Middle East Press on Abiy Ahmed, Armenia and Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh: New Age Islam's Selection, 28 November 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Desk
28 November
2020
• Bright
Promise Of Ethiopia’s Abiy Ahmed Era Lies In Tatters
By Dr. John C. Hulsman
• Peace Deal Between Armenia And Azerbaijan Is
A Disaster For Iran
By Dnyanesh Kamat
• Egypt-US Relations Unlikely To Suffer Under
Biden
By Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy
• Can President Aliyev Be Trusted On
Nagorno-Karabakh?
By Emin Milli
------
Bright Promise Of Ethiopia’s Abiy Ahmed Era
Lies In Tatters
By Dr. John C. Hulsman
November
27, 2020
Abiy
Ahmed
------
Like Henry
Kissinger, I came to Washington with an academic background, attempting to make
the professional leap from merely analyzing foreign policy to participating in
making it. And, like the venerable secretary of state, I came to the conclusion
that, while an intellectual life has given me a huge advantage in successfully
helping to craft policy, it also has its limitations.
While an
understanding of world historical forces is absolutely necessary, of equal
importance is the human, practical comprehension of specific leaders — their
likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses, hopes and fears — if one is to
get anywhere.
My
practical Washington education has led me to embrace the deeply unfashionable
“great man” theory of history, which says that specific people determine
outcomes, as well as the larger world historical forces I had mastered in
acquiring my doctorate. As such, every once in a while, a leader comes along
who inspires actual hope that, through their unique biography, they can
transcend the formidable obstacles in their path, leaving their country and
world a changed and fundamentally better place through their mighty efforts.
Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Abraham Lincoln
were such men. For a brief but glorious moment, it seemed that Ethiopian Prime
Minister Abiy Ahmed might be destined to join the pantheon.
But, as
ever, Shakespeare knew what he was talking about when he wisely noted:
“Expectation is the root of all heartache.” Over these past weeks, as Ethiopia
has slid closer and closer to the abyss, something more was dying than merely
the hopes for a renaissance in Africa’s second-most populous country. It is the
beguiling dream that one man could transcend the formidable historical
difficulties strewn around him and remake East Africa for the better.
It is easy
to see why Ahmed, 44, inspires such fervor. Young, learned (he earned a Ph.D.
in conflict studies) and a former intelligence officer in the government, Ahmed
came to power in April 2018 following a period of great turbulence. Mass
protests forced the long-ruling junta — dominated by minority ethnic Tigrayans
— to cede power to Ahmed, who, while he was part of the ruling party, comes
from mixed Oromo and Amhara stock. The Oromo are the largest tribal grouping in
the country, comprising 35 percent of Ethiopians, while the Amhara are the
second largest at 27 percent, with the heretofore militarily dominant Tigrayans
comprising only 6 percent.
In handing
power over to him, the junta was acknowledging the practical reality that — as
a state comprising a mosaic of tribes as the basic political unit — to survive
into the future as a unitary state, the government in Ethiopia had to expand
its political legitimacy to a far broader segment of the population. The fear
of the unraveling of the country based on this basic tribal division has been
the snake in the garden haunting Ethiopia’s rulers over the past generation.
So the
Ahmed experiment began. Quickly sidelining the formerly dominant Tigray
People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), he dramatically removed all TPLF ministers
from his Cabinet. Stung, the TPLF withdrew to its regional stronghold in
northern Tigray province. With the old junta ousted, Ahmed emptied the jails of
political prisoners, allowed far more freedom of the press, promised national
elections, allowed the formation of opposition parties, and promised to
liberalize the Ethiopian economy. He even found time to formally end the
country’s 1998-2000 war with neighboring Eritrea, fully 20 years after the
conflict raged. For all this, Ahmed was rightly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
of 2019.
But Ahmed,
and the expectations he had generated, were about to plummet back to earth.
Increasingly suspicious that the formerly dominant TPLF was lurking to strike
back at him, Ahmed postponed the all-important promised national election, set
for August 2020, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse.
In defiance
of the prime minister and the government’s orders, the Tigrayans went ahead
with their own regional electoral contest, which the TPLF predictably won.
Fearing —
ironically as had the TPLF — that the country was near to splitting apart along
tribal lines, Ahmed fatefully decided to nip what he saw as the brewing
Tigrayan rebellion in the bud. On Nov. 4, accusing the TPLF of attacking two
federal army camps in the Tigray region and of seeking to destabilize the
national government, he dramatically acted, launching a military offensive
against the TPLF in its stronghold. With the federal army just 60 km from Mekelle,
the Tigrayan capital, Ahmed is presently preparing a full tank-led assault on
the city of half-a-million people.
While Ahmed
is likely to emerge victorious in the short run, something profoundly important
has died. The brewing civil war has already killed hundreds and made for tens
of thousands of refugees. More importantly, the bright promise of the Ahmed era
— that one great man could remake his region — lies in tatters as he grows ever
more autocratic and ever more martial. Again, we must return to Shakespeare, as
the problem with relying on people is that they can very often let you down.
Or, as the bard put it in “Julius Caesar:” “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in
the stars, but in ourselves.”
-----
Dr. John C. Hulsman is the president and
managing partner of John C. Hulsman Enterprises, a prominent global political
risk consulting firm. He is also senior columnist for City AM, the newspaper of
the City of London.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1769401
-----
Peace Deal Between Armenia And Azerbaijan Is A
Disaster For Iran
By Dnyanesh Kamat
November
27, 2020
The latest
conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh has been a disaster for Iran. The terms of the
cease-fire agreed on by Armenia and Azerbaijan represent a grave threat to
Tehran’s long-term strategic interests.
The effects
of this are likely to affect the perception of the regime among the Iranian
people, and alter its policies on Azerbaijan and Syria.
Azerbaijan
now has control over the entirety of its border with Iran along the Aras river.
While this is cause for celebration in Baku, it is viewed with alarm in Tehran
because an extension of Azerbaijan’s border gives Israel access to more
territory from which it can keep tabs on Iran.
Despite
denials from Baku, it is no secret that Israel and Azerbaijan enjoy substantive
cooperation in intelligence, energy and military matters.
Azerbaijan
is one of the largest buyers of Israeli weaponry. Its use of Israeli “kamikaze”
drones during the war played an important role in tilting the battlefield to
its advantage — although Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones have been credited
as the true game-changer in the conflict.
In
addition, Azerbaijan and Israel maintain deep intelligence ties. Were Tel Aviv
to launch airstrikes against Iranian nuclear installations, Azerbaijan would
likely play a vital role, either as a refueling stop or launchpad.
The other
consequence of the war is the proposed creation of a transit corridor through
Armenian territory, connecting Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave. It is
likely that this corridor, which will be patrolled by Russian troops, will run
parallel to Armenia’s border with Iran. This has already raised concerns in
Tehran, as it could effectively cut off Iranian access to Armenia, and from
there to Europe via Georgia. For a country already reeling from international
sanctions, it is of great importance to Iran that it maintains access to
friendly neighbours.
Such is the
panic that has set in, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was
compelled to explicitly issue an assurance that access to Armenia will not be
threatened. It is noteworthy that Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif will
soon travel to Moscow and Baku to discuss the issue in more detail.
However, it
is even more important to take note of a capital city he will not be visiting:
Ankara. Turkey is another important winner in the conflict. Not only will its
troops maintain a presence in Azerbaijan, it also will have direct access to
the Caspian Sea through the proposed Nakhchivan-Azerbaijan corridor. Ankara can
now directly project influence in Central Asia, which has been one of President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s most cherished ambitions.
Tehran will
have taken note of Russia’s reluctance to offer full-throated support to its
ally, Armenia. The takeaway from Moscow’s role in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
is that it is happy to sacrifice an ally if it becomes too bothersome. Nikol
Pashinyan, Armenia’s prime minister, came to power through the sort of “color
revolution” detested by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Pashinyan further
annoyed him by jailing Robert Kocharyan, Armenia’s former president and
erstwhile Putin ally.
In this
conflict, then, Moscow stuck to the letter, rather than the spirit, of its
alliance with Yerevan, stating that its security commitments only extend to
Armenian territory. The Russians allowed Azerbaijan to reclaim all its lost
territories, while Armenia retained rump areas around Nagorno-Karabakh’s
capital.
Moscow will
maintain its influence in the region by providing a peacekeeping force in
Karabakh and along the proposed Nakhchivan-Azerbaijan corridor. It also will be
happy to see the back of Pashinyan, whose political career seems to be over.
Russia also appears to be guided by its broader goal of ensuring that Turkey
remains out of the orbit of the West.
Astute
policymakers in Tehran will likely draw the right conclusions from this,
particularly in terms of what it might augur for Iran’s ally in Syria, Bashar
Assad. Having seen the eagerness with which Russia and Turkey were willing to
hash out a deal between themselves, Tehran is likely to push the Assad regime
in the direction of concluding the Syrian civil war.
The main
effect the outcome of the conflict will have on domestic politics within Iran
is likely to be psychological. It is yet another blow to Tehran’s self-image as
a regional hegemon. Indeed the fact that the regime was a bystander to the
conflict, unable to influence its outcome, will revive memories of the two
Russo-Persian Wars of the 19th century, which resulted in Persia having to cede
control over the entire South Caucasus.
It reveals
to the Iranian people that Tehran no longer has the economic might, the
technological sophistication or an alluring political model to influence a
region that was under Persian influence for hundreds of years — one is tempted
to say thousands, since the time of the Achaemenid empire.
Taken
together, all of this represents yet another slight to the legitimacy of the
regime that has ruled Iran since 1979.
-----
Dnyanesh Kamat is a political analyst
specializing in the Middle East and South Asia. He also advises governments on
policies and strategic initiatives to foster growth in the creative industries,
such as media, entertainment and culture. Copyright: Syndication Bureau
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1769376
-----
Egypt-US Relations Unlikely To Suffer Under
Biden
By Dr. Abdellatif
El-Menawy
November
26, 2020
Many Egyptians,
politicians and non-politicians alike, believe that Joe Biden’s victory over
Donald Trump in the US presidential election was not in the best interests of
their country. Their fears are based on the stance that was taken by former
President Barack Obama, which was considerably different from that of his
successor, Trump.
However,
this view of political science is not correct at all. Rather, it indicates a
narrow view and simplistic understanding of the rules of international
politics, based on the idea that “no friendship lasts nor is enmity prolonged
in the world of politics.”
Trump is a
friend of the Egyptian state and has been supportive of its policies in
specific areas, in particular its efforts to combat terrorism. The Obama
administration, on the other hand, was largely supportive of the terrorist
Muslim Brotherhood movement. But this does not necessarily mean that Biden will
adopt Obama’s policy by supporting the Brotherhood and putting pressure on the
Egyptian state.
The Obama
administration supported the Jan. 25 revolution in 2011 and Obama himself
delivered an eloquent speech in which he praised and gave his blessing to the
youth movement in the country.
With the
passing of a period of instability, consultations took place between US
officials and representatives of the Brotherhood in Egypt, which was considered
the strongest and most organized faction on the ground (we heard that a lot in
those days). As a result, the Obama administration decided that US interests
were best served by backing the group.
Washington
gave its blessing to the election of Mohammed Morsi as president of Egypt in
June 2012, but when a constitutional declaration in November that year
effectively granted him unlimited powers, opinions about him and the
Brotherhood grew more divided among administration officials. Some, including
US Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson, continued to believe American interests
were best served by the Brotherhood remaining in power, while others were
concerned that the group was attempting to establish a fascist religious state.
The popular
uprising in Egypt on June 30, 2013, shocked the Brotherhood and its supporters,
who intervened forcefully in an attempt to defeat those who had taken to the
streets to save their country. Nevertheless, the revolution succeeded and the
Brotherhood regime was toppled.
This was a
defining moment in the evolution of the form of the relationship between Egypt
and the US. I say “form” and not “content” because the new administration in
Cairo was supported by the vast majority of the Egyptian people, while
Washington was constrained by its recent actions, experiences and contacts with
Egypt, and an incomplete understanding of the reality of the changes there. As
a result, there was friction in bilateral relations, made worse by areas of
mutual misunderstanding.
The second
and third generations of leading Brotherhood figures in other countries, who
had been educated in the UK, the US and Canada and spoke fluent English, set
about trying to save their comrades in Egypt. They wrote articles for major
newspapers, magazines and think tanks, and their voices were heard in the US
Congress.
The
Egyptian state was keen to end this nightmare. When Republican candidate Trump
defeated his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton — who, like Obama, was a
supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt — in the 2016 presidential
election, he began to implement an overhaul of US policies. Among other things,
he rejected the Brotherhood, canceled US treaties with Iran, and even made
diplomatic overtures to North Korea and Russia.
Meanwhile,
the Egyptian state sought to make improvements architecturally, socially and
economically, and to build bridges of communication with the world. These
efforts have borne fruit. Egypt has become an important international force on
many levels and in issues such as combating terrorism, Mediterranean gas, the
Libyan crisis, and peace in the Middle East.
As a result
of the progress made by Egypt in these areas and others, the international
community is increasingly eager to cooperate with Cairo. Over time, the world
saw through the Brotherhood’s lies and unfounded allegations of injustice.
This brings
us back to Biden, whose foreign policy team will certainly adopt a different
approach to Egypt than that of the Obama administration, in which Biden served
as vice president. As president, his policies will be based on the current
realities, not past events.
Those
Egyptians who are unhappy about Biden’s election are ignoring the enhancement
of economic relations between Egypt and the US in recent years. This was only
possible by agreeing to deal with American leaders.
During
President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s visit to New York in September 2019, we saw
the extent of the recent growth in US investment in Egypt, which the new
occupants of the White House will certainly take into consideration during
their dealings with Cairo.
Egypt has
also acquired a prominent new position in the natural gas sector in the eastern
Mediterranean — a development the Biden administration will want to study well
and benefit from. There are also the issues of the Libyan crisis, illegal
immigration to Europe, and regional peace to take into account, all of which
are issues in which Egypt has become a pivotal player.
-------
Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy is a critically
acclaimed multimedia journalist, writer and columnist who has covered war zones
and conflicts worldwide.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1768941
------
Can President Aliyev Be Trusted On
Nagorno-Karabakh?
By Emin Milli
26 Nov 2020
On November
10, a peace deal was signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan to end the fighting
over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Although there were accusations on both sides
of ethnic cleansing, such mass violence did not take place. The exodus of
Armenians which some envisioned also did not happen.
After the
deal was signed, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, for his part, called for
peaceful coexistence between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. But given his
questionable democratic credentials, many have doubted his intentions.
I can
understand this. In 2009, I was imprisoned for more than two years for what I
believed was merely helping a friend put together a satirical film, which the
authorities deemed an act of “hooliganism”.
Clearly,
this is an administration with which I have had profound disagreements. Yet on
the question of Nagorno-Karabakh and the reassertion of Azerbaijan’s
sovereignty over its territory, I find myself for once in total agreement with
it, as do Azerbaijani opposition parties, civil society and indeed the
population at large.
Nobody in
Azerbaijan craves a deluge of reprisals against the ethnic Armenians of
Nagorno-Karabakh, neither do I believe we shall see one. How governments deal
with political dissidents is different than how they treat minorities. The
violation of civil rights in a country is not the same as the systematic
persecution of a group on the basis of ethnicity and religion.
Modern-day
Azerbaijan demonstrates this. Democratic hurdles aside, the nation is
multicultural. All – whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian – are equal in rights
and dignity, including the 30,000 Armenians who call Azerbaijani regions
outside Nagorno-Karabakh home. This is not a matter of democracy, but of
peaceful coexistence. The latter is by no means contingent on the former. In
fact, recent history has provided us with many examples where democracies have
failed to prevent racist violence and ethnic cleansing.
President
Aliyev’s intention in pursuing the military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh
appears to overlap with the Azerbaijani people’s desire for reaching a solution
for this decades-old conflict and upholding the right of return of the 700,000
displaced Azerbaijani refugees back to their homes. There is no reason why this
must come at the expense of the Armenians who have lived in Nagorno-Karabakh
for generations.
If the
military operation had been driven by more nefarious impulses, the November 10
deal would not have held. The Azerbaijan military appeared to be winning and it
could have reclaimed more of Azerbaijan’s territory occupied by Armenian
forces. Instead, Baku agreed to peace.
This
agreement differed markedly from the three previous ceasefires as it provided
for the deployment of foreign peacekeepers in the conflict zones, as well as
the vital corridor that connects Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia.
To agree to
peacekeepers from Russia – Armenia’s principal backer in the conflict – was a
substantial compromise for Azerbaijan. Given many quarters in Azerbaijani
society were pushing for liberation of all territories held by Armenian forces,
it is not a decision that had been taken lightly. It very much signals the
desire of the political leadership for peaceful coexistence moving forward.
The
presence of the Russian peacekeepers over the next five years will reassure the
ethnic Armenian population, giving the Azerbaijani government time to earn
their trust, build confidence and ensure security in the region.
Civil
society should also be reaching out across the ethnic divide to provide
reassurance. Trust is difficult to build not only at the government level, but
also at the societal level. For far too long Armenians and Azerbaijanis have
seen each other as the enemy. We now must begin the complex process of
demystifying the other, of seeing each other as humans, speaking in the
language of dialogue and compromise.
A platform
should be established through which the Armenian and Azerbaijani civil
societies can connect. Organisations from the European Union and the United
States could facilitate this rapprochement. Whatever form this outreach takes,
it must be part of a truth and reconciliation process that must also take
place. Without it, mutual mistrust will be allowed to fester.
In
parallel, a large-scale effort to rebuild Nagorno-Karabakh has to get under
way. Despite the deficit in some freedoms, the Azerbaijani government does have
a good track record in development, social welfare programmes and large-scale
infrastructure. It has significantly improved the standard of living of
ordinary Azerbaijanis since the 1990s.
For 30
years, Nagorno-Karabakh has been held back by conflict and international
isolation. It is time for the benefits of the Azerbaijani state largesse to
extend to its population as well. An ambitious economic development plan that
provides opportunity for all in Nagorno-Karabakh will go a long way in
facilitating reconciliation.
Peaceful
coexistence between Armenians and Azerbaijanis has always been possible. We
only need to look at the time before the 1990s war for proof. It is clear that
President Aliyev is trusted by his own people to deliver his promise of
liberation and peaceful coexistence. Should the rest of the world trust him,
too? His actions should speak for themselves.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/11/26/can-president-aliyev-be-trusted-on-nagorno-karabakh/
-----
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/middle-east-press-abiy-ahmed,/d/123596
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic
Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism