Monday, 3 January 2022

POLITICO

POLITICO

Germany downplays coalition anger over ‘dangerous’ EU nuclear push

Posted: 03 Jan 2022 09:24 AM PST

Germany “explicitly rejects” Brussels’ plan to label nuclear energy as sustainable, the government said Monday, in a bid to project a unified stance and downplay growing discontent within the coalition over the controversial EU proposal.

Berlin considers nuclear energy to be “dangerous” and therefore can’t support the European Commission’s plan to include nuclear in its list of sustainable investments, Steffen Hebestreit, a spokesperson for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told journalists, backing the Greens’ stance on the issue.

The statement follows sharp criticism of the Commission’s initiative from two high-profile Green ministers — Economy and Climate Protection Minister Robert Habeck and Environment Minister Steffi Lemke — who said on Saturday Berlin could not approve the plan.

The controversial Commission proposal — which would potentially channel billions of euros into the construction of new plants across the bloc — is a red rag for the German Greens, who have advocated for an exit from nuclear for decades. The country is currently on track to phase out its nuclear power by the end of this year and shut down three nuclear reactors last week.

The issue is a first stress test for the newly formed government, with Green politicians saying they fear they’ll lose credibility and be punished in upcoming federal state elections if Berlin fails to decisively come out against a green label for nuclear energy.

It also comes at an awkward time for the new government, which had to admit last week that Germany will “probably” miss its climate targets in 2022 and 2023. That’s fueled skepticism from other EU countries that Germany’s decision to slash emissions without relying on nuclear energy is a sound approach, particularly from France, which relies heavily on nuclear.

Tensions were on the rise over the weekend, with some Greens and environmental activists arguing that Scholz had betrayed their interests by striking a deal with French President Emmanuel Macron to allow a green label nuclear in return for the same for gas, on which Germany is heavily reliant as it exits nuclear and coal. On Twitter, the hashtag #OlafSchummelt (“Olaf cheats”) made the rounds and was also used by Green politicians.

Scholz’s spokesperson on Monday downplayed any coalition tensions on the issue, saying parties were on the same page in their opposition to nuclear energy while welcoming the inclusion of gas in the list of sustainable investments.

“We consider nuclear technology to be dangerous. We consider the waste disposal problem to be still unresolved,” Hebestreit told a Berlin press conference. “We explicitly reject the [Commission’s] assessment on nuclear power.”

“The government also agrees that, for the time being, we need natural gas as a bridging technology,” he added, because “Germany will need significantly more electricity in the foreseeable future” that can’t yet come entirely from renewable energies like solar panels or wind turbines.

German Justice Minister Marco Buschmann, from the liberal Free Democrats, also backed the Greens’ anti-nuclear stance, vowing to “do everything we can as the Federal Republic to exert our influence” at EU level to stop the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy list.

Despite the opposition to nuclear’s inclusion in the taxonomy, it looks highly unlikely that Germany and other nuclear-critical countries — including Austria, Luxembourg and Spain — could block the Commission proposal. According to Hebestreit, discussions at last month’s European Council showed that those countries were in the minority.

EU countries and the European Parliament have until the end of next week to give feedback on the draft taxonomy. The Commission is expected to submit its final decision for approval later this month. It would take the objection of at least 20 countries, representing 65 percent of the EU population, or a majority in the European Parliament to block the Commission proposal — an unlikely scenario.

According to Hebestreit, Germany won’t resort to legal action either, an option raised by Austria's Environment Minister Leonore Gewessler over the weekend.

"As far as I know, a lawsuit could not be directed against the content of such a regulation, but only against the legal basis — in other words, does the European Commission have the right to regulate something like this or not?” Hebestreit said, adding that the Commission “seems to be on safe ground legally."

Asked whether this meant Germany was not considering to join such a lawsuit at this stage, he replied: “Correct.”

Want more analysis from POLITICO? POLITICO Pro is our premium intelligence service for professionals. From financial services to trade, technology, cybersecurity and more, Pro delivers real time intelligence, deep insight and breaking scoops you need to keep one step ahead. Email pro@politico.eu to request a complimentary trial.

Thousands of websites taken offline in Brexit domain name change

Posted: 03 Jan 2022 08:55 AM PST

Around 48,000 internet domain names belonging to U.K. citizens and organizations — including pro-Brexit site Leave.eu — have been indefinitely taken offline from Monday, following the revocation of their .eu domain names by the agency in charge of registrations.

The move marks the final step in an ongoing process since the U.K. withdrew from the EU on January 31, 2020.

U.K.-based owners of .eu domains were told that they needed to prove eligibility for an EU domain; otherwise, they would risk suspension, meaning their domains would be unable to support website-hosting or email functionality.

To register a .eu domain, individuals must be either citizens or residents of the bloc, and organizations should be established within the EU.

More than 80,000 websites had been hit with a “suspended” status, following the end of the Brexit transition period on December 31, 2020. By July of last year, those that failed to prove eligibility were placed into a “withdrawn” status until Monday, when their .eu domains were revoked indefinitely.

"Over the past 12 months our staff has been working tirelessly to support the holders of these domain names and follow up on the numerous requests to reinstate a domain name into the registered status as soon as the eligibility criteria were met," an EURid spokesman said on Monday.

Those in possession of European Union residency or citizenship will be able to immediately re-register the .eu domains revoked as of Monday.

A spokesperson from EURid, the EU's domain registry manager, said that the 48,000 domain names would "become available for general registration on a first come, first serve[d] basis" in batches throughout Monday.

Leave.eu could be back in EU hands

One case that caught the headlines last year was the domain Leave.eu — registered to the organization of the same name, which had been spearheaded by former Brexiteer MEP Nigel Farage and bankrolled by erstwhile UKIP funder Arron Banks.

Ahead of the Brexit withdrawal date, the organization migrated its registrant address to a location in Waterford, Ireland, in an attempt to prove eligibility for a .eu domain.

However, following an investigation by EURid, the domain was issued with a “withdrawn” status, because the domain holder failed to respond to data verification requests, EURid said on Monday.

As of Monday, the Leave.eu domain name will become available for re-registration by an EU citizen or resident.  

This article is part of POLITICO's premium Tech policy coverage: Pro Technology. Our expert journalism and suite of policy intelligence tools allow you to seamlessly search, track and understand the developments and stakeholders shaping EU Tech policy and driving decisions impacting your industry. Email pro@politico.eu with the code 'TECH' for a complimentary trial.

Iran nuclear talks resume, but time is running out to strike a deal

Posted: 03 Jan 2022 08:55 AM PST

VIENNA — The latest round of talks on the Iran nuclear deal kicked off Monday after a short pause, with pressure being put on Tehran to “add real urgency” to the negotiations or risk losing any chance of the deal being revived.

Some officials close to the talks said the window to negotiate a return to the 2015 deal could close by the end of January or the beginning of February, although others claimed that there is no fixed date.

Diplomats from the U.K., France and Germany noted last week that while they didn’t want to set "an artificial deadline for talks," there remained "weeks, not months" to restore the accord. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department said Iran needed to "add real urgency in Vienna."

The nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has been on life support ever since former U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned it in 2018. The deal between Iran and global powers put limits on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions. Iran insists its nuclear program is entirely for peaceful purposes and that it has no intention of building an atomic weapon.

That the U.S. and Iran are still not talking directly in Vienna is not making things any easier.

Instead, Enrique Mora, the senior European Union official who is coordinating the talks, is forced to carry potential compromise solutions back and forth between Robert Malley, the U.S. special envoy for Iran, and Ali Bagheri Kani, Iran's chief negotiator. Tehran says this is the price the U.S. must pay for pulling out of the agreement in 2018.

But Western diplomats said that they are still not entirely sure whether Iran is really interested in negotiating a return to the deal or is merely playing for time while advancing its nuclear program. Given the dwindling timeline, one senior Western diplomat said that as of this week "all issues will have to be negotiated in parallel."

Here is a look at the major sticking points and some of the potential solutions.

Nuclear material

The JCPOA ensured that it would take Iran approximately one year to acquire enough fissile material to make one nuclear device. Today, that period — which experts call “breakout time” — has been reduced to just a few weeks.

Talks on the nuclear file are highly technical, as steps have to be specified that will bring Iran's nuclear program back to where it was in 2015. On some issues, there are solutions in sight. On others, it's more complicated.

For example, one way of getting rid of Iran's excess nuclear material would be to ship it to Russia. This would take time but is feasible and has been done in the past.

What is far more difficult and still not agreed on is how to deal with Iran's many advanced centrifuges — machines that spin at great speed to enrich uranium.

Iran has been enriching uranium to 60 percent, which is close to weapons-grade. Under the JCPOA, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium to 3.67 percent with a limited number of its first-generation centrifuges at the underground Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant. However, Iran has installed hundreds of advanced centrifuges that are much more efficient and powerful at both of its main plants in Fordow and Natanz.

Some countries want Iran to destroy its advanced centrifuges, but Iran prefers to store them away, according to Western diplomats. One compromise could be to get rid of the infrastructure, such as cables and other electronic installations, that are needed to get advanced centrifuges up and running. Reinstalling this infrastructure would take many months and could help to extend the breakout time.

One key aspect in this discussion is the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog that will be tasked with verifying whether Iran complies with its nuclear commitments. IAEA inspectors pay regular visits to Iran's nuclear facilities although their access has been severely curbed by Tehran in recent months.

Iran will have to restore full access for inspectors for any deal to be approved. Iran will also have to provide the IAEA with access to the memory cards of cameras installed inside nuclear facilities. Tehran is currently withholding this information.

Sanctions and verification

While verification of the nuclear side of the deal is done by the IAEA, there is no corresponding entity looking at sanctions. Negotiators, therefore, have to agree on how this can be done. This is one stumbling block that will have to be solved quickly. Western diplomats said they are waiting for Iran to come up with proposals this week in Vienna.

One option would be for the U.S. Office of Foreign Asset Control to issue guidance on how to do business with Iran and to publish the repealing of relevant executive orders. Another tool could be the conclusion of contracts on oil exports or the opening of foreign bank accounts.

Since the U.S. unilaterally exited the deal, it is Washington that will probably have to take a "meaningful first step," as one senior Western diplomat put it, and lift some sanctions before Tehran will take measures to reduce its nuclear program.

Guarantees

Tehran has insisted publicly on many occasions that it wants Washington to provide a legal guarantee that the U.S. will not pull out of the deal again if it is restored.

"There must be a serious and sufficient guarantee that the U.S., which is not trustworthy, will not leave the JCPOA again," Iranian Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian said during a phone conversation with EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell in November.

But U.S. President Joe Biden will not be able to provide such a legal guarantee. Biden is already struggling with a deeply divided Congress, with even some Democrats skeptical of diplomacy with Iran.

But there could be other ways, such as allowing for the continuation of contracts for some time even after the theoretical reimposition of sanctions by a future U.S. administration.

The Biden administration could also provide a political pledge that it will stick to the agreement similar to Biden's pledge made on the margins of the G20 Summit in October. This would also be important for companies that want to do business with Iran as they need to have sufficient confidence about Washington's intentions.

Trump endorses Orbán in Hungarian election

Posted: 03 Jan 2022 07:12 AM PST

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has endorsed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in his bid for a fourth consecutive term in office.

Hungary’s leader “truly loves his country and wants safety for his people,” Trump said in a statement Monday.

“He has done a powerful and wonderful job in protecting Hungary, stopping illegal immigration, creating jobs, trade, and should be allowed to continue to do so in the upcoming Election,” the former U.S. president said.

Hungarian voters will go to the polls this spring to choose between Orbán’s ruling Fidesz party and a diverse six-party opposition alliance, which is backing conservative politician Péter Márki-Zay as its candidate for prime minister. POLITICO’s Poll of Polls shows the election rivals in a tight race.

Critics have accused the longtime prime minister — who endorsed Trump in the 2020 U.S. election — of undermining democratic norms and moving his party toward the far right.

The two politicians enjoyed a friendly relationship during Trump’s tenure in the White House, with the former U.S. leader noting in 2019 that Orbán is “probably like me” and “a little bit controversial, but that's OK.”

With Joe Biden now in office, relations between Washington and Budapest have soured, and Hungary was excluded from last month’s Summit for Democracy.

In his endorsement Monday, Trump said that Orbán is a “strong leader and respected by all.”

“He has my Complete support and Endorsement for reelection as Prime Minister!” he said.

Ukraine’s culture minister slams ‘Emily in Paris’ TV show over ‘insulting’ stereotype

Posted: 03 Jan 2022 05:48 AM PST

Ukraine’s culture minister has complained to Netflix about the portrayal of a character from Kyiv in the hit show “Emily in Paris.”

"We have a caricature image of a Ukrainian woman that is unacceptable. It is also insulting,” Oleksandr Tkachenko wrote in a Telegram post. “Is this how Ukrainians are seen abroad? They steal, want to get everything for free, be afraid of deportation? That should not be the case.”

The character in question is Petra, played by Daria Panchenko (who is from Ukraine), who fears deportation, shoplifts and — the horror! — is portrayed as having poor fashion sense.

“Emily in Paris” is about an ambitious marketing executive from Chicago who unexpectedly lands a job at a Paris firm that handles luxury brands.

This is not the first time the show has come under fire for its clichéd and stereotypical depictions. “The berets. Croissants … Quote a cliché about France and the French: you will find it in Emily in Paris,” wrote the website 20 Minutes when the show first appeared last year.

Increased threats, overburdened officers: US Capitol contends with preventing a January 6 repeat

Posted: 03 Jan 2022 04:30 AM PST

Could it happen again?

That's the question facing policymakers and law enforcement leaders who’ve spent the last year assessing the failures in their response to Jan. 6, 2021.

As they cope with the searing trauma in their own ranks, they've tried to patch flaws in Capitol security exposed by the attack — inspired by former President Donald Trump — that wounded more than 150 police officers and left four rioters dead. Another officer died of a stroke after responding to the riot, and several more died by suicide in the ensuing weeks.

But the political blight that contributed to the attack has only worsened, inside and outside the Capitol. So while leaders feel readier today than they did on Jan. 5, no one is rushing to declare the threat has passed.

"The last thing that I want to do is say, 'this could never happen again' and have it sound like a challenge to those people," said Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger, who took over the department in August after his predecessor’s ouster following the siege. "I'm not trying to be overconfident. We are much better prepared."

The story of that preparation is only partially written, though. Capitol Police officers remain overtaxed and exhausted, logging crushing amounts of overtime as they grapple with a depleted force. Threats against members of Congress are still spiking. A Sept. 18 rally to support certain insurrectionists drew an overwhelming police presence that dwarfed the smattering of demonstrators, raising questions about an overcorrection and quality of intelligence.

And with the atmosphere under the dome as personally corrosive as ever, it’s tough to say the Capitol has moved forward from Jan. 6. Many of those who fled from or responded to the violence are indelibly scarred.

"My concern about the Capitol Police is that we’re making them work too hard and too long," Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, the top Republican on the Senate committee that oversees Capitol security, told reporters recently. "And we need to figure out a way to shift some of those responsibilities … or to figure out a way to recruit more people."

Manger says 135 officers have retired or resigned since Jan. 6, and the force as a whole is "probably 400 officers down from where we should be."

The chair of the House select panel on Jan. 6, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), recently took stock of the challenges facing the Capitol during a police-led tour of sites breached by rioters.

"I am more confident, given what occurred on Jan. 6 of last year, that if something like that occurred this time, the likelihood of anything close [happening again] would be zero,” Thompson said in an interview. “The only question is whether or not we have put our intelligence gathering entities on a sharing path … It was the worst-kept secret in America that something was going to happen, and why our agencies did not pick it up in real-time and be better prepared is one of those weaknesses we have to make sure we fix.”

What has changed…

Manger can claim a number of notable improvements in preparation since he took charge.

Every Capitol Police officer now carries a department-issued phone that provides real-time emergency alerts. The phones address what became a crippling problem on Jan. 6: A flood of radio traffic that drowned out key messages and left officers feeling leaderless during the fighting.

The department's riot control unit, singled out as deficient on Jan. 6, now has more diverse "non-lethal" gear to help with crowd control. Its intelligence analysts now regularly share threat assessments with rank-and-file officers, after many of those officers lamented that their leaders never informed them of prior intelligence about the potential for violence at the Capitol.

Wes Schwark, an operational planning expert who organized Secret Service security during major events, is now on board. Congress gave the department a needed $100 million cash infusion over the summer.

With little fanfare, Congress also passed — and President Joe Biden signed — legislation giving the Capitol Police chief the unilateral authority to seek National Guard assistance, eliminating a hurdle that delayed a request for help on Jan. 6, 2021. Thompson pointed to this policy change and noted the new leadership not just at the U.S. Capitol Police but also in the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms, who are responsible for coordinating security for their respective sides of the Capitol.

Manger’s also working to beef up Capitol Police coordination with other law enforcement agencies. When intelligence pointed to violence at the Capitol during September’s protest in support of some alleged Jan. 6 rioters, he brought together 13 agencies, conducted tabletop exercises and "planned for the worst."

"The things that went wrong on Jan. 6, the failures within this organization," Manger said, "those have been fixed to a point where I don't believe that you'd have the same outcome."

However, the September protest proved minuscule. And some lawmakers skeptically eyed that day’s overwhelming law enforcement presence.

"I don’t believe we’re in any better security posture today than we were on Jan. 5," said Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, the top Republican on the House Administration Committee. “I think there’s still way too much politics involved in security decisions.”

Davis pointed to the mismatch between the security posture near the Capitol on Sept. 18 and the scale of the event that took place as a sign that the Capitol Police has more work to do on analyzing its intelligence.

…and what still needs attention

Manger expects the department will have investigated more than 9,000 potential threats against members of Congress since Jan. 6, a tenfold increase since 2016. He attributes the increase to a cauldron of animosity fueled by social media.

"We definitely need to add staffing to fulfill that responsibility," Manger said, lamenting "the dynamics of social media and, I think, the lack of civility that a lot of folks have. And just the toxic culture."

He’ll face questions during a Wednesday Senate hearing about other challenges, including whether the Capitol Police has done enough to implement the post-Jan. 6 recommendations of its inspector general.

"[T]he Department still has more work to achieve the goal of making the Capitol Complex safe and secure," independent watchdog Michael Bolton told senators recently.

Bolton issued monthly reports throughout 2021, identifying problems that hurt the Capitol Police’s response to the riot. In addition to insufficient deployment of non-lethal weaponry, a problem Manger has tackled, the inspector general found the department’s leaders lacking a cohesive emergency plan. Its intelligence division was threadbare and ill-prepared.

More fundamentally, Bolton wants the Capitol Police to function more like a protective agency — akin to the Secret Service — than a police department. Of the 104 recommendations delivered by his office, the Capitol Police has only fully implemented one-third so far, he told senators. (Manger says Bolton's tally doesn't include the fact that another 60 recommendations are substantially, if not fully, complete.)

The inspector general isn’t alone in evaluating the Capitol Police’s still-unfinished progress on incorporating the lessons from a brutal year. The Jan. 6 select committee, though its primary focus is on Trump and his network, is also eyeing recommendations to protect the Capitol campus.

An outside review ordered by House Democratic leaders, as well as a bipartisan Senate investigation, culminated in more sets of suggested reforms last year. One small but meaningful proposed shift became law last month — it allows a Capitol Police chief to request National Guard assistance without going through the department’s oft-criticized board structure.

From inside the Capitol?

While GOP lawmakers have lambasted a few Democrats for suggesting that Republicans gave rioters “reconnaissance” tours or other help, a claim for which no evidence has emerged, the Capitol Police has reckoned with misdeeds in its own ranks. Some officers were seen fist-bumping or taking selfies with people who breached the Capitol, and the department substantiated a handful of the three dozen-plus misconduct reports it investigated.

More significantly, 25-year Capitol Police officer Michael Riley was indicted for attempting to help a rioter erase evidence. That rioter rejected his advice and helped the FBI bring charges against Riley.

Bolton recommended that all officers obtain secret- or top secret-level security clearances, which involve extensive background checks. The inspector general said this would raise the caliber of recruits and guard against potential insider threats; department leaders resisted the move.

Manger told POLITICO that Bolton's goal may be worthy, but it's premature and not universally necessary as the department struggles to fill open positions.

"If we require every officer to have a security clearance, we're slowing down that process," Manger said, adding that the department conducts comprehensive vetting during hiring.

Possible insider threats, Manger said, aren’t considered “a huge problem."

Olivia Beavers contributed to this report.

Health experts: Vaccines alone aren’t enough against pandemic

Posted: 03 Jan 2022 03:21 AM PST

In order to deal with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, countries around the world need to pursue a public health strategy that goes beyond vaccines and includes other measures, said health experts Monday.

The scientists, who published their concerns in a letter in the British Medical Journal, said that the ability of the Delta and Omicron variants to side-step protection granted by vaccines meant that a public health strategy relying only on jabs was likely to fail.

Countries that have chosen to allow the virus to spread have had to deal with increased mortality and shortages of medical staff, as well as eventual lockdowns to deal with surges. In contrast, “Countries which suppressed transmission early saw reduced mortality and less economic damage,” they write.

The letter comes as the U.K. government seems to have decided to not impose any additional restrictions following the holiday break. The country has seen a record surge in coronavirus infections driven by the highly transmissible Omicron variant.

The group of scientists, which includes public health experts from leading universities in the U.K. and around the world, advocated a “vaccines-plus” approach: combining the use of jabs with other measures like masks, better ventilation in indoor spaces, and set criteria to ramp up and down restrictions, as well as financial support to allow for isolation for those who test positive for the virus.

The World Health Organization should also declare the coronavirus an airborne pathogen to eliminate confusion around the disease, and more efforts should be made to ensure a fair distribution of vaccines, the BMJ letter reads.

This article is part of POLITICO's premium policy service: Pro Health Care. From drug pricing, EMA, vaccines, pharma and more, our specialized journalists keep you on top of the topics driving the health care policy agenda. Email pro@politico.eu for a complimentary trial.

Biden reaffirms support for Ukraine in phone call with president

Posted: 02 Jan 2022 08:22 PM PST

President Joe Biden on Sunday spoke by phone with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, offering fresh support for Ukraine amid a high-stakes dispute with neighboring Russia.

"President Biden made clear that the United States and its allies and partners will respond decisively if Russia further invades Ukraine," according to a statement from White House press secretary Jen Psaki. "The leaders expressed support for diplomatic efforts."

Psaki's statement also said of Biden: "He reaffirmed the United States' commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Zelenskyy tweeted about his conversation with Biden. "The first international talk of the year with @POTUS proves the special nature of our relations," he said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has not been shy about suggesting that Russian military action might be needed to resolve ongoing differences with Ukraine.

Once referred to as Russia's bread basket for its agricultural output, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union until it was dissolved by President Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1991. As a sovereign nation, Ukraine was soon beset by economic difficulties and rampant corruption.

In 2014, Putin and Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine; that was followed by battles in Donbas, a region in southeastern Ukraine. Russian-backed forces now occupy part of that region.

Biden has responded to the current tensions by indicating that the United States would not accept a Russian invasion of Ukraine, threatening sanctions.

He spoke Thursday with Putin, who doesn't want Ukraine to be admitted to NATO, the alliance created in 1949 as a counterweight against the Soviet Union in Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has expanded into Eastern Europe, inviting former enemies to join.

Putin has said that Ukraine's entry into NATO would leave Russia unprotected from a direct attack from the West.

"They have pushed us to a line that we can't cross," Putin said in remarks in late December. "They have taken it to the point where we simply must tell them: 'Stop!'"

Turkey puts its migrant security system on display for Europe

Posted: 02 Jan 2022 07:02 PM PST

VAN, Turkey — A squad of fully armed Turkish officers is gathered outside an old abandoned house on a recent night in November. They've called in reporters to document what's about to happen — a raid on a "shock house" where it's believed Afghans are squatting after crossing into the country illegally. 

The neighbors are watching the scene unfold, peering out through windows, standing on balconies. The whole procedure appears familiar to them. 

With a crash, the operation begins. The officers break down the main entrance with a battering ram and stream into the building. Inside, dozens of Afghans — many of them children — are kneeling with their hands behind their heads in preemptive surrender. The smell of human waste and garbage is strong. 

The occupants are taken out to a bus. From there, they will be transferred to a nearby detention center 45 minutes outside Van, a city anchoring the province in eastern Turkey that butts up against the Iranian border. Turkish officials say this area is the front line of a migration crisis requiring a Herculean effort to manage. 

It's an effort they’re eager to put on display.

So on this day in November, the Turkish government has invited reporters to come and see the entire process. The day started hours before the raid, with Mehmet Emin Bilmez, governor of the Van province, hosting journalists near the border. 

Lean and bespectacled, Bilmez arrived accompanied by a small army for safety. He pointed out all the equipment Turkey had deployed in the area: drone killers, drone jammers, 103 watchtowers equipped with thermal cameras and radar systems to identify movement. Along the actual border, a concrete wall was going up in chunks — part of a barrier intended to cover the whole 295-kilometer border with Iran. 

Mehmet Emin Bilmez, governor of the Van province, hosts journalists near the border Turkish border | Nektaria Stamouli for POLITICO

The show and tell — letting journalists document migrant raids, detailing specifics about the exhaustive border security measures — is not just meant to raise awareness of Turkey's plight. Turkish officials want Europe to see what they're doing. 

"European officials visit Van from time to time and I tell them: Europe’s security problem doesn’t start with Greece and Bulgaria, it starts from here," Bilmez said. 

In their eyes, Turkey is protecting all of Europe from a repeat of the migrant surges that have fractured EU unity, fueled a rise in nationalism and sent leaders scrambling for ways to ensure fewer migrants land on their shores. In their eyes, Turkey is handling an issue Europe wants to be handled. Turkey will help, they say, but the country can't do it alone — nor should it. 

"The EU lives in the comfort zone," said Faruk Kaymakçı, who oversees EU affairs as Turkey's deputy foreign minister. "It doesn’t work like this. We have to intervene together and now."

Turkey does, indeed, host some 4 million asylum seekers, more than any other country in the world. And the vast majority of those people want to go to the EU. Recognizing this, the EU has in recent years funneled €6 billion to Turkey to support housing, health care and education for asylum seekers, and also for security projects. The 103 watchtowers, for example, were co-funded by the EU.

But many see ulterior motives at play. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is confronted with a number of acute challenges domestically — runaway inflation for even basic items like medicine and bread, a teetering economy — and foregrounding migration can be useful. It brings EU aid. It brings international attention. It gives Erdoğan an effective domestic political message.

Therefore, as winter sets in, Turkey is simultaneously conveying both migrant chaos and migrant competence, warning of a fresh migration wave about to crest, dammed up only by Turkey's expanding security apparatus.   

"The EU's fear of migration is a very good tool that Erdoğan uses to obtain various financial and political incentives from the EU to strengthen its border architecture in the East, where Turkey has its own national security issues, such as terrorism," said Karolína Augustová, a postdoctoral fellow at Aston University and Istanbul Policy Centre.

Erecting the system

Turkey has one of the world's largest migration-related detention systems. 

First, there's the formal network of 27 "pre-removal" centers that can collectively hold nearly 16,000 people awaiting deportation. Then there's an ad hoc network scattered along the border: detention sites, airport transit zones and police stations used as temporary lock-up facilities. 

The system has grown, in part, at the EU's behest. The bloc signed a deal with Turkey in 2016 to help expand the country's migrant detention capacity. The pact came about following a refugee spike in 2015, when over 1.3 million people applied for asylum in the EU — double the previous record. About half of those came from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

Today, Turkey hosts about 3.5 million Syrians and 300,000 Afghans, more than any other country. But after the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban in August, it's the possibility of more Afghans that has Turkish officials making public appeals for more security assistance.

Asylum doesn't exist in Turkey as it does in Europe, where anyone — at least in theory — has the right to apply. Turkey only recognizes people fleeing Europe as refugees. The country did make an exception in 2013 for Syrians, but that exception has not been extended to Afghans — apart from some specific cases — who are largely meant to be either resettled to another country (a difficult prospect) or deported.

That has fueled the cat-and-mouse game between Afghans and the Turkish security apparatus that officials are putting on display — the border walls, the surveillance drones, the raids, the document checks and arrests.

Within the country, recently arrived Afghans often hide in abandoned houses or a smuggler's residence, places known as "shock houses." Some find off-the-books work within the country. Others end up in detention facilities.

Shamsurahman Noorullah, 42, has experienced several parts of this cycle. He was one of the Afghans pulled from the shock house during the raid in Van, before being taken to the pre-removal center outside the city.

Speaking the day after the raid, Noorullah recounted the perilous journey that had brought him to this point. In Afghanistan, he worked for the government as a national security director, a job he said put him on the Taliban's black list after the takeover.

Refugees from Afghanistan are seen waiting to be processed by Turkish officials | Chris McGrath/Getty Images

So he fled the country with his wife and five children, aged between about a year and a half to 13 years old. They traveled 83 days to get to Turkey, walking for hours during the day and spending nights in different smugglers' houses.

"I just want to know if they plan to send us back," he said. "I just want a place to live safely and my children to study."

According to Rtdvan Caliskan, director of the pre-removal center, the last deportations of Afghans took place about 10 days before Kabul fell to the Taliban. Officially, however, there has been no policy change, meaning deportations could begin again at any moment. Caliskan said Iran is considered a safe country for Afghans, so they may be sent back there.

"Apart from Afghans," he added. "The rest are deported within a short period."

A scene within the system

The pre-removal center near Van is designed to hold 750 people, although that number can informally stretch up to 1,500. Detainees are allowed out into the facility's backyard one hour per day, with families given extra time.

Journalists are allowed inside, but they are barred from where the migrants live. Instead, they get shown around the common area where people spend their free time.

The scene is carefully set up. Two rooms serve as playgrounds, another as a barbershop. There's a room where students are painting and another where migrants are being taught Turkish in a classroom, even though they are soon to be deported.

Nearby, there's a library full of books in Turkish and English. One young Afghan boy appears halfway through Charles Dickens' classic "Great Expectations," a challenge for any non-native English speaker. But when approached, the boy doesn't appear to understand much English. 

It's a tour that conveys serene control, a contrast to the thunderous evening raid the night before and the army-protected security display at the border that morning. However, journalists are only allowed in this small corridor where everything is carefully set up. 

One element that's missing, though, is reliable data on how many Afghans are actually coming to the country, and if that figure is climbing following the Taliban takeover.

Turkish authorities both in Van and Ankara refuse to give any official figures. They insist the situation is under control — for now.

"We can’t give you numbers," says Caliskan.

The Turkish government does provide data on apprehensions of Afghans within the country. Those figures show a precipitous decline in recent years — from 201,000 in 2019 to 50,000 in 2020 and 28,000 in 2021.

Those who study and work on migration in Turkey are split on whether arrivals are significantly rising. Natalie Gruber, a spokesperson for the NGO Josoor, which supports migrants and monitors border violence at the EU’s external borders with Turkey, said there has been a "sharp increase in arrivals since the Taliban were expanding through Afghanistan, even before they took over Kabul."

Conversely, Augustová, the fellow at the Istanbul Policy Centre, argued: "There is no significant rise in numbers of Afghans trying to enter Turkey."

Treatment within the system

What does appear to be changing, however, is how migrants are being treated, and the dangers they face — both at the border and within the country.

In Van, the second-poorest of Turkey's 81 provinces, humans have become the most profitable commodity to smuggle, replacing the longtime standards: drugs, gasoline, sugar, tea.

"In other types of smuggling you have to pay in advance," said Bilmez, the province governor. "If you are caught for heroin smuggling, you lose the money you've spent, but in the case of human smuggling there is no loss." In 2021, he added, 1,400 of the Turks arrested for human trafficking were from his province, which has a population of just over 1 million.

The country's response to this has been more security. More concrete walls, more barbed wire, more weapons, more checkpoints.

The checkpoints start after leaving the city of Van, after passing several small stone houses. From there, the mountains rise up, climbing toward Turkey's border with Iran. Dotted along the mountainside are large, prefabricated, three-meter high wall chunks, ready to fill the gaps in the existing border wall. Eventually, Turkish authorities said, barbed wire will rim the top of the entire structure.

Gravestones of unidentified migrants who have died crossing the Turkish-Iran border | Ozan Kose/AFP via Getty Images

For the moment, the serpentine wall covers only a relatively small part of the land border that extends as far as the eye can see. Much of the mountainous area will be difficult to wall off. In those passages, nature already serves as a deterrent — wild animal attacks are common and some migrants freeze to death crossing the border. In a nearby cemetery, several of these casualties are buried, marked by nameless headstones.

"The wall itself does not really have any impact", said Josoor's Gruber. "Walls, in general, don’t have a particular impact. They just make crossings even more dangerous, but do not reduce the arrivals."

Migrants have also testified that guards on both sides of the border are openly hostile.

Josoor and the Istanbul Policy Centre are just two of several NGOs that have reported on a surge in the illegal practice known as "pushbacks," in which asylum seekers are aggressively turned away without being given a chance to apply for protection. 

"Many Afghan refugees whom I talked to also said that they had been physically attacked or witnessed killings of other refugees by the Iranian army," said the Istanbul Policy Centre's Augustová, who issued a report on pushbacks at Turkey's eastern border.

Once in the country, the cultural climate can be similarly stormy. There have been reports of Turks attacking migrants, calling them cowards and urging them to go back and fight for their countries. Anti-migrant riots broke out in August targeting Syrian houses, shops and cars in Ankara, Turkey's capital. Some in the Turkish opposition have jumped on this discontent, criticizing the government for its handling of migration and promising to evict more migrants.

Afghan and Syrian migrants, said a prominent member of Turkey's main opposition Republican People’s Party, are "Turkey’s No. 1 national survival problem." 

"The Afghan arrivals are the pretext to kick out all the migrants from the country," argued Josoor's Gruber.

Supporting the system

For Turkish officials like Faruk Kaymakçı, the deputy foreign minister, the arrivals are also a pretext to make renewed appeals to the EU, for sending messages through the media. That message: Turkey is bearing the brunt of migration for Europe. It's bearing the brunt for the NATO military alliance.

"The borders of Europe and NATO are the south and southeastern borders of Turkey," Kaymakçı said.

The situation has challenged Turkish society, he argued, just as it has elsewhere.

"There are reactions within the Turkish society," Kaymakçı said. "In some western countries, it goes up to the level of discrimination and Islamophobia. In Turkey, it is the fear by locals of losing their jobs."

If Europe wants to avoid the same fate, he argued, it must work with Turkey.

"We are not asking for money, but there are more than 4 million people and if you don’t help them, there is not much we can do to prevent them from going to the rest of Europe," Kaymakçı said. "Their final destination is not Turkey, but Northern and Western European countries."

To NGO workers and others working on migration, Kaymakçı is simply employing "migration diplomacy," as Augustová termed it. She pointed out that Turkey is also angling to retain a presence in post-Taliban Afghanistan.

"It wishes to show it can play a role as the 'middle negotiator' between the Taliban and the West and upgrade its importance for NATO, the EU and the U.S." Augustová said.

Expectedly, Kaymakçı rejects the characterization.

"We are not instrumentalizing migrants, we do not politicize it, but when we remind you of your obligations don’t call it instrumentalization," Kaymakçı said. "If we had instrumentalized it, we would not be the country hosting the largest migrant population."

Those truly stuck in the middle are the Afghans themselves — scared to stay in their home country, not welcome in Turkey, and without a clear path to Europe or elsewhere, despite western vows to help those fleeing the Taliban.

"It took us 83 days to come here, but I would still do it," said Noorullah. "There are lots of people that want to leave Afghanistan."

On Russia, NATO cannot fold

Posted: 02 Jan 2022 07:01 PM PST

Anders Fogh Rasmussen is former NATO secretary-general. 

When I met Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time as NATO secretary-general, he opened our meeting by telling me he wanted to disband NATO. 

If NATO allies engage with Russia's most recent proposals for a new security relationship in Europe, they will be directly helping him move a step closer to achieving his goal, giving Russia the whip hand over the security of Central and Eastern Europe. 

Under the new Russian proposals, NATO would have to seek consent from Moscow to deploy troops in Central and Eastern Europe, refrain from "any military activity" across Eastern Europe, the southern Caucuses and Central Asia, and halt any NATO drills near Russia. The agreement also demands a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be offered NATO membership, and a draft treaty with the United States would ban it from sending warships and aircrafts to "areas where they can strike targets on the territory of the other party," like the Baltics and the Black Sea. 

This is not a serious proposal from a man who wants peace. 

Russia has tried this exercise before. In November 2009, NATO rejected a European Security Treaty draft proposed by Russia, as the NATO-Russia relationship is already sufficiently covered and regulated in the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, the 1999 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Charter for European Security and the 2002 Rome Declaration — the latter of which took significant steps to accommodate Russia and encourage dialogue by establishing the NATO-Russia Council. 

Putin is skilled at creating crises only to later extinguish them, like a firefighter trying to douse his own arson attack, and by threatening to invade Ukraine, he has calculated that the U.S. and other Western powers might negotiate directly with the Kremlin — potentially over their Eastern European and Baltic allies — offering concessions and allowing him to maintain influence over former Soviet countries in exchange for peace. 

Putin plays a bad hand well — but his tactics will only work if we fold. And it's time for NATO to call Putin's bluff. 

Under no circumstances should the U.S. or NATO give commitments on future enlargement, real or de facto. Russia has already signed up to the 1999 OSCE Charter, which grants "the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve." 

This also means we should end Putin's de facto veto on Ukraine and Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations, achieved by fomenting low-level conflicts in these countries, the intensity of which he turns up and down to suit his agenda. 

We promised both Georgia and Ukraine seats at the NATO table in 2008, and it's time we set out an action plan to realize our promise. If necessary, we can do this with a proviso stating that NATO's Article 5 only covers the territory under the control of Kyiv and Tbilisi, but NATO cannot have an open-door policy on enlargement in which it continues to allow Putin to act as the doorman.  

Will Putin invade Ukraine? Only he really knows. But if he does, we must send meaningful military aid to Ukraine and launch economic sanctions that will cripple the Russian economy, including canceling the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. 

Ukrainians are a battle-hardened people willing to fight for the freedom that much of Europe has taken for granted, and we in the free world should be under no illusion that they fight for our freedom too. History tells us that aggressors tend not to stay in their own neighborhoods. 

NATO is an alliance of peace. It wants nothing but peaceful cooperation with Russia and has sought to include Moscow in discussions about the European security architecture. But that cooperation has been made difficult by Putin's behavior. 

Even when Russia tore up the rules-based international order in 2014, we still sought dialogue. Dialogue is important, but it must be on our terms, recognizing that we do not negotiate on the basis of threats and escalation. 

NATO cannot negotiate down the barrel of a gun. And if we back down now, that signal will be heard loud and clear by both the democracies that rely on us, and the autocrats who lament and fear our freedom. 
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

BREAKING: North Carolina automotive group acquires 7 Upstate dealerships

Breaking news from GSA Business Report Click here to view this message in a browser window. ...