Iran has no regional proxies, says envoy

The Iranian ambassador to the United Nations disavowed claims leveled by the Israeli regime that Tehran has regional proxies by which it makes operations in the region, adding that such allegations are made to obscure and justify the Zionist regime’s acts of aggression and destabilizing measures.

In a letter to President of the UN Security Council Pedro Comissario Afonso and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres dated May 07, 2024 Saeed Iravani categorically rejected the allegations that the representative of the Israeli regime has made against Iran.

The full text of the letter from Iravani is as follows:

I am writing to you in response to the letter dated April 19, 2024 from the representative of the Israeli regime to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council (S/2024/324), wherein the representative of the Israeli regime resorted once more to lies and misinformation to make unfounded accusations against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Further to our letters dated April 13 and 30, (S/2024/305-S/2024/349), I would like to emphasize the following:

The Islamic Republic of Iran rejects unequivocally and strongly all unfounded accusations in the aforementioned letter.

Contrary to unfounded claims, Iran has consistently upheld international law, adhered to the principles of the UN Charter, and complied with UN Security Council resolutions.

Moreover, Iran has played an active role in promoting international peace and security through its constructive involvement across multiple spheres.

In the letters dated April 13 and 30 (S/2024/305-S/2024/349), the Islamic Republic of Iran made a clear position that the action taken on April 13, was conducted directly and officially from Iran in response to the Israeli recurring military aggressions, particularly its armed attack on April 01 against Iranian diplomatic premises in Damascus, the Syrian Arab Republic.

Iran’s action was necessary, legitimate, and fully in line with its inherent right to self-defense under the UN Charter.

The action only targeted military objectives and was carried out carefully and with prior notification to prevent civilian harm.

I wish to emphasize that no resistance groups were involved in Iran's legitimate action and any assertions to the contrary are rejected.

In contrast to Israel's assertions, Iran does not have proxies in the region, and no individual, group, or nation operates under Iran's directive.

Additionally, resistance groups are not proxies; they are legitimate groups and their actions are lawful, and engaged only in fighting against Israeli occupation and aggression in Gaza and other occupied territories in Palestine, as well as against occupied forces in other nations in the region.

Israel's attempt to label them as "proxies" is only to obscure and justify its own acts of aggression and destabilizing actions in the region.

It is indisputable that the Israeli regime, characterized by a long history and record of blatant violations of international law, the UN Charter, and UNSC resolutions, remains the primary and longstanding threat to international peace and security.

Any cynical attempt by this regime to obscure this reality through disinformation, smear campaigns, or unsubstantiated accusations against others is both futile and groundless. The Israeli regime cannot deny its direct and full responsibility for the ongoing massacre and humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza in defiance of UNSC resolutions.

An obvious example of the Israeli regime's persistent disregard for UNSC resolutions is exemplified in the Security Council’s resolution 2728 (2024), which urgently demands an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

Despite clear demands from the Security Council, the occupying regime persists in its ruthless warfare against the Palestinian people and its military attacks in Rafah in blatant contempt for the Security Council's demands.

The occupying regime must finally bear full responsibility for the consequences of its actions and the Security Council must address Israel's persistent destabilizing and irresponsible actions, as well as its atrocities against the Palestinian people and other nations in the region.

These actions pose a genuine threat to both regional and international peace and security, demanding immediate attention and decisive action from the Security Council.

I wish to take this opportunity to strongly condemn and unequivocally reject the baseless accusations and inflammatory rhetoric statements made by the Israeli regime’s representative against my Country and Iranian high-ranking officials during the UN General Assembly debate held on May 01, addressing the United States veto of the Security Council draft resolution on the State of Palestine's full membership in the United Nations.

The aim of such baseless allegations and hate speech as well as blaming the UN and its officials is merely an attempt to divert international attention away from the ongoing heinous atrocities and acts of genocide perpetrated by this apartheid regime against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.

US should stop backing Israeli genocide in Gaza

Addressing the UN General Assembly on Thursday, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian accused the US of siding with the occupying regime of Israel in its relentless bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip.

He also said the resistance forces that are fighting to liberate their stolen lands are branded as terrorists but say the Israeli regime that has occupied the Palestinian lands is defending itself.

“They call the Palestinian self-liberation movement, which has a right to self-defense, terrorists, but they refer to the occupying and war criminal regime ‑ Israel, that is committing genocide in Gaza, as having the right to self-defense,” Amir Abdollahian lamented.

“The US and several European countries are watching and supporting the killing of about 7,000 civilians in less than three weeks by the Israeli regime. They help this regime militarily and financially,” he said, according to Al Jazeera.

“We recommend that the US works for peace and security, not war against women and children … and to stop sending rockets, tanks and bombs to be used against the people of Gaza. The US should stop supporting genocide in Gaza and Palestine.”

US President Joe Biden visited Tel Aviv on October 18 to express unwavering support for Israel in its relentless onslaught on the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The night before his arrival in Tel Aviv, Israeli fighter jets exploded Al-Ahli al-Arabi in the city of Gaza killing 500 civilians, including the injured, medical staff, and citizens who had taken shelter there from the Israeli bombardments. 

The bombardment of the hospital prompted Arab leaders, including the Palestinian Authority president and the king of Jordan, to cancel a meeting with Biden in Egypt.

The US has also aborted draft resolutions at the UN Security Council to halt the war.

The Israeli war on Gaza, which is home to over 2 million people, has been described as genocide and war crime in terms of international law. 

After the Biden visit to the occupied territories, the leaders of Germany, Britain and France have visited Israel to express their solidarity with the occupation regime of Israel.

The war started after the Hamas resistance group launched a surprise attack on portions of lands occupied by Israel in 1948 in retaliation to the regime's brutal attacks on the Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank.

Richard Falk, an international law scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years, has said the West's refusal to call for a ceasefire is a green light to Israel’s ethnic cleansing.

“By failing to advocate for a ceasefire, western states have given a green light to Israel’s agenda of collective punishment, which might itself be grotesque cover for the regime’s end goal of massive dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people,” Falk wrote in Middle East Eye on October 24.

 

Condemnation of Israeli deadline for Gaza evacuation

The United Nations has branded the Israeli evacuation order for more than one million Gaza residents to head to the southern Gaza Strip as horrendous and says the small enclave was rapidly becoming a hellhole.

The UN Palestinian refugee agency has hit out at Israel's order, saying, "This will only lead to unprecedented levels of misery and further push people in Gaza into abyss," General Philippe Lazzarini, its commissioner, said. 

"The scale and speed of the unfolding humanitarian crisis is bone-chilling. Gaza is fast becoming a hellhole and is on the brink of collapse.

"There is no exception, all parties must uphold the laws of war; humanitarian assistance must be provided at all times to civilians," Lazzarini remarked.

The UN says it is not possible for everyone in north Gaza to leave. 

The Israeli occupation had ordered 1.1 million Palestinians in Gaza to flee from their homes in the north and move south. The question is where to? There is no safe place in Gaza. 

This is the most densely populated place on the Earth - more than 2.2 million people live in a strip of land that's 40 kilometers long. 

Gaza City in the north is a major urban city. It can't be emptied out. 

Palestinians can't leave the Gaza Strip because the Israeli occupation regime controls almost all its exit points and they are trapped inside. It's been that way for 17 years. 

In a statement, the United Nations aid chief Martin Griffiths has said that "Gaza was under intense bombardment" and "roads and homes have been reduced to rubble."

"Forcing scared and traumatized civilians, including women and children, to move from one densely populated area to another, without even a pause in the fighting and without humanitarian support, is dangerous and outrageous," he added. 

Egypt controls the southern Rafah border crossing and it is also closed. Egypt has rejected calls from the Israeli army for Gaza's northern residents to flee south.

Its foreign ministry has called the measure a grave violation of international humanitarian law, exposing more than one million people to danger.

Earlier this week, Egyptian authorities rejected an Israeli recommendation that Palestinians fleeing its air strikes should cross the southern border into Egypt.

Despite authorities in Gaza warning of an Israeli plot to occupy the northern part of the territory and called on residents to stay steadfast, those who have traveled south have been killed by Israeli airstrikes anyway.

Reflecting the cruelty of the regime, it gave a hospital in Gaza "just two hours to evacuate" on Friday, a humanitarian organization said. 

MSF International said Al Awda Hospital has been told to evacuate staff and patients by the country. 

"Our staff is still treating patients," it said in a statement posted on social media.

"We unequivocally condemn this action, the continued indiscriminate bloodshed and attacks on health care in Gaza. 

"We are trying to protect our staff and patients." 

There is only one major highway bridge over a small river that Israel is ordering more than one million people to cross, which in reality is practically impossible to do.

The Norwegian Refugee Council, which works in occupied Palestine, has described Israel’s demand that 1.2 million people in Gaza leave their homes as a war crime.

Jan Egeland, the secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council, has released the following statement:
“The Israeli military demand that 1.2 million civilians in northern Gaza relocate to its south within 24 hours, absent of any guarantees of safety or return, would amount to the war crime of forcible transfer. It must be reversed.

“The collective punishment of countless civilians, among them children, women, and the elderly ... is illegal under international law.

“My colleagues inside Gaza confirm that there are countless people in the northern parts who have no means to safely relocate under the constant barrage of fire.

“The loss of civilian lives caused by deliberate or indiscriminate use of force is a war crime for which the perpetrators will have to answer. We fear that Israel may claim that Palestinians who could not flee northern Gaza can be erroneously held as directly participating in hostilities, and targeted.

“The United States, the UK, the European Union, and other Western and Arab Nations who have influence over the Israeli political and military leadership must demand that the illegal and impossible order to relocate is immediately rescinded.”

Oxfam International has made similar accusations against the regime.

"The world can see that this evacuation order is both utterly inhumane and impossible; the Israeli government must rescind it immediately. We implore the international community to use its utmost influence to intervene - there are hospitals full of patients, women, children and elderly people who cannot move. Even for those who could move, there is no food, no water and little shelter. This must be stopped," the charity group said.

TURKEY

Turkey has branded Israel's merciless 24-hour deadline a grave mistake.

The Turkish foreign ministry has said it is completely unacceptable for Israel to order people in the north of Gaza to move south within 24 hours.

The warning, issued by Israel as it prepares for a ground offensive, was inhumane and violated international law, Turkey's foreign ministry said.

"Forcing the 2.5 million people of Gaza - who have been subjected to indiscriminate bombing for days and who have been deprived of electricity, water and food - to migrate in an extremely limited area is a clear violation of international law and has no place in humanity," it said.

"We expect Israel to immediately reverse this grave mistake and urgently halt its merciless... acts against civilians in Gaza."

Airstrikes have been carried out all over Gaza. From refugee camps in the north like Jabalyia to central Deir al Baha and south to Rafah, no part of Gaza has been spared from Israeli attack. 

The regime has not provided any detail about how hundreds of thousands of traumatized Palestinians, the sick, the elderly and children are meant to travel, what road to take or where to go. 

Gazans are stressed, sleep-deprived and exhausted. Many will be hungry and weak from the last eight days of a relentless bombing campaign.

Roads are bombed, whole neighborhoods wiped out, there's a constant threat of air attack. 

Warning people in some areas of the tiny besieged enclave to get out ahead of an imminent ground invasion is a common Israeli military practice in its recurrent wars on Gaza.

Sometimes the Israeli military drops leaflets in neighborhoods ahead of a bombardment - as they did on Friday. They are also known to call the owner of a house to get out before they bomb it.

None of these measures have been undertaken under the current cycle of Israeli bombardment, which has been unprecedented. 

With no way to get out and nowhere to go, Israeli demands to empty north Gaza is aimed at terrifying the Palestinians.  

Authorities in Gaza have said the Israeli demands are a propaganda campaign and have called on Gaza's residents to stay put.

They say Israel wants to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip like its ethnic cleansing in 1948. This time, authorities warn, invaders also intend to eventually replace the emptied land with Israeli settlements. 

Amid the international outcry, the US, Israel’s staunchest ally, has been under heavy pressure to react.

The White House has been forced to issue a response to the Israeli demands. 

This is a tall order, White House national security spokesman John Kirby says.

"That is a lot of people to move in a very short period of time," he said in an interview on MSNBC. 

Kirby tried to somehow justify Israeli war crime by saying "we understand what they're trying to do and why they're trying to do this - to try to isolate the civilian population from Hamas, which is their real target." 

Critics argue the real Israeli target is the entire population of Gaza which the regime wants to cleanse ethnically. 

RUSSIA

Putin says civilian losses from an Israeli ground operation would be unacceptable

Speaking during a visit to Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, Putin said, "Israel is replying on a large scale and also with quite cruel methods."

"In my view it is unacceptable," Putin said. “More than 2 million people live there ... all of them have to suffer, including women and children. Of course, it’s hard for anyone to agree with this.”

Russian president has called on the Israeli regime not to go ahead with a ground operation in Gaza. 

Putin said such an operation would result in an "absolutely unacceptable" level of civilian casualties.  

The Russian president added that there had been unacceptable calls in the US for a blockade of Gaza on a par with the siege of Leningrad by Nazi Germany in the Second World War.

CHINA

Earlier on Friday, the regime's foreign ministry expressed deep disappointment with China’s lack of condemnation of Hamas’s attack on Israel.

China has historically supported the Palestinian cause, but in recent months Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pushed for closer ties with Beijing. 

Since the latest conflict broke out, China has called for a two-state solution but has resisted Western calls for Beijing to condemn Hamas.

Iran applauds UN removal of oil from rusting vessel off Yemen coast

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has lauded the United Nations for successfully transferring the oil from the FSO Safer supertanker to a new vessel and thereby preventing a humanitarian and environmental catastrophe.

In a statement, the ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani said three years ago Iran had stated its willingness to voluntarily carry out the operation under the supervision of the United Nations at its own expense in order to avert an environmental disaster.

The Iranian official also restated Tehran’s position on resolving Yemen’s human tragedy peacefully.

The United Nations said on last Friday it had completed the removal of more than one million barrels of oil from the decaying supertanker off Yemen's Red Sea coast.

UN officials and activists had been warning for years that the entire Red Sea coastline was at risk, as the rusting tanker could have ruptured or exploded, spilling four times as much oil as the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster off Alaska.

"It is a major moment of having averted a potentially catastrophic disaster," said Achim Steiner, administrator of the UN Development Programme, which coordinated complex efforts to remove the oil from the ship.

Salvage crews operated for 18 days in a coastal conflict zone riddled with sea mines, amid high summer temperatures and strong currents, to offload the oil from the vessel.

After the conflict began in 2015, the FSO Safer was abandoned off the Red Sea port of Hudaydah.

“Iran conducted various negotiations to put an end to the Safer oil tanker woe to prevent a potential environmental, humanitarian, and economic catastrophe for Yemen and the region,” Kanaani stated.

He expressed hope that the recent coordinated effort to end a humanitarian and environmental disaster could act as a springboard for tackling other humanitarian challenges, such as a total lifting of the Yemen embargo.

On June 21, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Amir Abdollahian, held talks with senior Omani officials in Muscat, discussing a wide variety of issues, including bringing political stability to Yemen and establishing lasting peace in the country.

Amir Abdollahian and his Omani counterpart Sayyid Badr Albusaidi discussed a wide range of topics.

Additionally, the Iranian foreign minister spoke with Sultan bin Mohammed al Numani, the royal office minister of Oman. The two ministers talked about the current events in the region, notably in Yemen.

Both of them highlighted the necessity of teamwork to alleviate Yemeni people’s suffering and support political processes, stability, and long-term peace.

 

UN starts removing oil from tanker near Yemen

The United Nations said on Tuesday it had started the removal of more than one million barrels of oil from a decaying supertanker off Yemen's Red Sea coast in a complex operation it hopes will ward off a regional disaster.

UN officials have been warning for years that the Red Sea and Yemen's coastline was at risk as the Safer tanker could spill four times as much oil as the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster off Alaska.

A UN spokesperson said on Tuesday a spill could cost US$20 billion to clean up.

The war in Yemen caused the suspension in 2015 of maintenance operations on the Safer, which is used for storage and has been moored off Yemen for more than 30 years.

The UN, which has never before undertaken such a rescue mission, has warned its structural integrity has significantly deteriorated and it is at risk of exploding.

"In the absence of anyone else willing or able to perform this task, the United Nations stepped up and assumed the risk to conduct this very delicate operation," UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said.

"The ship-to-ship transfer of oil which has started today is the critical next step in avoiding an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe on a colossal scale."

The oil transfer is expected to take 19 days to complete, the United Nations' Development Program (UNDP) said in a statement.

"We are obviously very cautious – it's only the beginning of a transfer," UNDP spokesperson Sarah Bel told a Geneva press briefing when asked about the operation's risks.

"The cost of an oil spill is estimated to be approximately US$20 billion, and it will take years to clean up," she added.

She warned that any spilled oil could reach the African coast, damaging fish stocks for the next 25 years and destroying 200,000 jobs.

It would also close ports that bring food and supplies to Yemen, where some 17 million people rely on humanitarian aid, she said.

 

US cluster munitions sale to Ukraine must be stopped

The world has not really raised voice against the US proxy war going on in Ukraine since February 2022. Little effort has been made for establishing truce. On the contrary, the United States and its allies have sent the latest as well as outdated arms worth billions of dollars to Ukraine. 

The latest news is that the US is getting ready to supply banned cluster munitions to Ukraine. This shipment must be stopped to save hundreds of civilians who may dies due to its indiscriminate use.

According to Reuters, the United States announced on Friday that it would supply Ukraine with widely banned cluster munitions for its counteroffensive against occupying Russian forces.

Rights groups and the United Nations secretary-general questioned Washington's decision on the munitions, part of an US$800 million security package that brings total US military aid to more than US$40 billion since Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who describes the conflict as a "special military operation" to protect Russian security, has said the US and its allies were fighting an expanding proxy war.

The cluster munitions will deliver in a time frame that is relevant for the counteroffensive, a Pentagon official told reporters.

Cluster munitions are prohibited by more than 100 countries. Russia, Ukraine and the United States have not signed on to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans production, stockpiling, use and transfer of the weapons.

They typically release large numbers of smaller bomblets that can kill indiscriminately over a wide area. Those that fail to explode pose a danger for decades after a conflict ends.

Ukraine has provided written assurances that it is going to use these in a very careful way to minimize risks to civilians, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said.

US President Joe Biden described the decision on cluster bombs as difficult but said Ukraine needed them.

Human Rights Watch has accused Russian and Ukrainian forces of using cluster munitions, which have killed civilians.

Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov criticized the transfer of these weapons to Ukraine by the US.

"The cruelty and cynicism with which Washington has approached the issue of transferring lethal weapons to Kyiv is striking," TASS news agency on Friday quoted Antonov as saying.

"Now, by the fault of the US, there will be a risk for many years that innocent civilians will be blown up by submunitions that have failed."

Ukraine says it has taken back some villages in southern Ukraine since the counteroffensive began in early June, but that it lacks the firepower and air cover to make faster progress.

"It's too early to judge how the counteroffensive is going one way or the other because we're at the beginning of the middle," Colin Kahl, the US under secretary of defense for policy, told reporters.

UN to mark one year of Ukraine war with vote

Marking one year of war, Ukraine and Russia lobbied countries at the United Nations on Wednesday for backing ahead of a vote by the 193-member General Assembly that the United States declared will "go down in history."

"We will see where the nations of the world stand on the matter of peace in Ukraine," US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the General Assembly.

The General Assembly appeared set to adopt a resolution on Thursday, put forward by Ukraine and supporters, stressing the need to reach, as soon as possible, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in line with the founding UN Charter.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres denounced Russia's invasion and said the Charter was unambiguous, citing from it, "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."

Ukraine and its supporters hope to deepen Russia's diplomatic isolation by seeking yes votes from nearly three-quarters of the General Assembly to match - if not better - the support received for several resolutions last year.

They argue the war is a simple case of one unprovoked country illegally invading another, while Russia portrays itself as battling a proxy war with West, which has been arming Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Moscow since the invasion.

"The West has ... brazenly ignored our concerns and continue bringing the military infrastructure of NATO closer and closer to our borders," Russia's UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told the General Assembly.

Nebenzia said, “Moscow had no other option but to launch what it has called a special military operation on February 24 last year to defend Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine and ensure the safety and security of our country, using military means.

The draft UN resolution, which is non-binding, but carries political weight, mirrors a demand the General Assembly made last year for Moscow to withdraw troops and halt the hostilities. Russia has described the text as unbalanced and anti-Russian and urged countries to vote no.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told reporters Ukraine was exercising its right to self-defense as enshrined in the UN Charter and that when you are sending weapons to Ukraine, you are helping Ukraine to defend UN Charter.

"Russia violated the UN Charter by becoming an aggressor," he said at the United Nations. "When you are sending weapons to them, you are helping to destroy the UN Charter and everything that the United Nations stands for. It's very simple."

The General Assembly has been the focus for UN action on Ukraine, with the 15-member Security Council paralyzed due to veto power by Russia and the United States along with China, France and Britain.

The Security Council has held dozens of meetings on Ukraine in the past year and will again discuss the war on Friday at a ministerial gathering, due to be attended by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Diplomats say Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is not scheduled to attend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Russia and Ukraine major source of wheat for Bangladesh

According to reports, Russia and Ukraine have become major source of wheat for Bangladesh after India’s ban of its shipment, thanks to a United Nations and Turkey brokered grain deal that allowed moving the cereal from Ukraine over the Black Sea.

Importers said they started importing wheat from both countries a couple of months after the deal in July last year which enabled them to offset a shortfall in imports resulting from India’s ban in May last year.

The neighbouring country had become a major source of wheat for Bangladesh as businesses found imports cheaper and convenient due to the shorter shipment period, low freight cost and geographic proximity, said the US Department of Agriculture in a report on Bangladesh earlier.

The report said India accounted for 67% of Bangladesh’s total wheat import, followed by Canada, Ukraine, Australia and Russia in marketing year 2021-22.

“Our imports from the Black Sea region came almost to a halt for several months after the war began,” said Abul Bashar Chowdhury, chairman of BSM Group, a Chattogram-based commodity importer.

“Now, Ukraine and Russia are gradually becoming a major source for low protein wheat,” he said.

Bangladesh produces around 1.1 million tons of wheat against an annual requirement of 7.5 million tons, meaning the rest is imported.

In fiscal year 2021-22, the country imported more than 4 million tons of wheat. And between July 01, 2023 and February 15, 2023 this fiscal year, the import amounted to 1.7 million tons in total, according to data by food ministry.

Russia, Ukraine and Canada were now major sources of the grain after the Black Sea deal, said Md Aminul Islam, managing director of Nabil Group, one of the largest importers of wheat.

Overall import from the three countries would be around 1.4 million tons so far this fiscal year, he said.

“Availability of wheat is not an issue now. There are supplies in the international market,” he said.

“The problem is now opening of letters of credit for banks’ lack of interest amid dollar shortage. Wheat imports will increase if this problem is over,” Islam said.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative brokered by the United Nations and Turkey last July allowed grain to be exported from three Ukrainian ports, reports Reuters.

The agreement was extended by a further 120 days in November and is up for renewal again in March, it says.

However, it takes longer now for importing wheat from Ukraine because of several checks on the way, said Taslim Shahriar, senior assistant general manager of the Meghna Group of Industries.

“It will be great if the war ends,” he said.

He said the situation in the Ukraine-Russia region was important for Bangladesh as the region was a key source of wheat.

So, further extensions of the Black Sea grain deal are vital for a smooth supply of wheat to Bangladesh, Taslim added.

Negotiations will start in a week on extending a United Nations-backed initiative that has enabled Ukraine to export grain from ports blockaded by Russia after its invasion, said Reuters on Friday quoting a senior Ukrainian official as saying.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative created a protected sea transit corridor and was designed to alleviate global food shortages, with Ukraine’s customers including some of the world’s poorest countries, said Reuters.

Developing nations such as Somalia and Eritrea also rely heavily on imports of wheat from Russia, it said.

“Renewal of the deal is important for us. Otherwise, it will be a problem for us too,” said Islam of Nabil Group which imported nearly 350,000 tons of wheat so far this year.

The company imported 1.8 million tons of the grain in 2022, he added.

 

Can Black Sea grain deal survive without Russia?

According to a Reuters report, United Nations, Turkey and Ukraine pressed ahead to implement a Black Sea grain deal and agreed on a transit plan for Monday for 16 vessels to move forward, despite Russia's withdrawal from the pact that has allowed the export of Ukrainian agricultural products to the world markets.

Russia, which invaded Ukraine on February 24 this year, on Saturday halted its role in the Black Sea deal for an indefinite term, cutting shipments from one of the world's top grain exporters, because it said it could not guarantee safety of civilian ships travelling under the pact after an attack on its Black Sea fleet.

The move has sparked an outcry from Ukraine, NATO, the European Union and the United States, while the United Nations and Turkey, two main brokers of the July deal, scrambled on Sunday to save it.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was deeply concerned about Russia's move and delayed a foreign trip to try and revive the agreement that was intended to ease a global food crisis, his spokesperson said.

Following Russia's move, Chicago wheat futures jumped more than 5% on Monday as both Russia and Ukraine are among the world's largest wheat exporters, analysts said.

More than 9.5 million tons corn, wheat, sunflower products, barley, rapeseed and soy have been exported since July. Under the deal, a Joint Coordination Centre (JCC) - made up of UN, Turkish, Russian and Ukrainian officials - agrees on the movement of ships and inspects the vessels.

No ships moved through the established maritime humanitarian corridor on Sunday. But the United Nations said in a statement that it had agreed with Ukraine and Turkey on a movement plan for 16 vessels on Monday - 12 outbound and 4 inbound.

It said the Russian officials at the JCC had been told about the plan, along with the intention to inspect 40 outbound vessels on Monday, and noted that "all participants coordinate with their respective military and other relevant authorities to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels" under the deal.

During Sunday's session among the grain deal delegations, Russian officials said Moscow will continue the dialogue with the United Nations and the Turkish delegation on pressing issues, the UN said in its statement.

Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar was in contact with his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts to try and salvage the agreement and had asked the parties to avoid any provocation, the Turkish defence ministry said.

NATO and the European Union have urged Russia to reconsider its decision. US President Joe Biden on Saturday called Russia's move purely outrageous and said it would increase starvation. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused Moscow of weaponizing food.

On Sunday, Russia's ambassador to Washington snapped back, saying the US response was outrageous and made false assertions about Moscow's move.

Russia and Ukraine agree to allow food shipments out of the Black Sea

Russia and Ukraine agreed to a deal Friday to open Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea, releasing stalled grain shipments into world markets to help alleviate an ongoing food crisis and bring down global prices.

The deal between the two countries was mediated through Turkey, which helped to broker the agreement under the auspices of the United Nations. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine has led to a de facto blockade of Black Sea ports that have been unable to export agricultural goods like fertilizer and grain.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, speaking at the signing ceremony in Istanbul, hailed the deal as a “beacon of relief in a world that needs it more than ever.”

“To the representations of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, you have overcome obstacles and put aside differences to pave the way for an initiative that will serve the common interests of all. Promoting the welfare of humanity has been the driving force of these talks,” he said.

The deal will open a passage for significant volumes of commercial food export from the ports of Odessa, Chernomorsk and Yuzhne, Guterres said. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that naval mines in Ukrainian ports had been an issue for exports in the past.

“The shipment of grain and food stocks into all markets will help bridge the global food supply gap and reduce pressure for high prices,” Guterres added.

Turkish President Recep Erdogan said at the ceremony the agreement would help to ease pressure on global food prices.

“We are also helping with controlling food inflation, which has become a global problem,” Erdogan said.

Speaking to reporters later Friday, White House national security spokesman John Kirby said that the United States welcomes the development but said officials would be watching it closely, noting that Russia will need to actually comply with the agreement in order for it to be effective.  

Kirby described the Biden administration as both hopeful and “clear-eyed” about the deal.  

“If it’s fully implemented and complied with it will have an impact, but it’s just too soon to know,” Kirby said.

Other international leaders hailed the agreement.

“Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine has meant some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world are at risk of having nothing to eat. It is vital that Ukrainian grain reaches international food markets, and we applaud Turkey and the UN Secretary General for their efforts to broker this agreement,” United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said in a statement from the UK foreign ministry.

Global food prices are up more than 23% since last year, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), though they have been ticking down since May. In the US, food prices are up more than 10% annually.

Global prices for grains have fallen more than 4% since a recent high in May but are still more than 27% higher than they were a year ago, according to the FAO. Wheat prices are nearly 50% higher than they were last year.

A logistical coordination center will also be set up as part of the agreement to monitor its implementation, Guterres said.

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.

 

United States succumb to Israel pressure

Biden administration abstained, but did not reject a General Assembly resolution affirming the right of return for Palestinian refugees to sovereign Israel. In doing so, it broke with the voting pattern on Israel set by former US President Donald Trump in which all such texts received an automatic "no" vote.

Obama administration, however, had traditionally abstained from this particular text, which comes annually before the UN General Assembly (UNGA).

"This year, the United States returns to a position of abstention on the text 'Assistance to Palestine Refugees,'” American Deputy Ambassador Richard Mills told the UNGA's Fourth Committee late Tuesday afternoon.

He spoke as the committee gave initial approval to six anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian draft resolutions that will come up later this year at the UNGA plenum for a final vote.

Three of those texts affirmed the work of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which services 5.7 million Palestinian refugees in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

All three of those resolutions call for the right of return for Palestinian refugees to sovereign Israel or for their receipt of compensation for the property they lost when they fled their homes.

Out of the three, the resolution titled "assistance to Palestinian refugees" is considered to be the most benign. 

Canada similarly abstained on the text called assistance to the Palestinian people, while Australia supported it. The US and Canada joined Israel in rejecting the other two resolutions on UNRWA. Australia abstained on one of those and rejected the other.

The European Union supported all three UNRWA texts. Only Israel totally opposed the text "assistance to Palestinian refugees" which passed 160-1, with nine abstentions.

The other countries that abstained on the "assistance to Palestinian refugees" resolution were Cameron, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papa New Guinea and Uruguay.

The Trump administration had opposed UNRWA and cut US funding to the organization. Both the Trump administration and Israel have charged that textbooks used in the agency's schools are antisemitic and incite against Israel. 

They opposed the UNRWA policy of applying refugee status to the descendants of Palestinians who fled their homes in 1948; a move which they explain creates an ever-increasing population of refugees.

Prior to Tuesday's vote, an Israeli representative spoke out against UNRWA at the UNGA Fourth Committee meeting.

"We cannot stand idly by when a UN humanitarian agency promotes a political agenda under the guise of true assistance," the Israel representative said.

"UNRWA must be accountable for the hateful indoctrination of children in its classrooms. It must put an end to the spreading of antisemitic lies by its employees and it must show a genuine commitment to transparency and accountability," the Israeli representative said.

She added that UNRWAA resources and infrastructure must not be hijacked by Hamas in conducting acts of terror," she added.  

Israel has also opposed the right of return for Palestinians to sovereign Israel, a move which it argues would destroy the country's identity as the ethnic-national homeland for the Jewish people. It has explained that in the essence of a two-state resolution to the conflict, Palestinians would have a right of return solely to a Palestinian State, much like Jews would have a right of return solely to Israel.

The Biden administration, however, has restored US funding and support for UNRWA.

"As many members know, under President Biden, the United States announced it would restore its financial support to UNRWA, which we do believe is a vital lifeline to millions of Palestinians across the region," Mills told the UNGA. 

"Since April, the US government has provided more than US$318 million to UNRWA in Fiscal Year 2021, including critical support for education, health and social services benefiting millions of Palestinian refugees registered with UNRWA," he said.

The US, he said, has noted that some changes were made to the text of the resolutions on the agency "that reflect our priorities in line with strengthening UNRWA," adding that "the United States will continue to work with UNRWA; work to strengthen the Agency’s accountability, its transparency, and its consistency with UN principles."

Mills called on UN member states to support the agency financially, noting that many of those who voted in favor of the three UNRWA resolutions were not willing to spend money on the organization.

"I would also like to take a moment to point out the overwhelming support from member states for these resolutions voted here today, compared with the relatively few member states that financially support UNRWA," he said. 

"In light of the Agency’s urgent shortfall, the United States urges member states to support UNRWA’s services for Palestinian refugees not only in word but in action – and to do so on an expedited basis," Mills said.

The resolutions were voted on in advance of a donor pledging conference for UNRWA scheduled to take place in Belgium on November 16.