Θα ήθελα να σταθώ στο τελευταίο σημείο. Μια σχετικά πρόσφατη σημαντική εξέλιξη στις διμερείς σχέσεις Μεγάλης Βρετανίας και Μαυρικίου άπτεται και της περίπτωσης των διμερών σχέσεων Μεγάλης Βρετανίας και Κύπρου νοουμένου ότι η πρώτη κατέχει τρία τα εκατό του εδάφους της νήσου υπό το καθεστώς «Κυριάρχων Περιοχών Βάσεων» αλλά και σειρά άλλων περιοχών διακατοχής εντός της επικράτειας της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας – σημαντικότερη εκ των οποίων είναι η περίκλειστη με συρματόπλεγμα κορυφή του Ολύμπου προστατεύουσα πανίσχυρα Βρετανικά συστήματα παρακολούθησης τηλεπικοινωνίων με εμβέλεια μέχρι τα Ουράλια όρη. Η σημαντική αυτή εξέλιξη αφορά στην Μεταβίβαση Κυριαρχίας των Νήσων του Αρχιπελάγους Τσάγος από το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο στο κράτος του Μαυρικίου. Το κοινό ανακοινωθέν της διμερούς πολιτικής συμφωνίας εκδώθηκε στις 3 Οκτωβρίου 2024.

Μετά από έντεκα γύρους διμερών συνομιλιών εντός δύο ετών διαπραγματεύσεων και αφού προηγήθηκε προσφυγή του Μαυρικίου στο Διεθνές Δικαστήριο της Χάγης, το Λονδίνο αναγκάστηκε σε συμβιβασμό: παραχώρησε κυριαρχία του Συμπλέγματος των Νήσων Τσάγος με αντάλλαγμα την μακροχρόνια μίσθωση, για 99 έτη, της βάσης Ντιέγκο Γκαρσία (Diego Garcia). Η σύμβαση μίσθωσης προβλέπει δικαίωμα ανανέωσης της. Οι σχετικές διαπραγματεύσεις άρχισαν το Νοέμβριο του 2022 και κατέληξαν σε αίσιο τέλος με την συμφωνία αποχώρησης των Βρετανών στα μέσα του παρελθόντος έτους.

Το κείμενο της τελικής συμφωνίας υπεγράφη μεταξύ του Βρετανού πρωθυπουργού Keir Starmer και του πρωθυπουργού του Μαυρικίου Navin Ramgoolam στις 22 Μαϊου του 2025. Δημοσιεύματα του Βρετανικού Τύπου αναφέρουν ότι η μίσθωση κοστίζει στο Λονδίνο 101 εκατομμύρια στερλίνες (117 εκ. Ευρώ) ετησίως.

Κακά τα ψέματα, τόσο η αεροπορική βάση Ντιέγκο Γκαρσία όσο και η αεροπορική βάση Ακρωτηρίου χρησιμοποιούνται από κοινού από τους Αγγλοαμερικανούς ως ορμητήρια στην επίθεση κατά του Ιρανικού καθεστώτος. Ο Μαυρίκιος, ένα αδύναμο κράτος στη μέση του πουθενά λαμβάνει ήδη 117 εκ ευρώ ετησίως. Τι αποκομίζει η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, πλήρες κράτος μέλος και προεδρεύουσα της ΕΕ από αυτό τον επικίνδυνο Αγγλοαμερικανικό τυχοδιωκτισμό; Δεν είδαμε άλλο όφελος εκτός από την διασπορά ανησυχίας και πανικού στους κατοίκους Ακρωτηρίου και των γειτονικών κοινοτήτων. Κανένα αντισταθμιστικό όφελος για τον Κυπριακό Λαό.

Συμπεράσματα

Πρώτον, η πρόσφατη συμφωνία ΗΒ-Μαυρικίου για επανένταξη του Αρχιπελάγους Τσάγος (Νότιος Ινδικός Ωκεανός, ανατολικά των Σεϋχελλών) στο κράτος του Μαυρικίου καταδεικνύει ότι οι δεκατέσσερεις Βρετανικές Υπερπόντιες Κτήσεις (ΒΥΚΤΗ), μία εκ των οποίων είναι οι Βρετανικές Βάσεις Κύπρου, τελούν υπό καθεστώς διεθνούς αμφισβήτησης της κυριαρχίας τους. Το κεφάλαιο της πλήρους αποαποικιοποίησης των Βρετανικών Υπερπόντιων Κτήσεων παραμένει ανοικτό. Είναι διαπραγματεύσιμο.

Οι ΒΥΚΤΗ είναι κατάλοιπα της Αποικιοκρατικής Βρετανικής Αυτοκρατορίας. (Mέχρι το 1981 τα εδάφη αυτά ήταν γνωστά ως Αποικίες του Στέμματος. Αποικία του Βρετανικού Στέμματος είχε ανακηρυχθεί και η Κύπρος το 1925). Σήμερα, οι ΒΥΚΤΗ έχουν κατά προσέγγιση έκταση 1.727.570 τ.χλμ. Καλύπτουν δηλαδή περισσότερο από επταπλάσια έκταση αυτής του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου (Βρετανίας και Βόρειας Ιρλανδίας) η οποία είναι 244,000 τ.χλμ. Μεγαλύτερη εξ αυτών, η Ανταρκτική.

Δεύτερον, η πολιτική της ΚΔ απέναντι στο κεφαλαιώδες ζήτημα της ατελούς αποαποικιοποίησης το οποίο μας αφορά άμεσα, μόνο σπασμωδική, αποσπασματική και ως εκ τούτου άτσαλη και αδύναμη μπορεί να χαρακτηριστεί.

Επτά χρόνια πέρασαν από την απόφαση ορόσημο του Διεθνούς Δικαστηρίου της Χάγης. Στις 25 Φεβρουαρίου 2019, η Χάγη γνωμοδότησε απεριφράστως ότι κατά τον χρόνο της αποσύνδεσής του από τον Μαυρίκιο (1968),  το αρχιπέλαγος Τσάγος ήταν σαφώς αναπόσπαστο μέρος αυτής της μη αυτοδιοικούμενης περιοχής και ότι η αποκοπή δεν βασιζόταν στην ελεύθερη και γνήσια έκφραση της βούλησης του ενδιαφερόμενου λαού. Η Λευκωσία έστειλε στην Χάγη τον τότε Γενικό Εισαγγελέα ο οποίος έλαβε μέρος στην ακροαματική διαδικασία (3-6 Σεπτεμβρίου 2018). Φυσικά πήρε το μέρος του Μαυρικίου.

Από τότε η Κυπριακή κυβέρνηση ουδέν έπραξε για να εξασφαλίσει το συμφέρον αυτού του λαού που κατοικά σ’αυτή τη γη, καθ’ ην στιγμήν η ίδια η Βρετανία κάμπτεται και πληρώνει τους Μαυρίκιους αλλά όχι τους Κυπρίους …

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched military strikes on Iran because of the parties’ fears that Iran possesses nuclear weapons that would threaten America’s allies and US national security. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against other states. Such actions contradict the principle of respect for the sovereignty of states and non-interference in their
internal affairs. Clearly, the UN Charter disallows aggression.

This article highlights the effectiveness of China’s diplomatic efforts to de-escalate in order to preserve regional peace and
security. In this context, it is necessary to examine the effectiveness of achieving the goals of this diplomacy, which is a set of initiatives aimed at achieving sustainable peace and development for all without exception on the basis of living and common destiny. It is effectively linked to compliance with international law, the UN Charter and resolutions of international legitimacy within the framework of consensus.

The success of China’s diplomatic efforts and objectives in the Middle East region depends on the extent to which the regional actors cooperate with those efforts. In this context, the commitment to the effectiveness and governance of the international system in accordance with international law and the UN Charter is the compass of this dialogue.

In particular, the objectives of Chinese diplomacy are clearly defined and the directions are closely and firmly linked to what is stated by the law and international consensus, it emphasizes the need for dialogue and consultation to resolve any dispute by peaceful means; the rejection of the use of force in order to enhance influence, control or support allies at the expense of other parties.

On the other hand, the absence of a diplomatic solution and the failure of the current Chinese
diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation will be a prelude to the collapse of the entire international
system. In such a case, the Law of the Jungle will prevail, and then the region will witness more wars and conflicts that portend a total war whose end would be unpredictable.

The reason for this is that America and Israel are seeking to form allies in more than one place in order to provide support in various ways. If this happens, the future scenarios for the effectiveness of international relations will be ambiguous, then the prospects and
the future role of the UN Security Council as mandated by the UN Charter to protect the sovereignty of states, the security of citizens and their national gains will end up in sustainable deficit.

In this context, I firmly believe that the US, Israel and their Western allies have become firmly convinced of the need to build alliances, reshaping the region in line with their interests. For them this is an opportunity to reshape the international system in accordance with theirwishes, and to evade international legal obligations regarding the resolution of outstanding issues regionally and internationally, foremost of which is the resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Therefore, today’s situation requires active and balanced States. The Middle East region needs to cooperate seriously and responsibly with the efforts of Chinese diplomacy in order to achieve its goals, Namely, to stop the war and protect the security and sovereignty of states and the lives of citizens and their national gains, far from any bets on the American or Israeli side and their Western allies. Especially as the latter aim at more destruction in this region and the failure of sustainable development plans, and the aggravation of internal conflicts in order to hit the sovereignty and security of states, and also to control citizens, plunder their goods and destroy their national gains, thereby achieving their central goals by further embodying colonialism and strengthening control and influence in the expansion of one state at the expense of other peoples and states.

China alone cannot offer a magic solution to address the current Middle East destruction and bloodshed. China’s diplomacy stems from a culture of tolerance and coexistence and rejection of aggression or interference in the affairs of others. It is aimed at cooperation to
reach common good. Beijing offers initiatives and ideas that fit into the international system and the spirit of the UN Charter, based on equal rights for all member states.

The success of well-meaning Chinese endeavors means good and victory for all, stopping wars, protecting people’s lives and property, respecting the sovereignty and security of states, and achieving sustainable peace and development for all without exception on the basis of mutual respect.

Co-Authors: Dr. Morris Mottale & Dr. Yiorghos Leventis

At the end of the Cold War, in Washington and Western Europe there was a consensus that a new world order was coming around. Overlooked was the fact that an Islamic revolution in Iran led by an octogenarian Ayatollah brought a series of upheavals in the Islamic world that saw radical terrorism, revolutions in Africa, and civil wars that continue to this day. These events were capped years later by conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, and Sub Saharan Africa and eventually a radical Islamic takeover in Afghanistan. In short, the end of the Cold War brought an endless list of conflicts of which the two outstanding ones are the war in Ukraine and the war within the Gaza Strip. There are at least fifty other wars in Africa and Asia but they do not make the news, including conflicts in Somalia, Central Africa Republic, Ethiopia, Sudan, Southern Sudan, and The Republic of Congo among many others.

The preeminence of international news networks such as CNN and the BBC along with social media brings the focus solely on the Arab-Israeli conflict and American politics. By the year 2000, there was a consensus that the new International System would see antagonism between China and the United States. By 2025, Chinese commercial trade preeminence was challenging the European Union and the North American free trade area. From 2000 onward, the Chinese set out to create a new economic block known as BRICS which is composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and by 2025 they included Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The direct challenge to the US in many areas of the International System began with the challenge that Radical Islam, shaped and manipulated by the Ayatollah, posed against the US, France, and Great Britain. The outstanding tool for Islamic expansion was the Arab-Israeli conflict and more specifically the Palestinian issue. Within a few years of the establishment of what appeared to be peace treaties between Israel and some of its neighbors (Abraham Accords), the Islamic world and the Global South saw antagonism to the existence of the Jewish state, with regional conflicts in which conflicting parties took sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Interestingly, the same parties, with some exceptions including India, are also members of BRICS.

The preeminence of the United States – however much challenged by China, Russia, and Iran – did not decrease the importance of the United States presidential elections of 2024. For the world, the US election was bound to be a defining moment in international politics, regardless of the outcome. The outstanding elements in the International System are the resentment and imitation of American cultural trends, including US mass media. What passes for American soft power is affirmative action and the woke ideology. The US stands out as an agent of cultural change. The anti-women movement in Islamic society has been influenced by the globalization of American culture and the preeminent role of women in American and European society. Misogyny has become a political ideology in the Islamic world. The competition between the major powers is compounded by the rise of new technologies, shaped by electronic communication, artificial intelligence, and cyber technology.

In 2013, China proposed changes to global currency to bypass, if not outright abolish the US Dollar. The original BRIC group was dubbed very loosely the “BRICS,” including Brazil, China, Russia, India, and South Africa. In time, other countries also joined. Venezuela and Turkey are seeking entry to the trade group, which has gained momentum.

The official members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are primarily Asian, Arabic and nations within the former Soviet Union, but growing interest across the Middle East and South America is notable. In 2004, the SCO officially established relations with the United Nations as an observer, in addition to other international bodies.

Two principle international conflicts, the Gaza War and Ukraine, along with conflicts in Africa and Asia have sped up the process of this new world order, where the Anglo-American ideal of a rule-based system is being challenged on the grounds that it is fundamentally pro-American, pro-Liberal, and pro-Capitalist. The rise of conflicts within the Islamic world and the widespread anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic positions of many countries from Latin America to Asia to Africa are adding another dimension to this new world order yet to come.

Rise of Islamic Politics in the West

The rise of Islamic politics in France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Canada the United States and the United Kingdom has influenced domestic electoral politics. In Europe, for example, the rise of the so-called extremist parties like AfD (Alternative for Germany) or the Rassemblement National in France have given new weight to the idea that liberal democratic order, which has characterized the development of Western Europe and America in the post-war period, is not accepted by large portions of the population. Similar trends are evident across Europe, with the rise of Vox from Spain, 5 Stelle in Italy, and BNP in the United Kingdom.

Speaking of the latter, let’s take a closer statistical look at the upsurge of Islamic politics in the UK. There is an array of hard political facts: Muslims count for four million in a total population of 66 million in the UK. Yet they elect Muslim mayors in no less than nine major urban centres in the country, including the mayor of the capital, London, of the second largest city Birmingham and of the world-renowned liberal university city of Oxford. The other six Muslim-led municipalities are: Blackburn, Leeds, Luton, Oldham, Rochdale, Sheffield. There are now 3,000 mosques, (one mosque per 80 square kilometres roughly) 130 Sharia Courts and 50 Sharia councils in the UK. Seventy-eight per cent of Muslim women do not work and receive state support, 63 per cent of British Muslims are out of work and receive state support. UK Muslim families on the receiving end of state support and free accommodation have on average six to eight children. Every school in good old Christian England is required to teach about Islam. Under such circumstances, guess which is the most common name given to British boys nowadays. You guessed right: it is Mohammed!

Greece: Demographic Collapse

At the other end of the Old Continent, Greece, an ancient nation reborn in 1830, lying at the southeastern fringes of the European Union, has been in deep trouble for the past two decades. Endemic corruption and leadership incompetence brought up mounting external foreign debt. Greece’s government debt hovers around 160 per cent of the GDP. The country’s economic woes are compounded by the hordes of irregular migrants. Periodically, vulnerable segments of Hellas’ 15,000 kilometres long coastline get awash with hundreds of mainly sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern unsolicited destitute visitors. The Hellenic Republic currently hosts a large number of immigrants accounting for over a million or approximately ten per cent of the total population, a considerable proportion of whom are Muslim. Pew Research and other international reports estimate there are 520,000 additional Muslims in Greece who are refugees, regular or irregular migrants, or asylum‑seekers. This number is in addition to the indigenous recognized Muslim minority in Western Thrace numbering around 140,000 people. Sharia law applies for this minority, which enjoys a special status in terms of religious and cultural rights, in derogation to the Hellenic Civil Law, in compliance with the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 governing its status.

Greece’s Muslim immigrants are in the most part Albanians (over 0.4 million) who are not particularly devout Muslims given their socialization for over 50 years in a totalitarian communist regime banning religion. In fact, a number of them, in their everyday life, adopt Greek names – either ancient or modern.

However, what should be underlined, is that the rise in the incoming Muslim population in the Hellenic Republic comes on the sharp backdrop of the flight of an impoverished indigenous Greek Orthodox population. Young Greeks are forced to become economic migrants themselves in the more affluent countries of the northern tier of the EU, the UK, the US and Canada. A rough total figure of migrant Greeks for the first quarter of the 21st century is estimated to be around 1.3 to 1.5 million! This is definitely a generation lost for the country. Brain drainage ad nauseum.

To make things worse, Greek birth rates are falling rapidly. Though a small nation, or perhaps because of this, the sharp demographic decline of Greece, has not escaped the attention of Elon Musk. The flamboyant billionaire businessman reposted, on 2 September 2025, an article that reported over 700 schools in Greece were closing due to falling student numbers. He captioned the post: “The death of Greece.” The actual number of Greek schools shutting down because of failing to reach the threshold of fifteen pupils is 721. Conclusively, in the first quarter of the current century, the Hellenic Republic lost well over a million of highly qualified young Greeks only to be replaced by half a million of unskilled Muslim immigrants.

Development of communication technology, social media

The causes of such new developments have to be found in the development of communication technology and what we used to call rising expectations, which characterized the study of development in the 50s and 60s. Social media and international visual communications have fueled rising expectations in the 21^st century. This New World Order has also been characterized by large numbers of so called “illegal” immigrants from Africa, Asia, and Latin America moving to North America or into Western Europe.

In the case of Germany, for example, the growth of “extremist” parties has been fueled by the presence of illegal immigrants and the ease with which the German government has allowed real and imaginary refugees to move and enjoy the benefits of a welfare society in Germany under Angela Merkel. In fact, by September 2024, Germany had imposed passport controls on its borders, irritating some of its neighbors because this policy is against the idea of an integrated, borderless Europe. Both in Europe and North America, the rise of Chinese exports and the decline of local industries, ranging from the car industry to chemicals and steel, has led the traditional working classes to support nationalist and protectionist parties. American elections have seen both parties talking about protecting American industry. This also seems to be the case in Canada.

This new world order has also been propelled by the so-called “Woke Business,” the rise of racial identification, which has added to racial and identity politics all over the world. In Islamic countries, ranging from Pakistan to North and West Africa, this has meant the persecution of Christians and Jews, to the extent that women who do not wear the hijab face persecution. Paradoxically, Islamic society is also being threatened by radical Islamic societies. Al Qaida and violent subversive groups are propagating across Africa and Asia.

Leadership in Western Europe and North America has sometime faced this issue in response to radical terrorism such as 9/11 and Bataclan. More immediate political concerns and challenges see democratic political systems concentrating on jobs, education, human rights, immigration and, last but not least, climate change. Historically, from the Napoleonic period onward, world orders and balances of power never lasted more than a generation. For example, the Peace of Versailles world order lasted twenty years. The Cold War order in Europe lasted from 1947 to 1989. The relative peace that followed the fall of the Soviet Union lasted fifteen years at most, as NATO expanded into Eastern Europe and the rise of a new Russia set off a renewed arms race and added more weight to the developing BRICS.

The spectacular victory of the Ayatollahs in the Middle East and the rise of radical Shiite politics saw Iran waging ideological and international antagonism against Israel. This was historically due to the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers were violently opposed to the existence of a Jewish state and Zionism. The war in Gaza, while carried out by Hamas, has been instigated and pushed by the Ayatollahs of Iran, unhinging any attempt by the United States and Europe to bring some degree of a peaceful order in the Middle East.

An interesting facet of this new world order was how India, China, and even some Islamic countries such as the United Arab Emirates became interested in a race to the moon. The increasing competition for status and prestige saw an explosion of international sports. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar bought themselves international competitions and famous European players to attempt a change in global perspective towards them, with mixed success.

One approach to studying these new developments would focus on the idea of cultural and political resentment by non-European countries, which for the last two centuries have seen France, Britain and the United States shaping the international order and cultural and political values, ranging from the status of women to economic protectionism and the assertion of secular Euro-American values. For example, the decline of Indian socialism has meant the rise of a new Indian identity which focuses on Hinduism, and the reassertion of Indian heritage against Islam, creating further violent conflict with Pakistan. Cultural trends from the United States, such as radical feminism, transgenderism, the acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriages have added even more contentious issues characterizing this new world order. In Russia, Putin’s government has made clear that homosexual values and marriages will not be accepted, and this has of course been the case in countries in Africa and Asia.

An insight into the cultural and economic context of the rise of BRICS and the New World Order should not overlook the fact that many of the conflicts in the world are of cultural origins. At one time, one could have employed the term “ideological,” but culture and ideology overlap each other, as do religious attitudes. While Islam began as a religion, after centuries of theologically based governance, it has also become a foundational cornerstone of the political ideology of the Middle East. In today’s world order, Islam has taken on heavy political connotations and has been used by radical groups to unhinge societies in European and American states.

Trumps administration in Washington in 2025 was attempting to enhance American power and control conflicts in the name of an American regulated international system. Whether that idea was feasible remains to be seen. As it was of May of 2025, India and Pakistan were on a threshold of war in Kashmir. It added even more to the notion of civilization and religious conflicts that characterized the Islamic world. From the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean and from North Africa to the Cape.

In fact, successive US administrations have been rating the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s elite military corps and guardians of the Islamic regime, as a terrorist organization accusing it of meddling in other Middle East countries internal affairs. This forms a major source of friction between the two rivals as the West’s superpower jostles for regional influence with Iran’s mullahs. While the new American president Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that the US will return to the JCPOA deal, his administration imposed new sanctions on two members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and sanctioned Ebrahim Raisi, the new Persian president himself. Raisi, viewed in the West as a hardline nationalist, is due to take office on the 3^rd of August, replacing Hassan Rouhani, who has been considered a moderate and pragmatist. (Ironically, the date the Islamic cleric Hasan Rouhani steps down from the presidency in Iran coincides with the demise of our top cleric Archbishop Makarios and consequently his long and controversial involvement in Cypriot politics – 3^rd of August 1977).

In the last three years, America’s long list of sanctions sparked off Iran’s violation of the terms of the JCPOA. Tehran went on to test advanced centrifuges and accumulated substantial quantities of enriched uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the watchdog organization assigned with the task of monitoring the implementation of the 2015 nuclear deal, estimated this spring that Iran had produced over three tons of uranium enriched up to five per cent purity. Moreover, the IAEA estimates that about seventy kilos have been already enriched to over twenty per cent purity. In other words, the international organization rates that Iran has covered most of the stages necessary to producing several nuclear bombs. Nevertheless, Tehran officially sticks to its position that it has no nuclear bomb ambitions and that its nuclear programme is geared only towards peaceful uses.

Talks on reinstating the original terms of the JCPOA have been ploughing on among the 2015 signatories in Vienna since April. It is widely rumored that the current month may be the last chance to strike a deal. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister stated after the last round of talks that ‘almost all the agreement documents are ready’. Equally, the EU representative spoke of optimism. Be that as it may, Tehran demands that the US removes all sanctions imposed by Donald Trump before returning to compliance with JCPOA provisions. Washington retorts that it will roll back only those sanctions explicitly stated in the 2015 agreement document.

Joe Biden has been fairly clear on his Iran nuclear programme policy: if Iran restored its compliance with the JCPOA, the US would do so as well as a starting point for further negotiations. Yet, half a year into Biden’s presidency, the deal is not secured. Washington may be starting to doubt whether Iran intends to restore its compliance with the accord. In fact, Reuters reported (1^st July 2021) that Tehran had restricted IAEA’s access to its main uranium enrichment site in Natanz. An attack took place at the Iranian site last April shortly before the talks resumed in Vienna. Tehran has blamed Israel for the blast and stepped up its nuclear activities. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement, but Israel’s public radio cited intelligence sources as saying it was a Mossad cyber-operation. Estimates of Israel’s nuclear stockpile widely diverge. The range is between eighty and four hundred nuclear warheads. Iran is deeply unhappy with Israel’s privileged status as the only nuclear power in the Middle East region and seeks to challenge Israel’s supremacy. Tough times lie ahead for the cause of nonproliferation!

However, in 2018, things began to go the wrong direction when US President Donald Trump called the agreement a ‘bad deal’ and pulled the US out of the JCPOA. The latter, initialed by the seven contracting parties in July 2015, was the product of 20 months of hard negotiations based on the “Roadmap Agreement” between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In a nutshell, under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98 per cent, and reduce by about two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges for 13 years. Till 2030, Iran would have to enrich uranium only up to 3.67 per cent. Tehran also agreed not to build any new heavy-water facilities for the next 15 years. Uranium-enrichment activities would have to be limited to a single facility using first-generation centrifuges for ten years. Other facilities would also be converted to avoid proliferation risks. The IAEA was granted access to the Iranian nuclear sights – predominantly at the Fordow underground facility – in order to verify compliance with the deal. Trump announced the US withdrawal on May 8, 2018. By November of the same year, US sanctions came back into effect designed to force Iran to dramatically change its policies, including its support for militant groups in the region and its development of ballistic missiles.

The unravelling of the JCPOA continued in the next couple of years: the world saw Iran violating several parts of the deal. Worst still, confrontation reached a peak towards the end of last year (November 27) with the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Iran’s chief nuclear scientist, allegedly by Israel. Iran’s parliament retorted by authorising Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, to produce and store at least 120 kilogrammes of 20 per cent-enriched uranium per year: half the amount considered necessary for a single nuclear bomb. In a conciliatory tone, however, Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, stressed that Iran’s violations of the deal are fully reversible, should the US rejoin the JCPOA deal. In this connection, Julia Frifield, US Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, advised, at the time of the conclusion of the deal, that the JCPOA is not a treaty or an executive agreement and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1, and the EU, she stressed. In this respect, political commitments seem to be good enough for president-elect Joe Biden who committed to rejoin the deal, if Tehran backsteps to ‘strict compliance’.

For the time being, tensions in the Persian Gulf are rising: the same day Tehran announced resumption of its uranium enrichment programme (January 4, 2021) Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) seized a South Korean oil tanker for allegedly polluting the Gulf with chemicals. The South Korean-flagged MT Hankuk Chemi oil tanker carrying 7,200 of oil chemical products was stormed by the IRGC as it was navigating the Strait of Hormuz.

However, Iranian regime news agencies suggest the real reason behind the oil tanker seizure is the wish to negotiate with the South Koreans the release of eight billion USD of Iranian money frozen in Seoul accounts in compliance to the US imposed sanctions regime. According to Tehran Times, Iran needs those funds to procure supplies of covid-19 vaccines, a reasonable claim with reference to the current worldwide humanitarian crisis, one has to admit. At any rate, concentration of naval forces continues to build up. Washington ordered US aircraft carrier Nimitz to stay put in the Gulf – reversing an earlier order to sail home. In addition, the South Koreans dispatched a destroyer to the region. Seoul, however, added it does not intend to use force, while bilateral negotiations with Iran are under way.

By 2020, the confrontation between Turkey and Greece in the Aegean and in the Mediterranean at large, saw the Greek Minister of Defense speak about possibility of military conflict with Turkey.(i) This statement by the Greek Minister of Defense came a few hours after the Turkish President held a press conference in Ankara with Fayez Al Sarraj, Prime Minister of the UN-recognized National Accord Government based in the Libyan capital of Tripoli.(ii) Erdoğan said that Turkey and Libya would proceed with oil exploration and drilling in Greece’s contested maritime space in the eastern Mediterranean(iii), adjacent to Crete and now claimed by Libya aided and abetted by Ankara as it kept challenging Athens. Turkey had begun its military and political involvement in the civil war in Libya while confronting the Saudi, Emirati and Egyptian involvement in North Africa against a Turkish presence and the ideological influence of the Muslim brothers and manipulated by Erdoğan’s Islamist ideology. Just a few weeks earlier, there had been confrontations between Greek and Turkish forces on the border in Thrace.(iv) Thousands and thousands of real and imaginary refugees and other irregular migrants from the Middle East at large, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, moved to Turkey and planned on entering Europe. Having encouraged them to move to the Greek border, Ankara is seeking to entice those manipulated unfortunate souls to step into the European Union. In its confrontation in Cyprus, Turkey paved over the entry point in northern Cyprus in favor of entering the republic to the south.

Some years earlier, the war in Syria had seen thousands of refugees going to primarily Germany and Sweden. This development gave Erdoğan a chance to blackmail Europe to receive aid and status recognition and drawing concessions regarding Ankara’s relations with the European Union. For decades, Turkey had tried to be admitted into the European club. The EU, in trying to avoid conflict with Turkey, had already admitted Greece in 1980 and promised future admission to Turkey as to avoid conflicts in the area. Both Athens and Ankara have been long standing members of NATO but that membership has not lessened the confrontation between the two countries. Neither has it mitigated Turkey’s contemporary attempt to revise power relations with its Greek neighbor.

The Arab-Israeli conundrum receives the bulk of interest in Europe and North America, and of course the Islamic world, as the Jewish state’s legitimacy has always been challenged at some level or another. The European, and especially Italian relations to North Africa and the Middle East and inevitably to Mediterranean security have been historically linked in the mind of the European public and political parties to the wars between Israel and its neighbors. What are overlooked in the European political world are the other conflicts in the Middle East. For example, the partition of Cyprus, the confrontation between Turkish and Greek worlds which overlaps with contentious maritime borders, potentially rich with oil and gas in the Aegean Sea and off the shores of Cyprus. Sectarian conflicts in the Middle East are also relevant, as Shii, Sunnis and other radical Islamists in the Sunni world challenge the social fabric and political systems of individual states such as Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.

Italy with specific strategic interests is, arguably, the European country with the most important role in the Mediterranean. The fall of Gadhafi in 2011 after an internal revolt aided and abetted by France and other powers against the desires of the Italian government brought a power vacuum that allowed hundreds of thousands of African, Middle Eastern and Asian illegal immigrants moving successfully to the European continent through Italy. The Syrian civil war added even more impetus to these catastrophic migrations that have brought the European Union to a point of delegitimization in the eyes of many European citizens. In the recent past, the government of Silvio Berlusconi, had been successful in supporting the Gadhafi regime so as to stop illegal immigration in exchange for Italian development aid and of course purchase of Libyan oil.

Historically Italy’s main state-owned oil company, Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi, ENI, successfully entered the international oil and gas markets from the 1960s onward. Its total revenues never matched those of companies such as Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Total or British Petroleum (BP); all the same, the company itself came to play a big role in Italian daily and political life. It does so to this day. It serves Italian strategic needs very well. The Italian gas and oil markets have always been characterized by long term national policies, because of the vulnerable economic position of Italy as it lacks natural resources. Following the Chernobyl disaster, Italy did away with nuclear energy in the 1980s. In this regard, the rhetoric about renewable energy in the country has not been matched by policies. By 2019, ENI was drilling offshore Cyprus for gas and oil, challenged by Turkey.(v) In early 2020, both Italian ENI and French energy giant Total announced the suspension of their drilling programme in Cyprus waters allegedly because of the corona virus crisis. However, not a few are those who believe that the real reason is the Turkish bullying.

The energy power game was also seeing at this time the entry of another player, Israel, with the plan to build a gas pipeline from the Israeli controlled seabed in the Eastern Mediterranean to Europe via Cyprus and Greece. The East Med pipeline has already received European support with the European Commission designating it as a project of common interest.

As in many European nations, Italy relies heavily on revenues derived from the taxation of energy consumption and highway tolls. The Italian transportation industry has been faced with a lot of challenges and its contribution to environmental degradation and pollution is not to be underestimated. In the last decade, the government has pushed forward policies to motivate the population to purchase more environmentally sound cars. However, it looks like it will take some generations before the adoption of non-polluting cars. All the same, Middle Eastern conflicts have influenced the price of oil in markets all over the world, and have been exploited politically by states in conflict such as Iran vs Saudi Arabia. As many oil producing nations encounter political problems, such as those in Venezuela, industrially advanced states – Italy is one of them – have to be very careful about managing and resolving international conflict. International conflict and instability in the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea present a challenge to any Italian government and even to the military organization to which Rome belongs, in this case, NATO. The politics of oil and gas, became less problematic as by 2020, the price of these commodities had collapsed in the international market while the United States had become the largest producer of oil. But in no way did this relatively positive development lessened the need for alternatives to fossil fuels for environmental considerations.

Whilst Turkey and Greece are members of NATO, the policies of the current Turkish government continue to be very confrontational toward Athens and Nicosia. Current relations between Washington and Ankara are becoming ever more problematic because of overlapping conflicts in the Mideast such as the Syrian civil war, the confrontation between Israel and its Arab neighbors and the rise of the Islamic State. A development that took important political significance was the acquisition of Russian anti-aircraft missiles S400 by Ankara over and above the objections of Washington.

Turkey’s acquisition of sophisticated Russian military hardware was, by 2020, an indicator of a successful Russian re-entry into the politics of the area, after the demise of the Soviet Union, as Moscow’s involvement into the Syrian and Libyan civil wars foreshadowed another chapter in the great power conflicts in the Mediterranean. While the United States, under the presidency of Donald Trump, had stated that the US administration was committed to withdraw from conflicts in the area, the reality on the ground showed that the US was still heavily involved in the security of the region. Among other reasons, was the decades old confrontation between Iran and the United States as the radical Mullahs of Tehran had successfully entered the Near-East, especially Iraq and Syria, directly challenging US interests in the area, threatening Israel with genocide and challenging very subtly both Russia and Turkey for hegemony in the region. (vi) In fact, by 2020, American military commanders involved in anti-Islamic terrorism campaign in Africa (vii) were mentioning the possibility and inclination toward an American involvement in Tunisia as its border with Libya was becoming even more challenging for international security.(viii)

The great power game was already witnessing the entry of China in the region through Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative that saw, on paper, a revival of the Silk Road and the systematic expansion of Beijing’s commercial interests in Africa, the Middle East and Europe.(ix) The entry of China added an ever greater dimension to the theory of the balance of power in the study of international relations. If anything, it confirmed and strengthened the ideas of neo-realism in international affairs and challenged idealism and globalization as harbingers of peace and conflict resolution in the world. What stood out was the inability of Italy to act as a great power in the Mediterranean and even more the European Union as its policies for peace and cooperation seemed to be totally irrelevant to the power conflicts in the region.

(i) Paul Antonopoulos, “Greek Defense Minister: Turkey’s behavior is aggressive but our powerful Armed Forces are deterrent,” Greek City Times, June 5th, 2020, https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/06/05/greek-defence-minister- turkeys-behaviour-is-aggressive-but-our-powerful-armed-forces-is-a-deterrent/.
(ii) Ibid.
(iii) Ibid.
(iv) Steven Brown, “Tensions soar as Turkish troops invade Greece occupying piece of land on contested border” Express, May 22, 2020, https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1285915/turkey-Greece-invade-contested-border- world-war-3-latest-ww3-news.
(v) “Our work in Cyprus,” ENI, https://www.eni.com/en-IT/global-presence/eurasia/cyprus.html.
(vi) Sina Azodi and Giorgio Cafiero, “Idlib is a stress test for Iranian-Turkish relations,” Atlantic Council, March 17, 2020, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/idlib-is-a-stress-test-for-iranian-turkish-relations/.
(vii) U.S. Army Africa Public Affairs, “USARAF commander engages Tunisian Land Forces army chief,” United States Army Africa, May 13, 2020, https://www.usaraf.army.mil/media-room/pressrelease/29481/usaraf- commander-engages-tunisian-land-forces-army-chief.
(viii) Jared Szuba, “US commander suggests sending military trainers to Tunisia after Russia sends aircraft to Libya,” Al-Monitor, June 1, 2020, https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/06/us-commander-send-military- trainers-tunisia-russia-libya.html.
(ix) Andrew Chatzky and James McBride, “China’s massive Belt and Road Initiative,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 28, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative.

However, the fiasco of Western diplomacy is not surprising. First, it is evident that De Mistura does not enjoy the support of even the main participants of the negotiation process. For many months, he failed to find common ground between the Syrian authorities and the opposition. Perhaps De Mistura did not aspire to this, but his pronounced desire to “take into account” Washington’s interests turned against this experienced diplomat. He was no longer trusted in Damascus and Ankara.

Many representatives of other delegations made life easier for De Mistura: European and Saudi diplomats, instead of painstaking searching for a compromise, unequivocally took the side of the Syrian armed opposition. This fact, in turn, allowed opponents of Bashar Assad to put forward preliminary conditions for negotiations, although nothing of the kind had been expected before. Moreover, the insurgents once again began stubbornly to demand the immediate resignation of the Syrian leader. It is unlikely that this behaviour of Western politicians can be called wise – the government of Syria was confronted with an unrealizable ultimatum.

At the same time, neither the US administration nor the governments of European countries bothered to send real deans of diplomacy to these talks. It is difficult to say exactly guided Western policy. Perhaps Washington wanted to underline to the Syrians their unenviable place: that neither the government delegation nor the opposition representatives had any illusions that their fate ultimately was of no interest to influential diplomats. It seems to be true that neither the Americans nor the Europeans aimed at settling the Syrian conflict peacefully. The Geneva Talks format could only be interpreted as a distracting maneuver. Western diplomats were simply tasked to engage in procrastinating techniques in anticipation of US military victory over Assad. In any case, the Geneva dialogue faltered – the interlocutors did not develop a single practical solution option to the intractable Syrian question.

Many experts agree with this point of view’: they compare the Geneva talks to a “stillborn child”.

“The Geneva format is a topic that can be maintained more ritually, based on the fact that it is under the auspices of the UN. Until the decision to abandon negotiations in Geneva is taken, the US and its European partners will continue to drag this senseless structure further, even if it means carrying it on their own hump. Hiding behind its own illusions, Washington does not want to admit the obvious: not only the Syrian opposition, but even Turkey, its NATO ally, refers to the Geneva process with an unconcealed grin”, noted one of experts.

Meanwhile, against the background of the apparent failure of the talks in Geneva, Russia, Iran and Turkey jointly created a much more effective platform for resolving the Syrian conflict. On the initiative of their respective leaders, a series of meetings with the participation of leading diplomats-representatives of all interested parties took place in Astana in January 2017. By now, seven full-fledged negotiating rounds have already been held. The results are really impressive: within the framework of the “Astana process” for the first time, Moscow, Tehran and Ankara managed to bring to the negotiating table the irreconcilable enemies: the representatives of Bashar Assad and the Syrian armed opposition. This fact on its own constitutes an achievement of colossal proportions if one takes into account that the opposing sides rejected the slightest possibility of a peaceful dialogue hitherto.

This is not to say Moscow, Tehran and Ankara are trying to solve every issue at once. Putin, Rouhani and Erdogan are well aware that the settlement of the Syrian conflict is a long and difficult process. However, as they say, the road will be mastered by the wayfarer. Laborious and hard work began: the presidents and foreign ministers of the three countries developed step by step the principles and conditions for the settlement of the civil war in Syria. In May a major breakthrough was achieved: the creation of four de-escalation zones for the first time in seven years. Consequently, truce was established on a large part of the Syrian territory.

Finally, during the Sochi talks in November, the presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey agreed on a gradual transition to peace in Syria. The heads of state reached an agreement on holding a congress of the Syrians with the participation of all the conflicting parties. At the same time, Moscow does not play at give-away. Putin unequivocally let Assad know that the Kremlin expects from Damascus readiness for concessions and compromise.

Meanwhile, Washington continues to insist that the main issues of the Syrian settlement must continue to be resolved in the Geneva Talks. But it is despair – instead of really contributing to the establishment of peace in Syria, American diplomats continue to repeat the same annoying mantras.

The accusations against Damascus and Moscow about alleged regular air strikes by Syrian government forces and/or the Russian Air Forces on civilian targets continue, although corroborating proof of such claims seems to be lacking. Against this background, calls voiced in Washington as well as several Western capitals to end the counter-terrorist operation in Eastern Aleppo, resemble more to a last and desperate attempt to shield and rescue the defeated terrorists and extremists on Syrian soil.

Why the current US administration due to step down in three weeks’ time is so sensitive to the evolving situation in Syria? Let us tackle this pertinent question.

First, it is imperative for the ruling in the US elite Democratic Party to save its political reputation: to justify the failure of the military-diplomatic efforts to overthrow the legitimate government in Syria and to eliminate the political influence of Russia in the Middle East, depriving the latter of the possibility of a permanent military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. In other words, at this juncture, we witness an uncompromising clash of the global interests of the United States and of Russia now in Syria.

Second, the new American President Donald Trump in his campaign speeches promised to stay away from previous interventionist courses pursued by past US administrations which saw numerous interference in the internal affairs of other countries aimed at the overthrow of unwanted to the US regimes. Moreover, Trump named “moderate” Syrian armed opposition terrorists and called for international efforts, including Russia, for the destruction of international terrorism on the planet.

Third, before leaving the White House, Barack Obama faces the challenging task of concealing the direct or indirect US involvement in creating and nurturing terrorist and other equally odious extremist Muslim organizations that left behind rivers of blood in Syria, Iraq, Libya and other countries. Obama needs do everything to evacuate from the war zone in Syria advisers and military trainers from the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and several other countries of Western Europe. One can imagine what an international scandal may break out in case of seizure or capture of American and/or other foreign nationals who fought on the side of terrorists.

Last but not least, the ruling elite of the outgoing President is frantically in a hurry to create for Donald Trump new challenges and external blockages by pushing in the US Senate legislation that will hinder the fulfillment of his campaign promise to correct political mistakes of the previous administration. Sadly, decrees providing for the possibility of extending sanctions against Iran, start of deliveries of lethal weapons worth $350 million to Ukraine and transfer of portable anti-aircraft rocket launchers to the armed Syrian opposition have already been adopted.

Such a peculiar situation with the transfer of power in the White House occurs, perhaps, for the first time in American history.

As an independent think tank, the International Security Forum has been participating in the annual conferences, deliberations and consultative meetings organized by the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium, The European Network of Independent Think Tanks since its launch in 2011.

In July 2010 with Council Decision 2010/430/CFSP on establishing a European network of independent non- proliferation think tanks in support of the implementation of the EU strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Council of the European Union decided to create a network bringing together foreign policy institutions and research centres from across the EU to encourage political and security-related dialogue and the long-term discussion of measures to combat the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems. EU Council Decision 2014/129/CFSP of the 10th March 2014 “promoting the European network of independent non-proliferation think tanks in support of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction” provided support for three further years of EU Non-Proliferation Consortium activity.

The 2016 EU Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Conference discussed in plenary sessions the following themes:

1. Disarmament & Deterrence – Bridging the Divide
2. The Impact of Technological Change on Security and Non-Proliferation and
3. The Iran Accord One Year On

Special sessions deliberated, inter alia, on the following subjects:

Prospects for Arms Control and Disarmament in the Middle East, The Threat of Non-State Actors, The Role of Conventional Arms Control in Light of Pressing Security Challenges, Combatting the Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons, Security on the Korean Peninsula, The Future of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Defence – Asia, Middle East and Europe, The Utility of Sanctions in Non-Proliferation Policy.

Dr. Yiorghos Leventis held, at the margins of the conference, a number of private meetings discussing pressing security issues troubling the Eastern Mediterranean – MENA region.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has issued statements in which it points to the Americans as being excessively emotional. Moreover, it has accused US of supporting terrorism while pointing out the unwillingness of Obama’s administration to fulfill its part of the deal. Such a deal was achieved with great difficulty; it required great efforts exercised from different quarters.

In Moscow it was quickly noticed that after reaching the Geneva agreement on the ceasefire in Syria different approaches for cooperation with Russia from the part of the US State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA have been identified.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said that Washington was considering various options for action with regard to Moscow in case of failure of the agreements on Syria, including sanctions. The Washington Post reported that the White House in early October held a meeting with representatives of the State Department, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces. The meeting discussed the issue of air strikes on positions of the Syrian Government Forces. According to the paper, the meeting proposed to conduct the operation in secret, in order to circumvent White House objections. Obviously, President Obama reaching the very end of his term in office does not want to get involved in such a risky operation without the approval of the UN Security Council.

US Secretary of State John Kerry explained the US problem during a meeting with the Syrian opposition. He said: “Our international law experts tell us that we have no grounds for sending troops, unless the UN Security Council adopts a resolution. Such a resolution can be interposed by Russian or Chinese veto. We cannot do it if those people do not attack us or if we are not invited to Syria. Russia was invited by the legal regime.”

Legally Moscow is Syria’s ally and actually is a party to the conflict. But the United States and its allies in the framework of the international coalition, formed to combat ISIS, operate in Syria without a mandate of the Security Council or an invitation by Damascus. Clearly, by the yardstick of international law, the international coalition members are the aggressors. Turkey belongs to the same aggressors’ category: Ankara, without prior consultations with the Syrian Government sent in troops to Northern Syria in August.

But Washington, being too long at the receiving end of diplomatic defeats in the Middle East, seeks to shift all the blame on Moscow, accusing her that she is allegedly already militarily present in Syria, refuses diplomacy, and ‘seeks to achieve its goals through military means’.

The US went as far as blocking the Security Council resolution drafted to condemn the mortar shelling of the Russian Embassy in Damascus. The US attitude demonstrates flagrant disregard for the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations. When similar crimes were committed earlier against the diplomatic missions of Western countries, Russia had always unreservedly lent its support to the Security Council condemnation of these acts.

Recently Tehran decided to publicize Washington’s attempts to sway her to their side in the Syrian conflict. In the last few months, the Americans tried to persuade the Islamic Republic of Iran or even sought to force Tehran to accept in a diplomatic way, that Bashar Assad should not play any role in the political future of Syria. However, Ayatollah Khamenei has forbidden to conduct parallel negotiations with the US on regional and Syrian issues, because the history has proven that the American officials do not deserve their confidence at all.

On the other hand, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan criticizes Americans as well: “we see the United States have been carrying out a duplicitous policy in Syria – one part of the US leadership works with terrorists, while another part is pursuing a policy that supports the self-defense forces of the Syrian Kurds”.

All of this means that Washington has completely exhausted its diplomatic resources. The US leadership feels that the consequences of its military and diplomatic failures in the Middle East region are to be expected. Rushing from the table of negotiations to the military maps and vice versa, trying to change the impending future, the United States only narrows the space to maneuver.