EU launches talks with GCC countries for bilateral strategic agreements
The proposed SPAs are designed to establish modern, ambitious, and comprehensive frameworks for cooperation, tailored to the EU's shared priorities with each GCC partner.
The move follows the 2022 Joint Communication on a Strategic Partnership with the Gulf and builds on momentum from the October 2024 EU–GCC Summit in Brussels.
The agreements are set to cover a broad range of sectors, including foreign policy, security, justice, trade and investment, climate and energy, digital transformation, education, culture, and enhanced people-to-people engagement.
Brussels described the SPAs as a strategic shift in EU-Gulf relations, positioning them to address mutual challenges and unlock shared opportunities across the rapidly evolving Middle East region.
Negotiations are expected to begin soon, with the order and pace determined by each GCC country's level of interest.
The EU emphasized that these new SPAs will complement existing regional and bilateral cooperation frameworks, including Free Trade Agreement talks already underway.
© Copyright 2022 The Saudi Gazette. All Rights Reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
26 minutes ago
- The National
After months of deadly blockade, Israeli voices demanding that aid enters Gaza grow louder
Israel's decision to implement daily 'humanitarian pauses' in Gaza has triggered a familiar and unsettling cycle in Israeli public discourse. Each time the military allows even a modest respite for the besieged strip, fierce domestic backlash follows. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir described the decision as a 'spit in the face of our soldiers' and a 'surrender to Hamas's deceitful campaign'. Eylon Levy, a social media personality and former spokesman in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote on X: 'Let's be clear what just happened here. International pressure on Israel encouraged Hamas to reject a ceasefire and get a 'humanitarian pause' instead – without giving up a single hostage.' Regardless, the plan appears to be in place and Israel's military said on Sunday that the pauses will be in effect daily in Al Mawasi, Deir Al Balah, and Gaza city, from 10am (0700 GMT) to 8pm (1700 GMT) until further notice. UN agencies, including UNRWA, are expected to monitor food distribution. In the lead-up to the announcement, many in Israel deflected blame for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, pointing fingers at the UN or Hamas. This persistent refusal to acknowledge the depth of suffering in Gaza has drawn criticism, even from former supporters of Israel abroad. Meanwhile, some critics within the country have begun labelling the siege itself as a military failure. For the first time, however, a mainstream Israeli news channel broke rank. After many months of not showing the suffering of Gazan civilians, Channel 12 this week aired a report that showed crowds of desperate people scrambling for food at aid distribution sites. A Hebrew-speaking contributor spoke about calling Gazans who told him of 'nothing going into their mouths for entire days'. Israeli commentator Shaiel Ben-Ephraim said he could not 'even begin to explain how big' the report was. 'For years, Channel 12 and mainstream Israeli news would cover Palestinian suffering occasionally. Then after October 7, they just stopped. No one wanted to see it. That played a massive role in the dehumanisation of Palestinians and facilitation of genocide,' he wrote in a post on X. In the days since, a growing number of Israelis, many of them staunch defenders and not from its activist left wing, made similar arguments. Commentator Haviv Rettig Gur, who had rejected international warnings of catastrophic hunger in Gaza, acknowledged on a recent podcast: 'We are very close to real, actual, desperate hunger in Gaza … It's hard to convince Israelis of that because literally everything said to them for 22 months on this topic has been a fiction … We need to wake them up.' Fears about Gaza's humanitarian situation entering mainstream Israeli discourse is a major development for a country in which 64.5 per cent of the public has so far been 'not concerned' about it, according to a poll by a major think tank in May. In the same month, another poll found that 82 per cent of respondents supported the expulsion of Palestinians from the strip. It remains to be seen whether this willingness to acknowledge Palestinian civilian suffering will last. Polling shows that Israelis have been against the war for some time, but the vast majority of the opposition is based on concern for hostages in the strip, the safety of soldiers and anger that Mr Netanyahu is continuing the campaign for his political survival. How Israeli society and politics react to the daily 'pauses' ahead will give important signs.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Powerful Iran-backed militia clashes with Iraqi troops in Baghdad over government appointment
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al Sudani has ordered an investigation, after clashes erupted in Baghdad on Sunday between Iraqi security troops and a powerful Iran-backed Shiite militia after the group stormed a government office to reinstate a dismissed official by force, security authorities said. The militants entered the building of an office linked to the Ministry of Agriculture where the new director was holding a meeting with employees 'causing panic among the employees, who immediately called for security assistance', the Interior Ministry said. When units of the Federal Police and Emergency Response Teams arrived they 'came under direct fire from the gunmen', it said. A number of security troops were injured and at least 14 militants arrested, it said. The Joint Operation Command identified the arrested militants as affiliated to Brigades 45 and 46 in the Popular Mobilisation Forces, an umbrella group of paramilitaries of influential Tehran-backed Shiite militias. When ISIS swept through large parts in northern and western Iraq, US-trained security troops collapsed in a humiliating defeat. To face the advancing extremist militants, thousands of Shiite volunteers answered the call to arms by Iraq's influential Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani. At the time, the government of former prime minister Nouri Al Maliki had already formed the PMF to organise and supervise the volunteers as parallel forces. Shortly after its formation, several powerful Iran-backed Shiite militias joined the PMF. By then, some of them were fighting alongside Bashar Al Assad's forces in Syria 's civil war. During the fight against ISIS, some of these militias were accused of human rights breaches against civilians in Sunni areas. The Iraqi government and PMF acknowledged these breaches as 'individual acts'. The US has blacklisted several PMF leaders in a bid to increase pressure on Iran's proxies in Iraq, sanctioning senior figures between 2019 and 2021 under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. Since declaring ISIS defeated in late 2017, the PMF and mainly Tehran-aligned militias have emerged as a powerful force in Iraq and grown more defiant towards the government and opposition groups.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Why the world is treating the new Syria differently from the new Lebanon, and what Beirut can learn from that
The US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are pressing ahead to encourage Syria to become a model for much of the Middle East. That involves co-existence with Israel, the containment of extremist movements and engagement with minorities, all within the framework of the state. The issue of the state's monopoly on the possession of arms remains a major hurdle. Some of Syria's minority groups insist on retaining their weapons until it becomes clear how the new government will handle their rights and to what extent it will rein in extremist militants. There is also the issue of federalism and decentralisation, which the state opposes. But despite the massacres and atrocities committed in Sweida and on the coast, those investing in President Ahmed Al Shara's project and the new Syrian model are forging ahead. When it comes to the future of Lebanon, however, western countries – namely the 'European three' (E3, which comprises the UK, France and Germany) and the US – are wavering on several fronts. In dealing with Lebanon itself, the E3 has chosen to take a backseat to US diplomacy, led by Ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Lebanon and Syria Thomas Barrack. But Iran is a hugely important part of what happens in Lebanon, and the E3 limited recent discussions with representatives from Tehran solely to nuclear issues. Iran's nuclear programme must be addressed, but that should not prevent Europe from raising other concerns, like Tehran's proxy network. Succumbing to Iran's traditional insistence that neither the US nor Europe discuss its regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, is a strategic error. It fails to prevent Iran's ongoing erosion of Lebanese sovereignty its use of Lebanon as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the West. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms instead of handing them over to the Lebanese state. This is dangerous, especially given how confused and contradictory US positions have become towards both Iran and Lebanon. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms Mr Barrack's three visits to Lebanon have drawn criticism because at times he wielded the stick and at others, he expressed understanding of the 'complexity' of disarming Hezbollah. One moment, he described Hezbollah as a political party and the next a terrorist organisation. He appears to have emerged from meetings with Lebanese officials more influenced by their appeasement tactics than persuasive in moving them towards sovereign decision-making. The contradictions in the American position in Lebanon may be intentional, as part of a strategy to alarm Lebanese officials and the public, or unintentional, the result of Mr Barrack's frequent gaffes, only to be followed by retractions. Mr Barrack says he understands the 'difficulties', and that 'everyone is doing their part and trying to settle things in Lebanon, but the situation is complex, both for Lebanese leaders and for all of us'. Such statements devalue American prestige and seriousness. They are not so much the words of a serious emissary carrying US President Donald Trump's demand that Lebanon's leaders enforce a monopoly on arms as they are those of a local-style politician who 'understands' the difficulties but cannot guarantee how Israel might react to Hezbollah's outright refusal to disarm. Nor has Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's envoy to the Iran negotiations, insisted that Iran cease using its grip over Lebanon through Hezbollah as a negotiation card with Washington. All of this will cost Lebanon dearly when Israel inevitably destroys its infrastructure in response to Hezbollah's rebuilding of its military capabilities, including Iranian missiles on Lebanese soil. The Trump administration does not want Israel to open multiple fronts. But it also cannot restrain Israel in Lebanon if Israel deems Hezbollah's refusal to disarm a security threat. Yet in Syria, Mr Trump wants Israel to act with restraint. Iran has lost its staging ground there, a devastating blow to its regional axis. And while Washington recognises the persistence of extremism and the survival of ISIS, it believes that containment of these factions is possible through co-optation, offering them a slice of the cake instead of a bloody conflict. In return, Israel gains a buffer zone and security guarantees along its border with Syria. The message to Israel is that even if ISIS remains dominant in some areas, security arrangements can contain its threat as long as it remains within isolated pockets that pose no danger to the Syrian state structure. In other words, Syria will not be a threat to Israel. Gulf states have quickly moved to encourage Syria's re-integration into the Arab fold. Despite all the challenges, the Gulf is a key partner in backing Mr Al Shara and rebuilding Syria. This was reflected last week in the Saudi-Syrian Investment Forum, a watershed moment that signalled a long-term strategic partnership between Riyadh and Damascus. Forty-seven agreements and memoranda of understanding were signed, worth about $6.4 billion. They included the construction of a medical city as well as deals in agriculture, industry, transport, gas, water, electricity, infrastructure and real estate development. Syria is being placed on a new track, and should indeed be congratulated for this strategic leap towards realism that embraces investment as the basis of policy. One hopes Lebanon's leaders take a lesson from their new counterparts in Damascus and abandon their arrogance towards eager assistance from fellow Arab states, hiding behind the excuse of being unable to rein in Hezbollah. They ought to demand the US, Europe and the Arab world also pressure Iran and not just offer security guarantees via Israel, because the two issues are inseparable. One hopes they also cease dodging political accountability under the guise of protecting Lebanon's safety. Perhaps Arab states will consider taking a calculated risk in supporting Lebanon, as they did in Syria. Both countries suffer from instability. Just as Hezbollah and Israel are playing havoc with Lebanon, extremist fundamentalism continues to trouble Syria. May the international partnership playing a constructive role in Syria inspire those involved to think outside the box in order to rescue Lebanon from regional war and ruin. Lebanon, too, deserves to be rebuilt and invested in to defy those who want it destroyed.
