Maritime security and rules based order

Maritime scholars and practitioners often grapple with a question, what should be the desirable architecture for maritime security, and how should this be implemented properly? 

It is a complex issue, because security may be best delivered in collective and cooperative settings, there is often a lack of clarity about how cooperation between multinational security agencies should be practically operationalized.

Two aspects seem particularly thorny. First, how does one account for the material and strategic costs of military cooperation? It is no secret that naval collaboration entails political costs.

India, which has long faced pressure from Russia to reduce strategic engagement with the United States is familiar with the costs of strategic cooperation. ASEAN, too, with a history of balancing between the United States and China, is conscious of the downsides of maritime collaboration.

There is also a second and more complicated dimension. If integrative frameworks are rooted in national security and national interest, can region-wide maritime cooperation ever be functionally effective?

Notwithstanding the acknowledgement of the need for collaboration in the maritime domain, the political leadership in many countries is unclear about the extent of acceptable cooperation. Navies broadly know they must work together, but to what degree, to what specific ends, and at what cost, remains unexplained.

The preference for balanced interactions is markedly high in the Indian Ocean region, where many states regard non-traditional security as the holy grail of maritime operations.

In the absence of clear guidance about how maritime cooperation is to be operationalised, navies engage in short-term arm’s length collaboration, which does not translate into much over the longer term.

Each side develops its own model of cooperative security, based entirely on the appreciation of national interests.

At times, the military interactions are robust – such as during constabulary and humanitarian missions – but for the most part, maritime forces avoid working together in formats that risk provoking powerful players and disturbing the strategic balance of power.

The preference for balanced interactions is markedly high in the Indian Ocean region, where many states regard non-traditional security as the holy grail of maritime operations. Particularly in South Asia, human security and livelihood challenges are accorded priority over traditional security threats.

Despite its record of aggression in the Indo-Pacific, China is widely regarded as an economic and security partner, and not as a threat to the rules-based order.

Members of the Royal Australian Air Force, Japan Maritime Self Defense Force, Indian Navy, and the Royal Canadian Air Force at the conclusion of exercise Sea Dragon, an annual multilateral anti-submarine warfare exercise that improves interoperability in the Indo-Pacific, 28 January 2021.

India, of course, is an exception to the consensus in South Asia. New Delhi recognizes the China challenge in ways its neighbors do not.

From an Indian standpoint, a Chinese maritime presence in the Indian Ocean has implications that go beyond naval confrontation.

The realists in New Delhi know that Chinese dual-use ports under the Belt and Road Initiative are meant to establish Chinese power and hegemony in India’s natural sphere of influence, and shift the regional balance of power away from Delhi.

Yet the Chinese threat in India’s backyard is qualitatively different from the challenge in the South China Sea. Unlike in Southeast Asia, where Beijing aspires to full-spectrum dominance, China’s strategy in the Indian Ocean is one of incremental stakeholdership. If India used force against China, New Delhi not Beijing would be seen as the aggressor.

In the Western Pacific, too, the picture is mixed. Southeast Asian states have resisted Chinese efforts to dominate the littorals, and even upped their collaboration to help fight irregular security challenges. But non-traditional security isn’t the low hanging fruit it was once assumed to be.

Despite successes in counter-piracy and humanitarian relief, law enforcement agencies remain reluctant to jointly tackle armed robbery at sea, illegal fishing and other crimes that occur in coastal spaces. For all their professed zeal for integrated operations, navies and coastguards remain unwilling to allow foreign partners access into coastal waters.

The imperative to forge issue-based coalitions in a post-Covid world – where resources are scarce and commitments diverse – is bound to draw likeminded states into tighter embrace.

Against this backdrop, can the AUKUS trilateral security pact, the Quad and ASEAN succeed in creating the conditions for sustained cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region?

The foregoing suggests it would be difficult. However, that should not dishearten avid proponents of vigorous strategic collaboration, for country priorities are wholly circumstantial and shaped by the vagaries of geopolitics. India, which has consistently advocated Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR), is today more confrontational towards China (in the wake of the border crisis in Ladakh). Chinese aggression in Taiwan and Hong Kong has forced ASEAN also into hardening its Indo-Pacific posture.

But scholars and practitioners should beware of reducing maritime security to a simple contest of narratives. Those who insist the rules-based security order must focus on enforcement and red lines of acceptable conduct should recognize that order rather than strict rules animates the policy preferences of many Asian states.

Countries ought to be more creative in generating consensus around long-term cooperation. The aim should be to identify avenues for association and partnerships in areas where states may not necessarily agree on a way forward.

The imperative to forge issue-based coalitions in a post-Covid world – where resources are scarce and commitments diverse – is bound to draw likeminded states into tighter embrace.

The need of the hour is for maritime forces to improve interoperability, expand collaboration in hard and soft security, and share the burden of littoral security. The habits of cooperation they now foster will hold navies in good stead when the threats begin to crystallize in ways that few today imagine or anticipate.

Courtesy: The Bangladesh Chronicle

UN suspends Russia from human rights body over Ukraine

The UN General Assembly has suspended Russia from the UN Human Rights Council over reports of gross and systematic violations and abuses of human rights by invading Russian troops in Ukraine. 

It may be recalled that UNHRC had recently approved four anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian resolutions, including a call for a limited arms embargo against the Jewish state, as it wrapped up its 49th session. One may say is a tit for tat by the group of countries living under the US hegemony.

The US-led push garnered 93 votes in favor, while 24 countries voted no and 58 countries abstained. A two-thirds majority of voting members in the 193-member General Assembly in New York - abstentions do not count - was needed to suspend Russia from the 47-member Geneva-based Human Rights Council.

Suspensions are rare. Libya was suspended in 2011 because of violence against protesters by forces loyal to then-leader Muammar Gaddafi.

It was the third resolution adopted by the 193-member General Assembly since Russia invaded neighboring Ukraine on February 24. The two previous General Assembly resolutions denouncing Russia were adopted with 141 and 140 votes in favor.

The resolution adopted on Thursday expresses "grave concern at the ongoing human rights and humanitarian crisis in Ukraine," particularly at reports of rights abuses by Russia.

Russia says it is carrying out a "special military operation" that aims to destroy Ukraine's military infrastructure and denies attacking civilians. Ukraine and allies say Moscow invaded without provocation.

Russia had warned countries that a yes vote or abstention will be viewed as an "unfriendly gesture" with consequences for bilateral ties, according to a note seen by Reuters.

Russia was in its second year of a three-year term on the Geneva-based council, which cannot make legally binding decisions. Its decisions send important political messages, however, and it can authorize investigations.

Moscow is one of the most vocal members on the council and its suspension bars it from speaking and voting, officials say, although its diplomats could still attend debates. "They would probably still try to influence the Council through proxies," said a Geneva-based diplomat.

Last month the council opened an investigation into allegations of rights violations, including possible war crimes, in Ukraine since Russia's attack.

Speaking before the vote, Ukraine's UN Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya said a yes vote would "save the Human Rights Council and many lives around the world and in Ukraine," but a no vote was "pulling a trigger, and means a red dot on the screen - red as the blood of the innocent lives lost."

The United States announced it would seek Russia's suspension after Ukraine accused Russian troops of killing hundreds of civilians in the town of Bucha.

Russia's Deputy UN Ambassador Gennady Kuzmin said now was not the time for "theatrical performances" and accused Western countries and allies of trying to "destroy existing human rights architecture."

"We reject the untruthful allegations against us based on staged events and widely circulated fakes," Kuzmin told the General Assembly before the vote, defending Russia's record as a Human Rights Council member.

After abstaining on the previous two General Assembly votes, Russia's partner China opposed the resolution Thursday.

"Such a hasty move at the General Assembly, which forces countries to choose sides will aggravate the division among member states, intensify the confrontation between the parties concerned - it is like adding fuel to the fire," China's UN Ambassador Zhang Jun said before the vote.

 

It may be recalled that UNHRC had recently approved four anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian resolutions, including a call for a limited arms embargo against the Jewish state, as it wrapped up its 49th session. One may say is a tit for tat by the group of countries living under the US hegemony.

 

Can barter trade between Iran and Pakistan become a reality?

Despite close political relations and geographical proximity, sanctions by United States on the Islamic Republic have prevented Iran-Pakistan economic ties from realizing their full potential, solely because the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot access international banking.

To resolve the mentioned problem, the two countries inked a barter trade agreement during the meeting of their Joint Economic Committee in Tehran in November 2021.

According to the government officials of the two countries, under the framework of this agreement, the two countries aim at boosting annual trade to US$5 billion.

Although barter trade is clearly an effective tool for sidestepping economic sanctions on Iran, the question is, “will it be enough for Iran-Pakistan trade to get back on track?”

Sanctions and solutions

The trade between Iran and Pakistan has been overshadowed by the US sanctions. The two countries having great historical and cultural ties, have been stripped of opportunities for mutually beneficial business.

Bilateral trade between the two neighbors, which share a border of 960 kilometers, was reported at about US$300 million in 2021, while the value of Pakistan’s trade with China amounted to over US$27.8 billion in the same year.

Considering the significantly low level of trade between Iran and Pakistan, the two nations are going to use barter mechanisms as a solution that can remove some of the current barriers to trade and hopefully allow them to fully benefit from their mutual economic capacities.

Regulatory barriers

According to a Pakistani expert and Member of the Digital Economy Task Force in United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) Muhammad Anwar, although signing the barter trade agreement is a big step toward removing the barriers in the way of trade between the two countries, it is not enough for realizing the US$5 billion annual trade target.

In order for the barter trade agreement to be implemented effectively, the two countries should make several regulatory adjustments as well, Anwar stressed.

“There are regulatory matters that should be resolved as well]. Iran charges Pakistani trucks US$1 for each three kilometers distance in terms of the fuel price difference, despite that they need to buy fuel on open market rate in Iran,” Anwar said.

Iranian trucks carrying cargoes from Pakistan and going inside Pakistan don't need to pay any tax as per Pakistan government policy, he added.

Trading in national currencies

Anwar believes that another step that would help the two countries realize their economic potential is to use their national currencies for trade along with the barter trade mechanism.

“Current trade balance is in favor of Iran. Due to banking restrictions exports of Pakistan to Iran are less,” the official said.

Trading in national currencies will make the two sides able to diverse the variety of the exchange commodities and this way the trade between the two sides will be more balanced, Anwar stated.

Asked about the major items exchanged between Iran and Pakistan he said, “From Pakistan mostly foodstuff like rice, sesame seed, fresh fruits, minerals are being exported whereas from Iran side LPG, petrochemicals, consumer good, etc.”

According to the expert, Pakistan’s affordable agricultural products can meet the growing demand in Iran.

Developing Transit

Anwar, who is also the CEO of a transportation company called North South Transport Network (NSTN), further mentioned the transit capacities of the two countries as a perfect opportunity for the two sides to increase their trade balance.

Iran and Pakistan which are both members of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), can also cooperate to improve transit trade corridors in Central Asia, he said.

“Pakistan and Iran are in the center of east and west. Pakistan is bordering with India and China the two largest populated countries in the world whereas Iran connects Turkey and CIS and beyond Turkey, Europe which is great consumer markets for Asian products,” the official explained, adding “Iran and Pakistan can play a great role in connecting east with west.”

Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul train is an example of the works that can be done to fully realize the connectivity and capacity in this regard, the official mentioned.

 

Maersk Air Cargo for overcoming port congestions

Maersk Air Cargo as the company´s main air freight offering serving the logistics needs of its clients with integrated logistics is expected to be fully operational as of second half of 2022.

Maersk has chosen Denmark’s second largest airport, Billund, as its air freight hub for Maersk Air Cargo with daily flights creating several jobs in the region. Maersk Air Cargo also announced its intent to enter into an agreement with the Flight Personnel Union (FPU) which is a part of the Danish Confederation and Trade Unions (FH).

“Air freight is a crucial enabler of flexibility and agility in global supply chains as it allows our customers to tackle time-critical supply chain challenges and provides transport mode options for high value cargo. We strongly believe in working closely with our customers. Therefore, it is the key for Maersk to also increase our presence in the global air cargo industry by introducing Maersk Air Cargo to cater even better for the needs of our customers,” said Aymeric Chandavoine, Global Head of Logistics and Services.

Maersk’s owned controlled capacity, powered by Maersk Air Cargo, is designed to make supply chain journeys more resilient and intuitive. As a standalone service, Maersk Air Freight can help customers make the most of opportunities by getting their air cargo to the right place at the right time. When combined with our ocean, inland, warehousing and customs services, it will power your supply chain in more ways than one

The new air freight company is the result of the existing in-house aircraft operator, Star Air, which has transferred activities into Maersk Air Cargo, the new carrier supporting existing and new customers and Maersk’s end to end logistics. The process of transferring activities has received excellent support from customers, suppliers, employees and the Danish Civil Aviation Authority.

“Maersk Air Cargo is an important step of the Maersk Air Freight strategy, as it will allow us to offer customers a truly unique combination of air freight integrated with other transport modes. We see an increased and continued demand for air cargo both today and going forward as well as a growing demand for end-to-end logistics, why it is important for us to strengthen our own-controlled capacity and advance further on our air freight strategy,” said Torben Bengtsson, Global Head of Air & LCL (Less than Container Load).

Maersk last operated from Billund in 2005. From the continent Maersk Air Cargo will progressively deploy and operate a controlled capacity of five aircraft – two new B777F and three leased B767-300 cargo aircraft. Three new B767-300 freighters will also be added to the US-China operation, which will be initially handled by a third-party operator. The new aircraft are expected to be operational from second half 2022 and onwards up to 2024.

Billund Airport looks forward to welcoming Maersk Air Cargo, which will also support the growth of the West Danish business community.

“We have had growth, defied the corona and set a new record year in cargo in 2021. It does not happen without good partners, and we do what we can to make our partners good. Now Maersk Air Cargo enters the stage at Billund Airport and raises it a notch. We are incredibly proud that we are being chosen as Maersk's European hub for air freight, and we look forward to developing the collaboration to even new heights,” said Jan Hessellund, CEO of Billund Airport.

Maersk’s ambition is to have approximately one third of its annual air tonnage carried within its own controlled freight network. This will be achieved through a combination of owned and leased aircraft, replicating the structure that the company has within its ocean fleet. The remaining capacity will be provided by strategic commercial carriers and charter flight operators.

 

Five Reasons Why Kashmir Matters

Kashmir has always captured the imagination of the Pakistani people and stirred their emotions. This is partly because of shared religion but also because Pakistan’s largest province, Punjab, and its ruling elite have very close ethnic and cultural association with Kashmir.

But 9/11 led to dwindling preoccupation with Kashmir among Pakistanis. Especially for the generation that grew up in the 2000s and had first-hand experience of terrorism and fear, domestic issues became more pressing. Kashmir, therefore, took a backseat to even those in policy circles. In fact, for many in Pakistan, Kashmir became a needless burden that was sinking the Pakistani ship. “Save Pakistan before saving Kashmir” became a common mantra, especially in the liberal intellectual and elite circles.

Pakistani perceptions underwent another change in 2014 when Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in India. That coincided with Pakistan’s successful military operations against terrorist groups like the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan that were causing mayhem in the country. With stability inside of Pakistan and the surge of violence in India against Muslims, along with the revocation of Kashmir’s autonomy by the Modi government in 2019, the Kashmir issue returned to the fore of Pakistani imagination, and this time on steroids with Prime Minister Imran Khan at the helm.

As divisive as the Kashmir issue is, it is important for both Pakistan and India to recognize why it is important to resolve the issue. Here are five reasons why Kashmir requires urgent attention:

Peace Either Everywhere or Nowhere

The events of 9/11 proved the point that underdevelopment, violence, and instability in one part of the world will directly impact the rest of the world – even the most developed countries in the West were not safe or secure. This has been the gist of UN calls for integrating security and development to stabilize the Global South to secure the Global North.  This new policy approach was best articulated by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who argued that “famines and instability thousands of miles away lead to conflict, despair, mass migration, and fanaticism that can affect us all.” Therefore, continued violence and subjugation in Kashmir on a slow burn is unlikely to remain within the borders of Kashmir. The repercussions may erupt around the world in different ways.

Status Quo Benefits Only a Few

The Kashmir issue is a byproduct of the British colonial project in India that led to a strained relationship between Pakistan and India. The international community has showed little capacity or interest to resolve the issue for 70 long years. The issue lingered on because the new status quo benefited many actors involved in the region and some external actors that thrive on the war industry. With the Modi government acting unilaterally to revoke Article 370, the status quo has become even more firm and volatile, leaving only extreme options for both sides.

The Untold Costs

Kashmir doesn’t bleed alone; Pakistan and India bleed with it perpetually. For as long as the Kashmir continues to bleed through militarization, killings, rape, and draconian tactics, the chaos will continue to permeate and affect the lives of the people in the region. This is why Pakistan has been insisting on resolving the Kashmir issue for the benefit of Kashmiri people first, and then the overall stability of the region. In many ways, the true potential of India, Pakistan, and Kashmir itself is a hostage to the inability of status quo powers (in this case India) to resolve the Kashmir issue.

Principles Matter

For Pakistan and India, Kashmir isn’t some far away land like Afghanistan was for the United States that it could exit at will. Pakistan and India share borders, cultures, traditions, and much more with the Kashmiris. To then stand for the rights of Kashmir may be exhausting and taxing, but it is principally right. As much as anyone argues otherwise through a reductionist “realist” lens, principles do matter in policymaking and international relations, especially in the mid and long run. Therefore, it is important that the international community fulfills its commitment to the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue.

Rule by Fear

In today’s world we should not allow for governance and fascist practices from the 19th century. Rule by fear or force is untenable. Kashmir is the most militarized region in the world, with India having deployed 900,000 soldiers here and Pakistan around 50,000. More people have died due to border shellings than war between Pakistan and India. Modi’s forceful annexation of Kashmir has renewed a wave of terror and fear in Kashmir with curfews, internet blackouts, growing violence, and killings. Kashmir is not getting safer; it’s only getting more insecure and unsustainable to govern for the Indian government – the effects of which will destabilize the entire region.

Kashmir is an integral part of the Kashmiri people, who have faced the worst consequences of decades of mindless subjugation of their rights. It is convenient for Western countries to ignore the plight of Kashmiris for a larger geopolitical game at play against China, but the prolonged human catastrophe in Kashmir will render the great power competition irrelevant if the unresolved crisis persists.

This article by Dr. Hussain Nadim was originally published in The Diplomat. Dr. Hussain Nadim is the Executive Director of Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI) based in Islamabad, Pakistan. For his work in the policy sector, Nadim has received several international awards, including being recognized in the Forbes 30 under 30 list of 2016. He has a Ph.D. from the University of Sydney, M. Phil from University of Cambridge and a BA from George Washington University in International Affairs.

 

bp joins Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation as a strategic partner

bp has joined the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (GCMD) as a strategic partner, which was marked by a partnership agreement ceremony in Singapore. GCMD was set up to help drive decarbonisation of the maritime industry and bp is pleased to be working with GCMD to help further this aim.

GCMD is based in Singapore – one of the world’s busiest ports. It was set up as a non-profit organization in August last year to help the maritime industry meet or exceed the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) GHG emission reduction goals for 2030 and 2050. It aims to achieve this by creating opportunities for cross-industry collaboration and sharing its projects’ outcomes, aimed at helping fuel the energy transition within the maritime industry. This partnership adds S$10 million (USD$7.4 million) in funding, giving GCMD’s efforts a further boost.

Carol Howle, bp’s executive vice president for trading & shipping, said: “bp has helped shape the shipping industry for more than 100 years. A net zero future for the maritime sector demands industry collaboration, and GCMD is bringing to the forefront the conversations that matter most. As part of GCMD, we look forward to working with key industry players to further progress solutions at the pace and scale needed to help this carbon-intensive sector transition.”

Professor Lynn Loo, GCMD’s chief executive officer, said, “bp’s net zero ambitions and investments in low carbon solutions are aligned with GCMD’s mission and projects. Together with bp and our other partners, we aim to foster collaboration to address challenges and untangle the complexities of decarbonising shipping. We look forward to working closely with and leveraging bp’s experience and expertise in our pilots and trials.”

bp trading & shipping (T&S) is one of the world’s leading energy trading houses. At any one time, about 300 ships are on the water for bp, enabling it to move around 240 million tonnes of product every year. bp will look to leverage GCMD’s findings in its own maritime activities and share developing best practices with its customers through bp’s gas and low carbon energy business that integrates the company’s existing natural gas capabilities with its low and zero carbon businesses and markets, including wind, solar and hydrogen.

bp is also supporting zero carbon supply chains by driving new decarbonisation technologies and capabilities to create innovative zero carbon energy solutions. Safe development of hydrogen, ammonia, biofuel, and carbon markets is a priority for bp, and aligning with the GCMD on these projects provides a strategic fit.

As part of the partnership, Lambros Klaoudatos, bp’s senior vice president of shipping, will sit on GCMD’s board. The strategic partnership with GCMD follows bp’s ties with the Global Maritime Forum (GMF), Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping (MMMCZCS) in Europe and the Blue Sky Maritime Coalition in the US. Together, these organizations are helping drive decarbonisation of the maritime sector and provide global support for bp’s maritime decarbonisation journey across its key trading and shipping regions in Asia, Europe and the US.

 

Taliban Supreme Leader orders ban on poppy cultivation in Afghanistan

The Taliban's Supreme Leader has ordered a ban on poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, warning that the government would crack down on farmers planting the crop. 

Afghanistan is the world's biggest producer of poppy, the source of sap that is refined into heroin, and in recent years its production and exports have only boomed.

"All Afghans are informed that from now on cultivation of poppy has been strictly prohibited across the country," said a decree issued by Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada, AFP reported.

The decree was read out by government spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid at a gathering of reporters, foreign diplomats and Taliban officials.

"If anyone violates the decree the crop will be destroyed immediately and the violator will be treated according to the Shariah law," it added.

Iran has been the main victim of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. It has lost about 4,000 security forces in the battle against drug traffickers over the past four decades. Traffickers mainly use the Iranian soil as a transit route to smuggle opium and heroin to Europe.    

It is not the first time the fundamentalist group has vowed to outlaw the trade. Production was banned in 2000, just before the group was overthrown by US-led forces in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

During their 20-year insurgency against foreign forces, the Taliban heavily taxed farmers cultivating the crop in areas under their control.

It became a key resource for the group to generate funds.

The United States and NATO forces tried to curb poppy cultivation during their two decades in Afghanistan by paying farmers to grow alternative crops such as wheat or saffron.

But their attempts were thwarted by the Taliban who controlled the main poppy-growing regions and derived hundreds of millions of dollars from the trade, experts say.

Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Salam Hanafi rejected claims the Taliban helped fuel poppy cultivation during their insurgency.

"How come it was exported all over the world when they (US-led forces) had full control over Afghanistan," Hanafi said Sunday.

Afghan media reports say production has increased in two southern provinces, Kandahar and Helmand, since the Taliban seized power in August 2021, although data is not available.

Afghanistan has a near monopoly on opium and heroin, accounting for 80 to 90 percent of global output, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

The amount of land planted with poppies hit a record high in 2017 and has averaged around 250,000 hectares in recent years, roughly four times the level of the mid-1990s, UN figures show.

 

US Senate votes 100-0 to limit trade with Russia

The US Senate on Thursday passed legislation to end normal trade relations with Russia and Belarus, capping off weeks of negotiations that had stalled the bill. 

Senators voted 100-0 on the legislation, which ends permanent, normal trade relations with the two countries. The bill also reauthorizes Magnitsky Act sanctions that target human rights violations and corruption with penalties like visa bans or asset freezes.

The Senate is also expected to pass a separate bill to codify the Biden administration’s ban on Russian oil imports on Thursday. The two bills have been effectively linked together in the Senate and were part of a deal announced on Wednesday night.

“No nation whose military is committing war crimes deserves free-trade status with the United States. No vile thug like Putin deserves to stand as an equal with the leaders of the free world,” Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer said ahead of the votes.

Senators were under pressure to reach an agreement before they leave town on Thursday for a two-week break and as Russia continues its weeks-long bloody invasion of Ukraine. That pressure only grew this week after photos emerged over the weekend of destruction in Bucha, a town northwest of Ukraine’s capital, including images of people lying dead in the streets and in mass graves, triggering widespread condemnation.

Biden said that he believed Russia had committed war crimes, while Schumer went further, saying it was “genocide, and Mr. Putin is guilty of it.”

The Senate’s vote is the first Ukraine-related bill it has had a roll call vote on since it passed billions in Ukraine aid as part of a sweeping government funding bill last month.

The trade bill passed the House on March 17, while the bill to codify the Biden administration’s oil ban passed on March 09, 2022.

But they faced headwinds in the Senate, as negotiators faced several potential sticking points. The most high-profile hurdle was a days-long negotiation with Senator Rand Paul over reauthorizing the Magnitsky Act sanctions, which is riding on the trade bill. The House bill changed the Magnitsky Act language from targeting “gross” human rights violations to targeting “serious” human rights violations, codifying a Trump-era executive order.

Negotiators had appeared to cut a deal with Paul last week but indicated as recently as Tuesday that they were still haggling over the language. In the end, the Senate deal sticks with the original Magnitsky Act language currently in law, instead of updating it.

As part of a deal to get votes on the Russia package today, the Senate also passed bipartisan legislation on Wednesday night to establish a lend-lease program for Ukraine, making it easier to send military aid to the country.

“As the world bears witness to the most serious security threat to Europe and our global stability since World War II, this legislation to speed up the process of moving military equipment to the frontlines couldn’t be more urgent,” Senator Jeanne Shaheen said about the bill.

“I appreciate the bipartisan support to pass our legislation in the Senate and urge the House to swiftly follow suit. As this crisis rapidly escalates and Putin bears down on Ukraine, every minute counts,” she added. 

 

Can Naftali Bennett survive as Prime Minister of Israel?

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett stated that MK Idit Silman had been threatened by supporters of opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu and Religious Zionist head Betzalel Smotrich until she broke and left the coalition on Wednesday.

"Idit was persecuted for months, verbally abused by supporters of Bibi and Smotrich at the most horrific level," said Bennett on Wednesday evening. "She described to me the threats against her husband Shmulik's workplace and her children in Bnei Akiva. She broke in the end."

Bennett stressed that the main thing we need to deal with at the moment is stabilizing the faction and the coalition. He added that all the leaders in the coalition are interested in continuing the current government.

With the resignation of MK Idit Silman from the coalition, here are four possible scenarios of what will come next:

1. Domino effect

Another member of the Knesset quits the coalition and helps the opposition – led by Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu – to pass a bill dispersing the Knesset and taking Israel to a new election.

In this event, immediately after the dispersion of the Knesset, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid would become prime minister until the formation of a new government.

For Silman, the ideal situation would be for another member of Yamina to break away from the party so that she can then – together with earlier Yamina rebel MK Amichai Chikli – form a new faction that would be able to merge with an existing party and run in a new election.

2. Gantz jumps ship

Before the Knesset dissolves, Blue and White Chairman Benny Gantz decides to join the opposition and become Israel’s prime minister. This scenario is possible for a few reasons. The first is that Gantz, who currently serves as Defense Minister, has been unhappy with the current government since its inception. He was particularly bothered by Bennett – with six seats and now five – becoming Prime Minister while he, Gantz, had eight seats.

In addition, Gantz might prefer this option over the dispersion of the Knesset, which would see Lapid become Prime Minister. Remember that the two politicians split – with Lapid’s Yesh Atid Party leaving the Blue and White alliance – in 2020 when Gantz decided to join Netanyahu’s last government, which ultimately fell apart.

While Gantz has said that he learned the lesson from sitting with Netanyahu and that he would not make the same mistake again, he could argue that by joining Netanyahu he would not only be serving as Prime Minister but would also be preventing another election and further political instability.

3. A comeback for Netanyahu

Netanyahu somehow manages to form a government in the current Knesset or steps aside as Chairman of the Likud – highly unlikely – and allows a different Likud MK to do so. It is more likely that he would prefer crowning Gantz than someone from his own party, something he could have done before Bennett became prime minister last June.

4. Limping to the finish line

The government – now a lame duck and unable to pass legislation – manages to survive until the beginning of 2023, when it needs to pass a new budget. Although, it would not be able to pass any laws, this might be the best scenario right now for Bennett.

 

United States solicits Bangladesh support

Joe Biden, President of United States has expressed optimism that Dhaka-Washington partnership would flourish further in the next 50 years and beyond.

In a letter to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Biden said both Bangladeshis and Americans share the ideals of democracy, equality, and respect for human rights. Those are the foundation for healthy, secure, and prosperous societies, he added.

“I am confident our partnership will continue to flourish for the next 50 years and beyond,” he said in the letter marking the 50-year milestone in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Bangladesh.

The US president said that the drive, resourcefulness, and innovation of Bangladeshis – rebuilding after the 1971 war and now forging a path of economic growth and development – serve as a model for rest of the world.

“We are proud of our partnership on development, economic growth and counterterrorism,” Biden said, adding that the two countries work together to address climate crisis, help the Rohingya survivors of genocide and support UN peace keeping worldwide.

He mentioned the two nations are connected through familial, academic and commercial ties since 1958, when Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman participated in a 30-day exchange program in the United States.

“Our defense cooperation is stronger than ever,” the US president said adding that the Bangladesh Coast Guard and Navy are invaluable partners in ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific region, contributing to the regional effort to end and the trafficking of people and illicit drugs.

Biden said the US and Bangladesh together met the challenge of the Covid-19 pandemic while Washington has donated more than 61 million vaccine doses and provided over US$131 million in assistance to Dhaka.

 

China and Russia to lead a new economic bloc

The news that Sinopec, Chinese state-run oil refiner, has canceled plans for US$500 million investment in Russia’s energy sector does not portend a general decoupling of the economies of China and Russia.

On the contrary, it signifies a temporary halt to an economic partnership that is likely to grow in size and complexity as world powers regroup into new, rival blocs in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the massive sanctions that aligned nations have levied on the aggressor.

That’s according to Ross Kennedy, a senior fellow at the Securities Studies Group and founder of Fortis Analysis, who spoke to EpochTV’s “China Insider” program on April 02, 2022.

A few weeks prior to Russia’s invasion, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a “no limits” partnership, a relationship that has not shown signs of diminishing even as Moscow becomes a pariah on the world stage over its ongoing assault on Ukraine. But Beijing has not yet rushed in to provide significant economic help to Moscow, cautious about being impacted by Western sanctions in the process, according to Kennedy, a logistics and supply chain expert.

“Beijing, despite declaring pretty forcefully and openly that there are no limits on ties between Moscow and Beijing, still also has to take into consideration what the impact of sanctions may be. And right now there’s a bit of a gray area concerning how capital flow is going to work between the two countries, particularly on the investment side,” Kennedy said.

Calling China a “consumption powerhouse” that continues to need enormous amounts of energy and raw materials, Kennedy said that the availability and ease of goods produced in the Black Sea region and the eastern part of Russia still holds significant appeal for Beijing. Though China’s rulers are wary for the moment about what contravening the sanctions on Russia might mean for China’s economy. Hence Kennedy is skeptical about the long-term significance of Sinopec’s decision.

“I don’t think this is an indicator that China is cooling its support of Russia. I don’t think that it is really reflective of anything other than Sinopec, and other companies, being instructed by Beijing to just be a little bit more cautious right now and make sure that state-owned enterprises don’t have exposure to Western sanctions,” he said.

Despite the Sinopec decision, trade is still ongoing at a high volume between the two powers in such product groups as animal feed, vitamins and trace minerals, amino acids, building and construction materials, and other longstanding components of the Russia-China trade relationship, Kennedy said.

Rather than a decoupling, Kennedy sees the likelihood of Chinese state-owned enterprises ramping up their purchases of energy products and grain from Russia. In Kennedy’s analysis, China, India, and possibly other powers will take advantage of the lower prices of energy products available to be shipped by tanker from Russia as the latter power increasingly finds itself shut off from Western markets. A marked increase in non-dollar- and non-Euro-denominated transactions is highly likely, he added.

“It’s pretty clear that Moscow and Beijing and even some of the other countries of the world, like India and Iran, are working and collaborating pretty closely on having the ability to settle transactions among themselves,” Kennedy said.

The increasing reliance on transactions that do not involve Western currencies or banking systems takes place under the rubric of BRICS, the group of powers composed of Russia, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. Kennedy sees BRICS as the nexus of this growing consolidation and formation of a bloc rivaling Western democracies.

Besides the devastation of Ukraine and the imposition of massive sanctions, Russia’s invasion of her neighbor has helped start to usher in a new geopolitical landscape. The new bloc will not emerge overnight. Rather, it is in nascent form, Kennedy said.

“We are seeing the emergence of Russia-China-led sphere of economic and geopolitical cooperation that will stand in contrast to what is more of an Anglosphere, or a transatlantic type of alliance among Canada, the US, and our NATO partners,” Kennedy said.

“I think as we look back in three years, five years, ten years, we’re going to see that it’s really two fully formed economic blocs that have some level of cooperation between them where necessary,” he continued.

To the extent that trade and cooperation occur between the rival blocs, it will depend on facilitators that have a presence in both blocs, such as India, Saudi Arabia, and possibly the United Arab Emirates, Kennedy predicted.

He called the new geopolitical configuration unprecedented since the days of the Cold War, when the world broke down largely of the Soviet Union, Western powers led by the United States, and a number of developing countries loyal to one or the other.

 

Russia condemns United States attempt to punish Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan

Wading into the political battle raging in Islamabad over the alleged threat made against Imran Khan’s government by an American official, Moscow on Tuesday accused the United States of committing “another attempt of shameless interference” in the internal affairs of Pakistan to punish a “disobedient” Imran Khan for not supporting the US position on Ukraine, reported DAWN, Pakistan’s leading English Newspaper.

But rejecting the Russian allegation of interference in Pakistan’s domestic politics, the US State Department said on Tuesday that it “does not support one political party over another”.

In a statement issued in Moscow, spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Maria Zakharova, noted that President Arif Alvi had dissolved the National Assembly on April 03, 2022 on Imran Khan’s advice, which was based on a claim that the US orchestrated a plan to topple his government.

“Immediately after the announcement of the working visit of Imran Khan to Moscow on February 23-24 this year, the United States and its Western associates began to exert rude pressure on the prime minister, demanding an ultimatum to cancel the trip,” Ms Zakharova said.

“When he nevertheless came to us, (US diplomat Donald Lu) called the Pakistani ambassador in Washington and demanded that the visit be immediately interrupted, which was also rejected,” she stated.

“According to the Pakistani media, on March 07 this year, in a conversation with Pakistani Ambassador Asad Majid, a high-ranking American official (presumably Donald Lu) sharply condemned the balanced reaction of the Pakistani leadership to the events in Ukraine and made it clear that partnerships with the United States are possible only if Imran Khan is removed from power,” the spokesperson added.

The Russian official claimed that further development of the situation left no doubt that the US decided to punish the ‘disobedient’ Imran Khan, noting how lawmakers from within the PTI switched sides to the opposition while the no-confidence vote was submitted to parliament.

“This is another attempt of shameless US interference in the internal affairs of an independent state for its own selfish purposes. The above facts eloquently testify to this,” she said.

“The Pakistan Prime Minister himself has repeatedly stated that the conspiracy against him was inspired and financed from abroad. We hope that Pakistani voters will be informed about these circumstances when they come to the elections, which should be held within 90 days after the dissolution of the National Assembly.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement came a couple of days after Imran Khan named US Assistant Secretary of State for Central and South Asia Donald Lu as the official who made threatening remarks about his regime in a letter, which the premier had brandished during a public rally in Islamabad last month.

Last month, the National Security Committee, which includes all services chiefs, had decided to issue a “strong demarche” over the letter, terming it “blatant interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan”.

The Prime Minister has alleged that the no-confidence motion against him is part of the “foreign conspiracy” to oust him from power.

When Dawn approached the US State Department for comment on the Russian statement, one of their spokespersons said that “there’s no truth to these allegations”.

The US official also explained the US position on the current political turmoil in Pakistan, pointing out that it had no favourites in this dispute.

The official said Washington “supports the peaceful upholding of constitutional and democratic principles”, indicating that the US does not want tensions between the ruling and opposition parties to lead to violence and it would support any solution that’s based on the Pakistani Constitution.

Further underlining Washington’s neutrality on this issue, the spokesperson said, “We do not support one political party over another. We support principles of rule of law and equal justice under law.”

This statement covers more ground than previous US statements on the dispute, which did not go beyond denying “allegations” of US involvement. Apparently, the detailed Russian statement, which included serious allegations against the United States, necessitated the added detail.

Saudi Arabia chooses Putin over Biden on Ukraine to keep oil Prices high

I have selected an article by David Ottaway dated March 02, 2022 and want to share it with readers of my blogs.  This may help them understand that the United States and Saudi Arabia don’t share ‘same oil policy’. 

In my opinion only United States can be held responsible for the widening breach between the two countries. 

Saudi Arabia has decided to side with Russia and spurn cries of United States for help as the Ukraine crisis sends the price of oil sky high even though it is the only country with sufficient spare oil production to stop the spiraling to its highest level in eight years. 

Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States are the world’s top three oil exporters, supplying collectively 30% of world demand. But Saudi Arabia is the only one with the capacity to increase production quickly, by as much as two million barrels per day, more or less immediately.

The Saudi government has come under increasing pressure from US President Joe Biden to use its leverage to lower prices. But the Saudi de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), has just re- committed to working with Russia to keep them high. Prices have reached over US$100/barrel; up dramatically from the onset of the coronavirus pandemic two years ago, when prices at one point in April 2020 fell below zero.

The crown prince clearly feels he owes nothing personally to President Biden, who has refused to talk to him due to their falling out over the former’s involvement in the assassination of the prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Saudi Arabia has shown less and less interest in cooperating with the United States on oil matters as it has become a rival oil exporter to the Saudi kingdom.   The US companies presently export around three million barrels a day as compared to Saudi Arabia’s 6.8 million barrels. But they currently produce roughly a million barrels more because the Saudis deliberately limit their output to keep upward pressure on prices.

On the other hand, oil has brought MBS and Russian President Vladimir Putin closer than ever before – at least on oil matters. Saudi Arabia and Russia each lead a group of oil producers that have figured out how to work together to keep prices high.  The former heads the 13-Member Organization of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the latter a grouping of ten non-OPEC producers.  Together, they are referred to as OPEC+ Plus.

The Saudi prince’s siding with Putin over Biden has also been reflected in Saudi silence on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This may be partly explained by Saudi Arabia’s own invasion of neighboring Yemen. Both leaders have said their action was motivated by historic ties and national security concerns.

At an emergency meeting Wednesday, the 23 producers voted to stick to their plan to increase their collective production by only 400,000 more barrels a day each month. By this they signaled no interest in seeing prices fall or in coming to the rescue of Western European nations facing a drop in their Russian oil imports, which account for about 30% of their total consumption.    

When it comes to oil, US-Saudi relations have turned from being more or less cooperative to outright antagonistic as the US companies have developed new methods of extracting oil and gas from shale deposits known as fracking. 

This has seen US crude oil production shoot up from 5.2 million barrels a day in 2005 to more than 12 million barrels just before the pandemic cratered the world economy in early 2020. 

This happened just as Saudi Arabia and Russia were in a standoff over increasing production. In a power play, the Saudis decided in March of that year to swamp the market with more oil to force its will on Russia, increasing their production from 9.7 million barrels a day to 12.3 million.

At the same time, they decided to try to put those US companies involved in fracking out of business.  In March 2020, they hired twenty supertankers carrying 40 million barrels of oil to the United States where it was dumped on an already saturated market. Its effect was dramatic.

On April 20, 2020 the price for a barrel of oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange actually fell to negative US$37.63, a theretofore unheard of low. The oil dump plus the pandemic-induced recession achieved the Saudi objective, scores of small fracking companies went out of business and US production dropped by more than two million barrels a day.

Biden even made a rare phone call to King Salman in early February to plead his case for more Saudi oil.

Ever since, the Saudi crown prince and his oil minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, who is his half-brother, have chosen to work with Russia and OPEC+ Plus over heeding any pleas for help from the White House. Even before the Ukraine crisis, Biden was pressing Saudi Arabia to open up its oil spigot to help relieve the ever-rising price of gasoline in the United States – one of the main causes of high inflation helping to undermine his standing in the polls. Biden even made a rare phone call to King Salman in early February to plead his case for more Saudi oil. According to the White House account of their conversation, the two leaders committed to ensuring the stability of global energy supplies.

A week later, the Saudi Oil Minister made clear his country was sticking to the agreement first worked out in July 2021 among the 23 members of OPEC+ to slowly only restore their monthly collective production at the rate of 400,000 more barrels a day. This agreement has been renewed again and again ever since.

At its meeting which lasted just 15 minutes, OPEC Plus issued a statement washing its hands of any responsibility for spiraling oil prices.  It declared the oil market well-balanced and blamed the volatility in prices on current geopolitical developments. There was no mention of Ukraine.