Only the Weak

US President Donald Trump yet again employed his mediocre showmanship skills in his infection – or lack thereof-with the Corona virus. The issue of whether this was a publicity stunt or a reality is debatable, but what is not is the underlying message that is being sent: welfare states are for the weak.

In the first scenario of this whole charade, Trump might have actually caught the virus. He stayed in the hospital for less than four days, during which he claimed that he was carrying out his duties as president. In addition to the sympathy gained among voters, and the glorification of his image as a hero who defeated this dreaded virus, his message was clear: the virus not deadly, do not close down businesses, do not fund the health system, and do not reinforce any of the pillars of a welfare state that provides and cares for its citizens. He craftily failed to mention that the virus does not affect everyone in the same intensity, and that being a billionaire in office with entire hospital facilities and medical teams at his service, as well as assistants to support his family and run his business whilst away contributed to his rapid healing.

In the second scenario, he lied about the virus to gain support and to fool the public into believing that the corona measures are excessive. Again, with this scenario, the welfare state is ridiculed.

The US and the rest of the world have inadvertently faced an incredibly important question amidst the Corona virus lock-down and the mayhem it brought with it. The question concerns the form of governments that are best equipped to deal with a catastrophe. When faced with hardships, which course of action should we choose? Is it survival for the fittest? Is a social response based on shared responsibility? Should the working class subject itself to threats of a looming viral infection whilst the capitalist class remain protected behind disinfected glass? Should the centre reign and the periphery abide?

Opportunists such as Trump seize any opportunity to push their agenda and influence public opinion. In this case, the welfare state with all the disadvantages it has on the wealthy class came under direct attack by a system that equates equality with weakness, and support with defeat. It feeds primitive urges of believing in the survival of fittest, whilst dithering before the helplessness of the weaker. The real threat that this virus is posing is not its infection of our bodies, but of our morals. If the slightest sense of victory is sensed by the healthy, blessed, or rich, then the opportunists have indeed won.

Piece or Peace?

A peace deal is an agreement between nations to stop fighting. Commercial, cultural, economic, and physical types of war should see an end after inking such a deal. In short: stop fighting.

Therefore, one would be confused to hear that the UAE and Israel have normalised relations and are on the road to signing a peace deal. Were the relations strained? Were the two countries fighting? What peace deal are they talking about?

The UAE and Israel have long been cooperating in the realms of business and research. Since the 9/11 attacks, Dubai in particular has been adamant about saving face and improving its cyber-security. A regional partner that is worthy of such cooperation is certainly not Yemen or any regional country engulfed in its own internal crises and commitment to its reputation as the third world. No. Israel proved to be a reliable partner than can deliver.  The cooperation has since grown, with investments taking place and companies established in the business hubs of the rich Emirates. Diplomatic missions followed suit, and relations prospered and flourished.

The latest chapter of neighbourly cooperation was the COVID-19 vaccine research partnership that saw the two nations joining in hands – in public - for the larger good.  Notwithstanding Israel’s demolishment of Palestinian testing centres, medical facilities, and residential houses amidst the international health crisis, and the ongoing starvation of Gazans – these two nations have been praised for trying to save the humanity from the virus.

No one was attacking the UAE for such partnership. It was free to do as it wishes and enter into as many alliances as deemed appropriate, which is the right of any sovereign country. Abu Dhabi has insisted that it has the full right for self-determination and national decision making – forgetting however how it is meddling in Yemen, Libya, and Sudan. So why is it that the UAE decided to formalise the relations? The unholy matrimony was fine; why complicate things and stir Arab sentiments?

 The UAE claimed that this decision will help Palestinians. It will thwart – albeit temporarily- Israel’s decision to annex parts of the West Bank. In other words, the public announcement of “truce” and “normalisation” is a sacrifice made by the Emirates towards fellow Palestinians, whereby this sign of good faith has successfully halted – again temporarily – the brazen, unethical annexation. Both UAE’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Israel’s Premier reminded the world that the annexation will stop for now. This translates to:

1.       We know the annexation is wrong. If it were right we would have gone through with it anyhow.

2.       We are penalising Palestinians for the decision of Arab countries not to normalise relations with Tel Aviv. The penalty is annexation.

3.       The peace deal drawn is 2002 is void, as the condition of normalising relations only if two states are formed was a bluff.

4.       We think people are idiots and cannot see that the whole point is to support upcoming elections in both the USA and Israel, and market the UAE as an international hub of commerce and technology, or/and a regional player in peaceful mediation that employs culture and business as a road for peace (a much needed approach in all honesty).

Had the UAE simply been honest about why its peaceful relations with Israel would bring benefits to itself and perhaps the region as a whole the injury of the ever-so-indignant Arab community would have been easier to swallow than the accompanying insult. Expecting the gratitude of the Palestinian community for freezing the annexation is an act of shameless absurdity. Ink as many deals as you wish – but please leave the Palestinians out of it.

Send in the Clowns

Iran asked the Interpol to arrest Donald Trump at the backdrop of assassinating its top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani on January 3, 2002, insisting that he and his aides should face "murder and terrorism charges”.

Clearly, the Interpol burst into laughter.

Now Iran knew that its ridiculous request will be snubbed, but it pressed on with it nonetheless. The timing is perfect. As the USA is struggling with the corona-virus pandemic, dire economic conditions, and a national revolt over the murder of an African American is an act of pure racism, topped with recent news about Donald Trump’s prior knowledge of Russia’s paid hitmen to eliminate US fighters in Afghanistan, Trump is not in his strongest presidency moments. A news article that calls for arresting a president by the top international enforcement authority – albeit being purely a political stunt - will not fall on deaf US ears.

Trump’s bet that over 18 months of maximum pressure sanctions will make Iran crack was a miss. It is true that the oil sector has suffered from these sanctions, and hence the oil gifts sent to Venezuela, but other sectors are not suffering. They are in good conditions actually.  Data from the Statistical Center of Iran revealed that Iran’s manufacturing sector had returned to growth, expanding by 2.4% in the second quarter of 2019. The manufacturing sector, which employs just under one-third of Iran’s workforce of around 24 million people, has also helped keep Iran integrated into the global economy, even as sanctions isolated Iran from global oil markets.

Iran earned around USD 41 billion in non-oil export revenue from March 2019 to March 2020. The non-oil export revenue has bought time for Iranian policymakers to engineer a revamping of the country’s budgets and general economic structure to minimise dependence on oil revenue – a long-stated goal. The world is gearing towards green energy, and Iran is riding that tide. 

Meanwhile, Iran is also making full use of the regional mayhem to further pressure the US on the Lebanese and Syrian files, whilst watching – with much pleasure – how the Gulf economies are shrinking, and how Egypt is fighting neighbours to the west and the south.

In the end, the Trump administration underestimated the shrewdness of Tehran and its ability to reinvent itself and its discourse. If what it takes to rattle Trump is to play a joke on Interpol, then by all means, send in the clowns.

Slice it up already

“The fight isn't over until you win.”

― Robin Hobb, Royal Assassin

Indeed. However, in Libya, both sides believe they have won, and the fight is still not over. General Khalifa Hifter launched a military offensive against the Government of National Accord (GNA) in April 2019, employing the rhetoric of freedom and empowerment of the people against neo-imperialist interests invested in the incumbent government. Everyone understands the fallaciousness of these claims, and that the fight is only but one for the control of oil, considering that Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. Its land has long become a battleground for proxy wars that stretch across the European, Asian and African continents, whilst the USA is observing with much weary as it sees Russian influence slowly, but surely, extending to the southern Mediterranean.

Meanwhile, the Libyans are still at war. Lives are lost, security is shattered, the economy is struggling, and the society is polarized.  

What is it that Hafter wants? And what is it that the GNA refuses to cede? The moment the GNA forces recaptured the entire city of Tripoli, oil production resumed in the Sharara oilfield in the south. When Turkey struck two major agreements with GNA in November 2019, the energy competition in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Libyan crisis entered new phases. The Libyan civil war can only be summed up as an international competition over oil reserves. Full stop. Not a war over security, or ideology, or democracy. It is about oil.

Libya’s state National Oil Corporation (NOC) recently announced that oil exports were down by 92.3 per cent since the country’s oil blockade. As a result, Libya’s cumulative losses from the current oil blockade have neared $5 billion. Such reporting is the norm when it comes to the civil war in Libya. Gains and losses are quantified, usually in oil terms. Little do we hear about the people, the environment, or the losses inflicted on the society.

International powers supporting either side are concerned for their own economic and geo-strategic interests. Whether it is to land cheap oil contracts, or allow maritime privileges, the forces backing Hafter and GNA are openly, blatantly, and sassily professing their ulterior goal.

The UN support mission in Libya said the fighting over Tripoli "has proven, beyond any doubt, that any war among Libyans is a losing war." It urged both sides to "engage swiftly and constructively" in UN-brokered talks aimed at reaching a lasting cease-fire agreement. How will that be possible if it is in no one’s interest to allow national conciliation?

The way things are going, it seems that only two solutions are possible: splitting the country in the middle, with Hafter controlling one part and the GNA the other, and subsequently slicing both parts up like one of these pizzas in which each slice has a different topping (analogy evident here). I was wrong; there is no second solution.