement that the influential Gulf Cooperation Council fell victim of irresolvable internal differences which led to a new alliance being signed by Saudi Arabia and the UAE almost immediately.

Attempts to explain such a week so tightly packed with various events have all but failed so far. Those highbrow analysts attempting to approach the task at hand have either tried to rank those events in accordance with their importance, or come up with conspiracy schemes about the attempts to bring closer the “end of history” and the “ultimate battle between good and evil” on the eve of Armageddon.

However, it seems that if one wants to escape mentioning gloomy Masonic prophecies in his analytical piece, which is always a good decision, then he must admit that the said period of time marked a qualitative shift in the situation on the ground, both bringing the region closer towards a major face-off and a new balance of powers that must sooner or later grant stable relations for all regional players.

As for the murder of the brilliant politician who would dominate Yemeni political landscapes for almost five decades, the dangerous game of a brilliant tactician and visionary politician Ali Abdullah Saleh ended with a bullet to the head. The sniper that finished the brilliant politician was fired by a sniper that could be hired by the Houthi resistance movement or Iranian supporters of this movement who must have been afraid that at a certain stage which was inevitable the Yemeni leader would attempt to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia.

With a single pull of a trigger Yemen has been submerged even deeper in the bloody “all versus all” kind of conflict that would block the path for peace negotiations in this country for years to come, while sharply reducing the chances of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to secure a victory, thus preventing the consolidation of the GCC countries around Riyadh, which suits Tehran’s agenda perfectly.

For sure, one would have a hard time arguing with highly-qualified experts that are convinced that Saudi Arabia received a major advantage with the death of Ali Abdullah Saleh, since this event has pretty much outlawed the Houthi movement that would have a hard time fighting against Yemeni troops while being isolated. There’s been announcement that the Yemeni resistance is about to suffer an imminent defeat, but there’s way too much uncertain variables for someone to make such a prediction. This can happen if the son of the murdered former President, Ahmed Saleh would be able to regain control over his father’s party and then receives support from the current runaway President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. Then, they young Saleh must succeed in “integrating” the Muslim Brotherhood movement in his coalition, and this idea has already been bitterly opposed by the UAE. Additionally, al-Qaeda and ISIS militants operate in the south of the country can provide a major distraction for the young Saleh that would try to hunt down the Houthis movement all across the mountainous north of the country. So it’s highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia could achieve anything of substance in Yemen in the foreseeable future.

Against this background the failed attempt to created a united anti-Iran Sunni front against Iran that Saudi Arabia has made can be regarded as a piece of the same puzzle. The latest GCC has made it clear for pretty much everyone that the disagreements between the Persian Gulf states are too numerous to overcome, especially in a situation when Qatar is standing in opposition to Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the young ambitious yet non-official ruler of Saudi Arabia, Prince Mohammad bin Salman has found himself alone with his fellow “brother” Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Crown Prince of the UAE, in the trench against Iran. It’s safe to say that he’s been dreaming for a much more advantageous position

Now let’s examine two other major events – the victory over ISIS in Syria and Iraq, which has already been officially declared by Russia and Iraq, and, in fact, is really close, despite both the latent and sometimes not-so-latent attempts of the United States to prevent this victory from coming to fruition. In the regional context, this victory, coupled with the failed project to create an independent Kurdistan, is beneficial for Tehran, since it removes obstacle for the creation of the “Shia arc”, stretching across Tehran-Baghdad-Syria-Lebanon. This victory manifests a major blow cast against Washington and Tel-Aviv’s designs that were aimed at fragmenting the Middle East, which were put into action with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and then aggravated with the triggering of the “Arab Spring” in 2011.

This stormy December week has made it clear that a major war against Iran that was predicted by many experts is at least seriously delayed. As a matter of fact, there’s nobody to start it… Tel Aviv and Riyadh can only hope that the US will be dumb enough to bite the bullet. But Washington is too absorbed with its face-off with North Korea and is simply unable to concentrate the forces necessary for the war against such a formidable adversary as Iran. Additionally, Washington’s latest modus operandi that can be described as “leading from behind” leaves little hope for Israel and Saudi Arabia.

That’s where the final piece of the puzzle comes into play – the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by Donald Trump? Yes, as a matter of fact, like all the previous factors mentioned above this step is also strengthening the positions enjoyed by Tehran. As is known, Iran has resolutely opposed this decision, as well as its allies in the region, namely the Hezbollah. If before the announcement of Donald Tramp of his decision, a possible Israeli attack against Shia forces could be attributed to the struggle with the Iranian agents in the region, now it would be an aggression of the anti-Muslim forces occupying Jerusalem. Moreover, since the Arabs themselves at the extraordinary meeting of the League of Arab States condemned the decision of the Trump administration, it will now be much pretty much impossible for this very assembly to classify the Hezbollah as terrorists, as Saudi Arabia would like them to, especially if Israel decides to invade Lebanon. Therefore, the recent air strikes against the positions occupied by Hezbollah in Syria carried out by the Israeli air force looks like a manifestation of Tel-Aviv’s…

Opponents will say: but Israel has scored a fantastic victory, as Trump’s decision undermines the existing consensus of non-recognition by the international community of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. However, this is a superficial judgment. First, Moscow first violated this consensus by recognizing West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel last April. So, Tel Aviv should be thanking the Russian leadership instead, by recognizing the rights of Russia on its once lost property in this state. Additionally, Donald Trump’s decision has been pretty half-hearted – he did not recognize Jerusalem as the single and indivisible capital of Israel, and the boundaries of the city, judging by his statement, should be determined in the course of direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. And the transfer of the embassy has been postponed for several years. So, the actual situation doesn’t really change. But Tehran received an excellent propaganda slogan, and even in such a unique moment when the anti-Iranian Sunni alliance going down in flames.

Summarizing this turbulent week in the Middle East, one can say that the picture on this large chessboard has cleared up: Iran has improved its positions considerably, largely due to the ill-calculated steps of its geopolitical opponents, as well as the overall dynamics that favors it.

This does not mean that in this complex chess game players have made all the moves, but it seems we’re about to see the endgame ….

Pogos Anastasov, political analyst, Orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

The Strategic Review on Defense and National Security for 2017, published in mid-October by the French Ministry of Defense, says a lot about the current state of international affairs.

Firstly, it confirms that the system of international relations is deeply destabilized and harbors many risks and threats to international security. According to the authors of the report, this is caused by several reasons. Among them is the rise of new centers of industrial and military forces and the emergence of new powerful state and non-state actors, who are quick to seize new weapons and technologies, as well the weakening of multilateral governance mechanisms worldwide. Secondly, in this report, the French military leadership places the highest priority on Islamic terrorism (or, as it is repeatedly emphasized in the text, jihadist terrorism), considering it the primary threat to international security. Political correctness is thrown out the window!

Although this statement is cliché of itself, its appearance in one of the most important public documents of the French Ministry of Defense speaks volumes. If we ignore the Anti-Russian sentiments which deals with the alleged threats posed by Russia (which is defined in the report as one of France’s primary military rivals!), admittedly, for the first time since 2013 (back then, the previous issue of the Strategic Review was published), the text of the Reviewcontains enough objective analyses of the state of affairs concerning the spread of the terrorist threat in Africa, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. It further says that deeper understanding of the gravity of the situation is finally coming to the leading military circles of Europe after their frenzied support of the ‘democratic’ revolutions in the Middle East.

Of course, from Paris, as well as from other European capitals, it is difficult to expect genuine recognition of their considerable share of responsibility for the chaos and permanent instability which spread like fire to these regions. The destabilization began as a result of the Arab Spring that of late 2010 – early 2011, the events either inspired directly by the European countries or strongly supported by them, including with military force (as it happened in Tunisia, Libya and covertly in Syria).

However, we can finally hear from the instigators that these color revolutions begin to directly (and quite negatively) influence the stability and security of European states, including France itself.

The authors of the report quite rightly speak about the long-term nature of terrorist threats. They acknowledge that even the imminent destruction of the pseudo-caliphate ISIS will not lead to their weakening or disappearance. It is difficult to disagree with their analysis that the jihadist ideology itself (called both Salafi and Wahhabi by different sources) has not died out and is still supported by young people in the most deprived segments of society in many Middle Eastern and North African countries. It is also difficult to argue with the fact that, after the defeat in the Levant countries, the jihadists will either go underground in their homelands or immigrate. In fact, they already are fleeing to Libya and the Sahara-Sahel region (Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, and Mauritania). They also seek haven in the countries of Eastern, Southern and Central Asia.

The statement that many terrorist organizations in African countries (such as Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda) will clash, unite, change and spread across many states of the African continent is equally fair. They are expected to appear in the area from Somalia to Nigeria, weakening in some places and intensifying in others. New terrorist groups will also emerge. The battle with them will be long and difficult, the French experts rightly claim, especially as they explore new military technologies and weapons – drones, cryptography, modern communications, secret operations skills, WMD (chemical weapons), etc.

The proposed strategy of combating this evil on the African continent is based on known algorithms developed by the French government. First of all, it includes combining their military power in the framework of Operation Barkhane and the capabilities of the Sahel G5 (the aforementioned Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and Burkina Faso) with the support of the EU to create a united force to fight terrorists and extremists. The report, of course, could not fail to mention the characteristic ideals of the European Union: the development of democracy in African countries and their economic recovery serving as a pill against terrorism. At the same time, it recognizes that Islam in sub-Saharan Africa defy the injustice of the incumbent authorities with their actions (previously, this insinuation was taboo in Europe).

The authors of the report also refer to the waves of migration that have swept over Europe as a threat to the continent, for which terrorist groups are partly responsible. Though their concerns are justified, the authors do not even offer to combat the immigration problem with forceful measures. They obviously understand that it would be wrong to combat jihadist Islam with solely military methods and present a broader approach, in which brute force is coupled with intelligence, security, justice, education and diplomatic measures (though even this will not be enough).

All in all, there is no point arguing with the many assessments and suggestions of the report. They reflect France’s view on the situation and are aimed at working out strategies to protect French national interests.

The highly biased perception of Russia’s role in the conflict is alarming and causes much discord. Condemning Russia for its ‘illegal annexation’ of Crimea, French experts refuse to recognize its role in the antiterrorist struggle. They purposefully neglect mentioning Russia’s successes in this field, considering all Russian endeavors in Syria merely attempts to uphold the current regime.

It seems that achieving complete objectivity will require the following steps from the authors of the report: recognizing the inability of France as well as other Western powers to defeat the terrorists and admitting Russia’s capability and great potential in the fight against terrorism. Many countries in the Middle East and Africa already realize this, having seen the effectiveness of Russia’s method of projecting force.

Defeating terrorism and its consequences (among them the influx of immigrants from Africa) is possible only if countries unite against the threat. The sooner this is understood in Paris, which seems to have been determined by Washington and its allies as one of the preferred channels for a dialogue between the West and Moscow, the sooner it will be possible to start developing a common strategy to combat terrorism and its various ugly manifestations, including those on the African continent.

Pogos Anastasov, political analyst, Orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

The state visit of the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, to Russia on October 4-8, 2017 had a profoundly symbolic meaning. Its importance goes beyond the scope of the economic and investment agreements signed during his visit, which are insignificant when compared with the relations of Riyadh with other powerful states. The commodity turnover with the USA exceeds that with Russia 330 times (!)

The agreements that were reached largely dealt with the long-term development of the relations between the two countries. Speaking figuratively, we are talking about the launch of a long-range missile, with the entire visit acting as the first stage of such a missile. And this stage is separable. I shall explain what this means.

King Salman is very advanced in age (81 years old). Although, in modern times, this cannot be considered the age limit for being in power, the leader is seriously ill, a fact that was brought to light during the escalator-malfunction incident in Moscow at his arrival. The King moves with difficulties; he has had a stroke and, according to some malicious reports from the foggy Albion, he is also suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The King himself understands this, and for the last two years has been vigorously preparing his son Mohammed for the ascension to the throne.

The events of June this year demonstrated that Al Saud is ready to go to any lengths for this purpose. He has already rallied the support of his allies in the Sudairi clan and achieved his goal when the US protege, who had already received the approval to govern in December 2014 shortly before the death of King Abdullah (he was accepted in Washington by the leaders of all key departments, as well as by the President), refused the position of the Crown Prince and stepped aside for Prince Mohammed.

Even until now, since January 2015, the young, energetic and very able-bodied Prince Mohammed has already concentrated tremendous powers in his hands, including the position of Defense Minister, Head of the social and economic bloc of the government, as well as control over the main source of the Kingdom’s income – the Saudi Aramco Company aquired in autumn of the same year.

By the autumn of 2017, all the external obstacles to obtaining full, absolute and legitimate powers in terms of the Saudi legislation had been eliminated. All pretenders to the throne – the former heir to the Crown Prince and the son of King Abdulaziz, Prince Muqrin, and, as we have mentioned above, Mohammed bin Nayef (the nephew of the founding King, the son of the Head of the Interior Ministry, Prince Nayef, who died in 2011) – formally renounced claims to the throne. The son of King Abdullah, Prince Mutaib, who heads the National Guard, has a power resource but does not enjoy the support of the main royal clan – the Sudairi. The surviving sons of the founding King (except Muqrin), such as Prince Ahmed, all have the rights to the throne, but they cannot secure sufficient support within the Saudi royal family, have no power component, and at the best case have the support of the conservative clergy who has already felt the winds of change and understands that Prince Mohammed’s reform plans may weaken his position in the society.

In addition, over the last two years, the new Crown Prince has almost completely cleared the state apparatus from representatives of the royal families (except for the governor’s corps), giving those honourable but powerless positions in the Royal Office and in the Council of Shura, where they are under close supervision. He appointed his proteges among the young technocrats and businessmen at the key positions, including in the Royal Office, where a compact shadow cabinet operates.

The worst thing for the numerous opponents of Prince Mohammed and his policy (there are many of them in Al Saud family) is not only the fact that they are poorly consolidated, and do not have powerful administrative or power tools to influence the situation, but also that they have no plans to answer all the numerous challenges faced by the Kingdom (oil dependence at low prices for raw materials, youth unemployment, underdevelopment of modern state institutions, etc.)

Meanwhile, Prince Mohammed is full of ideas. The first of these is the “Vision 2030″ plan, which explains in detail how the country will abandon its dependence on oil and turn into an industrial economy, even with reliance on foreign workers. It is clear that this plan is faced with the extremely low efficiency of the state machinery, which has always been considered a sinecure for the offspring of rich and not very wealthy families, but also for the institutional constraints. It clearly implies a radical breakdown of the tribal system, the rejection of the outdated dogmas of Wahhabism and the more secular nature of the state, which has been proved by the abolition of the ban on female driving in early October. Soon, there will be a repeal of the ban on entertainment – cinemas, theatres, concerts, exhibitions, and the opening of the country to tourists. Mohammed bin Nayef has tried to oppose the changes by limiting the reform of the Council of Muftis and promoting the introduction of the tourist visa. Now, this obstacle no longer exists!

Thus, the opponents of Prince Mohammed have no legal means to prevent his accession to the throne, which can take place in the coming months. Everyone who is dissatisfied, including the members of the Sudairi clan who are outraged by the departure from the principle of transferring power from brother to brother and the conservative forces relying on the clergy and believing that the young prince has gone too far in destroying the patriarchal foundations, obviously lacks a resource.

In fact, they have only one tool – the physical neutralization of the young Prince, as the case was in 1975 when one of the royal family members killed King Faisal who had dared declare an oil embargo for the West. As it was before, and now, the opponents of the young prince can rely on support from outside. Washington has perceived the visit of King Salman to Moscow with artificial indifference. But it understands that the further development of the situation may not be in accordance with the US plan, when Riyadh will stop blindly following the instructions of the American power centres due to the reforms conducted by the young Prince, and (God forbid) will become closer to the disobedient “Vlad”. This is very dangerous, as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the major influence tool – alongside with Israel – on the situation in the Arab, and even Muslim, world, without mentioning that it is the main buyer of the American weapons in the world.

Washington will therefore take the easy route of either provoking an attempt on Mohammed bin Salman or orchestrating another version of the “Arab spring”, say, in the form of a palace coup. The first assassination attempt in August this year failed. It was followed by severe repressions and arrests, which affected some of the members of the royal family. The second “tendril of fear” was the attack on the royal palace in Jiddah during the entire visit of the King to Moscow. At present, the Prince may expect new attacks and provocative acts against the new role of Riyadh that the USA is not used to.

Who will the USA put its stakes on: the old Prince Ahmed? Or the insulted and offended Head of the National Guard Mutaib? On Prince Muqrin, who has lost his position? Or will it stir up Islamic State, which is already weakening and losing its positions in Syria and Iraq, against Saudi Arabia? In any case, Prince Mohammed should be on the alert, and the rest should remember that by placing a bet on someone from the royal family, the USA is concerned not about Saudi interests, but their own, and, if necessary, they will proceed with the partitioning of this country along the lines of Ralph Peter’s map, as has already happened with Iraq.

In other words, the USA is ceasing to be the main guarantor of the security of the Saudi monarchy, but instead, is becoming its greatest threat. Prince Mohammed should remember this very fact every minute.

Pogos Anastasov, political scientist and orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

It is quite clear that the fall of the strategic port on the Red Sea, through which almost 90% of humanitarian aid flows to Yemenis living in areas controlled by Houthis and supporters of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, would lead to a massive famine and the possible death of millions of Yemenis. It is also clear that the threat of such a scenario occurring was used by the Anti-Houthi coalition in order to force the opposition forces to capitulate to the conditions put out by Riyadh.

Moscow, represented by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs G.M. Gatilov made it clear that such a scenario is totally unacceptable. Speaking in Geneva on April 25 at a high-level donor conference on the conflict in Yemen, G.M. Gatilov called for lifting the blockade of Hodeidah, the opening of the airport in Sana’a and the return to a political resolution of the conflict. “Like most other countries, we firmly believe that the crisis in Yemen should be resolved exclusively through peaceful means by way of a national dialogue that takes into account the interests of all the major political forces in the country,” he said.

The position of Russia was immediately appreciated by former President of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who responded on April 26 with a speech, in which he thanked Moscow for its principled position. For the first time in the past year, he announced that Yemen is ready to begin a dialogue of peace with its neighbor, Saudi Arabia. Having made this sensational statement, he however did not fail to criticize the Saudi-led coalition for its endless bombardment, the death of peaceful civilians, famine, blockade, and the destruction of Yemen’s infrastructure. He mocked the key argument made by Riyadh under which the military campaign against his country has been justified, in particular – that Yemeni territory was allegedly used by Iran to create threats to the security of Saudi Arabia. He added that on the contrary, it is from Saudi territory that the threats emanate against the security of Yemen.

In his speech, Ali Abdullah, Saleh made it clear that the alliance with the Houthis remains strong. He stated that he had rejected proposals to abandon the alliance with them for “hundreds of millions of dollars” and to enter into an alliance with “Muslim brothers” and A. Hadi. In this way he answered the rumors about the supposed weakening of relations with the Houthis with whom certain disagreements were noticed recently, as revealed through the resignation of Abdel-Aziz bin Habtour in April, only six months into his post of Houthi Prime Minister in Sana’a. Disclosing the secrets of Yemeni behind the curtain politics, the former President hinted fairly transparently to the worst enemies of the “Muslim Brothers” – the Emirates – that their partners (apparently referencing Riyadh) are elaborating very dark schemes behind their backs.

However, it seems that apart from an attempt to push the allies of the Anti-Houthi coalition, this strong rhetoric was just a ruse in order to give the Saudis a signal of readiness for peaceful negotiations.

Actually, it was such a turn of affairs that was expected by Moscow, but not by Riyadh as it seems, where the signal was chosen to be ignored, continuing to take stake in a military victory and regarding the extended hand of Ali Abdullah Saleh as a sign of weakness. They still seem to hope to split the alliance of Houthis and Saleh supporters. It would seem that the impetus from Moscow and A.A. Saleh for finding a political settlement began to fade. However, during the last week of April and the first week of May, changes in the Yemeni conflict began to occur that may call into question the military campaign of the coalition and in general its existence, as well as a movement back towards a political resolution.

A worsening turn of events for A. Hadi and his patrons was evidenced by the last few days in Aden, where on May 4 opponents of the acting President took to the streets and staged a demonstration in support of the former governor of the city and the supporter of separation of the South Yemen from the North – Idris Az-Zubeidi. On the same days separatist supporters from the Al-Hirak invited him to head a Political council to govern the region and lead for independence.

All these actions resulted as a response to the decision of the Yemeni president on April 27 to dismiss Az-Zubeidi (yet another supporter of South Yemen separation) and replace him with his protégé, the Salafi Hani Ben Braik.

It is clear that the liaison, established between the allies of A. Hadi in the south with such difficulty, were being torn apart. They will now have to rely on the Emirates, which according to the “amicable” decision of the Saudi Monarch and the Emirs of the UAE patronized Southern Yemeni leaders in the last two years.

Now managing the situation in the South of the country will become much more difficult. Many of the South Yemeni leaders, for various reasons, are opposed to the federal system of Yemen, fixed to the results of the national dialogue of 2013, and want to separate from the North, with which they have only lived as one state since 1990. The mosaic of political and military movements in the South of Yemen gives little ground for optimism. In addition to the supporters of A. Hadi, the Muslims brothers from the Islah party have been quite active there (who, in spite of the objections of Abu Dhabi, are secretly supported by Riyadh), while in the provinces of Hadhramaut the Al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS have strong positions. The fact that they are using the chaos and war in Yemen was openly touched upon by G.M. Gatilov in Geneva. The resignation of Az-Zubeidi revealed the degree of political instability in the south and has called into question both military strategy of Saudi Arabia to capture Hodeidah and in general the basis of the Anti-Houthi coalition…

Amongst these conditions, the resumption of peace efforts of the UN Secretary General Special Envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed is expected. Nonetheless, against the backdrop of complicated relations between Yemeni parties (Houthis and Saleh supporters, as well as among supporters of A. Hadi and South Yemeni separatists), it is only possible under condition of the full support for actions on the part of both of the direct participants in the conflict, including the SA coalition and the UAE, and the “five” of the UN Security Council.

Much depends on the new American President, D. Trump, who will be going in May on his first foreign trip, including Israel and the Vatican, and will also visit Saudi Arabia (before the NATO summit, scheduled for May 25). Although the Saudi Arabia Minister Adel al-Jubeir marked the fight against extremism and terrorism as the main topic for D. Trump’s talks with his Saudi partners in Jeddah, it is clear that without discussion of the conflict in Yemen it will not be possible. The head of the US administration will have to decide whether to consider the Yemeni conflict, as Saudi rulers will try to convince him, part of the fight against the rising Iran, or realize that it has its own international reasons and external military intervention, much less a blockade and the famine of civilians, can hardly be a solution.

To do this, he will need a lot of political will, taking into account the fact that the Saudi Arabia is the main US ally in the region which buys US weapons worth fantastic amounts thus providing work for the US military-industrial complex for decades ahead, and the new American President has already advocated for the interests of this industry…

Pogos Anastasov, political scientist and orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The terrorist attacks against the Coptic community in Egypt, which brought the fate of Christians in the region back onto the agenda again, is worthy of first mention.

Firstly, a few words about the sad event itself. On April 9, on Palm Sunday, a significant day for Christians, two powerful explosions struck two Coptic churches in the two Egyptian cities of Tanta and Alexandria during a festive service, killing 49 and injuring 120 people. The authorities reacted immediately by introducing a state of emergency for three months, and by creating a Supreme Council to fight terrorism. To this, the United States and other Western countries, instead of feeling compassion for the Christians, immediately reacted by sharply criticizing the regime for ‘clamping democracy’.

However, we indeed must afford more thought to the fate of Christians in the Middle East, including Egypt, than what we can possibly notice right now. The Coptic community has always been one of the most important keepers of Egyptian national identity, although, according to different estimates (as no official figures since 2006), they constitute between 7 and 11 percent of the nation’s total population, which makes up between 6 and 13 million people. For centuries, the Copts have played an important role in the economy, in politics and in the cultural life of the Egyptian state. Secretary-General of the United Nations Boutros Boutros-Ghali (his grandfather, Boutros Ghali, was Prime Minister of the country from 1908 to 1910, and was later killed by an Egyptian nationalist) is one of the famous Copts one can recall. Although, throughout the twentieth century, the role of the Copts in politics and the economy has been steadily decreasing; no more than between 1 and 2 people have been appointed members of government in recent years, or as governors, and there were only six of them in the parliament under H. Mubarak.

At the same time, during the twentieth century, until about the beginning of the 1990s, the Copts did not face any particular oppression. Of course, their participation in the economy, politics and population was decreasing. Nevertheless, this did not affect their status. Problems started to slowly increasing with the victory of the 1979 ‘Islamic Revolution’ in Iran and with the crisis of the secular governance model, which was aggravated by the collapse of the USSR, and with it, of the leftist secular vector in the politics of the Arab States. Many Arab countries, previously oriented either toward the socialist model or toward the liberal Western, like Egypt (however, secular, in any case), began to feel the pressure of the Islamists, especially the “Muslim Brotherhood”, which raised the slogan “Islam Is The Solution.”

The Coptic community in Egypt, which, during the era of H. Mubarak through Pope Shenouda III, established strong relations with State bodies, which in turn generally defended it, started becoming a target of mass attacks by Islamists in the 1990s. In the period between 1990 and 1997, many incidents occurred in many places (Abu Qirqas, Manfalut, Asyut, Izzet-Daud, etc.) that led to death of dozens of Christians. The apotheosis was the attack of Islamists in November 1997 against tourists in Luxor, after which the State heaped repression on them. They managed to calm the Islamists down for a while, although the ‘grassroot’ riots and the oppression of Christians under the colour of the ‘illegal building of churches by them’, alleged ‘insults’ to Islam caused by Copts, Christian woman cohabitation with a Muslim man, and so on, have continued, and this has led to the slow but accelerating departure of the Copts and other Christians (for example, of Armenians having positions in the business of Alexandria) from the country. In addition, there have been terrorist attacks similar to the recent terrorist attacks, for example, the explosions in the Coptic Churches in Alexandria in 2011.

When “Muslim Brotherhood” came to power after the January 25 Revolution and the presidential elections in 2012, which their protégé Mohamed Morsi won, the position of the Copts became sharply worse. This was primarily because during the elections, they had overwhelmingly supported Ahmed Shafiq, a secular politician close to H. Mubarak. Despite the promises of the new authorities to protect Christians, Christian oppression only increased. As clearly demonstrated by “The Association of Victims of Abduction and Forced Disappearance”, 550 Coptic women and girls were abducted between January 2011 and March 2014. Attacks and murders of followers of Jesus Christ in different parts of the country have increased. However, in the West, these facts were either hushed up or interpreted as a “perversion of reality”, as if Coptic girls themselves marry Muslims and then the Copts put it as abductions.

In this situation, Copts considered it deliverance when in 2013, the army top ranks headed by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi came to power in Egypt, and the “Muslim Brotherhood” was suspended from the levers of power. The Coptic Pope Tawadros II, who succeeded Shenouda III, expressed solidarity with the Egyptian army as reflecting the will of the people. The adoption of the Constitution in 2014, in which, for the first time, though briefly, the Christian period in the history of Egypt was mentioned, was an important and significant event for the Coptic Christians. Nevertheless, it is clear that Islam remained the state religion, and Sharia is the basis for legislation.

Recent events, like explosions in the Coptic Churches, as well as the latest threats by the “Islamic State” to the Copts in the Sinai Peninsula, challenge the relative calm of Christians in Egypt.

However, these events are also a challenge for the new US administration. Will it continue to drift toward the diplomacy of George W. Bush and Barack Obama when, under slogans of peace, Washington was spearheading regime change agendas in the Middle East, with a clear bias towards supporting the “Muslim Brotherhood” as allegedly democratic forces? At the same time, it is known that it was the “Muslim Brotherhood”, with the tacit approval of the West, that launched the most extensive (over the last thousand years) prosecutions of Christians in the region; and those from ISIS who replaced them as leaders in murdering Christians have expanded this policy up to the genocide of Christians in Syria and Iraq.

Or will the administration of Donald Trump be strong enough to change the long-term vector in the policy and expand the tools for combating radical Islamists and ISIS by including the protection of the national minorities of the Middle East, including Christians, in it as well?

In any case, having noticed the problem of genocide and the expulsion of Christians and other national, ethnic and religious minorities in the Middle East, the administration of Donald Trump will add this factor to its agenda and try and prove that it is really different from the neocons, and that it is really set on curbing radical Islam, a diabolical force that is aimed at destroying a two-thousand-year-old Christian presence in the region.

This will expand the eventual platform of interaction between the US and Russia in the Middle East in the fight against extremists and terrorists, and will lay the ground rules, including spiritual ones, to overcome the confrontation between Moscow and Washington in the region. Maybe the White House will give a thought to this possibility?

Pogos Anastasov, political scientist and orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Nevertheless, these systems have been destroyed to varying degrees. In case of the Middle East, they have been deeply destroyed, including by the actions of the Obama administration. This also applies to the Arab-Israeli settlement process, the idea of re-establishing to which the first black US president arrived as with a flag at the region.

Let us recall that Obama presented his Middle East Policy in a speech he gave on June 4, 2009 at Cairo University. His main promise was to build new relations between the USA and the Islamic world, to help Afghanistan and withdraw US troops from its territory and from Iraq. It has been said that Iran has the right to producing peaceful nuclear energy, if it is to comply with the NPT. Drafted by experienced experts, this speech contained everything that could please the Arabs in the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations in ending the occupation of Palestinian territories, solving the main problems of the final status – Jerusalem, borders, refugees, establishing an independent Palestinian State, etc. It was clearly stated that the only feasible and practical choice was the two-state solution and the peaceful coexistence of Israel and Palestine. It was emphasized that construction of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land is illegitimate. This speech was warmly greeted in the Arab world, and for the first two or three years, Obama gained enormous credibility there.

What followed next is common knowledge. Obama only in part succeeded in reaching an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, which was also with the help of other great powers, including Russia and Germany. Everything else turned to be a disaster, a situation in which Washington has not found itself in since the Second World War. The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 2011 (and not in 2010 as he promised in his speech in Cairo) led to the exacerbation of the split in the country and to the emergence of ISIS. The region erupted because of US-backed ‘colour revolutions’, and a few countries (Syria, Libya, Yemen) have split up or turned to be on the verge of collapse. Flirting with the ‘moderate’ Islamists, among whom there were “Muslim brothers” as ranked by Washington, resulted in a bout of extremism and destructive Islamic radicalism.

Nothing went well with Obama’s policy on the Middle East peace negotiations. Any attempts by the US administration to start direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations were met with stiff resistance from Benjamin Netanyahu and the entire Israeli far right wing, which has actively used anti-terrorist rhetoric to block the initiation of the peace process. And the Head of the White House did not want or could not get to have many levers of influence on Israel at the disposal of the United States, in view of opposition to such a move by Congress, where Republicans dominated. The ‘Quartet’ of Middle East mediators (Russia, the USA, the EU, the UN) also did not really start to work, mainly because of the serious tensions in relations between Moscow and Washington, which have only grown over the years.

And right at the last moment, Obama went in for an unprecedented move, which might be called a gesture of despair. He let the first in the history of US-Israeli relations anti-Israeli Resolution be passed by the Security Council. Resolution No. 2334 was adopted on December 23, 2016. It has confirmed that the construction of settlements by Israel on Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal force and is in flagrant violation of international law, and is in fact one of the main obstacles to reaching a settlement in accordance with a two-state solution. The Security Council demanded that Israel immediately and completely stop all settlement activities on occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and start to fully comply with all of its legal obligations in this regard. At the same time, the UN Security Council emphasized that it will not recognize any changes to the June 4, 1967 provisions, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.

This resolution has caused an uproar in Israel, and was regarded as an act of betrayal by the United States of their ally. Despite the corruption scandals surrounding him, Netanyahu came up with an angry diatribe against Obama. Israel has stated that it will not acknowledge the Resolution, or comply with its terms.

It should be admitted that the administration of Barack Obama was not at all frightened by the angry tirade by Israel. The administration seemed to have originally been aimed at the scandal and at going out with a bang, to somehow justify itself to its disappointed Arab partners.

On December 28, just before the New Year, outgoing US Secretary of State, John Kerry, gave a very emotional speech in which he tried to justify the US decision not to veto Resolution No. 2334. It is worth stopping at this speech, as it has passed almost unnoticed globally because everyone was focused at the New Year celebrations. The meaning of this demarche (there is no other word for this) was that the refusal to veto the UN document was made in order to keep the possibility of a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which is the only true solution. Otherwise, the Palestinians would be faced with eternal occupation and segregation, while Israel would face insecurity.

In addition, John Kerry put forward a number of principles of settlement ‘for the future’, which would make sense to be taken seriously if they have been consistently promoted by the United States during the whole period of Obama being in power, and would not have been put forward as slogans at the last days of the outgoing US administration. However, they still appear to be worth reproduced, as they are apparently the political testament of Barack Obama on the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations.

The first principle: to provide on the basis of Resolution 242 of the UN Security Council secure and internationally recognized borders between Israel and a viable Palestine in the framework of negotiations on the basis of the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed swaps of territories. The second principle: to fulfil the vision of UN General Assembly Resolution No. 181 of 1947 on two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens. The third principle: to provide for a just, agreed, fair and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, with international assistance, that includes compensation, options and assistance in finding permanent homes, acknowledgement of suffering and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples. The fourth principle: to provide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states, and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo. The fifth principle: to satisfy Israel’s security needs and bring a full end to the occupation, while ensuring that Israel can defend itself effectively and that Palestine can provide security for its people in a sovereign and non-militarized state. The sixth principle: to end the conflict and all outstanding claims, enabling normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisaged by the 2001 Arab Peace Initiative of King Abdullah. The Final Status Agreement shall resolve all outstanding issues and lead to the end of the conflict, so that everyone can move ahead to a new era of peaceful coexistence and cooperation. For Israel, this must also bring broader peace with all of its Arab neighbours.

Well, this is a well-intentioned program. The only thing is that Donald Trump comes to the White House with completely different sentiments. He made this clear when he sharply criticized the refusal of the United States to use its veto in the Security Council, and warned that the United States will stop funding the UN activities (25% of the UN budget) and the countries that voted for the Resolution. Moreover, the newly elected president said that he would pick as the US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who himself does not believe in a two-state solution, and even intends to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, which would mean the unilateral recognition of Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem.

Despite the general dislike for Barack Obama in the Arab world, the program represented by John Kerry would find a positive response among both Arabs and the international community. This actually was the case, as attested by the results of an international conference on the Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations that was held in Paris in mid-December, which also condemned Israel’s settlement activity.

Donald Trump has much work to do to combine his openly pro-Israel views with the need to garner Arab support in the fight against radical Islam and the ISIS. The task is arduous. Moreover, if the new President wants to combine the solution with additional pressure on Iran, which will probably fall in line with Donald Trump’s intention to refuse to support the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem for recruiting new adherents in the Arab world, and not only among Shiites …

Pogos Anastasov, political scientist and orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.