Queen Elizabeth is dead, but her legacy will continue

Queen Elizabeth II, Britain’s longest-reigning monarch, died on Thursday at the age of 96. The Queen’s son, 73-year-old Prince Charles has succeeded her as King. Her death has garnered the condolences of world leaders, including President Joe Biden, who said that the Queen “defined an era” of “unmatched dignity” in Britain.

For many, particularly in the West, Queen’s 70-year reign was marked by stability and diplomacy. Under Elizabeth, the Royal Family has taken pains to distance itself from the country’s politics and the monarchy’s long colonial history.

But for millions of people who lived through and still suffer the consequences of the Royal Family’s colonialism and racism both abroad and at home, the Queen’s legacy will live on in the form of the violent and lasting rule that the Royal Family has overseen and still profits from.

Many defenders of the Royal Family argue that Queen Elizabeth should be shielded from such scrutiny because she distanced the family from this past and attempted to amends the past and present colonies through events like Commonwealth tours.

Critics rebut this argument, saying that the Royal Family still hasn’t confronted its past or paid reparations to the people who continue to suffer as a result of the British monarchy, decades on from direct colonial rule.

The Royal Family has also faced criticism for appearing to attempt to sweep its history under the rug, especially during the Queen’s platinum jubilee this year.

“By design as much as by the accident of her long life, her presence as head of state and head of the Commonwealth, an association of Britain and its former colonies, put a stolid traditionalist front over decades of violent upheaval,” wrote Harvard University history professor Maya Jasanoff for The New York Times.

“As such, the Queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged.”

For almost as long as the monarchy has existed, it has been a colonialist and imperialist power, colonizing and exploiting dozens upon dozens of countries and territories in particular in the global South, many of which share common consequences of poverty and continued oppression.

Over centuries, Britain has funneled trillions of dollars from its colonies to enrich itself, and it continues to profit from its racist past and present to this day. The monarchy was built on slavery, establishing a slave trade that saw the transport of millions of Africans and South and North Americans to other countries. The slave trade was so vast, in fact, that it wasn’t until 2015 that the country fully paid off its “debts” to slave owners from freeing slaves in the 19th century.

Elizabeth, whose rule began in 1952, did not, herself, enact these policies — and she did do her small part to step in when, for instance, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused to help end apartheid in South Africa.

But others, like those who directly suffered under British imperialism during her time on the throne, say that she has had a direct impact on modern decision making.

Some historians may say it’s unclear which of the British-imposed horrors that occurred under her rule — like those in places like Kenya and Ireland — were authorized by her.

Others argue that she bears responsibility that these atrocities happened to begin with. Similarly, this distance between the Crown and the country’s political decisions often does not hold for victims of Britain’s colonial rule that occurred under Elizabeth.

The symbolism of her rule does not escape those on the left, who argue that in modern days, the throne is a symbol of oppression, whiteness and vast wealth inequality in Britain — even if mainstream members of the left do not dare advocate for its abolishment.

Elizabeth was at least partially directly responsible for some of the inequalities that the country saw and perpetuated while she was on the throne.

In recent years, the Crown has resisted calls for reparations from countries like Barbados and Jamaica for their bloody and abominable exploitation in the British slave trade.

The Royal Family’s record of racism domestically over the past decades does not reflect well upon the Crown, either. These inequalities have been perpetuated within Buckingham Palace itself; royal advisers banned “coloured immigrants or foreigners” from working in the palace until at least the late 1960s, over a decade into Elizabeth’s reign.

The family’s deep-seated racism appears to persist today; in 2020, Duke and Duchess of Sussex Prince Harry and Meghan Markle outright left the Royal Family over racism within the family, despite protestations from family members like Prince William.

Courtesy: South Asia Journal

India attains status of fifth largest economy

India has overtaken the Britain in becoming the world's fifth largest economy, according to a report by Bloomberg. India pushed Britain to the sixth spot in the last three months of 2021, as the latter grapples with a shrinking economy and a change of leadership following Boris Johnson's resignation.

The calculations are in terms of US dollars and according to the GDP figures from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), India extended its lead in the first quarter.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman took to Twitter to say, "The IMF’s own forecasts show India overtaking Britain in $ terms on an annual basis this year, putting the Asian powerhouse behind just the US, China, Japan and Germany. A decade ago, India ranked 11th among the largest economies, while the UK was 5th."

Addressing the media, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Sambit Patra said that India is now ahead of the ones who ruled us.

"India has taken over Britain and become the fifth largest economy in the world. Once who ruled us are now behind us in the economy. However, Congress is unable to shed its colonial mindset," he said.

Union Health Minister Dr Mansukh Mandaviya took to Twitter to say that India is writing new pages of success.

"With the mantra of reform, perform and transform, New India is writing new pages of success and marching rapidly towards becoming an economic superpower," he said.

Business Tycoon Anand Mahindra also took to Twitter to laud the development.

"The law of Karma works. News that would have filled the hearts of every Indian that fought hard and sacrificed much for freedom. And a silent but strong reply to those who thought India would descend into chaos. A time for silent reflection, gratitude," he said.

Indian economy is estimated to grow more than 7% this year, as Indian stocks have seen a massive rise to the second position in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index this quarter, falling behind China at the first position.

Considering the dollar exchange rate on the last day of the relevant quarter, Indian economy in the quarter through March stood at US$854.7 billion while UK stood at US$816 billion. These calculations were made using historic exchange rates on the Bloomberg terminal and the IMF database.

Britain’s GDP grew by paltry 1% in cash terms in the second quarter and shrank 0.1% after adjusting for inflation.

Britain is currently facing the fastest inflation in 40 years along with rising risks of a recession that may last till 2024, says the Bank of England.

In this bleak economic backdrop, Britain is set to elect a new prime minister on Monday, September 05, 2022. Conservative party members will be choosing Boris Johnson's successor with Foreign Secretary Liz Truss expected to beat former Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak in the polls.

 

Britain: Felixstowe port workers’ strike set to begin on August 21

According to a Seatrade Maritime News, a planned strike by dockworkers at the Britain’s largest container port – Felixstowe – could disrupt US$800 million in trade. Some 1,900 members of the Unite Union are set to go strike from 21 to 28 August at the Port of Felixstowe after talks between employers and the union broke down a week ago.

Felixstowe, Northeast of London, is a key hub for imports as well as some exports from Britain, and accounts for nearly half the country’s container trade. The strikes will have a huge effect on supply chains and cause severe disruption to international maritime trade, according to the union, which is vowing a full shutdown of the port.

In late July 92% of union members voted for strike action over Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company offering a 5% pay increase to its workers.

With workers now set to walk out of the Britain’s largest port on 21 August, Russell Group has used its ALPS Marine analysis to calculate the value of goods that will be impacted by the strike action.

The total impact was put at US$800 million in trade, with clothing accounting for some US$82.8 million of that figure, and electronic components a further US$32.3 million. The figures are based on analysis of previous August trade flows at the Port of Felixstowe.

Suki Basi, Russell Group Managing Director said, "The disruption at Felixstowe spells more uncertainty for businesses, consumers and governments alike. Ports across the globe are facing congestion, due to a large backlog caused by the pandemic.

“As our analysis has shown, these strikes could increase the backlog and in doing so, create even more delays, and the effects of this will only be registered in the coming weeks and months."

Disruption has dogged the global supply chain since the onset of the Covid pandemic over two years ago and this year in Europe has been exacerbated by port worker strikes in major ports such as Hamburg.

Felixstowe not only handles large volumes of British imports but also exports with US$108 million moved to Rotterdam and US$138 million to Hamburg. Smaller ports in Britain are seen as potentially benefitting from the strike with volumes and services diverted to other terminals in the country

 

Three grain ships scheduled to leave Ukraine ports on Friday

Three ships carrying a total of 58,041 tons of corn have been authorized to leave Ukrainian ports on Friday as part of a deal to unblock grain exports.

The first vessel carrying Ukrainian grain allowed to leave port since the start of the war set sail from Odesa on Monday bound for Lebanon, under a safe passage deal brokered by Turkey and the United Nations.

The Joint Coordination Centre in Istanbul, which groups Russian, Ukrainian, Turkish and UN personnel, said two ships would leave from Chornomorsk and one from Odesa on Friday.

"The three outbound vessels are estimated to depart in the morning from their respective ports," it said.

From Chornomorsk, the Polarnet would leave for Karasu in Turkey with 12,000 metric tons of corn and the Rojen would take 13,041 tons of corn to Teesport in Britain. From Odesa, the Navistar would take 33,000 tons of corn to Ringaskiddy in Ireland.

The Turkish bulk carrier Osprey S, flying the flag of Liberia, was expected to arrive in Ukraine's Chornomorsk port on Friday, the regional administration of Odesa said. It would be the first ship to arrive at a Ukrainian port during the war.

As of Thursday afternoon, Osprey S was anchored in the Sea of Marmara, around 1 kilometer (0.62 mile) off Istanbul's Asian coast, along with other ships waiting to cross the Bosphorus in to the Black Sea, according to a Reuters journalist.

According to Western media, Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, sparking the biggest conflict in Europe since World War Two and causing a global energy and food crisis. Ukraine and Russia produce about one third of global wheat and Russia is Europe's main energy supplier.

 

United States not keen in reviving Iran nuclear deal

The chances of reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal are worse after indirect United States-Iranian talks in Doha that ended without progress, a senior US official told Reuters.

"The prospects for a deal after Doha are worse than they were before Doha and they will be getting worse by the day," said the official on condition of anonymity.

"You could describe Doha at best as treading water, at worst as moving backwards. But at this point treading water is for all practical purposes moving backwards," he added.

The official would not go into the details of the Doha talks, during which European Union officials shuttled between the two sides trying to revive the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement under which Iran had limited its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions.

Then US President Donald Trump reneged on the agreement in 2018 and restored harsh US sanctions on Iran, prompting Tehran to start violating its nuclear restrictions about a year later.

"Their vague demands, reopening of settled issues, and requests clearly unrelated to the JCPOA all suggests to us ... that the real discussion that has to take place is (not) between Iran and the US to resolve remaining differences. It is between Iran and Iran to resolve the fundamental question about whether they are interested in a mutual return to the JCPOA," the senior US official said.

"At this point, we are not sure if they (the Iranians) know what more they want. They didn’t come to Doha with many specifics," he added. "Most of what they raised they either knew - or should have known - was outside the scope of the JCPOA and thus completely unsellable to us and to the Europeans, or were issues that had been thoroughly debated and resolved in Vienna and that we were clearly not going to reopen."

Speaking at the UN Security Council, US, British and French diplomats all placed the onus on Iran for the failure to revive the agreement after more than a year of negotiations.

Iran, however, characterized the Doha talks as positive and blamed the United States for failing to provide guarantees that a new US administration would not again abandon the deal as Trump had done.

"Iran has demanded verifiable and objective guarantees from the US that JCPOA will not be torpedoed again, that the US will not violate its obligations again, and that sanctions will not be re-imposed under other pretexts or designations," Iran's UN Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi told the council.

The senior US official said Washington had made clear since the talks began in April 2021 that it could not give Iran legal guarantees that a future US administration would stick to the deal.

"We said there is no legal way we can bind a future administration, and so we looked for other ways to give some form of comfort to Iran and … we - along with all of the other P5+1 (nations) and the EU coordinator - thought that file had been closed," the senior US official added.

Iran struck the original deal with Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany, a group called the P5+1.

The senior US official disputed Tehran's argument that Washington was to blame for the lack of progress, saying the United States had responded positively to proposed EU changes to the draft text of an agreement reached during wider talks in March while Iran had failed to respond to those proposals.

If the deal is not revived, he said "the Iranian leadership would need to explain why it turned its back on the benefits of the deal for the sake of issues that wouldn't make a positive difference in the life of a single ordinary Iranian."

The US official did not detail those issues. Restoring the deal would allow Iran to legally export its oil - the life blood of its economy.

Iran likely to turn off all cameras beyond Safeguards agreement

Chief of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) announced on Thursday night that Iran has turned off a number of IAEA cameras which were monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities beyond the Safeguards agreement and plans to turn off the rest soon.

“We ended the activities of a number of these cameras and we will do the rest tonight and tomorrow,” Mohammad Eslami told the national TV.

The cameras that have been removed or are being removed were installed voluntarily. Their activity fell outside the scope of the Safeguards agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran embarked on removing such cameras in response to a resolution by the IAEA Board of Governors against Iran late on Wednesday.

The resolution, proposed by the United States and the European trio ‑ Germany, France and Britain ‑  was approved by the IAEA’s 35-nation board with 30 votes in favor, two against and three abstentions. Russia and China voted against the resolution and India, Libya and Pakistan abstained.

The resolution was drafted on the basis of a report by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi in which it was claimed Iran had refused to provide answers to traces of uranium enrichment found at three undeclared sites. This is while Iran had provided answers to the IAEA about these alleged sites, which finally led to the conclusion of the 2015 nuclear agreement, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Questions about the alleged nuclear sites, which were referred to as possible military dimensions (PMD), were answered and the issue closed.

“You closed all these allegations and charges within the PMD…. And now you have come and say you want to return to the JCPOA. Okay, return to the JCPOA but why do you reopen the closed package which form the essence of the JCPOA?” Eslami asked.

Prior to the debate on Iran’s nuclear program at the IAEA board, Grossi had visited Tel Aviv for talks with Israeli officials, a move which put in serious question Grossi’s neutrality and professionalism by the Agency under his leadership.

Eslami went on to say that the IAEA, based on its articles 2 and 3, is tasked to transfer nuclear technology to NPT signatories for civilian uses but the reality is that the IAEA is “a pawn of the Zionists”.

It is widely believed that these alleged nuclear sites have been raised by Israel through bogus documents.

“It is regretful that an international institution is exploited in such a way by a fake regime and puts its credibility in question,” the AEOI chief lamented.

Israel, which has been launching an intensive campaign against Iran’s nuclear program for about two decades, has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has about 90 nuclear weapons. It also played a key role in provoking the Trump administration to quit the JCPOA, which was the product of 12 years of negotiations.

The nuclear chief went on to say that all the commitments made by Iran under the JCPOA was beyond the Safeguards agreement and were chiefly intended to create confidence about Tehran’s nuclear activities.

“Why has the Islamic Republic accepted to limit itself and be under more intensive surveillance and control by the Agency for a rather long term? It was just because it wanted to get rid of these accusations and build trust,” he explained.

However, Eslami added, this good intention which was shown in the negotiations and the JCPOA is not being considered at all by the IAEA, including its Director Grossi.

There is no will by Grossi to become convinced of Iran’s answers and this shows that he is a hostage to Israelis and that he has adopted a political behavior toward Iran.

 

United States has 40 military sites in Germany

This morning I was dismayed to read the news that the United States is training Ukrainian troops in Germany. I immediately clicked WIKIPEDIA to find some details. The bigger surprise was the United States has 40 military installations in Germany. Over the years more than 220 installations have been closed, mostly following the end of the Cold War in the 1990s.

The rationale behind the large number of closures is that the strategic functions of the bases, designed to serve as forward posts in any war against the USSR, are no longer relevant since the end of the Cold War era.

WIKIPEDIA has a list of United States military locations in Germany, both closed and still existing. To preserve originality, place names follow US Forces nomenclature as far as is reasonable. As the amount of data grew, it became necessary to list each garrison on two separate pages: List of American Military Sites in Southern Germany, List of American Military Sites in Northern Germany.

The associations were subordinate to the following supreme commands:

The US armed forces were initially organized as USFET (United States Forces European Theater) from August 01, 1945 to February 28, 1946 in Berlin and Frankfurt am Main, IG Farben Building. 

On March 15, 1947 they were reassigned to EUCOM (European Command) in Frankfurt, 1948 moved from Frankfurt to Heidelberg, Campbell Barracks. On January 01, 1950 reorganized as USAREUR (United States Army Europe). USAREUR was subordinate to USEUCOM (United States European Command), since 1967 in Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Patch Barracks.

The US Air Force was reorganized on August 16, 1945 from USSAF (US Strategic Air Forces) to USAFE (US Air Forces, Europe) in Wiesbaden, Lindsey Air Station, while still part of the US Army. 

Subordination to EUCOM was lifted in 1950 and1972 Transfer to Ramstein Air Base. 

USAFE was subordinate to USEUCOM (United States European Command), since 1967 in Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Patch Barracks.

The US nuclear weapons on German soil formed the backbone of the North Atlantic Alliance. They were the crucial military element of the Cold War.

The ability to use the nuclear arsenal and the will to ultimately use these weapons, conveyed to the opponent in a credible manner, formed the core element in the global bipolar conflict.

The 59th Ordnance Brigade in Pirmasens was responsible for the nuclear operational capability of the USA. Nuclear custody according to the principle of the two keys was the responsibility of the United States Army Field Artillery Detachments (USAFAD) - in the Nike associations United States Army Artillery Detachments (USAAD), which were subordinate to the United States Army Artillery Groups (USAAG) at corps level.

The detachments were with all nuclear-capable NATO allies on German soil from 1958 (Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada (until 1984) and also France until 1966 stationed.

The "Regency Net" system with the control center in Pirmasens was set up from 1976 to 1982 as the command and control network. 

In an emergency, Regency Net would have served to transmit "Emergency Action Messages" from CINCEUR (also SACEUR in personal union) for the release of nuclear weapons for the national partners. 

For the Air Force there was a similar organization with Munitions Support Squadrons (MUNSS) and a Munitions Maintenance Group in Ramstein.

 

British Prime Minister visit to India

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's visit this week to India is seen as long overdue, having been cancelled twice before – first when he was invited as a chief guest for Republic Day celebrations due to a COVID-19 spike in the UK in early 2021 and then cancelled again as a result of the pandemic situation in India at that time last year.

Boris is expected to announce major investments in key industries in India and push for democracies to stick together in the face of threats from “autocratic states" during his two-day visit to India, starting April 21, 2022.

"The visit will begin from Ahmadabad on April 21, 2022 to meet with leading businesses and discuss the UK-India thriving commercial, trade and people links. This will be the first time a UK Prime Minister will visit Gujarat, India's fifth-largest state and the ancestral home of around half of the British-Indian population in the UK," Downing Street said in a statement.

1) In Gujarat, Johnson is expected to announce new science, health and technology projects, as well as major investments in key industries in the United Kingdom and India.

2) The focal point of Johnson’s India visit is expected to be the bilateral discussions and interactions with Indian business leaders.

3) A joint statement, being worked on by both sides, is likely to cover agreements across a variety of sectors, including defence, security and education.

4) The Russia-Ukraine conflict is likely to feature strongly during the meeting

5) Boris had spoken to Prime Minister Narendra Modi last month and agreed to build a strong relationship between the two countries on trade, security and business in the coming days.

 

Boris will seek to put his domestic problems behind him when he visits India, on a trip to strengthen links between the two countries which have not seen eye to eye over the response to the Ukraine crisis.

 Boris will head to India on Thursday with calls for his resignation ringing in his ears after he was fined for breaking his own COVID-19 lockdown rules by attending a birthday party for him in Downing Street in June 2020.

Parliament returns from its Easter vacation on Tuesday and Johnson has said he would "set the record straight" about gatherings in his office. He had previously told lawmakers there were no parties and guidance was always followed.

In details released on Saturday, Johnson's office said the British leader would use his trip to India to deepen relations, including in-depth talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the two nations' "strategic defence, diplomatic and economic partnership".

He will also push for progress in talks on a free trade deal, which Britain is hoping to strike as part of its post-Brexit strategy. His office said such a trade deal was predicted to boost Britain's total trade by up to US$36.5 billion annually by 2035.

But the visit will be overshadowed in part by disagreement over the Ukraine conflict. Western allies have called for India, which imports arms from Russia, to condemn Russian President Vladimir Putin in stronger terms, and US President Joe Biden earlier this week told Modi that buying more oil from Russia was not in India's interest.

British Trade Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan also said last month Britain was very disappointed with India's stance. However, Johnson's office made no direct reference to the conflict, although a source said it was expected Ukraine would be discussed "among other geopolitical issues".

Johnson said India, as a major economic power, was a highly valued strategic partner.

"As we face threats to our peace and prosperity from autocratic states, it is vital that democracies and friends stick together," he said in a statement.

Last May, the two countries announced a partnership involving more than 530 million pounds of Indian investment into Britain, and Downing Street said Johnson was expected to announce further major investment and new collaboration on cutting-edge science, health and technology.

 

United States responsible for bringing Vienna talks to a halt

The United States is solely responsible for the current state of the Vienna talks, said Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman on Monday. “Let us all not forget that the government which is in front of us today is not a government that adheres to its obligations,” Saeed Khatibzadeh told reporters in his weekly presser. 

The spokesman said the United States is trying to hold the remaining issues pertaining to the Vienna talk hostage to its internal affairs.

“Iran and Iranians cannot be patient forever. If the United States wants to reach an agreement, it must make a political decision as soon as possible,” he asserted.

When asked about European Union coordinator Enrique Mora's trip to Tehran, Khatibzadeh said, “During this trip, he carried some points of views and wanted to exchange opinions with us. We told Mora about our point of view. Our messages and demands were clear from the beginning. Mora's trip was to get us all out of this situation. Iran tried to use another way to resolve the remaining issues. So far, Iran has had the most initiatives.”

The spokesman continued by saying that Iran is waiting for the other side's response, but it has not received it yet.

On the pause in the talks, the diplomat said it was clear to Iran in the last two weeks that Joe Biden and the White House have not made their decision and have taken the whole agreement hostage to US partisan and internal affairs. 

“The Biden administration takes the same approach that has led to the failure of many international agreements, which is to make an international agreement subject to their own internal conflicts.

The JCPOA agreement and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 are the perfect examples, and it is in this context that the Biden government must make its political decision,” Khatibzadeh noted.

The spokesman said that the United States is responsible for bringing the talks to a halt. 

“The solution is in the White House,” he reiterated. 

The US must respond logically to Iran's reasonable demands, which are approved by the P4+1 members, so that we are ready to return to Vienna, Khatibzadeh noted. 

“An agreement is very much available if the United States understands that we will not cross our red lines or fall short of our demands,” the diplomat asserted.

Responding to a question about the remaining issues in the negotiations, the spokesman said, “It was not at all like we connected the West Asia region to the JCPOA." 

Iran's benefits from the JCPOA are in accordance with the text of the agreement, and UNSCR 2231 is the main mission of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the spokesman said. 

“Now, in the final steps, the United States is trying to prevent Iran from benefitting from the various aspects of the JCPOA. We are at a point where the Biden administration wants to follow the failed legacy of the Trump administration or act as a semi-responsible government. International actors see that the Biden government is following the same path of the previous government,” Khatibzadeh pointed out.

Responding to a question, the diplomat said that illegal and unilateral sanctions have become a common practice in the United States.

“The US believes that it is the police of the world and the domestic laws of this country are international laws. Bullying will not work,” the spokesman remarked. 

Khatibzadeh once again reiterated that Iran’s red lines are the interests of the people and the benefit of what was once discussed.

“The whole deal depends on Washington's political decision. This has been the situation for weeks now. It is a matter of individuals and entities that should be removed from the sanctions list according to the JCPOA, in addition to Iran's economic benefits from the deal. These are issues that are delaying Washington's political decision,” he stressed. 

The diplomat stated that the Biden government must show that it is the true representative of the American people.

“We have not yet received the final answer from Washington, and if Washington's answer is appropriate, we can go to Vienna as soon as possible with the points raised, not for new negotiations, but to finalize the agreement. The response and signal must come from Washington,” the spokesman concluded. 

Talks in Vienna over reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal have come to a standstill due to the Biden administration’s inability to make tough political decisions.

 

Britain fails in securing addition oil from Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson held talks about energy security with the de facto leaders of Gulf oil exporters Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, but failed in securing additional crude oil.

Johnson's trip to Abu Dhabi and Riyadh was aimed at securing oil supplies and raising pressure on President Vladimir Putin over Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which led to sweeping Western sanctions on Moscow and soaring world energy prices.

Johnson's office said that in his meeting with Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, he stressed the need to work together to stabilize global energy markets.

After his talks in Riyadh with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Johnson was asked whether the kingdom would increase oil production.

"I think you'd need to talk to the Saudis about that. But I think there was an understanding of the need to ensure stability in global oil markets and gas markets," he said.

So far Saudi Arabia and the UAE, whose close ties with Washington are under strain, have snubbed US pleas to ramp up oil production to tame the rise in crude prices that threatens global recession after the Russian offensive in Ukraine.

"The world must wean itself off Russian hydrocarbons and starve Putin's addiction to oil and gas," Johnson said before his meetings. "Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are key international partners in that effort."

The two Gulf states are among the few OPEC oil exporters with spare oil capacity to raise output and potentially offset supply losses from Russia. But they have tried to steer a neutral stance between Western allies and Moscow, their partner in an oil producers' grouping known as OPEC+.

The group has been raising output gradually each month by 400,000 barrels a day, resisting pressure to act more quickly.

The UAE remains committed to the OPEC+ deal, a source with knowledge of the matter told Reuters before the meeting.

It has deepened ties with Moscow and Beijing in the last few years and abstained last month in a US-drafted United Nations Security Council resolution to condemn the invasion of Ukraine, which Russia has described as a "special military operation".

Johnson "set out his deep concerns about the chaos unleashed by Russia’s unprovoked invasion, and stressed the importance of working together to improve stability in the global energy market", his office said after his talks in Abu Dhabi.

Johnson and the crown prince also agreed on the need to bolster security, defence and intelligence cooperation to counter threats including from Houthi forces that have fought a lengthy conflict in Yemen against Saudi and UAE forces.

Johnson is only the second major Western leader to visit Saudi Arabia since journalist Jamal Khashoggi's 2018 killing by Saudi government agents in Istanbul.

The CIA concluded that the prince approved an operation to capture or kill Khashoggi. He has denied any involvement in the killing.

The Prime Minister's trip also came just four days after Saudi Arabia executed 81 men, the largest number in a single day for decades, for offences ranging from joining militant groups to holding deviant beliefs.

Asked about criticism of Saudi Arabia's human rights record, Johnson said: "I've raised all those issues many, many times over the past ... and I'll raise them all again.

"But we have long, long standing relationships with this part of the world and we need to recognize the very important relationship that we have ... and not just in hydrocarbons."

Saudi press agency SPA said Johnson and Prince Mohammed discussed the conflict in Ukraine and international issues, adding that Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding to establish a strategic partnership.

 

NATO wants bloodshed in Ukraine to continue

It has become quite clear that NATO, particularly two of its key members, the United States and Britain, has no desire for a peaceful settlement to the crisis unfolding in Ukraine.

The conflict could easily have been avoided in the first place as far back as early January this year when Russia provided several proposals to NATO and Washington on how to de-escalate the tensions by offering security guarantees.

Moscow has been calling for Ukraine, its neighbor and former Soviet republic, to be a neutral country, neither pro-Russia nor a NATO member.

From the outside that sounds like a relatively reasonable and simple demand, considering the US promised Russia it would not take measures to offer former Soviet republics, Ukraine in particular, NATO membership, a move that effectively expands the US-led military forces eastward towards Russia’s border.

For decades critics have been warning against this move and against threatening Russia and the consequences that such measures can lead to.

The last US ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock, speaks extensively about this. He says there were definitely assurances provided to the Russians about NATO expansion. Assurances and promises that the US has broken, Washington has a culture of cheating.

But the US cheating and lies are not just limited to Russia-Ukraine. They date back to many wars and US invasions, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.

This crisis could have been so quickly resolved with just a treaty or a declaration of neutrality on the part of Ukraine. That would have allowed Kyiv to have warm ties with the West and the East.

Unfortunately, the US and other Western military complexes thrive on tension, it’s the only way they can persuade Congress and parliaments and convince lawmakers to vote in favor of legislation approving huge military spending.

Money that could be spent instead on rising healthcare problems, poverty, homelessness, damaged infrastructure, rising record inflation levels, and so many others issues in need of urgent attention back home.

NATO has proceeded to pump even more weapons to Ukraine, not giving a damn about the possibility of Ukrainians and Russians being killed. Critics say Ukraine is being used by imperialist powers to create a crisis with its eastern neighbor.

The colonial and imperialistic ideals of the US and its NATO military alliance also played a major role in rejecting Moscow’s proposals. Those proposals were rejected in the first few days of January and continue to be rejected today.

Washington not only placed the US weapons in Ukraine and on Russian borders threatening Moscow’s security, which is itself a violation of the UN charter.

Article-2, paragraph four of the United Nations Charter states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”

What can be more threatening than placing missiles and other weapons on another country’s border?

Even now, the US and NATO can very easily end the conflict by declaring they have no intention of including Ukraine in the Western military alliance and announce an end to NATO’s open-door policy, with which many of the newest members in Eastern Europe joined in violation of NATO owns membership rules on existing territorial disputes.

Does anyone imagine what the Pentagon’s reaction would be if Russia included Mexico or Canada as part of a defensive or military alliance, expanding Moscow’s military presence on the US borders?

Meanwhile, the US has shown no interest in peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv; despite both sides holding a second round of talks on the Belarusian border.

US State Department spokesperson Ned Price has dismissed the peace attempts saying "now we see Moscow suggesting that diplomacy take place at the barrel of a gun”.

Despite Washington's negative attitude, progress has been reported in the talks with Russia and Ukraine agreeing to the need for humanitarian corridors to help civilians escape the conflict.

The Kremlin says ‘substantial progress’ had been made in the negotiations, while the Ukrainian side pointed to an understanding on helping ordinary people.

Ukrainian Presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak noted that a temporary halt to fighting in select locations was also possible. "That is, not everywhere, but only in those places where the humanitarian corridors themselves will be located, it will be possible to cease fire for the duration of the evacuation," he said.

Ukraine and Russia have also seen eye-to-eye on the delivery of medical and food supplies to the regions where the heaviest fighting has been taking place.

Delegations from Kyiv and Moscow will meet again next week the Belarusian state news agency Belta cited Podolyak as saying.

The US and its Western allies responded by imposing more sanctions on Russia.

The United Nations has said one million people have now fled, seeking refuge in neighboring countries mostly in Poland and also Russia.

While Ukraine has essentially been left abandoned by Washington (much to the frustration of Kyiv), the US first lady Jill Biden did wear a Covid-19 mask in honor of Ukraine, which will no doubt help towards finding peace to the conflict.

Then comes the British and American officials and their mainstream media’s double standards on the unfortunate conflict in Ukraine.

US administration officials and their British government counterparts say that occupied people in Ukraine have the absolute right to take up arms against an (imaginary) occupier.

While the argument is legally and logically correct; why has it been used only now and only for Ukraine where Washington and London are shedding crocodile tears for the Ukrainians instead of making real attempts at ending the fighting instead of abandoning what NATO describes in public as its ally.

And why is the same not said about the Palestinians who have been resisting the Israeli occupation for decades? Palestinians are instead referred to as “terrorists” for resisting the Israeli regime's occupation of their land.

The reality is Russia is not occupying Ukrainian land and has stated it has no intention of doing so, in addition to the fact that the conflict has not lasted for more than 10 days.

On the other hand, for 100 years, the Palestinians have been subject to occupation and they are denied weapons as an occupied people to resist an occupier and those who try to send weapons to the Palestinian resistance fighting the occupation are punished.

Essentially the West has shot itself in the foot for making such statements of double standards. It’s one rule for Ukraine because NATO is involved here and another for Palestine.

And what about other people who are under occupation? Do the occupied people in Iraq have the absolute right to take up arms against the US occupation? An occupation that has been classified as such by Iraqi parliament legislation, the country’s Prime Minister, and a million man march in Baghdad.

Anti-US sentiment is so high in Iraq right now after Washington assassinated General Qassem Soleimani, who commanded the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, and Abu Mehdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of the anti-terror popular mobilization units and arguably the most respected and decorated military commander in Iraq.

Under the logic of the US administration and the British government, shouldn’t the Iraqis have the absolute right to take up arms against the occupiers; instead of being labeled as terrorists?

What about Syria, where American forces illegally occupy large parts of the country’s east and northeast. The US entered the country from Iraq without an invitation from the government in Damascus and without a UN mandate so the Syrians have the absolute right to resistance against the US forces.

And the same of course can be said for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon who have been liberating their land from Israeli occupation.

But this slip of the tongue will soon be totally forgotten about once NATO gets what it wants from the conflict in Ukraine.

 

Reactions from Middle East and North Africa (MENA) to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

I am obliged to share with my readers the official statements of countries, usually dancing to the mantra of the United States. This report has been compiled by James F. Jeffrey and Merissa Khurma of Wilson Centre.

On Thursday, February 24, Russia launched a series of missile attacks against locations near Ukrainian capital Kiev, an assault that quickly spread across the country by land, sea, and air. The enormity of the Russian attack, not just on Ukraine but on the long-term global security order, is increasingly clear among states in the Middle East region, and puts pressure on the ‘hedging’ between the US on one hand and Russia and China on the other, commonplace in recent years. 

Middle East countries, including the close military and diplomatic partners of United States, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel, initially hedged their bets between the two superpowers. However, the continued Russian aggression has pushed almost all into the Ukraine camp. Turkey has been particularly vocal from President Erdogan supporting Ukraine bilaterally and in NATO, and then taking the unprecedented step of restricting Russian naval transport of the of the Bosphorous Straits under the war clause of the Montreux Straits Convention, which Turkey controls. 

The regional shift was seen on March, 02, 2022 when 141 countries voted in favor of the UN General Assembly resolution to condemn Russian forces. From Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey voted ‘Yes’, Syria voted ‘No’, and Algeria, Iraq, and Iran abstained. Algeria has long been pro-Moscow and Iraq, given its internal situation, avoids taking sides. Syria's vote is not unexpected. Iran clearly seeing itself as a potential target of attack, abstained rather than supporting Russia, not so much for Ukraine but for the principle of non-interference in sovereign states. 

A region mostly united

Initially, most Arab governments maintained a neutral stance on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, unsurprisingly, given their reticence to pick a side that they believe may jeopardize their relations with the United States and the Europeans and their equally strategic relations with Russia. In a statement delivered by Saudi UN representative Mohammed Abdulaziz Alateek at the General Assembly, the GCC countries confirmed “the depth of relations” they have with both parties and called on “all parties to exercise restraint.”

Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia remains firm in standing with its OPEC plus agreement that is keeping oil prices high rather than pumping more crude oil to help the United States and the West, at America’s insistence. Whether the Kingdom maintains this position or contributes to bringing oil prices down in the weeks to come remains to be seen and depends on how far Putin goes in Ukraine. 

The notable exception to the neutral Arab stance was of course Syria, whose President Bashar Al Assad reiterated his support for Russia in his call to President Putin and called the Russian invasion in Ukraine a “correction of history.” A staunch ally of Russia, that kept him in power since the beginning of the Arab uprisings, the Syrian President will likely feel emboldened by a seemingly ‘stronger’ Russia, which also gives other regional powers, namely Iran, more opportunities to strengthen its influence in Syria and destabilize the neighborhood. 

Leaders across the region react

Egypt

On February 25 via Twitter, Egypt's Minister of Foreign Affairs (unofficial translation from Arabic to English), “The Arab Republic of Egypt is following with deep concern the successive developments regarding the situation in Ukraine, and affirms the importance of upholding dialogue and diplomatic solutions, as well as endeavors that would hasten the political settlement of the crisis in a manner that preserves international security and stability, and ensures that the situation does not escalate or deteriorate, and thus to avoid aggravating humanitarian and economic conditions, with their impacts on the region and worldwide.”

Iran

On February 22, Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh commented that the latest developments in Ukraine, noting, "interference and provocative measures by NATO and led by the US have made things more complicated in this region.” Via Twitter on February 24, Iran's Foreign Ministry tweeted, "The Ukraine crisis is rooted in NATO's provocations. We don't believe that resorting to war is a solution.

Israel

On February 27, Israeli PM Naftali Bennett spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin, offering Israel's support as a mediator in the crisis. On February 24 Israel's Foreign Minister Yair Lipid stated, "The Russian attack on Ukraine is a serious violation of the international order. Israel condemns the attack, and is ready and prepared to provide humanitarian assistance to the citizens of Ukraine. Israel is a country that has experienced wars, and war is not the way to resolve conflicts.”

Jordan

On February 24, Jordan said it is following with "concern" the current developments in Ukraine, and called on the international community and the parties to the conflict to exert maximum efforts for restraint and de-escalation. In a statement, the Kingdom's Ministry of Foreign Affairs called for a peaceful settlement of the conflict and the restoration of security and stability in the region through dialogue and negotiations in these "critical" times. The statement cited Jordan's ambassador to the United Nations Mahmoud Hmoud during a UN General Assembly session, held to discuss the "situation in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine", as saying that "Jordan underscores the positive and effective role of the UN and the stakeholders to reach that goal". The envoy stressed Jordan's call for respecting the international law, the UN Charter, the sovereignty and regional integrity of states and the principles of good neighborliness.

Lebanon

On February 24, Lebanon's Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants Abdullah Bou Habib condemned the invasion. 

Qatar

On February 25, Qatar's Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dr. Ahmed bin Hassan Al Hammadi met with Ambassador of Ukraine to Qatar Andrey Kosmenko to review bilateral cooperations. On February 24, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani held a phone call with Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov, followed by Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba. According to Qatar's State News Agency, Sheikh Al-Thani, "expressed the Qatar's concern over this escalation and its repercussions and urged all parties to exercise restraint and resolve the dispute through constructive dialogue and diplomatic methods."

Turkey

On February 25, President Tayyip Erdoğan responded to reporters that, "NATO should have taken a more decisive step." On February 24, Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released the statement, "We consider the military operation launched by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation against Ukraine unacceptable and reject it. This attack, beyond destroying the Minsk agreements, is a grave violation of international law and poses a serious threat to the security of our region and the world. Believing in the necessity to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of countries, Türkiye is against changing of borders by use of arms. We call on the Russian Federation to immediately stop this unjust and unlawful act. Our support for the political unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine will continue."

United Arab Emirates

On March 1, the UAE suspended visa-free travel for Ukrainians and abstained from the United Nations resolution condemning Russia for the invasion. On February 27 via Twitter, UAE senior politician Anwar Gargash affirmed the country will not declare sides in the war. On Wednesday, February 23 the Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed conducted a phone call with Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs to discuss their strategic partnership. 

 

 

United States to sanction Russian banks

President Joe Biden on Thursday said the United States would sanction major Russian banks and impose export controls on Russia to curtail Russian high-tech imports as part of a coordinated effort with allies to penalize the Kremlin for its military attack against Ukraine. 

However, the latest round of sanctions did not move to kick Russia out of the SWIFT international banking system, despite pleas from Ukraine and some members of Congress.

Biden condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin for ordering the attack against Ukraine and said that his actions would cost Russia dearly’.

“Putin is the aggressor. Putin chose this war, and now he and his country will bear the consequences,” Biden said. 

“Putin will be a pariah on the international stage,” Biden said later. 

Biden said the sanctions would target Russian banks holding a combined US$1 trillion in assets, including Russia’s two largest financial institutions, Sberbank and VTB Bank. He said the US would also impose sanctions on additional Russian elites with links to the Kremlin.

The Treasury Department said in a release that the administration would impose sanctions on VTB and Sberbank, cutting them off from processing payments through the US financial system.

The Biden administration is also imposing sanctions on three other Russian financial institutions: Otkritie, Novikom and Sovcom. 

The sanctions also target 10 Russian individuals, including those close to Putin and elites working in the financial sector, according to the Treasury Department. 

The export controls will restrict Russia’s ability to import sensitive US technology – like semiconductors, lasers, and sensors – and particularly target Russia’s defense, aviation, and maritime sectors, according to a White House fact sheet. Biden said that the restrictions, coupled with actions by European allies, would cut off more than half of Russia’s high-tech imports. 

 “It will be a major hit to Putin’s long-term strategic ambitions,” Biden said.

 “I will not be diplomatic on this. Everyone who now doubts whether Russia should be banned from SWIFT has to understand that the blood of innocent Ukrainian men, women and children will be on their hands too,” Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, tweeted in advance of Biden’s remarks.

Biden cited concerns among some European allies about taking that step but argued the penalties being put in place were severe enough to make a difference. He indicated that kicking Russia out of the system could be a possibility in the future. 

“The sanctions we imposed exceed SWIFT,” Biden said in response to a reporter’s question about excluding the penalty. “The sanctions we imposed exceed anything that’s ever been done. The sanctions we imposed have generated two-thirds of the world joining us. They are profound sanctions. Let’s have a conversation in another month or so to see if they’re working.”

Nor did the sanctions package target the Russian oil or natural gas industries, which are major drivers of the Russian economy. European countries are dependent on Russia for gas.

White House Deputy national Security Adviser Daleep Singh told reporters at a briefing later Thursday that the administration intentionally scoped the sanctions to deliver a severe impact on the Russian economy while minimizing impact on the US and European allies.  

He said the administration would not do anything that causes an unintended disruption in global energy markets, including the flow of gas from Russia to the world.  

The Biden administration also announced plans to impose sanctions on individuals and entities in Belarus, accusing the nation of supporting and facilitating Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Biden made the announcement of new sanctions as the Russian assault on Ukraine was very much underway.

On Putin’s orders, the Russian military attacked Ukraine from multiple directions overnight Wednesday. The Pentagon has warned that the assault is only the first part of a multistage invasion.

“It is likely that you will see this unfold in multiple phases. How many? How long? We don't know. But what we're seeing are initial phases of a large-scale invasion,” a senior defense official told reporters on Thursday, before Biden spoke to the nation.

“They’re making a move on Kyiv,” the official said. 

The Biden administration has been working for weeks to develop a comprehensive sanctions package in the event of a Russian invasion, threatening harsh penalties as a means of deterring Moscow from launching a renewed invasion of Ukraine. 

But the threats, coupled with US and European diplomatic overtures, did not convince Putin to deescalate the situation. 

Biden imposed a first tranche of sanctions after Putin recognized two regions in eastern Ukraine as independent earlier this week.

Biden said Thursday it would take time for Putin to feel the economic pain of the penalties and suggested that it could cause the Russian leader to change course on his military campaign.

“He’s going to begin to see the effect of the sanctions,” Biden said. “It will so weaken his country that he’ll have to make a very, very difficult choice as to whether to continue to move toward being a second-rate power or, in fact, respond."

Biden condemned the assault in a statement late Wednesday, but his comments Thursday were his first extended remarks on the events unfolding in Eastern Europe. 

The announcement of new sanctions mirrored penalties unveiled by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson roughly an hour before Biden’s address. 

The White House has been closely coordinating with allies on the response to Russia’s military buildup and subsequent invasion of Ukraine.

 “Our actions, taken in coordination with partners and allies, will degrade Russia’s ability to project power and threaten the peace and stability of Europe,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a statement Thursday afternoon.

“We are united in our efforts to hold Russia accountable for its further invasion of Ukraine while mitigating impacts to Americans and our partners.  If necessary, we are prepared to impose further costs on Russia in response to its egregious actions.”

 

Iran welcomes US sanctions move but terms these insufficient

The steps taken by the United States on lifting sanctions are ‘good but not enough’, Iran said following Washington’s announcement it was waiving sanctions on Iran’s civil nuclear program.

The US action came as talks to restore a 2015 deal between Tehran and world powers over its nuclear program reached an advanced stage, with the issue of sanctions relief a major issue.

“The lifting of some sanctions can, in the true sense of the word, translate into their goodwill. Americans talk about it, but it should be known that what happens on paper is good but not enough,” Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said, quoted by ISNA news agency.

The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council also reflected Tehran’s view that the US move falls short.

“Real, effective and verifiable economic benefit for Iran is a necessary condition for the formation of an agreement,” Ali Shamkhani said in a tweet.

“The show of lifting sanctions is not considered a constructive effort.”

The US State Department said on Friday it was waiving sanctions on Iran’s civil nuclear program in a technical step necessary to return to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.

Former US President, Donald Trump withdrew from the pact in 2018 and re-imposed crippling sanctions on Iran, prompting the Islamic Republic to begin pulling back from its commitments under the deal.

The waiver allows other countries and companies to participate in Iran’s civil nuclear program without triggering US sanctions on them, in the name of promoting safety and non-proliferation.

Iran’s civil program includes growing stockpiles of enriched uranium.

Amir-Abdollahian reiterated that one of the main issues in the JCPOA talks is obtaining guarantees that the US will not withdraw from the 2015 deal again.

“We seek and demand guarantees in the political, legal and economic sectors,” he said, adding “agreements have been reached in some areas”.

Iran is negotiating with Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia directly and with the US indirectly in the Vienna talks, which different parties say have reached a stage where the sides have to make important political decisions.

“Our negotiating team in the Vienna talks is seriously pursuing obtaining tangible guarantees from the West to fulfill their commitments,” said Amir-Abdollahian.

Foreign ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said, “Iran is carefully considering any action that is in the right direction of fulfilling the obligations of the JCPOA”, Iranian media reported.

The European parties to the talks urged Iran to seize the opportunity of the US waivers.

“This should facilitate technical discussions necessary to support talks on JCPOA return in Vienna,” negotiators of Britain, France and Germany said in a joint statement on Saturday.

“We urge Iran to take quick advantage of this opportunity, because the timing of the waiver underscores the view we share with the US, we have very little time left to bring JCPOA talks to a successful conclusion.”

Overcrowding of warships in South China Sea

Senior Chinese diplomats have called on the United States not to show off its power over the South China Sea and warned of the risk of a misfire in the disputed waters with increasing presence of naval vessels.

Speaking to a South China Sea forum in Sanya, on the Southern Chinese island province of Hainan, via video link, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi blamed an unspecified country for seeking to show off its power and maritime dominance.

“We must adhere to multilateralism and jointly maintain maritime order. The ocean is not a zero-sum game of competition, and no one should use the ocean as a tool to impose unilateral power,” Wang said.

“We oppose that certain countries, for the purpose of safeguarding maritime hegemony, flaunt their forces and form cliques at sea, and continue to infringe on the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of other countries.”

China and the US have been stepping up their military presence in the disputed waters, with increasing risks of an accidental clash. Concerns have escalated as the US has teamed up with its allies, including Britain and France, to send naval vessels to the South China Sea. Diplomatic observers have warned the consequences would be more serious if there was a clash between nuclear submarines.

Last month, the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group and the British carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth conducted a series of exercises in the South China Sea. It was the USS Carl Vinson’s ninth visit to the area this year.

The South China Sea is heavily contested between China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. The US is not a claimant, but accuses Beijing of stoking military tensions and restricting freedom of navigation there, and has said its presence is needed to provide security backup to its Asian allies.

“China calls on the United States to actively consider joining the convention and take concrete actions to participate in the defence of the international maritime rule of law,” he said.

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, former president of the Philippines, said the tensions and troubles in the South China Sea were posing “grave threats” to stability, and Southeast Asian nations were seriously concerned.

“Imagine what an exchange of fire between warships of the People’s Liberation Army and the US Seventh Fleet would do to stock, currency and commodity markets worldwide,” she asked the forum.

“The world hopes that such an unwelcome event remains pure imagination. But there are reasons to worry. For the first time in years, if not ever, aircraft carrier groups of China and America deployed in the South China Sea at the same time; so did French and British warships. Earlier this year, the presence of hundreds of Chinese vessels near Whitsun Reef led to Philippine diplomatic protests and the exchange of unfriendly words between Manila and Beijing.”

Arroyo said the South China Sea disputes had previously been managed by the expansion of economic and diplomatic ties among the nations involved, and with a balance of power.

“Now, the balance of power approach is increasingly being taken with the growing presence of American and allied forces in the South China Sea, which will get even more formidable with the Aukus, to which the PLA may feel the need to respond,” she said, referring to the deal struck with the US and Britain to help Australia acquire a nuclear submarine fleet.

A Pentagon report last week said China’s navy had expanded to 355 ships and submarines by 2020. It said the Chinese navy had placed a high priority on modernizing its submarine forces, operating six nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), six nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), and 46 diesel-powered attack submarines (SSs).

But Wu Jianghao, assistant Chinese foreign minister, said China had engaged in discussions with other South China Sea claimants on joint exploration of its resources and a code of conduct.

“We must oppose maritime hegemony, division and confrontation, and build the ocean into a territory where all parties expand cooperation, rather than a zero-sum arena,” he told the forum.

 

Aukus pact attracts mixed response from Asia

It’s been nearly a month since the United States, Britain and Australia stunned the world with their new Aukus pact that will deliver a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra. China reacted with rage, angered by what it saw as a clear move by the West to further encircle it. 

France, meanwhile, felt deeply betrayed by Australia’s eleventh hour decision to cancel a long-standing submarine deal with it in place of the new deal. Others have quietly applauded Aukus, and there are some governments that have maintained a stoic silence. 

It is necessary to critically review the diverse responses to one of the most significant security developments in recent decades. 

Asia’s varied reactions to the Aukus security pact between Australia, Britain and the United States offered a fresh indication of just how diverse the region is when it comes to their outlook on the future of the region’s balance of power.

Expectedly, reactions from Australia were particularly fulsome, given that Canberra is the biggest beneficiary of the pact. 

Under the deal, Australia will become only the second country after Britain to receive nuclear-powered submarine technology from the US. 

Prime Minister, Scott Morrison’s government plans to have a fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines operationally ready in the 2040s.

Among Australia’s foreign policy elite, the move — which resulted in the scrapping of an earlier order for French diesel-powered submarines — was an urgent necessity given fears about increasing Chinese naval assertions in the neighbourhood.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, China responded in blistering fashion and lost no time in painting the pact as the latest effort by the West to strategically encircle the Asian superpower.

Beijing described the deal as “extremely irresponsible”, and mainland analysts echoed that view. 

Lu Xiang, a US-China scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told soon after the deal was announced that it indicated that Australia was “tying itself completely to America’s chariot”.

Reactions by governments elsewhere in Asia put in focus how they viewed the deal through the prism of their own national interests. 

In India, for example, some strategic watchers lamented: what about us? In their view, New Delhi should have been offered the US nuclear submarine technology first, given their intensifying strategic ties in recent years. 

In Japan, contrastingly, the Aukus deal was welcomed amid anxieties over whether Tokyo’s defensive-minded military had the ability to contend with increasing Chinese assertions. 

The government stated publicly that it welcomed the three Western allies strengthening “their commitment to the region”.

Reactions from Southeast Asia -home to the deftest of geopolitical fence sitters - naturally was mixed. 

Singapore, seen as one of Washington’s closest strategic partners in the region, was cautious not to be effusive about the pact. Instead, officials said they understood why the deal was struck and hoped it would contribute constructively to regional peace. 

Neighbouring Malaysia, meanwhile, said it was concerned the pact would “catalyze a nuclear arms race” in the Indo-Pacific.

The Philippines offered what appeared to be a full throated support, with Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin saying he viewed Australia’s submarine procurement plan as an “enhancement of a near-abroad ally’s ability to project power” to “restore and keep the balance” of power in the region. It would be foolhardy to consider these positions as set in stone, however. 

Thus far, countries that have maintained strategic silence or offered support for Aukus appear to have taken at face value Australia’s promise that the pact is not aimed at third parties, including China.

But if there is increased volatility in the South China Sea and other hotspots arising from the deal, expect countries to alter their positions quickly. There are after all no permanent friends or enemies in Asian geopolitics — only permanent interests.

US, UK and Australia forging military alliance against China

The United States, Britain and Australia have forged a historic security alliance to strengthen military capabilities in the Pacific, allowing them to share advanced defence technologies and giving Australian forces nuclear submarine technology. The move, announced on Wednesday, extends Washington’s drive for military cooperation.

To begin the “Aukus” security partnership, naval officials and technical specialists from the three countries will work together over the next 18 months to give Australia the nuclear technology that will allow it to deploy submarines “to improve deterrence across the Indo-Pacific”, said a senior official from US President Joe Biden’s administration.

“We undertake this effort as part of a larger constellation of steps, including stronger bilateral partnerships with our traditional security partners in Asia – Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines – and also stronger engagements with new partners like India, Vietnam and new formations like the Quad,” the official said, referring to the security grouping of the US, India, Japan and Australia.

“This is an historic announcement. It reflects the Biden administration’s determination to build stronger partnerships to sustain peace and stability across the entire Indo-Pacific region.”

The three countries will also cooperate on integrating artificial intelligence, quantum computing and undersea capabilities into their military operations.

At a joint press conference with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and British leader Boris Johnson, Biden said the initiative was needed to ensure the US and its allies had the “most modern capabilities we need to manoeuvre and defend against rapidly evolving threats”.

“We need to be able to address both the current strategic environment in the region and how it may evolve because the future of each of our nations, and indeed the world, depends on a free and open Indo-Pacific enduring and flourishing in the decades ahead,” Biden said.

The nuclear-powered submarines will be built in Adelaide with “in close cooperation” with Britain and the US, said Morrison.

Johnson called the undertaking “one of the most complex and technically demanding projects in the world”.

“Only a handful of countries possess nuclear-powered submarines,” he said. “And it is a momentous decision for any nation to acquire this formidable capability, and perhaps equally momentous for any other state to come to its aid.”

While all three leaders cast the initiative as an effort to bring “stability” to the Indo-Pacific region, none made any explicit mention of China.

Asked whether the formation of Aukus was meant to counter China’s military build-up, the US official said the move “is not aimed or about any one country”, adding that “it’s about advancing our strategic interests, upholding the international rules-based order and promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific”.

The official said that Biden did not mention the Aukus initiative specifically when he spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping last week, but that the US leader “did underscore our determination to play a strong, strong role in the Indo-Pacific”.

Asked on Wednesday about the new security alliance, Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said that countries “should not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties”.

“In particular, they should shake off their Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice,” Liu said.

While Beijing may seek to downplay the new pact by calling it an outdated ideological move, there was “no doubt” about the initiative’s significance, said Oriana Skylar Mastro, an expert in Chinese military and security policy at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

“Not only for the content of the deal, but it shows innovation in how US allies and partners are thinking of working together,” she said. “It’s more than the usual exercises and air shows.”

News of the trilateral alliance comes as China’s People’s Liberation Army steps up aerial drills near Taiwan and in the South China Sea, where China’s territorial claims have been contested by Washington and other countries in the region.

Against this backdrop, Beijing will not buy the Biden administration’s assertion that Aukus is not a specific reaction to China’s military rise, said Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

“Beijing will see this as part of US efforts to forge coalitions aimed at pushing back against China, and they aren’t wrong,” she said. “The Chinese need to recognize that this assertive behavior is drawing democratic countries to cooperate in new ways to defend their interests.”

Charles Edel, an expert in Indo-Pacific security issues, viewed Wednesday’s announcement as the latest example of Biden’s rejection of the go-it-alone approach that characterized his predecessor’s China policy, and “a signal that the United States is willing to invest more responsibilities into its allies than it has in the past”.

 “The bet that’s clearly being placed here is that, in response to increasing Chinese capabilities and the turn to a more threatening Chinese foreign policy, more allies are going to become more capable, and that that will serve as a greater deterrent to the Chinese, both militarily and politically,” said Edel, a global fellow at the Wilson Centre in Washington and senior fellow at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre.

At Wednesday’s press conference, Morrison stressed that the submarines would be nuclear in propulsion only, rather than carrying nuclear weapons. “We will continue to meet all our nuclear weapons,” he said.

But nuclear power alone carried with it significant tactical advantages that had obvious applications when it came to countering China’s military presence in the Indo-Pacific, said Edel.

Besides increased payload capabilities, nuclear-powered submarines had greater endurance and could remain in deep waters for longer periods of times, said Edel. “They are, at depth, less detectable, so that’s a deterrent,” he said. “When we think about the extraordinary production of Chinese ground-based missiles that basically blanket the entire South China Sea – without necessarily a counterbalancing force other than the US – this then, I think, is a partial answer to that.”

Biden’s other geopolitical initiatives since taking office, including his efforts to bolster ties with NATO and the G7 and the shaping of the QUAD, have specifically included language about countering China’s growing influence.

The administration official cited Biden’s planned in-person meeting with Morrison and the other Quad leaders next week at the White House, and suggested that the presence of British aircraft carriers in the South China Sea in recent months figured into the strengthening military alliance.

“You have just seen the substantial deployment of British forces throughout the Indo-Pacific very successful deployments of the aircraft carriers, supporting ships, lots of valuable port engagements,” he said. “Our strategic discussions … transcended several months of very deep, very high level engagements with both our military commands, our political leadership and the people closest to our leaders in order to chart a common path on the way forward.”

The establishment of Aukus follows a warning on Tuesday by Glaser, former US National Security Council, Deputy National Security adviser Zack Cooper and other military analysts that the US needs stronger military partnerships in region.

“China’s modernizing military … poses the greatest challenge in the world,” they said in a white paper on how Washington should respond to challenges posed by Beijing. “China is not a global military peer competitor of the US … but it has developed a robust capability to fight effectively in the areas within the first island chain, which runs north to south from Japan in the East China Sea, to Taiwan, to the Philippines in the South China Sea.”

“Long-term success will depend on the US making significant advances in its regional diplomacy with new partners who feel threatened by Beijing’s military modernization and grey zone assertiveness, even as many have strong trade, investment and financial ties with China,” they said.

But in the wake of Wednesday’s announcement, it remains a possibility that Beijing will respond to Washington’s growing alliances with increased assertion, said Ali Wyne, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group and an expert in US-China relations.

“A big question is whether China will recalibrate, recognizing that it is engendering greater resistance among advanced industrial democracies or instead adduce that resistance as evidence that it needs to double down on its current course of diplomacy.”