European Times(04.12.2023) – In 2022, a total of 2,496 children, some as young as 8-years-old, were verified by the United Nations as detained for their actual or alleged association with armed groups, including groups designated as terrorists by the U.N. The highest numbers were recorded in Iraq, in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian Arab Republic.
These figures were highlighted by Anne Schintgen at the European Parliament during a conference titled “Children Deprived of Liberty in World” organised on 28 November by MEP Soraya Rodriguez Ramos (Political Group Renew Europe). A number of high-level experts had been invited as panelists to speak about their respective areas of expertise:
Manfred Nowak, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and an independent expert that led the elaboration of a UN Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty;
Benoit van Keirsbilck, a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child;
Manu Krishan, Global Campus on Human Rights, researcher with expertise in children’s rights and best practices;
Anne Schintgen, Head of the European Liaison Office of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Children and Armed Conflict;
Rasha Muhrez, Syria Response Director for Save the Children (online);
Marta Lorenzo, Director of the UNRWA Representative Office for Europe (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East).
UN Report on Children in Armed Conflict
Manfred Nowak, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and an independent expert that led the elaboration of a UN Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty, was invited to the conference at the European Parliament and stressed that 7.2 million children are in various ways deprived of freedom in the world.
He referred in particular to the report of the UN Secretary General about children in armed conflict addressed to the 77th Session of the UN General Assembly Security Council (A/77/895-S/2023/363) on 5 June 2023, which was saying:
“In 2022, children continued to be disproportionately affected by armed conflict, and the number of children verified as affected by grave violations increased compared with 2021. The United Nations verified 27,180 grave violations, of which 24,300 were committed in 2022 and 2,880 were committed earlier but verified only in 2022. Violations affected 18,890 children (13,469 boys, 4,638 girls, 783 sex unknown) in 24 situations and one regional monitoring arrangement. The highest numbers of violations were the killing (2,985) and maiming (5,655) of 8,631 children, followed by the recruitment and use of 7,622 children and the abduction of 3,985 children. Children were detained for actual or alleged association with armed groups (2,496), including those designated as terrorist groups by the United Nations, or for national security reasons.”
The mandate of the UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict
The Special Representative who is currently Virginia Gamba serves as the leading UN advocate for the protection and well-being of children affected by armed conflict.
The mandate was created by the General Assembly (Resolution A/RES/51/77) following the publication, in 1996, of a report by Graça Machel titled the “Impact of Armed Conflict on Children”. Her report highlighted the disproportionate impact of war on children and identified them as the primary victims of armed conflict.
The role of the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict is to strengthen the protection of children affected by armed conflict, raise awareness, promote the collection of information about the plight of children affected by war and foster international cooperation to improve their protection.
Detention of children in Iraq, DR Congo, Libya, Myanmar Somalia
Six grave violations affecting children in times of conflict were highlighted by Anne Schintgen, a member of the conference panel: recruitment and use of children for combating, killing and maiming children, sexual violence, attacks on schools and hospitals, abduction and denial of humanitarian access.
Additionally, the UN is monitoring the detention of children for their actual or alleged association with armed groups.
In this regard, she named a number of countries of particular concern:
In Iraq in December 2022, 936 children remained in detention on national security-related charges, including for their actual or alleged association with armed groups, primarily Da’esh.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN verified in 2022 the detention of 97 boys and 20 girls, between the ages of 9 and 17, for their alleged association with armed groups. All children have been released.
In Libya, the UN received reports of the detention of some 64 children, with their mothers, of several nationalities, for their mothers’ alleged association with Da’esh,
In Myanmar, 129 boys and girls were detained by the national armed forces.
In Somalia, a total of 176 boys, of which 104 were released and 1 was killed, were detained in 2022 for their alleged association with armed groups.
Children should be primarily considered as victims of violations or abuses of their rights rather than as perpetrators and a security threat, Anne Schintgen said, stressing that the detention of children for their alleged association with armed groups is an issue in 80% of the countries covered by the UN Children and Armed Conflict mechanism.
Deportation of Ukrainian children by Russia
During the debate following the presentations of the panelists, the issue of the deportation of Ukrainian children by Russia from the Occupied Territories was raised. Both Manfred Nowak and Benoit Van Keirsblick, a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child invited as a panelist, expressed their deep concerns about this situation.
In a report titled “Ukrainian Children in Search of Way Home from Russia” published in three languages (English, Russian and Ukrainian) on 25 August 2023, Human Rights Without Frontiers stressed that the Ukrainian authorities had a nominative list of about 20,000 children deported by and to Russia who are now being russified and educated in an anti-Ukrainian mindset. However, many more have been taken away from the territories occupied by Russia.
As a reminder, on 17 March 2023, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court in The Hague issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia’s Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova on their responsibility in the deportation of Ukrainian children.
The experts invited to the conference encouraged the European Union to ensure that the topic of conflict affected children is systematically integrated and advanced in its wide range of external actions.
They also urged the EU to include the issue of the detention of children for their alleged association with armed groups in its Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict that are currently being revised.
The Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (SPO) sought a series of measures restricting the contacts and communications of three accused in the Specialist Chambers Detention Centre – Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli and Rexhep Selimi. Certain of those measures have been granted by the Trial Panel.
The SPO took this step to address attempts to interfere with witnesses and obstruct their testimony, and further threats to the integrity of the proceedings in the Thaçi et al. case.
Kadri Veseli and Diplomat Magazine’s publisher during an interview in The Hague. July 2, 2018.
SPO obstruction-of-justice investigations show that the three accused used their non-privileged visits to unlawfully disseminate confidential information and, in Mr Thaçi’s case, to repeatedly instruct visitors to seek to manipulate witness testimony.
The SPO takes obstruction of justice extremely seriously and will continue to investigate and to prosecute anyone and everyone involved in every instance, including those who intimidate or interfere with witnesses or provide financial or other support to such criminal offences.
When embarking on a lifetime diplomatic journey, you might feel confused, meaningless, disoriented or even lost. It usually happens at the beginning, when you have to leave all your life behind and rebuild parts of it from scratch in another setting, in a foreign environment and in totally unfamiliar circumstances.
Many brilliantly succeed in reinventing themselves and finding new ways of expression, rediscovering old passions and making use of talents at their true potential.
Nausheen Shaikh is certainly one of them. Born and raised in Mumbai (formerly called Bombay), India, she studied economics and was an accountant by training. She recalls having a regular 9 to 5 job, facilitating consular services for prospective travelers to the United States, at the US Consulate in Mumbai, job that she really loved.
But, as in all our diplomatic life stories, after getting married to a Foreign Service official, she had to move abroad. First stop: Amman, Jordan in 2017. The Hague, Netherlands and Washington DC soon followed.
When asked about how she coped with the change, she tells me: ‘in a nomadic lifestyle, you constantly have to acclimate to new circumstances. Your mindset becomes flexible and open to what’s different and unknown. As expat, you make certain choices that will allow you to have an interesting and rewarding experience. At the same time, there are challenges which may not seem real to others back home’.
She also says that she found the diplomatic community to be extremely resilient. People learn to adapt and embrace change.
Nausheen’s artwork
‘I have no regrets but there are certainly challenges, which vary from person to person and from country to country. Challenges for some may be the weather, for others safety or how expensive some countries are. However, for most it’s usually being away from family and friends. But technology helps us to remain close and I always try to build a family from my friends, wherever I go. Maintaining friendship takes work, commitment and understanding – but the payoff is HUGE!’
There is a certain wisdom in all our philosophy of life abroad, an art of navigating on foreign far away waters… ‘For me, the most rewarding experience of living as an expat has been the opportunity to learn new things. Living overseas, learning new things becomes merely a part of daily life routine. Social customs, language and of course, art are all different from home and learning about and experiencing all those differences has been enjoyable’.
While living abroad she rediscovered her artistic nature and explored ways to address it. ‘I’ve been creatively inclined ever since I can remember but did not have the chance to passionately pursue my card-making hobby, because of work and time restraints. After moving through, the one thing I had plenty of was TIME. So there was absolutely no excuse and I was off with my paper, stamps & inks.
Right after moving to Jordan, I connected with a local association of expat women. Through that association, I met a community of people who would soon become my customers and friends. I invested many hours in my craft, while also teaching friends and participating in a number of bazaars and pop-ups’.
Years later now and she still enjoys her art work. Gorgeous colorful and joyful cards come out of her hands. She found her unique way of expression and of bringing joy to the world.
After all, as she says herself, ‘don’t dismiss the little things! Keep a positive outlook, trust your resilience and focus your energies only on these challenges’.
On a dark, cold, and wet December day, a large group of people had accepted the invitation of the Embassy of Italy and the Italian Cultural Institute in Amsterdam to the opening of a retrospective exhibition of works by the Italian artist Daniel Schinasi. Entering the beautiful large exposition hall of the Pulchri Foundation, the Mesdag Zaal, one felt that winter was gone and it was summer on the Mediterranean.
Schinasi (Alexandria, Egypt, 1933 – Nice, France, 2021) lived a significant part of his life in Nice, and it shows. His colors are bright, and most of his works show people happily doing what they are good at. The title of the exposition, “Un messaggio in movimento – A message in motion,” reflects Schinasi’s main focus, people in motion. Be they cyclists, swimmers, or dancers; the still paintings miraculously capture the power of movement. Schinasi is one of the prominent painters of the Neo-Futurist school, a school of painting that shows the dominance of Man over Machine, Man over the powers of nature, and Man over himself. Visiting this show may put some much-needed sunshine into your world during the coming dark days.
It is an extensive exposition, 45 works in all, among which a massive homage to the Cóte d’Azur (pictured). The exposition, which was curated by his daughter Sarah, is a rendering of his life in France, his admiration for Matisse and Chagall, and the influence of the Holocaust on the very soul of this Italian Jewish artist. His daughter Sarah is an internationally renowned (opera) stage director.
Paola Cordone, director of the Italian Cultural Institute, thanked Marieta Reijerkerk and Ed van der Kooy of Pulchri for their assistance in making this exposition possible. She then asked Ambassador Giorgio Novello, to speak the opening words.
James Bradburne, museologist and director of the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan, had flown in, especially for the occasion, to deliver the keynote speech and was followed by Mr. Ermanno Tedeschi, President of the Museo Ceramica in Mondovì and long-time friend of the artist.
Sarah Schinasi and her mother Manuela were present, as was H.E. Konstantin Dimitrov, the ambassador of Bulgaria, and his wife, Nadia Dimitrova.
The war in the Middle East is now in uncharted waters
By Eleni Vasiliki Bampaliouta
20 days ago, completely suddenly for us Westerners, a powerful conflict broke out in a few hours that ended in a bloody war. That of Israel and Palestine. Once again, the same scenario is repeated in the same project with the same results, mainly for the civilian population. People and their families who have lost their lives, people who, through no fault of theirs, are tortured, raped, babies of all ages dying or being orphaned. Witness an ancient Greek tragedy….
The new crisis in the Middle East, after the terrorist strike by Hamas against Israel, is in full swing, as if it is the continuation of the Arab Spring that started in 2010 in Tunisia and continued two years later with the war in Syria, which is still ongoing. Extraordinary events confirm that we are moving in uncharted waters. Major analysts of geopolitical and geostrategic science, with a heavy resume and experience in analysis, believe that we are now in a period of non-solution for the Palestinian issue. When efforts were made under much better circumstances in the seven-year period 1993-2000, the decisive step towards the creation of two states was ultimately not taken.
With today’s facts and the evolution of the problem from the second Intifada (Arabic word meaning resistance or rebellion) until today, there can only be hope for a temporary freeze in the conflict, not for a warm peace. So let’s see together in detail how the situation is in order to fully understand the historical and geostrategic side of the region as well as the mentality of the movements here and there.
The main “thorns” between Israelis and Palestinians
Israel will have to manage the threat of escalation in two key areas. The first is its northern border with Lebanon and Syria. Hezbollah already appears to be testing Israel’s limits in the region, firing rockets and shelling the Golan Heights. The situation on the border is uncertain and could change quickly. The second is the West Bank, where Hamas has explicitly called on militants to take up arms. The area is ripe for major upheaval. Even before the attacks, violence in the West Bank was escalating to the point where analysts were talking about a Third Intifada.
The two sides have many open fronts, but four of them are considered the big thorns of the perennial conflict.
Two-state solution: This is a scenario that would allow the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, next to Israel. Hamas rejects the two-state solution and vows to destroy Israel. In turn, Israel argues that any Palestinian state should be demilitarized so as not to pose a threat.
Settlements: Most countries consider Jewish settlements built in Israeli-occupied territories since 1967 illegal. Understandably, Israel does not accept this position, arguing that it has historical and biblical ties to the land. The growth of these settlements at regular intervals is one of the most important disputes between Israel, Palestine, and the international community.
Jerusalem: The Palestinians want East Jerusalem, home to holy sites for Muslims, Jews, and Christians, to become the capital of their state. Israel, in turn, maintains that Jerusalem should remain “its undivided and eternal capital.” The international community does not recognize this position of Israel. The then US President Donald Trump set the Middle East on fire in 2018 when he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, moving the US embassy there as well.
Refugees: There are an estimated 5.6 million Palestinian refugees, mostly the descendants of those who fled Gaza in 1948. They live mainly in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the occupied West Bank, and Gaza. About half of the registered refugees remain nomads, according to the Palestinian Foreign Ministry, with many living in crowded camps. However, they do not have the right to return, a constant demand of the Palestinians. Israel, however, in turn, says that any resettlement would have to take place outside its borders.
Extremist Organizations
The Palestinian Islamic Jihad is the second-largest militant group in the Gaza Strip and is supported by Iran. It is “close” to Hamas in terms of Islamist ideology. It also aims to destroy the state of Israel and has declared itself on the side of Hamas after the terrorist organization invaded Israeli soil on October 7.
Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shia Islamist organization that is also supported by Iran. Recently, after the attack by Hamas, the military arm of the Shiite movement has exchanged fire several times with the Israeli army on the northern border of the country. Although Hezbollah’s involvement in the conflict is limited so far, there is concern that a possible Israeli ground invasion of the Gaza Strip would provoke a more active response from Hezbollah and escalate the conflict to a regional war. For many analysts, the extent of Israel’s violence and the duration of its operations in Gaza will determine Hezbollah’s response.
It is worth noting that until now, while the fighters of the Lebanese movement are clashing with Israeli troops along the border, Nasrallah has not taken a position publicly, which only adds uncertainty to the situation.
The action of Hamas and its relations with Turkey
Since then, Hamas has continued its activities, systematically fanaticizing the people and provoking a war every time we come close to an agreement. They have caused seven wars in 18 years. After 2008, they have caused five major wars (2008, 2012, 2014, 2021, and the current one).
In 2014, in the 51-Day War, Hamas fired 4,481 rockets at Israel. After the war ended, Israel discovered twenty secret tunnels. This was followed by the Israel
Hamas agreement on August 26, 2014. A new agreement followed in 2020, while on May Day 2017 Hamas had accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and on October 14, 2022, signed the reconciliation agreement in Algiers. In other words, Hamas violates its own agreements. And she does not hesitate to execute her own people for “treason”. In 2022, Hamas hanged 17 Palestinians. Note also that the Algiers Agreement called for elections to be held in October 2023. Coincidentally, it was in October that Hamas carried out its terrorist attack. Why does he not want elections, which have been held since 2006! And which Fatah also prevents, fearing that Hamas will falsify the result.
August 25, 2020. Erdogan meets with the leadership of Hamas in Istanbul. It is known that Turkey gives passports to members of Hamas. After all, the relationship between Turkey and Israel fluctuates, but in the end, the balance is always in favor of Hamas. In 2016 there was a restoration of relations, but in 2018 Erdogan called Israel a “terrorist state” and an “apartheid state” and the ambassadors were expelled. On August 17, 2022, we had relations restored again.
In May 2021, in the 11-Day War, the bloodiest since 2014, Hamas fired 4,700 rockets. 260 dead, among them 66 children. It was preceded, in September 2020, by Israel’s agreement with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. With Erdogan declaring that “History will not forget” and Iran calling it dangerous and illegal.
In April 2023, the incidents at the Al-Aqsa Mosque took place. Rockets are being fired at Israel from Lebanon. Israel strikes southern Lebanon.
In May 2023, in the 5-Day War, the Islamic Jihad also took part.
In July 2023, Abbas and Haniyeh met in Ankara, in the presence of Erdogan.
New episodes and demonstrations in September 2023.
They get help from Qatar, Russia, China, and Iran
According to information released by senior Hamas officials, their group had been preparing for two or three years. At various levels, the military leadership prepared the plans and information about how the enemy works, where the military formations are located. They consider the October 7 attack to have been an “act of defense.” They are looking to get help from anyone to maintain their organization. This help can be financial. For example, they get a lot of financial support from Qatar. Diplomatic and political support from Russia and China. They get military support and training from Iran. Humanitarian aid from Egypt. It depends on who wants to help. If anyone wants to help financially, they are welcome. Politically, diplomatically, or militarily, he is also welcome.”
Hezbollah
It was founded in 1982 by the “Islamic Revolutionary Guards,” a part of the Iranian army, and is financially supported by Iran itself, while political support is also provided by Syria. Hezbollah was considered by many Western countries as a terrorist organization. The EU classifies Hezbollah’s military wing as a terrorist group, but not its political wing. Hezbollah is the most powerful group in Lebanon due to a heavily armed militia that has fought several wars with Israel. It is a political movement and a guerrilla army, drawing its support from Lebanon’s Shiite population.
Specifically, in 2005, the paramilitary organization entered Lebanese politics more visibly after the assassination of al-Hariri and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. A coalition of anti-Syrian factions took power after the election giving Hezbollah 14 seats in the 128-seat parliament. In 2011, the Syrian civil war leads to years of political paralysis in Lebanon. In January of the same year, the first government of Saad al-Hariri, son of Rafik al-Hariri, was overthrown when Hezbollah and its allies resigned from the UK-backed court. Six months later, Prime Minister Najib Mikati announced a government dominated by Hezbollah and its allies.
The group’s rise in power came after joining the war with Syria in 2012 in support of President Bashar al-Assad. The group and its allies helped form Lebanon’s current government. Hezbollah’s arsenal has been a major bone of contention. The paramilitary group says its weapons are needed to deter Israel and, more recently, to protect itself from Islamist rebels in Syria.
Hamas and Arab countries
Between Israel and Hamas, the Arab countries that have established diplomatic relations with the Jewish state in recent years are called upon to play the role of a balancer in order not to displease either their new partner or the Arab public opinion that sides with the Palestinians.
But their position risks becoming increasingly uncomfortable with Israel’s expected long-term and highly lethal bombing campaign on the Gaza Strip, analysts say. The day after the Islamist group that rules Gaza attacked Israel, the United Arab Emirates, the first Gulf country to establish diplomatic relations with Israel in 2020 under the Abraham Accords, differed from its Arab partners in sharply condemning the Hamas attack.
The countries that have signed the Abraham Accords – the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco – have “narrow enough” room for maneuver so as not to jeopardize their relationship with Israel, nor to displease the pro-Palestinian Arab community opinion. They are in a “very uncomfortable” situation and are currently focused on protecting civilians. In Bahrain and Morocco, which were also content to report civilian casualties, demonstrations in support of the Palestinians were held in the first days of the offensive.
Egypt and Jordan refuse new refugees from Palestine
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said today’s war is not only aimed at fighting Hamas, “but also an attempt to immigrate Palestinians to Egypt.” The refusal of Egypt and Jordan is based in part on the fear that Israel wants, through the expulsion of the Palestinians in these countries, to nullify the long-standing demand for a Palestinian state. The two countries, which border Israel and share borders with Gaza and the occupied West Bank respectively, have strongly denied it. Jordan already has a large Palestinian population.
At the same time, Egypt says a mass exodus from Gaza would bring Hamas or other Palestinian militants into its territory. That could destabilize Sinai, where the Egyptian military has fought for years against jihadists it has accused Hamas of supporting. Egypt has supported Israel’s blockade of Gaza since Hamas took power in the region in 2007, tightly controlling border crossings. It also destroyed the network of tunnels used by Hamas and other Palestinians to smuggle goods into Gaza. At the same time, Egypt says a mass exodus from Gaza would bring Hamas or other Palestinian militants into its territory.
Egypt, however, expresses concerns. Sisi said the fighting could last for years. He proposed that Israel house Palestinians in the Negev desert, which borders the Gaza Strip, until it ends its military operations.
Israel and Turkey relations
The tension in Turkey’s relations with Israel dates back to 2010, when Ankara expelled the Israeli ambassador, following a deadly attack by Israeli commandos on a Turkish ship carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. Diplomatic relations were restored in 2016, but two years later there was a fresh rift over Israeli military operations in Gaza that killed around 50 Palestinians.
Israel and Iran relations
An ally of Israel during the time of the Shah, Iran turned after the Islamic revolution of 1979 into the number 1 enemy of the Jewish state. Shortly after the establishment of Israel in 1948, the Shah of Iran maintained close relations with the new state. Iran is home to the largest Jewish community in the Middle East.
Israel has a significant diplomatic mission in Iran, imports 40% of its oil needs and exports weapons, technology and agricultural products. The eponymous Savak (the political police of the Iranian regime) was founded in 1957 with the help of the American CIA and the Israeli Mossad. In 1979, with the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Iran broke off all official relations with Israel, which is not officially recognized by Tehran. However, trade relations are maintained informally.
In 1980, the Iranian-inspired Islamic Jihad evolves into the largest Islamist Palestinian organization to take up arms against Israel. However, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), Israel delivered to Tehran about 1,500 missiles. The transaction is revealed in the context of the case of the sale of American weapons to Iran (Irangate), aimed at the release of American hostages held in Lebanon.
Israel and Lebanon relations
Lebanon has traditionally been an important trade hub for the Middle East with intense commercial activity. The once “Paris of the Middle East” has been at the center of conflict more than once, despite its small size, due to its borders with Syria and Israel and its uniquely complex community composition. Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Christians and Druze are the main population groups in a country that has been a haven for the region’s minorities for centuries.
Lebanon’s relations with Israel have been characterized by ups and downs over the years and by a series of events. Lebanon formally participated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war against Israel, but Lebanon was the first nation to express a desire for an armistice treaty with Israel in 1949. The most turbulent period in bilateral relations was the 1970s and 1980s, after the Lebanese civil war. During the early years of the war, Israel allied with Christian Lebanese militias.
The countries effectively normalized relations with the May 17 agreement brokered by the US in 1983, but it was annulled by Lebanon after Druze and Shiite militias seized power in early 1984. Israel also supported the separatist state of Lebanon during the period 1979-1984. Even today Israel treats Lebanon as an “enemy state”. Israeli citizens or any other person holding a passport with Israeli stamps or visas issued by Israel are strictly prohibited from entering Lebanon and may be subject to arrest or detention pending further verification. As recently as 2008, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed that 97% of Lebanese have a negative opinion of Jews.
Additionally, the 2006 Lebanon war added to their hostile relations. It was a 34-day war in northern Israel and Lebanon. The parties involved were Hezbollah and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The Hezbollah-instigated Operation True Promise began in July 2006, taking its name from a “pledge” by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah to capture Israeli soldiers and exchange them for three Lebanese prisoners held by Israel.
In 2010, Israel discovered natural gas in the Israeli EEZ that stretches into the Mediterranean Sea. Lebanon opposed any exploration considering that natural gas extends to its limits. Israel had already begun exploration and construction on its side, while Lebanese authorities have yet to officially demarcate their exclusive economic zone or begin any process of soliciting bids for exploration rights. As recently as August 17, 2010, the Lebanese parliament passed a law allowing the exploration and drilling of offshore oil and gas fields. The dispute over the boundaries of the EEZ between Israel and Lebanon continues to this day highlighting the complex geopolitical and diplomatic landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean.
Historical review of Israel-Palestine relations
1920 – 1973: Four wars, Black September, hijackings
1920. The San Remo Peace Conference gives Great Britain the mandate for the Land of Israel and Transjordan.
1921. Great Britain decides on the secession of Transjordan.
1923. It is officially decided to change the mandate (Churchill).
1946. Syrian independence.
1947. Great Britain returns mandate for Palestine to OHE.
1948. The State of Israel is founded with Ben Gurion as the first President (May 14). Immediately the first Arab-Israeli War breaks out, with the invasion of Syria. Israel wins the war. OHE envoy Count Mpernadot is murdered.
1949. Bilateral armistice agreement with Jordan. The area west of the Jordan is given to Jordan and the Gaza Strip to Egypt.
1956. Suez Crisis. Israel attacks Egypt which is defeated. The port of Eilat, vital for Israel, opens again.
1966 – 1967. Border incidents and development of Al Fatah action. After the removal of OHE from the Gaza Strip, Saudi Arabia closes the port of Eilat again. In Israel, Defense Minister Moshe Ntayan is sworn in. In June, the third Arab-Israeli war, the Six-Day War, breaks out, pitting Israel against Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan. Israel gains and keeps the territories it occupied: Gaza Strip, Sinai, West Bank, Golan Heights.
1970. Black September. Palestinians are expelled from Jordan.
1969 – 1974. Prime Minister Golda Meir. Al Fatah continues its activities with hijackings and bombings. In October 1973, the fourth Arab-Israeli war broke out, the Yom Kippur War. Israel is taken by surprise, but manages to repel the Egyptian forces.
1976 (June, July). Hijacking of an Israeli plane en route to Entebbe, Uganda. Successful Israeli operation to free the hostages.
Sabotaging agreements and murdering peacemakers
1979. Signing of the Camp David Accords with Begin and Sadat and return to Egypt of the Sinai Peninsula.
1981. Assassination of Egyptian President Sadat, who had previously shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Israeli Prime Minister Begin.
1982 (June). Operation “Peace in Galilee”. Israeli army intervention in South Lebanon. The Palestine Liberation Organization is moving its headquarters to Tunisia. The extremist organization Hezbollah is founded. In September, under Ariel Sharon, there is a massacre in the Palestinian camps of Shabra and Shatila. Conflicts begin in the occupied territories.
1985. The Israeli air force destroys the Palestinian headquarters in Tunisia.
1987. First Palestinian Intifada in the occupied territories and its bloody repression.
1988. The Palestinians declare an independent state in Transjordan and recognize the State of Israel.
1991. Madrid agreement for peace in the Middle East.
1993. Oslo Accords and signing in Washington by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat of the Declaration of Principles providing for a state of autonomy in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
1994. Rabin, Arafat and Peres share the Nobel Peace Prize. In the same year, the Gaza and Jericho Agreement is signed and Arafat returns to the Occupied Territories.
1994. Signing of peace agreement between Israel and Jordan.
1995. Agreement for the return of the cities of Bethlehem, Jenin, Nablus, Qalqiyya, Ramallah, Tulkarem, part of Hebron and 450 villages. Murder of Yitzhak Babin.
1996. The terrorist activity of Hamas puts the Palestinians in a difficult position again. Netanyahu is elected Prime Minister of Israel. In September, the Intifada returns fiercer.
1997. Agreement for the return of 80% of Hebron.
1998. Arafat – Netanyahu agreement, in the presence of Clinton, for the – canceled two months later – withdrawal of the Israeli army from 13% of the West Bank.
1999. Agreement of Sharm El-Sheikh, between Arafat and Barak, who in the meantime has succeeded Netanyahu in the prime ministership. They commit to signing the final peace accord on September 13, 2000.
March 2000. Talks between Israel and Syria break off.
July 2000. Complete failure of the Camp David negotiations between Barak and Arafat, due to the hasty and hasty nature of the talks. Arafat and Barak did not meet once during their stay at Camp David and communicated through Madeleine Albright.
September 2000. Beginning of the Second Intifada after Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Square with the Mosques of Jerusalem. Egypt withdraws its ambassador to Tel Aviv.
February 2001. Sharon wins the election and is sworn in as Prime Minister.
New plans and deals
May 2001. Preparation of the Mitchell Plan, which in June is integrated into the “Tenet Plan”.
September 26, 2001. Peres and Arafat agree on a truce.
2003. The Syrian President proposes a resumption of talks, but Sharon appears adamant because of Syria’s support for terrorism. Israel is asking Syria to close the offices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Damascus and end material support for Hezbollah, as well as withdraw from the Israeli-Lebanese border. Israeli demands were repeated even after the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon (2005).
2003. Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Mazen, becomes Prime Minister of the Palestinians. Aqaba Summit, attended by President Bush, Ariel Sharon and Abu Mazen and hosted by King Abdullah of Jordan. Mutual promises are made to start implementing the American-inspired peace plan called the Road Map. (Cessation of attacks, cessation of construction of Jewish settlements and security guarantees from both sides). In September Abu Mazen resigns.
Since the Oslo Accords until the end of August 2001 there have been 98 suicide attacks. The Second Intifada claimed the lives of 2,400 Palestinians and 800 Israelis. Its most dramatic moments, the suicide attacks in crowded parts of Israeli cities and the blockade of Palestinian territories, culminating in the Israeli cabinet’s decision to deport Arafat.
January 2003. Elections in Israel with Likud winning and Sharon as Prime Minister. Coalition government with the National Religious Party and the centrist Sinui. At the end of 2003, Sharon decided to unilaterally dismantle settlements and withdraw 8,000 settlers from the Gaza Strip. This is followed by reactions and the resignation of two ministers of the religious party.
In June 2004, the majority in the Knesset is lost. At the end of 2003, the Egyptian Foreign Minister visits Israel.
May 2003. The Road Map is presented and the construction of the Security Fence is decided (720 km, 97% fence, 3% wall).
June 2004. The Israeli cabinet approves the clauses of the Disengagement Plan from the Gaza Strip. It is envisaged that the disengagement will not include a military withdrawal from the border area between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Philadelphia Corridor), an area known for the tunnels through which weapons are smuggled. Israel would patrol the perimeter of the Gaza Strip, while Israel would have control over Gaza’s airspace and beaches. For the West Bank, the evacuation concerned the northern part of Samaria.
October 2004. The Knesset accepts the Disengagement Plan. November 11, 2004. Death of Arafat in France. He is succeeded by Abu Mazen with Ahmed Korei as prime minister.
December 30, 2004. Sharon comes to an agreement with Labor and a coalition government is formed with Shimon Peres as deputy prime minister. The government includes Likud, Labor (with 8 ministers) and United Torah Judaism. Marginal vote of confidence on 10 January 2005. Also in December 2004, an exchange of prisoners takes place and a tripartite agreement is signed (Israel, USA, Egypt) for the creation of industrial zones (Qualified Industrial Zones Agreement) in Egypt. Return of Egyptian ambassador after five years of absence.
January 2005. Abdullah Gul’s visit to Tel Aviv, after a period of coldness in Israel-Turkey relations, due to Erdogan’s statements against the action of the Israeli army.
February 2005. Summit meeting in Sharm El Sheikh between Sharon and Palestinian Authority President Abu Mazen. They announce an end to violence and formally renew peace dialogue.
February 2005. The Knesset approves the final text of the Law on the Implementation of the Disengagement Plan, for 884 million dollars for the costs of the resettlement of the 9,000 Jewish settlers of the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank. On February 20, the Plan is approved by the cabinet.
August 17, 2005. Israel unilaterally withdraws from the Gaza Strip.
January 2006. Festive victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections. It wins 76 of the 132 seats in the Parliament, with Fatah reduced to 43. Western embargoes follow, a broad Israeli operation in Gaza with 400 dead, an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 1,000 dead, 100,000 displaced and Hezbollah defeated. A Palestinian civil war begins between Hamas and Fatah, as the latter does not recognize the outcome. An unprecedented bloodshed that lasts 1.5 years and pits Abbas of Fatah against Haniyeh of Hamas.
February 17, 2006. “Visit” of Hamas to Turkey and “accidental” meeting with Gül, who justifies himself that “it is about elected officials”.
June 2007. The government of national unity collapses. Abbas appoints Salam Fayyad, an IMF executive, as prime minister. Hamas takes over Gaza and… banishes Fatah to the West Bank. Since then, two political systems have operated – Hamas in the Gaza Strip (population 2.3m) and Fatah in the West Bank (2.8m).
November 26, 2007. Israel and the Palestinian Authority resume peace negotiations.
August 2008. The executives and members of Fatah flee to Israel to escape from Hamas.
The Arab Spring
As the Arab spring we call a strong wave of protests and demonstrations that broke out on December 18, 2010 in Tunisia and then spread throughout North Africa and the Middle East. The protesters had social demands. They sought the overthrow of authoritarian regimes and social equality.
The reason for the outbreak of protests was given by an incident that happened on December 17, 2010 in the streets of the city of Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia when a police officer issued a fine to a twenty-six-year-old itinerant vegetable seller named Mohamed Bouazizi (s.s. for short Bouazizi), according to testimonies, she did not accept the amount offered to her by the itinerant vendor, which was also the official consideration set by law for these cases. In addition, the seller was verbally and physically abused by the authorities while he failed to get back what he had acquired that was unjustly kept from him.
Bouazizi as a sign of protest doused himself in gasoline and set himself on fire in the middle of a main street, outside the police station. He was then taken to the hospital where he recovered after eighteen days of struggle. Meanwhile, a number of protests had broken out in Tunisia as part of an effort to send a message against corruption.
The state responded with a show of force by carrying out a series of bloody attacks against the protesters.It is estimated that four hundred civilians lost their lives during the clashes. President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia tried to calm the tension that had built up in the streets of Tunisia when he visited Bouazizi in hospital, hoping he would deliver a message of peace. However, his attempt ended in failure.
Five thousand Tunisians attended Bouazizi’s funeral. Unable to handle the wave of protests that had been sparked, President Ben Ali announced his resignation and left power ten days later. The revolution also affected the surrounding countries.
After the outbreak of protests in Tunisia, uprisings against authoritarian regimes took place in Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen, while civil strife broke out in Libya. Major anti-regime protests also took place in Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, and Oman, while smaller protests took place in Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Djibouti. Before the outbreak of the Arab Spring, Sudan was the only Arab country that had successfully overthrown dictatorial regimes in 1964 and 1985.
The expansion of the Arab spring in Syria
The uprisings that took place in the context of the Arab Spring spread to many countries of the Arab world, including Syria. In Syria, the people rose up against the country’s president, Bashar al-Assad. In the Syrian regime there is still a hereditary succession to power and thus the Assad family has been in power since 1971.
Unlike many Middle Eastern leaders, the Assad family does not follow extreme religious politics. So the revolutionaries did not rise up against some kind of extreme religious Muslim “caste”. Basharal-Assad, however, followed a strict policy which often resulted in the violation of basic fundamental rights of the citizens.
After the incident in Tunisia, anger towards any kind of state arbitrariness and oppression had spread to Syria through social networks. The people of Syria, along with other peoples had realized their need to react to the authoritarianism of the government. What was needed was a suitable occasion that would lead those Syrians who felt oppressed to express their discontent.
The occasion came in March 2011 when pro-revolutionary graffiti appeared on the walls of a Syrian school. The regime reacted by arresting fifteen underage boys who were held responsible for the appearance of this graffiti and accused of supporting the Arab Spring. The boys were tortured by the security authorities and one of them, 13-year-old Hamzaal-Khateeb, died after being severely beaten in detention.
As expected, there is an uproar inside Syria. The people respond with marches, demonstrations and other means to the arbitrariness of state power. President Bashar al-Assad, seeing the extent of the Arab Spring in other countries of the Arab world and the fall of the regime in Tunisia, responds to the uprisings with military force. Hundreds of people who were peacefully protesting were killed in cold blood, imprisoned and tortured by the Syrian army. Any protest marches and gatherings that broke out were dispersed by the Syrian military forces with the force of arms and those who resisted it ended up dead. Many citizens were forced to flee the country to avoid the tragic developments that were to follow. Soon the reaction to the regime will also affect some of the ranks of the Syrian army. The soldiers who wanted the regime to fall came together and formed the Free Syrian Army. Soon the country would come face to face with the great civil war that was lurking.
The effects of the Arab Spring in North Africa, the Middle East and Syria
The Arab Spring significantly shook the political systems of the countries in which it spread and paved the way for radical changes. Of course, few – to none – Arab countries had the opportunity to really escape from totalitarianism and become democratized. The most typical example is Egypt. After the fall of the “hated” Hosni Mubarak, the army overthrew the vetted president Mohamed Morsi in the summer of 2013 and imposed a military dictatorship with fascist characteristics that led to the abuse and death of thousands of Egyptians.
In Syria, the Arab Spring resulted in the outbreak of a bloody civil war that continues to this day, taking on terrible proportions. Millions of Syrians have since the beginning of the civil conflict been internally displaced or migrated to other countries while the massacres of Syrian civilians continue systematically.
ICC Prosecutor, Karim A. A. Khan KC, concludes first visit to Israel and State of Palestine by an ICC Prosecutor: “We must show that the law is there, on the front lines, and that it is capable of protecting all”.
I have just concluded my first visit to Israel and the State of Palestine. During this mission, I had a simple message: my Office is here to ensure that the protection of the law is felt by all.
I am sincerely grateful for the warmth and openness shown by all those I met with during this visit. The clarity, compassion and courage that victims, in particular, in both Israel and Palestine, demonstrated in explaining their experiences were deeply impactful. While not investigative in nature, this mission allowed me to listen to their accounts and deepen my understanding of what they experienced.
My visit to Israel was conducted at the request of family members and friends of Israeli citizens who were either killed or taken hostage by Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups on 7 October 2023.
In both Kibbutz Beeri and Kibbutz Kfar Azza, as well as at the site of the Nova Music Festival in Re’im, I witnessed scenes of calculated cruelty. The attacks against innocent Israeli civilians on 7 October represent some of the most serious international crimes that shock the conscience of humanity, crimes which the ICC was established to address. In my meeting with the families of the victims of these attacks, my message was clear: we stand ready to work in partnership with them as part of our ongoing work to hold those responsible to account. I also stand ready to engage with relevant national authorities in line with the principle of complementarity at the heart of the Rome Statute. Such engagement, like my visit, would be without prejudice to the position of Israel on jurisdiction, and as a non-State Party to the Rome Statute.
I called for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages taken by Hamas and other terror organisations. There can be no justification for the holding of any hostages, and in particular the egregious breach of fundamental principles of humanity through the taking and continued holding of children. Hostages cannot be treated as human shields or bargaining chips.
During my visit to Ramallah, I had the honour to meet separately with their Excellencies President Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, Prime Minister Mr. Mohammad Shtayeh, and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammad Shalaldeh. I underlined to them that it was of real significance to me that this represented the first official visit by an ICC Prosecutor to the State of Palestine, and I expressed my sincere thanks for the official welcome that they provided. Our discussions were highly productive as we look to further deepen our cooperation under the Rome Statute.
I also spoke with the families of Palestinian victims. I was grateful to hear such personal accounts of their experiences in Gaza and the West Bank. We must never become numb to such suffering.
In relation to Gaza, and notwithstanding any ongoing violations of international humanitarian law by Hamas and other armed groups in the Gaza Strip, the manner in which Israel responds to these attacks is subject to clear legal parameters that govern armed conflict. Conflict in densely populated areas where fighters are alleged to be unlawfully embedded in the civilian population is inherently complex, but international humanitarian must still apply and the Israeli military knows the law that must be applied.
As I have stated previously, Israel has trained lawyers who advise commanders and a robust system intended to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. Credible allegations of crimes during the current conflict should be the subject of timely, independent examination and investigation. On this visit, I again stressed that the clear legal principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality must be complied with so that the protection of the law is rendered meaningful for those who need it. I emphasised that not only must the letter of the law be complied with, but also the spirit upheld. International humanitarian law and the provisions of the Rome Statute are there to protect the most vulnerable.
On humanitarian access, the position is critical, and the law does not allow for doubt. The United Nations, the World Health Organization and the International Committee for the Red Cross and Red Crescent have continued to underline the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. As I have repeatedly emphasised, civilians must have access to basic food, water and desperately needed medical supplies, without further delay, and at pace and at scale. And when such aid arrives, it must not be diverted or misused by Hamas. I cannot be more clear about this. All actors must comply with international humanitarian law. If you do not do so, do not complain when my Office is required to act.
I also, yet again, emphasised my profound concern with the significant increase in incidents of attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank. I stated that no Israeli armed with an extreme ideology and a gun can feel they can act with impunity against Palestinian civilians. In Ramallah, I heard directly from those affected by such attacks. I underlined that we are continuing to investigate these incidents with focus and urgency. I wish to emphasise that all such attacks must cease immediately. No person should feel any sense of impunity for such attacks.
My Office will further intensify its efforts to advance its investigations in relation to this situation. In this work, we will rely on the partnership of all actors to ensure that when action is taken by my Office it is done on the basis of objective, verifiable evidence which can stand scrutiny in the courtroom and ensure that when we do proceed we have a realistic prospect of conviction.
It is my hope that this visit represents my first but not my last to both Israel and Palestine. Even in this deeply troubling current context, I leave with some hope that the core of our collective humanity can survive this moment. That hope in fact stems from the words and kindness from the victims I met with in Israel and Palestine. It is they that our Office works to serve. At this time of significant turbulence, the law is needed more than ever. I wish to emphasize that we are working intensively to ensure the law is protected and upheld, for all.
My journey of business peacemaking began in 1973. At that time, we had a private company despite never being members of the Communist Party. During that era, lacking party endorsement meant nearly all the doors were closed, and business opportunities were exclusively granted to companies whose leaders held party membership. Consequently, our generations-old clergy family found itself destined for failure, left with no option but to survive and prosper.
My father served as a peacemaker, reconciler, a mediator among feuding families in Kosovo – a role that extends through my grandfather and ancestors. As a family of priests, we were always there for all neighbors and fellow citizens grappling with problems, such as, for example, blood feuds. In such situations, both Serbs and Albanians would always reach out to us. My ancestors consistently played a role in mediation and reconciliation, passing down this gift to me. Thus, by respecting and cherishing my family and continuing its traditions, I am committed to actively fostering reconciliation among Serbian families in Kosovo, Albanian families in Kosovo, and, most challenging of all, reconciliation between Serbian and Albanian families. I believe that the ability for successful mediation is a gift from God, inherited from my family.
Starting business operations in the communist era
At that time, the President of SFR Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito, visited Peć/Peja. The Mayor of Peć presented Tito with the album “Peć in the 19th Century, and Peć Today”, the work by my brother Zoran. Tito was impressed by the efforts of our company, introduced to him as the first family-owned enterprise by the Mayor of Peć. He acknowledged that our company and family business posed no threat to the constitutional order of Yugoslavia at the time and expressed support for our company’s development. This transpired almost fifty years ago. After the encouragement and support we received from President Tito, we established three factories, and the workforce steadily increased. These were production plants that included producing equipment for mini-bakeries, a plant for specialized equipment based on Italian technology, equipment for meat processing, attachments and spare parts for tractors and other agricultural machinery, as well as the production of non-standard screw products, etc. That is how we became the first private and family-owned company, not just in Yugoslavia but also in the entire communist world. Our private business primarily consisted of factory production, and we quickly became a global phenomenon. At that time, leading world publications, from the Chinese Zhenmin Zhibao to the New York Times, wrote about us. The Washington Post also began covering the development of private entrepreneurship and business in Yugoslavia, wondering if this represented successful and happy capitalism. During that time, we received tremendous support from the U.S. Embassy in Yugoslavia. The support for these, and all our other products, was exceptional.
Mikhail Gorbachev assumed the presidency of the Soviet Union and during his first visit to Yugoslavia, our government promptly proposed showcasing our company and introducing him with our operations. After gaining insight into our company’s activities, President Gorbachev instructed Nikolai Ryzhkov, the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, to request that we provide an overview of our business activities in Peć and throughout Kosovo and Metohija.
Three months later, we received an invitation from the Kremlin to visit Moscow. There, Prime Minister Ryzhkov extended immense support on behalf of President Gorbachev, providing us with everything necessary to replicate in Russia what we had been creating in Yugoslavia. Therefore, with complete conviction, I can state that ‘Perestroika’ in Russia started thanks to us. We were the first to establish private companies in communist Russia as well.
The development of our companies in capitalism and initiatives for peace and cooperation
Our business operations have continued to dynamically and successfully evolve, experiencing a true flourishing within a market-liberal system. The successful growth of our companies has led to a substantial increase in employment and technological innovation.
We have consistently been leaders and pioneers in the development of new industries. We established the first Internet company, the first private bank, the first private television, the first private insurance company and the first private university.
During the 1990s, when Milošević came to power, assisted by Mahmut Bakali, a high-ranking official in Yugoslavia at the time, I initiated a potential for agreement with Ibrahim Rugova, who made every effort to achieve a peaceful resolution in Kosovo. However, during that time, we fell victim to misunderstandings within our own ranks. Had our side permitted for the implementation of my ‘Karić Model for Shared Prosperity’ to foster reconciliation and successful development, peace would certainly have been be ensured, along with the successful economic, social, and cultural development of Kosovo. I proposed state participation in the implementation of my Model by privatizing 51% of the capital of all companies in Kosovo, selling them to foreign companies from technologically advanced countries, and distributing 49% of the capital’s value to the workers. Had my Model been implemented, there would have been no war, and Kosovo would be a highly developed region today. I authored a 73-page study at that time, which Mahmut Bakali endorsed, deeming it beneficial for my Model to be implemented step by step. Regarding education, I proposed conducting it in the native language for each ethnic group, including familiarity with the literature in mother tongue as well as the cultural values of one’s people.
In the year 2000, I extended an invitation to Adem Demaçi to visit Serbia with an economic delegation and to appear on BK Television. We agreed to immediately initiate economic rapprochement between the economies of Serbia and Kosovo. The first joined meetings of business community were held in Kosovo followed by Albania, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, garnering state support in all these locations except Serbia. The authorities at the time failed to endorse us, as they misunderstood the ‘Karić Model for Shared Prosperity’. When we gathered a hundred businessmen in Brezovica and Pristina, attempting to consolidate economic cooperation and joint endeavors between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo and other regions, I was denounced as a traitor to Serbia. My family and I faced persecution orchestrated by the centers of power and interest groups associated with (Vojislav) Koštunica. There were even two assassination attempts against me. This was due to my humanitarian efforts, humanistic and common-sense belief that Serbs and Albanians should coexist, collaborate, and progress jointly, while rejecting illicit amuggling and the vested interests of certain circles. Business leaders build bridges and destroy borders, while some politicians build walls and destroy bridges!
“Karić Model for Shared Prosperity”
My economic-development model (Karić Model for Shared Prosperity), which I proposed to the leadership of Serbia at the time, held relevance and significance not only for our entire region, but also for the global community due to its universal character. It remains imperative, both then and now, to secure the necessary investment funds and establish joint companies, with a primary focus on involving companies from Serbia and Albania. Collaborative efforts between Albanians and Serbs would not only enhance the employment rate in Kosovo and beyond, but also establish new forms of business cooperation, ultimately eliminating current tensions and unrest. The problem was that the politicians in power at that time were unwilling to permit it. The criminal centers of power and interest groups under Koštunica favored an unstable situation over peace, allowing them to exploit the northern part of Kosovo for their illicit activities.
In 2004, I was the only candidate for the President of Serbia who visited Kosovo, and my rallies were attended by both Albanians and Serbs. I stated that we should abolish all borders and live and work together. We cannot live apart. It was my belief that in collaboration with our Euro-Atlantic allies, we should strive for peace, prosperity, and economic development for all inhabitants of these troubled regions. However, the response to my efforts was that Koštunica closed down all our companies and rigged the presidential election.
Today, for example, Serbs living in Kosovo find themselves in the most difficult position, because without cooperation with Albanians, the products they create cannot be sold to anyone, and economic activity and cooperation are of utmost importance. If we were to secure the necessary funds today, we could implement my Model enabling Serbs and Albanians to establish joint companies and to work together. Large-scale companies from Serbia and Albania could participate in this initiative, fostering economic activity, growth, employment, and overall well-being for the people of Kosovo. I guarantee that with such initiatives, there would be no war, and peace and social harmony would be achieved. I am a man from Kosovo, I know the mentality. Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo live off the same land, drink the same water, and have the same mentality. Tolerance is even more necessary now than in the nineties, and Serbs currently residing in Kosovo cannot do without Albanians.
Even today, my Model has no alternative. Both Serbs and Albanians see Serbian companies as partners they want to cooperate with, exporting their products and importing necessary goods. After any war or conflict, one must sit down at the negotiating table, because only through dialogue, negotiations, and aligning the interests of negotiating parties can solutions be found, primarily in the interest of the people. The dominant characteristic of this model is the creation of an economic foundation for the establishment of long-term economic cooperation between the parties that were in conflict. The main goal of this cooperation, based on consistent application of the principle of coexistence, should be to create conditions for a better life of citizens. This involves eliminating the key causes of conflicts and investing maximum energy in creating a new common future for citizens. The implementation of the Karić Model for Shared Prosperity implies primarily the creation of joint companies (Serbian and Albanian), ensuring economic growth and all the benefits that come with it, including the desire for peace. So far, no government has been willing to appoint me as a negotiator with Kosovo authorities, despite my personal 33-year-long intense commitment to seeking an efficient and effective solution to resolve the conflict in Kosovo. Once again, I emphasize, the Karić Model for Shared Prosperity entails 100% implementation of joint production, joint work, joint economy and harmonious coexistence of Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo. This Model is also applicable to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the entire region, and even in Ukraine. I see this model as a paradigm of the consortium that will engage in reconstruction, building and ensuring economic growth in Ukraine after the war.
Final considerations and call to action
Iextend a call and earnest plea to individuals wielding influence over economic and political processes to recognize the importance of implementing this Model for achieving peace and economic development, particularly in our region. Therefore, I direct this appeal to esteemed organizations and potential sponsors/donors, and especially to Their Excellencies ambassadors, scientists, professors, and businessmen of authority. I stand ready and at your disposal to actively participate in all reconciliation efforts and contribute to the establishment of better economic cooperation throughout the Western Balkans. Together, we can work for the benefit of all peoples in this region and beyond.
This proposition is underscored by my century-long business experience. I say it is a hundred years long, because I have been working double shifts for over 50 years, dedicating the last decade exclusively to peacemaking and humanitarian activities, to help my country, our region and all those around the world who are struggling to break free from the shackles of backwardness and underdevelopment, and to experience a “catapult” into sustainable growth and development.
My most genuine aspiration is to witness the implementation of the ‘Karić Model for Shared Prosperity’ first in Kosovo, restoring peace to its residents of all nationalities, creating economic, legal and organizational conditions for work and economic activities, establishing necessary order, and thereby creating the prerequisites for a shared life and creation!
About author: Bogoljub J. Karić was born in 1954 in Peć. He graduated from the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at the University of Priština, majoring in geography. He earned his master’s degree in “Organization and Development of Small Business” from the Faculty of Economics in Niš. In 1971, alongside his three brothers and sister, he established the family-owned factory “Braća Karić” in Peć. Over nearly five decades, he developed a large-scale company with operations spanning various sectors globally, including telecommunications, construction, finance, education, media, trade, etc.
Published by IFIMES – The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect IFIMES’ official position, nor do they represent the position of Diplomat Magazine.
Footnotes: [1] IFIMES – International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has a special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council ECOSOC/UN in New York since 2018, and it is the publisher of the international scientific journal “European Perspectives.” [2] The article is based on a presentation delivered at the 23rd Belgrade Business Forum held on 28 November 2023, in Belgrade.
Harmonious coexistence has been the aspiration of the Chinese nation for thousands of years. During President Xi Jinping’s visit to Kazakhstan and Indonesia in autumn 2013, he put forth the major initiatives of building the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. Over the past decade, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), with the aim of promoting peaceful development and better lives for the world, has increasingly become a road of peace where dreams and aspirations come true.
When the world is in great turbulence and transformation, with greater deficits in governance, trust, development and peace, where should humanity go? There are important choices to be made. Do we choose cooperation or isolation, solidarity or division, going forward together or in our separate ways? The answer provided by the BRI is to uphold multilateralism and build a community with a shared future for mankind, so as to address global challenges and maintain lasting peace together.
Peace requires mutual respect. The BRI was proposed by China and is shared by the world. It is not a soliloquy by China but a chorus of all partner countries, featuring extensive consultation and joint contribution for shared benefit. In pursuing this initiative, China never interferes in other countries’ internal affairs, and it never exports its social system or development model or imposes them on other countries; China does not play geopolitical games, but creates a new model of win-win cooperation; and China wants no small blocs but a big family where all countries coexist in harmony. As Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia’s former prime minister, puts it, there is equality among all countries participating in the BRI despite their varied sizes and wealth. He describes the BRI as being different from that promoted by other advanced countries in the past, in which small countries “did not have a say”, and believes the BRI “will benefit all participating countries”.
Peace brings win-win results. The BRI aims to build more partnerships and make the pie bigger, and it opposes creating small clubs or seeking selfish interests. Over the past decade, synergy has been fostered between the BRI and the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Eurasian Economic Union, the African Union’s Agenda 2063, the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity, as well as other international and regional development strategies. In May this year, the China-Central Asia Summit was successfully held to further synergize the BRI with the development strategies of the five Central Asian countries. Greater economic integration and deeper cooperation will inject new vigor into global peace and stability.
Peace enables development. Embodied in the BRI is the vision of open, integrated and mutually beneficial cooperation, which is demonstrated by numerous examples. The Smederevo Steel Plant in Serbia brims with renewed vigor; the Piraeus port in Greece is among the top ports in the Mediterranean in terms of throughput; cataract patients in Uzbekistan are provided with opportunities to regain their sight; and villagers living in arid areas in Senegal now have better access to safe drinking water. Such development dividends cannot be achieved without a peaceful and stable environment. And thus, the pursuit of peace and development has gained stronger public support.
More than 2,100 years ago, Zhang Qian, a royal emissary of China’s Han Dynasty, traveled westward and opened an overland route linking the East and the West. In the early 15th century, Zheng He, a famous navigator in the Ming Dynasty, made seven voyages to the Western Seas, a feat that is still remembered today. These pioneers won their place in history not as conquerors with warships, guns or swords. Rather, they are remembered as friendly emissaries leading camel caravans and sailing treasure-laden ships. Thousands of years on, China continues to follow the path of peaceful development, strive to build the Belt and Road into a road of peace, and march hand-in-hand with other countries toward security and development for all.
Many of those who closely monitor the presidential election race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden would acknowledge the profound impact of U.S. politics on global dynamics after the election.
The central question concerns interpreting this political landscape, emphasizing the struggle between establishment and anti-establishment factions. Numerous leftist movements globally champion populism to an unprecedented degree. Traditional conservatives face a dilemma: embracing populism or adhering to principles. In practice, many conservatives, exemplified by the U.S. Republican Party led by Mitch McConnell, tend to shy away from strict principles, seeking populism yet struggling to compete with the Democratic Party. This has led to the rise of the anti-establishment faction, epitomized by Trump, forcing even the Republican Party under McConnell to align with him to ensure survival and emphasize its values.
Most right-wing anti-establishment factions in Europe, like Reform UK (formerly the Brexit Party), Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, and conservative parties in the Netherlands and Spain, struggle to gain majority support. Only the right-wing party in Italy has achieved electoral victories. The trajectory for Europe is long, but the direction is clear—towards the success of anti-establishment factions challenging the status quo. South America, however, presents a different narrative.
In South America, the concept of a moderate faction is nearly nonexistent, and political dynamics often mirror the fervor for football. Nonetheless, the developmental path of South American countries remains of significant interest. In Argentina, the anti-establishment candidate Javier Milei recently secured victory as the president-elect with a 55% to 45% margin over the leftist, signaling a political shift towards conservatism in South America. Dubbed the “Argentinian Trump”, Milei inspires anti-establishment factions in the United States. In the 2024 U.S. elections, Trump might achieve a significant victory, potentially regaining the White House and securing an unprecedented eight-year presidential term.
The global trend is swiftly moving towards conservatism. The rise of anti-establishment factions reflects a self-preservation mechanism within Western political economies. Failure to activate such a response could lead to social upheavals and transformative shifts in national identity. Anti-establishment factions, while distinct from the establishment, operate within societal frameworks, injecting vitality by challenging established norms. This is not a revolutionary upheaval akin to Lenin’s overthrow of the Russian monarchy; the state’s nature remains unchanged, yet governance transformations are imminent.
About the author:
Chan Kung
Mr Kung Chan is the founder of ANBOUND Think Tank. Kung Chan is one of China’s renowned information analysis experts specializing in geopolitical and economic policies.
Thursday, 30 November 2023, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany: The Speaker of the German Bundestag, Bärbel Bas (Social Democrat) welcomed her counterpart from Azerbaijan, Dr. Sahiba Gafarova during the latter’s visit to Germany.
In the evening, a reception was given at the Azerbaijan Culture Centre in Berlin in honour of the official visit of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan led by Speaker of the Milli Majlis Sahiba Gafarova.
The event transpired with the participation of members of the Bundestag (German Federal Parliament), foreign countries’ ambassadors, high-ranking officials of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other state authorities as well as academics, cultural figures, representatives of various companies, business people and delegates of the Azerbaijani Diaspora.
The Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of Azerbaijan to Germany Nasimi Aghayev greeted the parliamentary delegation and the guests, and shared his ideas as to the relations between the two countries and the importance of the aforementioned visit.
Greeting the participants of the reception cordially, the Speaker of Parliament described the current visit as a vivid token of the high level of the bilateral connexions. She recalled the thirtieth anniversary of the Azerbaijani-German diplomatic relations last year and said that that an energetic and productive co-operation had gone on in various areas throughout the past three decades.
The on-going political dialogue and that President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan has visited Germany twice this year alone were duly brought up. It was said that President Aliyev’s conversations with President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Chancellor Olaf Scholz had been useful as discussions of our co-operation. As regards the mutually beneficial co-operation between our countries in diverse areas over many years, Sahiba Gafarova remarked that Germany was one of the chief trading partners of Azerbaijan. German companies are active and successful in our country; they contribute to the implementation of various projects. There are yet vaster opportunities to diversify and broaden the interaction in different areas.
The dramatic role of the educational, academic and cultural co-operation in the strengthening of the ties between our nations and in promoting the mutual understanding was mentioned in the speech as well. Having referred to the state-level protection of the heritage of the German immigrants who settled in Azerbaijan in the early 19th century, the Speaker of the Parliament said that the 200th anniversary of the German settlements in Azerbaijan was celebrated with numerous events in both Azerbaijan and Germany in 2017 to the decree of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
The activities of the Azerbaijan Culture Centre in Berlin and the German-Azerbaijani Culture Alliance in Baku bring our nations yet closer, according to Sahiba Gafarova. She thanked members of the German-Azerbaijani Forum for their tireless endeavours to broaden the relations between the two countries.
The contribution of the joint activities of the two legislative assemblies to the development of bilateral and multilateral ties between the two states was noted. The exceptional role of reciprocal visits, as well as meetings and contacts in expanding these ties was emphasised as well.
Picture by Embassy of Azerbaijan in Germany – Speaker Gafarova is chief guest at a reception hosted at Azerbaijan Cultural Centre, to the far right, Dr. Nurlan Hasanov
As she spoke of the centuries-long history of statehood of our nation, Chair Sahiba Gafarova remarked that Azerbaijan as we know her today was a successful heir to our nation’s ancient statehood tradition. The first parliamentary democratic republic in the Islamic East was established in 1918. The crucial measures were implemented during the existence of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic; the citizens were given equal rights without any racial, ethnic or religious discrimination whatsoever. Women were granted the franchise, too – for the first time in the Muslim East also and far sooner than in some European countries.
Regrettably, the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was able to survive for merely 23 months. Azerbaijan was able to regain her independence only in 1991, which set in motion a new epoch in her history.
Speaker Sahiba Gafarova underlined the unique role of the Azerbaijani people’s National Leader Heydar Aliyev whose centenary is celebrated this year, by the way, in protecting our independence from internal and external hazards and in promoting the growth of our modern statehood.
The Chair of the Milli Majlis informed those assembled of Azerbaijan’s achievements in diverse fields to date. She said our country had attained considerable economic progress over the 20 years last. It was remarked that the GDP of Azerbaijan, the State Budget revenues and the foreign trade volume had grown fourfold, 30 times and more than tenfold respectively. It was further mentioned that the poverty level in our country had slid from 50% to 5.5% and that USD 310 bn, including approximately USD 200 bn channelled into the national non-oil economy sector, had been invested in Azerbaijan over the last 20 years.
Azerbaijan is an active and responsible member of the international community. Promotion of co-operation on the basis of respect for international law standards and principles, dialogue, solidarity and mutual trust is one of the key elements of the strategic vision formulated by President Ilham Aliyev, Sahiba Gafarova continued. The Speaker said that those principles were clearly traceable in several cases. Amongst those are Azerbaijan’s activities as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council during 2012-2013, several initiatives put forth as the Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, the energy-sector endeavours contributing substantially to European energy security and the implementation of large transport projects connecting the East and the West.
Having mentioned the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories that had lasted for nigh on 30 years, the Speaker remarked that, though hit by the occupation, Azerbaijan is taking great pains to establish a lasting peace in our region by having invited Armenia after the 44 days’ Patriotic War to sign a peace treaty on the basis of 5 principles of international law.
The reception participants were then told that Armenia’s political and military provocations, its failure in the 3 years past to honour the obligations it had assumed and the constant support to the illegal separatist regime created in our territories had made anti-terrorist measures in Azerbaijan’s Garabagh Region inevitable. Those measures were implemented in complete compliance with international law standards and with no civilian casualties ever taken on record. Consequently, the separatist regime declared self-dissolution whereas Azerbaijan restored her sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Speaker Sahiba Gafarova said that Azerbaijan had begun large-scale restoration and renovation of the de-occupied territories immediately upon the conclusion of the Patriotic War. New towns and villages are built from scratch. The erstwhile IDP have begun to return to their homes already. More than 140,000 people are to have returned to Garabagh and East Zangazur by 2026 in keeping with the Grand Return Programme.
The Chair of the Milli Majlis recalled with regret that the more than 1 million mines planted in those lands by Armenia during their occupation hinder the reclamation work and delay the IDP’s return to native parts. More than 340 Azerbaijanis have fallen victims to mine explosions since the end of the war in 2020. According to Mrs Gafarova, Azerbaijan is one of the most mine-contaminated countries in the world but also one in receipt of the smallest international de-mining assistance. Mrs Gafarova praised then the support of the German Government for Azerbaijan’s humanitarian demining efforts.
Concluding her speech, Chair of the Milli Majlis Sahiba Gafarova said that there were no obstacles to the signing of a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Despite all the sorrows caused by the war, Azerbaijan has repeatedly declared its readiness for peace. Ms Gafarova stated that, as President Ilham Aliyev of the Republic of Azerbaijan had said, there must be a just peace – a peace based on respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of both countries. Such a peace opens the only way to stability, development and co-operation.
The delegation accompanying Dr. Gafarova also included Dr. Nurlan Hasanov, Leader of the Working Group for the Azerbaijani-German Federal Republic Interparliamentary Relations; Soltan Mamedov and Elshan Musayev. The Azerbaijani MPs held a meeting in the Reichstag with the German-South Caucasian Parliamentary Group, including German MPs Steffen Kotré and Tabea Rößner.
