Latest news with #KhaledAbouZahr
Arab News
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Europe's mobilization struggles prime for exploitation
Joseph Stalin is rumored to have once asked, 'How many divisions does the pope have?' The story goes that the Soviet leader said it during the 1943 Tehran Conference, a turning point in the Second World War. Others attribute it to a different time and place. Nevertheless, it is a statement that carries an undeniable truth about the importance of military might and how Moscow analyses military situations. The rhetorical question was meant to denigrate anything that is not real power symbolized by armies. There is nothing that can be gained on the front line without material power. In short, military strength is the ultimate determinant during wars and, hence, in the balance of international relations. A similar question could be asked today: 'How many divisions does Europe have?' It is clear that Europe finds itself facing a tricky dilemma. As the old continent contemplates sending troops to stabilize Ukraine, the question of military capability remains central. According to a report in The Times this week, European nations that are part of the 'coalition of the willing' are struggling to assemble even a proposed 25,000-strong military force for a potential peacekeeping or deterrence mission in Ukraine, far short of an initially suggested target of 64,000 troops. The shortfall is attributed to understaffed and underfunded European armies. London, which was pushing for this initiative, has reportedly scaled back its plan to deploy a large number of troops due to high risks and inadequate forces, opting instead to offer limited training missions in western Ukraine, such as near Lviv. Europe's struggle to mobilize troops reveals a weakness that will undoubtedly have a direct consequence on Europe's capacity to shape the geopolitical outcome of the war. This incapacity to align sufficient military resources with the ongoing discussions about supporting a peace deal in Ukraine makes the future of Europe fragile, not only at its borders but also from within. This situation destroys any deterrence capacity. The harsh reality of the current situation in Ukraine reinforces that hard power is ultimately the only thing that matters Khaled Abou Zahr The harsh reality of the current situation in Ukraine reinforces that hard power is ultimately the only thing that matters. In comparison, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies' 2024 'Military Balance' report, Russia has about 1.1 million active troops, including 500,000 in the army, along with 1.5 million reservists. This is despite the heavy losses it has suffered in Ukraine. As of late 2024, 95,000 to 165,000 Russian soldiers had been killed and up to 700,000 injured. Desertions exceed 50,000, reflecting low morale in a force that is still large but is less robust than its Soviet predecessor. During the Second World War, the Soviet Union lost at least 8.8 million military personnel and suffered 15 to 17 million civilian deaths. There is no doubt that, if it were not for the Eastern Front and these deaths, the war in Europe would have lasted much longer. Now, there is no doubt that even Russia cannot sustain such losses alone and the presence of North Korean soldiers on the front line in Ukraine underlines this. Yet, Moscow's numbers and, more importantly, its willingness and capacity for sacrifice are still much higher than Europe's. The EU's 27 member states, plus the UK, collectively have about 1.5 million active-duty military personnel, according to estimates from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The largest force is Italy's with 338,000, followed by France with 304,000 and then Spain at 199,000. Germany has 181,000 and Poland about 150,000. Poland is aiming for 300,000 by 2035 and other countries are following the same path. However, as highlighted by the inability to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine, many are not combat-ready. At a time when Europe is looking to build up its deterrence without the US, this is a weak signal that will be exploited. More importantly, internal divisions and a lack of will are making it worse. Moscow's numbers and, more importantly, its willingness and capacity for sacrifice are still much higher than Europe's Khaled Abou Zahr Everyone understands that, despite the ruthlessness of the war in Ukraine, there have been guardrails that have prevented it spiraling into a full-blown 'anything goes' type of war. Everyone has also noticed the new technologies, such as drones, entering the battlefield. But everyone has also noticed how counter-drone technology has come into effect, how quickly a technological stalemate was reached and how this translated into infantry-heavy combat in trenches reminiscent of the two world wars. Europe's troop shortfall puts its easternmost countries in a tough situation, as they are the first line of defense and have smaller armed forces. This is why any decisions that might cause an escalation of the conflict must be carefully considered at this stage. Understanding this reality must ensure a pragmatic and street-smart approach. If Europe cannot mobilize the troops needed for peacekeeping or even agree on the principle, then this is not a deterrence but an invitation. It will need to rebuild this deterrence as soon as possible; this not only applies to troop numbers, but also industrial capacity. Moreover, this also means that if Europe cannot implement the steps following a ceasefire agreement, it will have even less influence on the outcome of the negotiations. Ukraine demands a complete Russian military withdrawal and the restoration of its 1991 borders, including Crimea, while Moscow insists on recognition of its control over these territories. Ukraine is paying in kind for its position and is showing its will. So, the equation for Europe is simple, either accept what the facts on the ground say or increase its military involvement. In this case, Europe will not only have to boost its divisions, but also its will to sacrifice. This underlines the absolute necessity for a negotiated breakthrough as soon as possible.
Arab News
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Can Hezbollah be persuaded to peacefully disarm?
Will Hezbollah agree to peacefully disarm through dialogue is the main question everyone is asking in Lebanon. President Joseph Aoun last week reaffirmed his desire to disarm Hezbollah this year. Understandably, his preferred option is to go through this process via a national dialogue. This situation cannot be isolated from the broader shifts in the region. The bigger dialogue is now taking place between Iran and the US. This places the next steps for the Lebanese state in a quandary. There is no doubt that the final decision on Hezbollah's disarmament will be taken in Tehran, as the group is an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps tool of terror. This was confirmed when the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon took to X last week to describe the planned disarmament, among other criticisms, as 'a clear conspiracy against nations.' It is a positive step that the Iranian ambassador was reportedly summoned over his remarks, as they represented a blatant interference in state affairs. Yet, what is Hezbollah today besides an interference tool in Lebanon? It is a good sign of the will of the Lebanese state that it is striving for its sovereignty. This would not have been possible only a year ago. The reality is that Hezbollah has been reduced to rubble by Israel's military campaign. And with the political change in Syria, the Iranian proxy has lost the logistics support from Iran that was essential to its operations. This is a huge difference that has helped the Lebanese state to enhance its sovereign voice. But this does not mean Hezbollah no longer has the capacity and power to destroy Lebanon or target its opponents in the country. If the regime in Tehran were to push Hezbollah into a confrontation, it would have a single outcome: Hezbollah's defeat and Tehran's humiliation. Tehran knows it, Hezbollah knows it. And the Iranian ambassador's posts on X underline this weakness. Simply because, in the past, the Lebanese president would have been summoned by a low-level intelligence officer to keep quiet about disarmament. Regardless, the Iranian regime has an opportunity to allow not only Lebanon to flourish, but also its own country and the region. Hezbollah's disarmament should be an important point in the dialogue with the US over the Iranian nuclear file, as it is a similar tool. It is a good sign of the will of the Lebanese state that it is striving for its sovereignty. This would not have been possible only a year ago Khaled Abou Zahr But I would call on the people of Lebanon to show stronger support for this disarmament. It is important to show that, beyond any regional agreement, it is the will of the people that the state has a monopoly on weapons. Aoun is remaining cautious in his approach as he understands very well that Hezbollah remains a military power that can be dangerous for the future of Lebanon. This is why there needs to be popular support for this historical transformation. Hezbollah's disarmament could be the starting point for a new Lebanon. The starting point for a real and sustainable reconstruction. The starting point of a Lebanese renaissance. It offers a historic opportunity that cannot and should not be missed. This is why the Lebanese need to rally and push for this transformation, regardless of the outcome of the broader regional dialogues. In this context, it is also important to build solid trust with the Shiite community and repeat until we lose our voices that Hezbollah should not represent them. Just as any armed militia never protected any community. The people must find ways to engage and convey this solidarity among all Lebanese communities. This would also offer much-needed support for the president's initiative. Any popular support should convey that disarming Hezbollah is not an action against the Shiite community, but salvation for all Lebanese. We also need hope and wishful thinking. It is important to convey that, just as it was proven that Hezbollah is an artificial power annihilated by Israel in a split second, it is also an artificial protector, just like the regime in Tehran. Not a single community in Lebanon should need protection from a foreign power — protection should be guaranteed. Rights and duties should be the same for all. I also believe, and I indeed keep losing my voice on this, that federalism is the best way forward. But for now, we need greater trust among communities and this should also be reflected within social media exchanges. Paid voices should be silenced on both sides. Aoun understands very well that Hezbollah remains a military power that can be dangerous for the future of Lebanon Khaled Abou Zahr The solution proposed for Hezbollah members is to join the Lebanese army, but not as a separate unit. This would only take place after a peaceful agreement to disarm, which is not yet guaranteed. But if this were to happen, there would have to be a serious vetting process and those who are ideologically loyal to the regime in Tehran or who have committed terror crimes should be excluded from joining the Lebanese army. After all its actions, Hezbollah also should not be allowed to participate in any elections. Loyalty should be exclusive to Lebanon and the Lebanese Armed Forces. I believe Lebanon can learn from other countries that have gone through the same process. A change in how Tehran deals with Lebanon and its neighbors will also be crucial. Respecting a pledge of noninterference, abandoning any foreign military disruption and opting exclusively for state-to-state collaboration would be the silver bullet. This is what the US administration should aim for in its dialogue. Putting an end to the offensive activities of the Iranian regime is as important as the nuclear issue, if not more so. This would align with the aspirations of the region and the Lebanese people, for once converging regional goals with domestic ones.
Arab News
27-03-2025
- Business
- Arab News
End of USAID should not mean the end of US support to Africa
Even when it comes to international aid and assistance, strategic geopolitical interests are at play. Secretary of State Marco Rubio this month announced the results of the review of programs carried out by the US Agency for International Development. It translated into 83 percent of aid being cut and the resulting impact on many African countries has reignited debates on the competition between the US and China on the continent and the heightened risk of humanitarian crises. Even if competition for influence in Africa is real, framing this under great power competition is a mistake. Indeed, both countries have taken a very different approach and this closure will probably not change China's plans, which are set in the long term. Moreover, USAID did not stop China from increasing its influence. However, this brings a potential new approach for US support — an approach that supports greater African responsibility and transparency. According to the Congressional Research Service, sub-Saharan Africa is the largest regional recipient of American foreign assistance. Over the past decade, the aid that the State Department and USAID have administered to Africa has been worth about $8 billion annually. Major recipients have included Nigeria, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya and South Africa. In addition to direct US aid, African nations also receive assistance through other American agencies and Washington's contributions to multilateral organizations. This brings a potential new approach for US support — an approach that supports greater African responsibility and transparency Khaled Abou Zahr About 70 percent of American aid for Africa over the past decade supported health programs, primarily HIV/AIDS, with additional funding for agriculture, economic growth, security, the promotion of democracy and human rights, and education. Key multination initiatives like the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Feed the Future and Power Africa also support the region. Most aid is delivered through contractors, nongovernmental organizations and multilateral bodies, rather than direct government-to-government assistance. And this is probably one of the flaws that made USAID money less efficient. This situation is not specific to USAID; rather, it reflects how most foreign assistance programs and charities operate. It may come as a surprise, but a large portion of the funds cover administrative costs and running the projects, rather than directly supporting the core objectives. When it comes to cross-border programs, this burden is even higher. And so, in the end, positive change becomes less efficient and this was the case with USAID. This is why the US should not abandon Africa and give up on all its support. It should focus on bringing about real and positive changes while reinforcing African leadership. It is, to a certain extent, the same as Europe is going through with its security file. Africa deserves the generosity of the American people. Washington just needs to make sure it is well-allocated and executed. In short, it should be a reset, not a cancellation. This aid should not be motivated by ideological agendas. This is also what made USAID money less efficient. International aid should be aimed at solving real problems and curbing Africa's reliance on pure foreign aid. It is also an opportunity for African leaders to look for an approach that will build up their own economies. There are two main areas that need to be addressed: fighting poverty and empowering local management. Yet the urgency is on healthcare. Africa's predicament is that, despite its wealth in natural resources, which includes some of the world's largest minerals reserves, a variety of energy sources and large areas of arable land, it is still struck with extreme poverty. Competition between external nations in Africa is hence partly, if not mainly, about gaining control of the 30 percent of the planet's mineral reserves it homes. The significant deposits of gold, diamonds, platinum, copper and uranium, for example, have been a source of military confrontations for far too long. Africa deserves the generosity of the American people. Washington just needs to make sure it is well-allocated and executed Khaled Abou Zahr The same goes for its other resources. Indeed, Africa is also a major producer of oil and gas, with countries like Nigeria, Angola and Algeria leading in petroleum reserves, while North Africa, particularly Libya and Egypt, contributes heavily to gas production. Moreover, Africa has huge renewable energy potential and solar power could change the entire dynamic in the Sahara. While poverty and starvation still hit the continent brutally, we quickly forget that 60 percent of the world's uncultivated arable land is in Africa. It is already a leader in commodities like cocoa, coffee, tea and timber. The potential of fisheries makes Africa a resource powerhouse with immense economic potential. Unfortunately, while this all sounds good on paper, the reality is very different. The difference between theory and practice goes a long way. And so, we still need to question how foreign aid and its structure have impacted the continent's development and may have contributed to its ongoing dependence on such support. Moreover, while it has symbolically shifted the moral responsibility of progress from African leaders to Western powers, the reality is it has given the latter carte blanche to get their hands on vast resources in return for building just a few kilometers of road or a few wells. This is why, on a separate note, the Gulf Cooperation Council's approach has always been respected and accepted. This is why the end of USAID should not be synonymous with the end of US support to Africa. But any new program should be directed at helping Africa gain control of its own resources for its own development, not to prevent China or Russia from gaining ground but because it is the true spirit of US generosity and the right thing to do. This is how the US will make a true, long-term ally of Africa.
Arab News
14-03-2025
- Business
- Arab News
Europe's defense spending flood should not ignore innovation
The ongoing dramatic shifts regarding the Ukraine war and in diplomatic arenas across Europe and the West have brought defense investments to the fore. Like in many previous cycles, it is fair to say there is now growing hype around investment in defense tech, security and space. Despite this excitement, it is ill-placed, especially when it comes to most early-stage companies. The numbers stated at various European conferences and the many commitments to greater defense spending over the past month have largely created this excitement, which is based on the fact that this spending will partly go to defense companies and will hence increase their profits. Yet, where most are mistaken is that, as governments shift to a more warlike mentality, the spending will go more toward the essentials and what already works as opposed to innovation. I am no military man, but if I were directing a defense budget, I would be pushing for artillery and systems that will work tomorrow rather than an innovative technology that might or might not work in 10 years' time. In short, Europe is late. I fear that this could cost the continent in terms of innovation and the new startups that might be the saviors of the day after tomorrow. There is great innovation taking place in Europe, especially in the space domain. It would be a disaster to see it go to waste. And so, as the EU gears up for its new emergency investments in defense, it is most likely that the money spent will go on securing the basics. This is one of the biggest risks of the current European policies. The defense giants are the ones that will benefit, but they will only provide an immediate solution. Hence, Europe is reacting but it risks stifling the champions of tomorrow, which the US and China are developing. I am not giving investment advice, but it is surely much safer to invest in listed defense and space companies, which already have a track record and inroads to government contracts, than in an early-stage startup that still has to build up its model and develop its hardware or software. Europe is late. I fear this could be costly in terms of the startups that might be the saviors of the day after tomorrow. Khaled Abou Zahr European nations are significantly ramping up their investments in the defense and space sectors. The goal is clear: to strengthen their military capabilities and reduce their reliance on external allies. One of the key initiatives is the 'ReArm Europe' plan, which was proposed last week by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. This plan seeks to distribute up to €800 billion ($869 billion) to fortify Europe's defense infrastructure. ReArm Europe includes measures like offering fiscal flexibility by suspending EU budget rules to allow member states to increase defense spending and potentially unlock €650 billion over the next four years. Another notable aspect of this initiative is the provision of €150 billion in loans for joint defense projects, which will cover areas like air and missile defense systems. Additionally, the plan includes repurposing existing EU funds and introducing mechanisms to attract private investments into defense projects. The European Investment Bank is also expected to play a pivotal role in supporting European defense firms. This comes on top of the European Peace Facility, which has distributed funds to help Ukraine. Initially, the facility provided €500 million, but this was later increased to €2 billion, with further commitments to supply ammunition and military equipment. The EU also set up a defense loan program, directing €150 billion toward member countries and mandating the purchase of military equipment from European producers. This initiative should fund advanced air defense systems, drones, air transport and cybersecurity projects. This is being matched by national-level investments by leading European countries. As an example of the legacy focus, in Germany, Rheinmetall, the country's largest weapons manufacturer, this week reported record profits and increased orders. This is expected to continue as Germany's defense strategy evolves to push for more military spending. And as an example of the return to basics, France is advancing its artillery capabilities with the development of the CAESAR Mark II 6x6 self-propelled howitzer. In February 2022, Nexter secured a €600 million contract from the French defense procurement agency for this project. An additional €350 million contract was awarded in December 2023, bringing the total to €950 million. This hasty shift in military spending should not come at the expense of investments in new technologies. Khaled Abou Zahr In the space sector, Leonardo, an Italian aerospace and defense group, plans to deploy 40 satellites by 2028. Of these, 18 will be military satellites funded by the Italian Ministry of Defense and 20 will be civilian satellites financed by Leonardo itself. Poland, a strategic country, as history has proven, has significantly increased its defense spending, allocating 4.7 percent of its gross domestic product to military expenditure in 2025, far surpassing NATO's 2 percent target. The country has also launched the 'East Shield' initiative, a $2.55 billion program to fortify its eastern borders with Belarus and Kaliningrad through advanced surveillance systems and physical barriers. Similarly, Sweden increased its military budget to 2.2 percent of GDP in 2024 and the Netherlands announced an extra €2.4 billion in funding for its armed forces, ensuring it meets the NATO target. This hasty shift in military spending, which has its origin in bad politics, should not come at the expense of investments in new technologies or make the tech sector a mere box-ticking exercise that so-called tourist investors hype up. It must be driven by genuine value creation, with a long-term strategic goal of reestablishing deterrence and preventing uncontrolled escalation.
