By Ishaan Tharoor/ The Washington Post

Jan. 20, 2020 at 9:35 a.m. EST

DAVOS, Switzerland — The World Economic Forum, the most concentrated gathering of wealth and power on the planet, will begin once again amid a natural fortress of snow and ice in the Swiss Alps. President Trump is jetting in for a scheduled address Tuesday. Dozens of other world leaders are in attendance; a who’s who list of CEOs, fund managers, oligarchs and a smattering of celebrities will join the throngs cramming the pop-up pavilions and swanky hotel parties of the otherwise sleepy mountain town.

This year’s conclave will be the 50th since it began in 1971, marking a fitful half century of political turmoil and economic boom and bust. For years, Davos — that is, the conference of global leaders for which it has become synonymous — has represented the apotheosis of a particular world view: an almost Promethean belief in the virtues of liberalism and globalization, anchored in a conviction that heads of companies can become capable and even moral custodians of the common good.

The disruptions and traumas of the past decade have sorely tested Davos’s faith in itself. The archetypal Davos Man — the well-heeled, jet-setting “globalist” — has become an object of derision and distrust for both the political left and right. Financial crises, surging nationalist populism in the West, China’s intensifying authoritarianism and the steady toll of climate change have convinced many that there’s nothing inexorable about liberal progress. A new global opinion poll of tens of thousands of people found that more than 50 percent of those surveyed now think capitalism does “more harm than good.”

Each year, the forum is accompanied by an unsurprising airing of cynicism in the media. “It is [a] family reunion for the people who, in my view, broke the modern world,” Anand Giradharadas, an author and outspoken critic of billionaire philanthropy, said in a TV interview last year. Can Davos “keep its mojo?” the Economist asked over the weekend. “Once a beacon of international cooperation, Davos has become a punchline,” the New York Times noted.

Klaus Schwab, the forum’s octogenarian founder and executive chairman, is convinced that the current moment needs more Davos, not less. In the run-up to this week’s meetings, he announced a new “Davos manifesto,” calling on companies to “pay their fair share of taxes, show zero tolerance for corruption, uphold human rights throughout their global supply chains, and advocate for a competitive level playing field.” Such an ethos, Schwab contends, will go a long way to redressing the world’s inequities and may help governments meet the climate targets set by the 2015 Paris agreement.

“Business leaders now have an incredible opportunity,” Schwab wrote in a column published last month. “By giving stakeholder capitalism concrete meaning, they can move beyond their legal obligations and uphold their duty to society.”

Schwab’s extolling of “stakeholder” capitalism — a riposte to the profit-maximizing Western orthodoxy of “shareholder” capitalism — is supposed to be a call to action. Activists, though, may argue that it’s not enough.

“Executive pay should not only be in line with, profitability, but with environmental and social responsibility. Is that a revolution? I hope so.” Klaus Schwab

In a study timed in conjunction with the World Economic Forum, Oxfam found the world’s billionaires control more wealth than 4.6 billion people, or 60 percent of humanity. “Another year, another indication that the inequality crisis is spiraling out of control. And despite repeated warnings about inequality, governments have not reversed its course,” said Paul O’Brien of Oxfam America in an emailed statement. “Some governments, especially the U.S., are actually exacerbating inequality by cutting taxes for the richest and for corporations while slashing public services and safety nets — such as health care and education — that actually fight inequality.”

And some Davos attendees concur. “The economic pie is bigger than it’s ever been before in history, which means we could make everyone better off, but we’ve chosen as a society to leave a lot of people behind,” Erik Brynjolfsson, director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, told my colleague Heather Long. “That’s not just inexcusable morally but is also really bad tactically.”

Reading from a totally different script, President Trump is expected to wax lyrical about the success of his economic and trade policies. In the past, his bullying measures and fondness for tariffs have ruffled the Davos set.

“Although the president has been inconsistent in how he has carried out his worldview, he has made clear that he has no plans to back away from his strong-arm tactics even as they have increasingly antagonized American friends and foes alike, leaving the United States potentially more isolated on the world stage,” wrote my colleagues Anne Gearan and John Hudson.

Trump is also likely to be challenged in Davos by a growing cohort of climate activists and policymakers. On the same day of his speech, Swedish teen campaigner Greta Thunberg is expected to berate politicians and finance executives who still invest in fossil fuels. Although Trump almost certainly will not heed Thunberg’s call, representatives of major companies attending the forum are desperate to show how they are adapting their business models to accommodate climate concerns.

Two years ago, Schwab drew criticism for what was viewed as an awkwardly ingratiating speech to welcome Trump to the forum. Now, he’s more at odds with the U.S. president, not least on the urgency of the climate crisis.

“We do not want to reach the tipping point of irreversibility on climate change,” Schwab told reporters last week. “We do not want the next generations to inherit a world which becomes ever more hostile and ever less habitable.”

By Samer Khalil Al-Atrush | Bloomberg 

Jan. 20, 2020 at 7:19 a.m. EST

Since the 2011 NATO-backed revolt in Libya that ended 42 years of rule by strongman Muammar Qaddafi, the oil-rich North African country has been in perpetual turmoil. The latest phase began in April, when military commander Khalifa Haftar and his forces marched on the capital Tripoli determined to unseat the internationally backed government located there. The battle for the city accelerated interventions in Libya by Russia and neighboring countries as they maneuver to shape the future of the OPEC member state. More than 2,000 people have been killed and tens of thousands displaced by the fighting for Tripoli. In January, Russia and Turkey, which opposing factions, pushed the rival sides to accept a ceasefire.

1. Who’s vying for power in Libya?

Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj came to power through a 2015 United Nations-backed political deal. But a rival government set up in eastern Libya and aligned with Haftar, 76. His coalition of regular troops and militias, called the Libyan National Army, gained fame for taking the cities of Benghazi and Derna from militants affiliated with al-Qaeda. Haftar gradually extended his grip over the country’s east and then the south, leaving him in control of most of Libya’s oil fields and terminals. After a 2018 attempt to sell oil provoked a warning from the U.S., Haftar restored control of the resource to the National Oil Corp. and revenues from it to the central bank, both of which answer to the government in Tripoli. In April, Haftar moved on the capital.

2. What’s happened since?

The battle lines have hardly shifted. Backed by Turkish drones, forces loyal to the recognized government had several successes, including retaking the city of Gharyan, Haftar’s forward base over the summer. After that, they struggled to hold their ground as hundreds of Russian mercenaries arrived at the front lines to support Haftar, bringing expertise in artillery and ground combat honed in Syria and Ukraine. Backed also by Sudanese mercenaries and United Arab Emirates’s drones, Haftar’s forces spent months trying to breach defensive lines in the Tripoli suburbs. outskirts, eventually breaking through in some suburbs. They also took over the coastal city of Sirte.

3. What are the chances for peace?

Haftar’s forces announced Jan. 11 a halt in their offensive — days after a meeting between the leaders of Russia and Turkey. But Haftar walked out of talks in Moscow on Jan. 13 without putting his name to a more permanent truce agreement that Sarraj had signed. Germany is planning to host a conference in January bringing together the countries intervening in Libya. It wants them to agree to respect an existing UN embargo on arms transfers to Libya and to shape a political resolution to which the Libyan rivals can agree. Skeptics argue that the foreign powers are not yet ready to call it quits.

4. Where do Russia and Turkey fit in?

Initially, Russia kept contacts with both sides while promoting Qaddafi’s son Saif as a future president. By September, however, Russia shifted to flat-out support for Haftar despite its misgivings about a figure who had connections with the CIA during a 20-year stay in the U.S. More than 1,000 mercenaries with the Wagner group, headed by a confidante of Russian President Vladimir Putin, have been assisting Haftar. Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has enjoyed good relations with Sarraj, securing from his government long-sought recognition for Turkish claims to a disputed gas-rich patch of the Mediterranean.

5. How have other countries picked sides?

Though the U.A.E. and Egypt initially had misgivings about an offensive they predicted would turn into a quagmire, they’ve supported Haftar. Both see him as a reliable strongman who could end Libya’s chaos, and they’re opposed to some of Sarraj’s Islamist allies, including the Muslim Brotherhood, which defines itself as non-violent but is considered subversive by some Middle Eastern governments. Erdogan embraces the group. The U.S. has sent mixed messages to the Libyan rivals. The Russian involvement has prompted it to press more forcefully for a peace deal.

6. Why did Haftar launch the battle in the first place?

Haftar had been vowing for years to take Tripoli, after a failed coup attempt in 2014 forced him to set up base in the east. The UN, U.S. and other powers had hoped to stave off a Tripoli offensive by negotiating a political agreement between the two factions. Haftar’s advisers said they didn’t trust Sarraj to abide by a power-sharing deal that would lead to elections, and accused him of being beholden to militias and extremists. They complained that oil revenues were distributed unfairly, to the disadvantage of the historically marginalized east. Sarraj’s government responds to the extremism charge by pointing to its cooperation against terrorism with the U.S. and other Western countries, and the success of forces loyal to the government in driving Islamic State from Sirte in 2016. It accuses Haftar of seeking to restore military dictatorship.

7. Who supports the two sides locally?

Haftar has the support of the main tribes in the east and some cities in the west, including Tarhouna, which neighbors Tripoli. Sarraj’s government is supported by militias in Tripoli and in neighboring Misrata, and the powerful forces of former defense minister Osama al-Juwaili from Zintan. Both sides increasingly rely on foreign patrons.

8. What’s happening with oil production?

Libya sits on top of Africa’s largest oil reserves. Mustafa Sanalla, chairman of the National Oil Corp., has warned that the Tripoli fighting could impact production. The country has suffered major oil disruptions during the years of upheaval but output has stabilized at more than 1 million barrels a day, still well-below the 1.6 million barrels a day produced prior to the 2011 uprising. Haftar’s grip on the fields is precarious. The recognized government says it intends to retake them. In December, fighters loyal to it briefly reclaimed the El-Feel field in the south, causing a temporary shutdown of operations.

By Dr. George N. TzogopoulosJanuary 20, 2020

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,413, January 20, 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  2020 is expected to be another year of fruitful cooperation for Israel, Greece, and Cyprus, which are working together to counter rising instability caused by Turkey. Their recent agreement to commit to the construction of the EastMed pipeline opens a new chapter in a friendship they have worked on for over a decade. They are taking steps to obtain American support for the trilateral scheme despite Washington’s concerns about its potential impact on the US’s long-term partnership with Ankara. Notably, the recent killing by the US of Quds commander Qassem Soleimani found Greece standing by its allies, the US and Israel, though that position risks undermining its relations with Iran.   

In the last months of 2019, Turkey served its strategic goals in Syria by deepening its military engagement following the US decision to withdraw its troops. It also recently signed two memoranda of understanding with Libya—one on demarcating maritime zones and another on military and security cooperation—intended to strengthen its regional foothold even further.

These moves challenge the security of the Eastern Mediterranean. Yet, while the Turkish government violated international law as well as the UN arms embargo imposed on Libya in 2011, the political reality is that it successfully implemented its strategy. Though the risks were high, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s personal chemistry with Donald Trump and modus vivendi with Vladimir Putin favored Ankara’s cause.

Israel, Cyprus, and Greece closely monitor Turkish activities. At their seventh tripartite summit, which took place on January 2, 2020, the three cemented a friendship that has lasted for over a decade by formally agreeing to construct the EastMed pipeline. Although the project is technically difficult, it can be done, and the parties have signed their commitment to it.

Lebanon and Turkey, which are both very concerned that the pipeline will infringe their perceived sovereign rights, have not yet participated in discussions of the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum. The unresolved maritime dispute between Israel and Lebanon on their maritime border and the persistent impasse on the Cyprus Question do not generate much optimism about either country’s participation any time soon.

Following the Athens summit, Israeli and Greek PMs Benjamin Netanyahu and Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Cypriot president Nicos Anastasiadis issued a statement labeling the Turkish decision to deploy troops in Libya “a dangerous threat” to regional stability. Jerusalem had already supported Athens and Nicosia in calling the Ankara-Tripoli maritime deal illegal.

Ankara is determined to aggressively protect its interests in maritime zones of the Mediterranean it believes are part of its own continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. A few weeks ago, for instance, the Turkish Navy deported an Israeli research ship from Cypriot waters. This might constitute a precedent for future actions by Turkey in areas covered by the agreement with Libya.

Israeli FM Israel Katz said his country’s official position on the Turkish-Libyan maritime deal does not mean it will send “battleships to confront Turkey.” Such a scenario is highly unlikely because Israel and Turkey are not officially enemies. They do have deep differences, however. According to the Times of Israel, the Israeli military has begun to include Turkey on its list of “challenges.” Also, in mid-December 2019, The Daily Telegraph published an exclusive story entitled “Hamas plots attacks on Israel from Turkey.” The story is based in part on transcripts of Israeli police interrogations of suspects showing that senior Hamas operatives were using Istanbul to direct operations in Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank.

Israel, Greece, and Cyprus are working hard to secure practical US support for the tripartite partnership, which Washington has openly welcomed since the end of 2018. The Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019, signed by Trump, enables the US to substantially boost the trilateral scheme through energy and defense cooperation initiatives.

Among other things, the Act authorizes financial assistance for an International Military Education and Training (IMET) program for Cyprus for the first time. Washington and Nicosia signed a deal on security collaboration in November 2018. (US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was scheduled to visit the island in January 2020 but had to cancel because of the Qassem Soleimani killing.)

Cyprus is valuable for the Israeli military, which uses it to complete training beyond its borders. At the beginning of last month, it hosted an international commando and IAF “Game of Thrones” exercise, with IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi visiting the exercise area.

Notwithstanding the progress made, it remains unclear how American support for the “democratic bloc” will manifest. Washington greatly values its partnership with Ankara. When Trump hosted Mitsotakis at the White House on January 7, he was reluctant to join Mitsotakis’s efforts to expose the illegal and unhelpful nature of Turkish actions in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Israel, Greece, and Cyprus are not discouraged by this hesitation. The more they talk to each other, the deeper their synergies become. The success of their partnership lies in their joint interests in the Eastern Mediterranean as well as in their shared values and common understanding of challenges. The three have also joined forces in the fight against antisemitism in initiatives like the Israel-Hellenic Forum, launched by B’nai B’rith International in Jerusalem last November.

The January 2020 visit of Netanyahu to Athens was fruitful but was cut short by the Soleimani killing. While that event principally touched upon the national security of Israel, it did not pass unnoticed in Greece. In his talk at the Atlantic Council on January 7, Mitsotakis presented the Greek position on the matter by saying: “We are allies with the US, so we stand by our allies.”

Notably, this position could have implications for Greek-Iranian relations. Following the publication of an article in Hi Kathimerini stating that Greece “will have some involvement” in the event of a US operation against Iran, the Embassy of Iran responded that that would be a “hostile act” and sent a protest demarche to the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Greek FM Nikos Dendias is taking steps to reduce tensions, which are unlikely to grow into a full-blown diplomatic crisis—though that possibility cannot be entirely excluded.

View PDF

This is an edited version of an article that appeared in the Jerusalem Post on January 2, 2020.

Dr. George N. Tzogopoulos is a BESA Research Associate, Lecturer at the Democritus University of Thrace, and Visiting Lecturer at the European Institute of Nice.

BESA

politico.eu

By RECEP TAYYIP ERDOĞAN 

Europe will encounter a fresh set of problems and threats if Libya’s legitimate government falls.

Demonstrators take part in a rally against eastern Libyan strongman Khalifa Haftar | Mahmud Turkia/AFP via Getty Images

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is president of Turkey.

ANKARA — Libya has been grappling with a bloody civil war for almost a decade. And yet, so far, the international community has failed to live up to its responsibility to end the violence and restore peace and stability.

Today, we’re witnessing the consequences of that apathy.

Libya’s government, which the United Nations recognizes, has been under attack by the warlord Khalifa Haftar for several years. His armed group, which seeks to carry out a coup d’état in the country, enjoys support from the anti-democratic governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates among others.

Despite efforts to broker a political solution, such as the 2015 Skhirat agreement, the world has not done enough to support pro-diplomacy and pro-dialogue actors in Libya.

The EU needs to show the world that it is a relevant actor in the international arena.

In Europe, the issue has divided the Continent, which has yet to make up its mind about what to do in Libya. Germany, which supports the country’s legitimate government and advocates diplomacy, will host a peace conference in Berlin on Sunday. By contrast, France has sided with the Libyan coup plotter, Haftar, against that country’s legitimate government.

Some may wonder why Europe ought to get involved in the Libyan conflict in the first place, given that there are other wars, confrontations and humanitarian crises unfolding all around the world.

For one, the European Union’s potential failure to adequately support Libya’s Government of National Accord would be a betrayal of its own core values, including democracy and human rights. To leave Libya at the mercy of a warlord would be a mistake of historic proportions.

Moreover, Europe will encounter a fresh set of problems and threats if Libya’s legitimate government were to fall.

Khalifa Haftar during talks in Athens, on January 17 | Aris Messinis/AFP via Getty Images

Terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, which suffered a military defeat in Syria and Iraq, will find a fertile ground to get back on their feet. Indeed, some groups that largely share those terrorist organizations’ ideology, including the Madkhali-Salafis, are fighting alongside Haftar. If the conflict rages on, the violence and instability will also fuel irregular migration toward Europe.

The Libyan civil war serves as a litmus test for the EU. Will European leaders uphold the liberal world order in the face of yet another attack? Or will they abdicate their responsibilities, as they did in Syria, to watch the crisis unfold from the sidelines?

Our European friends and allies need to understand that they cannot change the world simply by complaining and expressing concern. International law, democracy and human rights cannot be defended without assuming some responsibility.

History teaches us that rewarding those who turn their backs on diplomacy and make a mockery of the international community only leads to more serious problems down the road. And yet the most recent developments in Libya suggest that some European leaders haven’t learned these lessons.

The EU needs to show the world that it is a relevant actor in the international arena. The upcoming peace conference in Berlin is a very significant step toward that goal. European leaders, however, ought to talk a little less and focus on taking concrete steps.

Keeping in mind that Europe is less interested in providing military support to Libya, the obvious choice is to work with Turkey, which has already promised military assistance.

Turkey fully supports Libya’s U.N.-backed, legitimate government. Under the most recent security and military cooperation agreements, we pledged to protect the Libyan government from coup plotters. In this regard, we will train Libya’s security forces and help them combat terrorism, human trafficking and other serious threats against international security.

Europe finds itself at a crossroads. And at this historic junction, those working for peace must be courageous and do everything in their power to end violence. Europe can count on Turkey — an old friend and loyal ally — to achieve that goal.

politico.eu