Israeli weapon seen used by Ukrainian unit against Russia

An anti-armor weapon jointly developed by Israel, Singapore and a German company has been seen in use by the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion against Russian military forces.

In a video released by the Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian fighter, ostensibly affiliated with the controversial unit, can be seen firing the portable anti-tank weapon at what appears to be a Russian armored personnel carrier (APC).

As Western countries have undertaken massive arms transfers to Ukraine to support it in its war against Russia, critics such as The Intercept’s Sara Sirota have expressed concern that these weapons could end up in the Azov Battalion, which was integrated into Ukraine’s National Force in 2014.

Anti-tank and armor weapons such as the Javelin, NLAW and MATADOR have been a mainstay of arms transfers to Ukraine. In a March 16, 2022 briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said “Anti-armor and air-defense systems, they are effectively defending the country.”

The German Defense Ministry listed 2,650 MATADORs for purchase by Ukraine, Süddeutsche Zeitung reported in March. Euromaidan Press reported that they had been purchased for €25 million, along with another 2,450 that will be produced.

The recently released video shows that these partly Israeli-developed weapons are now in the hands of the Azov Battalion, which has been widely characterized as a neo-Nazi militia. While CNN and other media analysis have weighed the possibility that Azov has reformed, the group still has prominent neo-Nazis in its ranks and features white supremacist symbols.

The Battalion’s logo still has the Black Sun, a common white supremacist symbol, and the Wolfsangel symbol used by the Nazi SS.

This is not the first time concerns have been raised about Israeli weapons and Ukraine. In February, Interfax Ukraine reported that the Israeli Defense Ministry told Baltic states that it wouldn’t meet requests for third-party transfer of Israeli-made weapons to Ukraine.

In 2018, Haaretz reported that human rights activists filed a petition to the High Court of Justice demanding an end to arms exports to Ukraine over concern they would reach Azov militants.

Haaretz published an image showing an Israel Weapons Industry Tavor sub-machine gun being held by an Azov Battalion soldier. Tavors have also been seen wielded by Ukrainian fighters in the recent conflict, produced under license by Ukrainian company RPC Fort as the FORT-221, according to The Warzone.

The MATADOR, also known in European markets as the RGW 90, is an unguided short-range shoulder-fired anti-armor rocket launcher jointly developed by Israeli government-owned defense firm RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems, Singapore’s armed forces and Defence Science and Technology Agency, and German defense company Dynamit Nobel.

The MATADOR platform was developed for the confined spaces of urban warfare environments and is capable of penetrating the armor of most APCs and light tanks, according to the Singaporean Defense Ministry.

The weapon has a “dual-capability” warhead beyond normal anti-tank weapons, a delay action mode designed to blow open walls and create an entry into buildings. When fighting in urban environments, the ability to avoid entering though doors and windows can mean avoiding ambush or booby traps.

The weapon is “among the lightest in its class,” according to the Singaporean Defense Ministry, and extremely versatile.

According to Dynamit Nobel Defense, the MATADOR is capable of firing smokescreen and illumination munitions in addition to its anti-armor, vehicle and tank functions.

It has a maximum effective range of 500 meters, according to technical specifications published by the Singaporean Defense Ministry.

The MATADOR is in use by several states, including the Israel Defense Forces, where it has seen effective and active service. Among some IDF soldiers, the weapon is considered too expensive to fire in training. The wall opening function is particularly valued by IDF soldiers, who have used it in heavily built-up environments such as the Gaza Strip.

 

Iranian President issues stern warning to Israel

Iranian President Ayatollah Seyed Ebrahim Raisi has issued a strong warning against any Israeli move to harm Iran, making sure that his country is aware of Israel’s possible plans to take the battle into Iran. 

The timing and the venue from which the warning was issued could not be more meaningful. President Raisi made the remarks during a military parade held on the occasion of the Iranian Army Day. Flanked by Army generals in an elevated stand, Raisi told parading troops that Iran will respond to any Israeli aggression against Iran in Israel’s depth. 

Underlining that Iran will never start a war, but will face any aggression with a remorseful and decisive response; President Raisi announced the high readiness of the country's military forces and the high intelligence elite of these forces in the face of regional and international developments.

He asserted that the slightest movement of the enemy will not be hidden from the sharp eyes of Iran’s armed forces, noting, “The Zionist regime (Israel) that is seeking to normalize relations with some regional countries must know that the slightest move it makes will not be hidden from the sharp eyes and intelligence of the Armed Forces and intelligent forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Stressing that any movement of the Zionist regime against Iran will lead to a decisive response from the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Raisi warned the leaders of the regime, “Beware that the great and formidable power of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will not leave you as you are for a second.”

This is the highest-level warning after the Iranian missile strike in March against a “Mossad headquarters” in Erbil, northern Iraq, which was reportedly a response to a previously announced Israeli drone attack in the western Iranian province of Kermanshah.

Iran’s Al-Alam news television said the missile attack, launched by the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), came in response to a recent Israeli drone attack in the Mahidasht region in western Iran.

Little is known about the Mahidasht strike but it apparently marked a significant stage in what Israelis call the “Octopus doctrine,” which happens to be a brainchild of Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.  

The doctrine means that Israel should take the battle to Iran instead of fighting Iran’s allies across the West Asia region. Bennett outlined the doctrine at the Herzliya Conference in May 2018 when he was education minister. 

“While we’re shedding blood fighting their tentacles, the octopus’s head is lounging in its chair enjoying itself,” he said of Iran, adding that it was time for Israel “to aim at the head of the octopus and not its tentacles.”

Bennett reiterated the doctrine when he became defense minister, saying in February 2020 that “when the tentacles of the octopus strike you, do not fight only against the tentacle, but suffocate its head, likewise with Iran.”

But Bennett has largely failed in carrying out his doctrine due to Iran’s vigilance. Israel was unable to mount a significant attack inside Iran. And the Mahidasht attack was so minor in its effect that Israel was unwilling to highlight it at the media level just as it does with the attacks that it does not claim responsibility for. 

Anyway, Iran seems more vigilant than ever vis-a-vis Israel’s moves. Iran has long said it is watching all the steps Israel makes in the region whether through its new allies or directly. And has the will to respond to any aggressive move, as Raisi said.

Interruption in Libyan oil supply: A cause of concern or bluff only

Contrary to the wishes of US fund managers price of crude oil could not be jacked up. The United States caused a war like situation in Ukraine to keep oil prices at an elevated level. When the strategy failed US supported forces in Libya caused virtual shut down of production and loading facilities.

I have preferred to term this strategy a bluff only because Libya’s share in global oil markets is paltry. Export or no export is hardly of any consequence. Dissemination of such reports by the Western media facilitates the fund managers to drive the market and make windfall profit.

 Reportedly, Libyan National Oil Company (NOC) has declared force majeure on another key Libyan oil field, the 300,000 bpd Al Sharara, amid protests that had shut down production at two ports and the El Feel oilfield on Sunday.

NOC said, “A group of individuals put pressure on workers in the Al-Sharara oil field and forced them to gradually shut down production and made it impossible for the NOC to implement its contractual obligations”. 

The NOC said it was “obliged” to declare a state of force majeure on Al Sharara “until further notice”. 

Al-Sharara is Libya’s biggest oilfield, and the move effectively suspended all Libyan oil production and exports. 

On Sunday, the NOC said that loadings of crude oil at two Libyan ports had been suspended amid anti-government protests that were interfering with oil industry operations.

Loading from the Mellita terminal was suspended following a shut down in production at the El Feel oil field, with the NOC stating that individuals were preventing the field’s workers from continuing production. 

Also on Sunday, the NOC shut down operations at the Zueitina export terminal over protests calling for the resignation of incumbent Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah.  

The NOC has been eyeing a ramp-up in production to 1.4 million bpd for Libya, but a new political battle is setting the stage for potential return to civil war. Libya has been producing around 1million bpd since the beginning of this year. 

Two rival governments have now emerged in Libya, with incumbent Prime Minister Deibah refusing to step down for newly sworn-in eastern Prime Minister Fathi Bashaga, who last week said his forces would take over the capital Tripoli peacefully. 

The latest protests that have led to force majeure appear to be engineered by supporters of the Bashaga to gain control of the oil industry from supporters of the incumbent Dbeibah. 

Early on Monday, the initial force majeure declarations pushed oil prices higher, with Brent trading above US$111 per barrel.

With the latest force majeure declaration for Al-Sharara, oil prices are pushing higher still, with Brent at US$113 at the time of writing and WTI above US$108. 

 

Safeen Feeders inks agreement with Saif Powertec of Bangladesh

According to Seatrade Maritime News, UAE-based Safeen Feeders has inked an agreement with Bangladesh’s Saif Powertec for the delivery of bulk cargoes from Fujairah to Chattogram and Mongla. 

The new bulk shipping offering will also oversee cargo operations to the Indian subcontinent, South-East Asia, and other global destinations, Abu Dhabi’s AD Ports Group, which owns Safeen Feeders, said.

 “Leveraging Safeen Feeders’ expertise as a leading maritime service provider, as well as the advanced capabilities of its modernized fleet, Saif is well-positioned to accelerate the trade of dry construction materials between the UAE and Bangladesh, along with other dry cargo goods to key markets across the region and beyond,” Capt. Maktoum Al Houqani, CEO Maritime Cluster, AD Ports Group, said.

The International Monetary Fund forecasts real GDP growth of 6.5% for Dhaka in 2022. With a population of 168 million people, Bangladesh’s economy was booming until the coronavirus pandemic hit, after witnessing real growth of 8.2% in 2019, and is now preparing for a new burst of development. Platts said that Bangladesh was the world’s fifth-biggest wheat importer in 2019.

Set up in 2020 in a tie-up with Singapore’s Bengal Tiger Line, Safeen Feeders has launched two main container services. The weekly UAE Indian Sub-Continent Gulf (UIG) service is a “pendulum” service of three 1,700 teu vessels on a 21-day rotation calling at Khalifa Port, Sharjah, Bahrain, Dammam, Umm Qasr, Karachi, Mundra, Kandla, and Nhava Sheva. Its weekly UAE Coast & Oman (UCO) service offers a 1,000 teu vessel calling at Khalifa Port, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain, Ras Al Khaimah, and Sohar.

In a fact sheet shared with Seatrade Maritime News, Safeen Feeders said that, as of March, its container fleet consisted of nine container ships, eight owned and one chartered in.

“We are pleased to announce the start of our close partnership with AD Ports Group’s Safeen Feeders, which has greatly enhanced our capabilities as Bangladesh’s sole terminal operator to facilitate the movement of dry cargo at the international level,” Tarafder MD Ruhul Amin, Managing Director Saif Powertec, said.

According to Safeen Feeders’ own website, in addition to 18 tugs, its fleet also includes seven pilot boats, seven speedboats, one buoy maintenance vessel, one diving supply vessel and two oil spill response boats. Safeen Feeders’ bulk carriers will be offered on a bareboat or time charter basis.

 

Sri Lankan default should be an eye opener for Pakistan

As Sri Lankan officials arrive Washington to meet with the International Monetary Fund amid an economic and political crisis, the main question they’ll need to answer is how the country plans to manage its billions in debt.

Reportedly, Sri Lanka is seeking up to US$4 billion this year to help it import essentials and pay creditors. To get any of that through the IMF’s various programs, the government of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa must present a sustainable debt program. That’s a standard requirement for aid from the lender of last resort, even if a shortage of food, fuel and medicine is pushing the country toward a humanitarian crisis.

The downward economic spiral — dwindling foreign reserves and soaring inflation — has triggered political unrest in Colombo, where Rajapaksa has resisted calls to step down despite growing protests and a loss of coalition partners in parliament. Over the weekend, the army denied speculation it planned to crack down on protesters, while the local stock exchange announced it would shut this week amid the uncertainty.

The outlook makes a default inevitable, as  acknowledged by S&P Global last week when it downgraded Sri Lanka’s credit rating and warned of another cut if the nation misses coupon payments due on Monday. Meanwhile, investors are trying to figure out how much they might recover on $12.6 billion of foreign bonds, and if there’s even profit to be made.

The country’s dollar bond due July 2022 indicated 5.2 cents higher on Monday to trade at 46 cents on the dollar, after a sharp drop Friday.

Here are some IMF funding options in play as talks are due to start this week:

Emergency Assistance

IMF members can access one-off emergency loans, with few conditions, through the lender’s Rapid Credit Facility and Rapid Financing Instrument. However, this payout is capped at 50% of a state’s quota for a year, which in Sri Lanka’s case works out to US$395 million — or 289 million in special drawing rights, the IMF’s unit of account. The nation has declared that it will prioritize payments for food and fuel imports over debt servicing.

But even for that, Colombo needs to take steps toward restructuring its debt, which the IMF staff last month determined was unsustainable.

“When the IMF determines that a country’s debt is not sustainable, the country needs to take steps to restore debt sustainability prior to IMF lending,” Masahiro Nozaki, the IMF’s mission chief for Sri Lanka, said in an emailed response to questions. “Thus, approval of an IMF-supported program for Sri Lanka would require adequate assurances that debt sustainability will be restored.”

Meeting the criteria could include even initial steps like hiring advisers, which the government is pursuing. The administration has set a Friday deadline for applications from financial and legal advisers, extending its original date by a week. That makes Finance Minister Ali Sabry’s stated goal of securing emergency funds as early as a week after negotiations start look optimistic.

Given Sri Lanka has a US$1 billion bond maturing in July and more repayments over the course of 2022, it will probably need access to the IMF’s Stand-By Arrangement. Termed as its “workhorse” instrument, Sri Lanka would be eligible for a loan of as much as 435% of its quota — roughly US$3.4 billion, net of repayments — for up to 36 months.

The payout can be front-loaded if the need is dire, but is contingent upon the borrower agreeing to conditions such as specific revenue and deficit targets.

Central bank Governor Nandalal Weerasinghe said last week that it was too early to estimate a value of the lending that Sri Lanka could get from the IMF or to confirm the type of program that the lender could agree to.

While he said that an Extended Fund Facility — which allows longer repayment periods — may be best suited to the country, it typically requires deeper structural reforms. Sri Lanka had that facility approved in 2016, and a Stand-By Arrangement before it during the financial crisis of 2009.

Weerasinghe noted that Sri Lanka in the 2009 loan was approved for access to 400% of its quota.

“I do not see why we cannot get at least that amount,” he said. “Now the financial gap is much much higher.”

Keeping deficits in check will entail extending the maturity of existing debt and smaller interest payments. When the government last week announced it would halt debt payments and warned it was heading for an unprecedented default, Weerasinghe said authorities were seeking to negotiate with creditors.

Nomura Holdings Inc. envisions an Ecuador-style restructuring where Sri Lanka will swap notes for longer-dated bonds with lower coupon rates and some reduction to principal. Barclays Plc said Sri Lanka could roll all of its debt into a new bond with a final maturity in 2037 and semi-annual amortizations starting in 2027; coupons could be in the range of 4% to 5%, lower than its current average 6.6%.

Rajapaksa’s government has also appealed to China, one of its biggest creditors, for an additional US$2.5 billion in support. While President Xi Jinping has pledged to help, an apparent reluctance reflects both a rethink in its external lending practices and a hesitancy to be seen interfering in messy domestic political situations.

Earlier this month, Jin Liqun, President of the China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, encouraged Sri Lanka to turn to the IMF. Neighbor India is also assisting Sri Lanka with credit lines to purchase food and fuel.

Sabry, the Finance Minister, said last week that the country will hold talks with other lenders, including the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, adding that the country is committed to honoring its debt. “We will pay every dollar we borrowed,” he said.

As Sri Lanka is set to start IMF talks, what are its options?

Sri Lanka is seeking up to US$4 billion to pay for essentials and pay creditors, but it must show IMF a sustainable debt plan.

British Prime Minister visit to India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Killing of Muammar Gaddafi: Pepping into the history

A debate is going on in Pakistan; did United States play any role in the toppling of Imran Khan Government? All the arguments being put forward conclude, US didn’t play any role. However, analysts aware of the tactics of the United States are hesitant in accepting these clarifications.

This evening I revisited my blog “Chris Stevens a diplomat or spy” written as back as on September 12, 2012. My point was, killing of the US Ambassador in Libya and his portrayal as friend of ‘freedom’ fighters raises a question, was he a diplomat or an ace CIA operator? In the recent past many countries have been alleging that spies have become an integral part of the US diplomatic core.

I also managed to pick the following lines from Wikipedia on the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, the deposed leader of Libya.

He was captured and killed on October 20, 2011 after the Battle of Sirte. Gaddafi was found west of Sirte after his convoys were attacked by NATO aircraft. He was then captured by National Transitional Council (NTC) forces and was killed shortly afterwards.

The NTC initially claimed Gaddafi died from injuries sustained in a shootout when loyalist forces attempted to free him, although a graphic video of his last moments shows rebel fighters beating him and one of them sodomizing him with a bayonet before he was shot several times.

The killing of Gaddafi was criticized as a violation of international law. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch called for an independent autopsy and an investigation into how Gaddafi died.

Moments after it was reported that Gaddafi was killed, Fox News published an article titled "US Drone Involved in Final Qaddafi Strike, as Obama Heralds Regime's 'End'", noting that a US Predator drone was involved in the airstrike on Gaddafi's convoy in the moments before his death. An anonymous US official subsequently described their policy in hindsight as "leading from behind".

Because Libyan rebels had consistently told American government officials that they did not want overt foreign military assistance in toppling Gaddafi, covert military assistance was used (including arms shipments to opposition). The plan following Gaddafi's death was to immediately begin flowing humanitarian assistance to eastern Libya and later western Libya, as the symbolism would be critically important. US sources stressed it as important that they would "not allow Turkey, Italy and others to steal a march on it".

Many Western leaders and foreign ministers in Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States made statements hailing Gaddafi's death as a positive development for Libya. The city-state of Vatican City responded to the event by declaring it recognized the National Transitional Council as Libya's legitimate government. World leaders such as Italy's prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, and Australian prime minister Julia Gillard suggested that the death of Gaddafi meant the Libyan Civil War was over. Some officials, such as UK foreign secretary William Hague, expressed disappointment that Gaddafi was not brought back alive and allowed to stand trial. In a candid moment while filming a TV interview, Hillary Clinton, at the time the United States' secretary of state, laughingly stated "We came. We saw. He died." — a variant of a Roman phrase alluding to the swift military victory.

Reactions from the governments of countries including Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua were negative. Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez described the former Libyan leader's death as an "assassination" and an "outrage", and Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega later called Gaddafi's killing a "crime" during his inauguration on 10 January 2012. Government officials and politicians in Iran showed considerably diverse reactions

The video reportedly left a particularly strong and consequential impression on Russian head of state Vladimir Putin. A senior diplomat who had served at the US embassy in Moscow under the Obama administration reportedly claimed that "Putin had been appalled by Gaddafi's fate" to the extent that "Putin had watched a video of Gaddafi’s savage death three times, a video that shows him being sodomised with a bayonet."

Referring to the US coalition's lobbying efforts for the airstrikes at the United Nations, the US diplomat was quoted as saying that a later US intelligence assessment concluded that "Putin blamed himself for letting Gaddafi go, for not playing a strong role behind the scenes" and that the video may have even influenced Putin's decision to support Syrian president Bashar al-Assad during the Syrian Civil War since "Putin believed that unless he got engaged Bashar would suffer the same fate – mutilated – and he'd see the destruction of his allies in Syria."

Putin also lashed out at the US for what he perceived as the illegal killing of Gaddafi and asked "They showed to the whole world how he (Gaddafi) was killed; there was blood all over. Is that what they call a democracy?"

Tribute to Sahibzada Yaqub Khan

Sahibzada Yaqub Khan left this world at 95 with a smile on his face. Very few people knew about the pain hidden behind his smile. He was a soldier tuned diplomat and never liked wars. He used to remember Sullivan brothers who were all killed in 2nd World War.

These five brothers were serving US Navy together as Sailors on a ship called USS Juneau. Japanese attacked their ship in 1942 and all five were killed.

Sahibzada Yaqub Khan said brothers were unlucky because they got killed together. After a brief pause he would say but they were lucky because they were serving in a same Army to fight a common enemy!

He never shared his personal war experiences which always haunted him till his death. Sahibzada Yaqub Khan and his brother Sahibzada Yunus Khan served together in British Army as young officers during 2nd World War. Both earned Indian General Service Medal (IGMS).

Yaqub was captured by Italian and German Army near Egypt-Libya border in 1942. He learned Italian and German languages during his captivity. He was released after the war was over.

The year 1947 separated the two brothers who belonged to the royal family of Rampur. Major Sahibzada Yaqub Khan opted for Pakistan Army and his elder brother Major Sahibzada Yunus Khan decided to serve Indian Army.

Within one year both Khans were leading their battalions from opposite sides in 1948 in the mountains of Kashmir. The two brothers met face-to-face with guns in their hands spitting out bullets in rapid fire. A bullet fired from the gun of Major Yunus Khan injured Major Yaqub Khan.

When elder brother realized that he injured his younger brother he shouted “don’t grieve Chhotey. We are soldiers and we did our duty”. Later on Colonel Maneckshaw and Colonel Jasbir Singh of Indian Army commended Major Yunus Khan but also said sorry for his brother Yaqub.

The two brothers never contacted each other again because they were serving in opposite Armies until 1960 when Yaqub married an Indian girl Tuba Khaleeli from Kolkata.

Yunus sent greetings to his younger brother in Pakistan on his marriage. Yaqub commanded an armored division of Pak Army during India-Pakistan war of 1965 but at that time his brother Colonel Yunus was retired from Indian Army.

Same Sahibzada Yaqub Khan became a three star General in Pakistan Army in 1971. He was appointed Commander of Eastern Command in Dhaka. In the first week of March 1971 he was ordered to launch a military operation against Awami League lead by Sheikh Mujibur Rehman.

Lt.Gen Sahibzada Yaqub Khan advised military dictator General Yahya Khan to avoid using gun power against democratically elected leaders. He informed military dictator in writing that transfer of power to Sheikh Mujib was the only solution of the crises.

When Yahya refused to listen to his Commander on ground Sahibzada Yaqub Khan resigned. Initially he became target of dictator’s anger but later on he was proved right. Pakistan was divided but he got respect due to his refusal and resignation. At least he was not part of any crime.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto knew that Sahibzada Yaqub Khan had command on more than 10 languages including French, German, Italian, Russian, Persian and Arabic. He appointed him Ambassador in France in 1972. When General Ziaul Haq toppled the government of Bhutto in 1977 Sahibzada was serving as Ambassador in Moscow.

He once again decided to act courageously. He advised military dictator General Zia not to hang a politician but Zia never listened to him and hanged Bhutto.

General Zia appointed Sahibzada Yaqub Khan as his Foreign Minister in 1982. Same year Sahibzada Yaqub Khan travelled to Delhi in his official capacity and met his brother after 36 years. They embraced each other with tears in their eyes and never discussed what happened in 1948.

Courtesy: The Bangladesh Chronicle

 

Pakistan must get ready to face IMF

Most of the politicians in Pakistan, being part of the ruling junta or sitting in the opposition, talk ‘bad’ about International Monetary Fund (IMF), mainly to attain political mileage. 

While every political party in opposition blames IMF of economic malice of Pakistan, but no sooner did it comes in power approaches the lender of last resort and often agrees on its (IMF) condition in the name of saving the country from eminent default.

Pakistan and IMF have a long history of love and hate relationship. Since independence Pakistan has entered into 22 bailout programs and also enjoys the distinction of the country that has entered into the largest number of programs, among the community of nations. This establishes a point, “IMF will never allow Pakistan to commit default. This has become all the more necessary after Pakistan has attained the status of ‘an atomic power’.

I am inclined to accept one of the conspiracy theories of my mentor, Masoom Shah Sindhi. He says, “IMF will never allow Pakistan to commit default, but it will also never allow Pakistan to stand on its feet firmly.” He also says, “Historically Pakistan has remained ‘Frontline Alley’ of United States during ‘Cold War Era’ as well as ‘Proxy Wars in Afghanistan’. On top of all the super power will not allow Pakistan to become a darling of Russia or China. The best tool to keep Pakistan under the ‘US Hegemony’ is to make Pakistan follow the ‘IMF Dictate’.”

I have to accept his point of view and I am also sure that you will also join me once you read my narrative. “Pakistan has lived under 22 IMF programs and the lender of last resort still talks about introducing more structural adjustment programs. This proves two points: 1) the programs introduced in the past were faulty or 2) these programs were never aimed at making Pakistan a self-sustained entity.”

Many Pakistanis may be ready to accept the ‘vested’ interest of IMF, but do have a right to raise finger at the integrity of policy planners. Ironically, the policy planners have been following IMF dictate blindly and failing in coming up with ‘home grown’ plan. The beauty is that the politicians continue ‘mudslinging’ despite having remained part of different governments under different political parties.

Enough is enough, the time has come that people of Pakistan open their eyes and ears open and watch every move of the incumbent government, headed by Shehbaz Sharif.

Time has also come that the people of Pakistan ‘dump’ the political parties and politicians who have proven to be ‘vultures’ only. They have done little for the country, except serving ‘their vested interests’.  

 

Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif must bid farewell to his idiosyncrasy

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has to make certain decisions at his own, because the cabinet has not been put in place. 

Considering his leeway he is likely to make some populist decisions which could further widen the already wide breach between the Government of Pakistan (GoP) and the lender of last resort, International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Since revision of petroleum prices was due on April 15, 2022, Oil and Gas regulatory Authority (OGRA) had recommended a substantial increase in the prices of petroleum products for recovering the full import cost and exchange rate losses from consumers.

According to the estimates of the regulator, the GoP was required to raise petrol prices by Rs21.30 a litre and diesel by above Rs83 a litre in order to recover the full costs. In case it also wants to recover the sales tax and the petroleum development levy on these products, Ogra has proposed a hike of Rs53.30 in petrol and up to Rs120 in diesel prices.

Who would intentionally opt to step on this landmine that PML-N leader Miftah Ismail referred to in his press conference earlier this week? Certainly not a new coalition that, though faced with an enormous economic crisis, has to contend with a formidable political foe. The big question now is: for how long can Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif delay defusing the landmine, which his predecessor left for him, by freezing petroleum and electricity rates for four months?

He can’t afford to wait for too long, and would need to start deactivating it, even if gradually — unless he wants to allow a bloating budget deficit to spiral out of control by the end of the current financial year.

Thus, the decision to not hike petroleum prices at all is an ill-advised one.

Pakistan is facing a dire economic crisis and populist policies made under political pressure are certainly not going to help anyone in the long run — least of all the people benefiting from them.

At the end of the day, the beneficiaries always end up paying back such subsidies in a harder way through more indirect levies or higher taxes and heavy cuts in public sector spending on essential services, such as education, water supply and healthcare.

The gravity of the looming economic crisis demands that the new government take prudent, forward-looking policy decisions to put the country back on the trajectory of sustainable growth, even it wants to tread cautiously. However, the Shehbaz Sharif government does not have the option of letting things remain as they are or keep delaying tough decisions. If Sharif continues with populist policies for fear of a backlash from the opposition PTI, he would leave the economy in far more dire straits than he inherited.

Can Europe afford ban on Russian Coal?

The world was already struggling to combat a global energy supply squeeze well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

As world powers seek to condemn the Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine by crippling the Russian economy, it’s becoming increasingly clear that energy sanctions will be a necessary part of any meaningful global response.

Those doing the sanctioning are also going to feel an economic backlash as the exit of Russian oil, coal, and gas from the global energy supply will leave many European and Asian countries scrambling for new sources of fuel. 

In fact, the threat posed to Europe’s energy security by sanctions on Russia have left European leaders  gridlocked and struggling to agree on how, what, and how much to boycott.

Unable to come to an accord around Russian oil and gas, which provide nearly half of Europe's energy imports, the European Union has agreed to start with a Russian coal ban, slated to begin in August 2022.

While this may seem like a weak and belated effort when compared with the magnitude and urgency of the atrocities unfolding in Ukraine, this relatively small step will leave the continent scrambling to find 40 million tons of replacement coal. 

Thanks to the lingering effects of the novel coronavirus pandemic, a global energy supply squeeze has led many of the world’s countries back to coal as oil and gas prices skyrocket.

This means weaning the world off of Russian coal imports will be an even bigger challenge for European and Asian countries that have ratcheted up their coal consumption in recent months.

In 2021 alone, European imports of Russian coal increased by 22.4%. Coal prices are already near a record high, and the instatement of the European boycott in August will drive them even higher.

The coal ban will have a much greater impact on Russia than it will on the European Union. “It’s bad news for Putin, but won’t devastate the EU,” Fortune recently reported.

For one thing, European buyers have already begun their shift away from Russian coal, and the August deadline, which Germany pushed for, will ease the burden of finding new sources of coal in a hurry. 

The European Union is far from the only economic bloc that will be scrambling to find new sources of coal. Many Asian nations, too, will be looking for non-Russian imports.

Notably, Japan recently announced that it, too, will ban Russian coal imports in a surprise policy shift that was a reversal of the nation’s previous refusal to extend its embargo to the Russian energy imports that Japan heavily relies upon.

“Russia’s cruel and inhumane actions are coming to light one after another all over Ukraine,” Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida told reporters on Friday. “We will ban imports of Russian coal.”

Some of the world’s biggest coal consumers will be competing in an already tight market for new coal supplies. Top global coal exporters Australia and Indonesia have already hit their production limits, and South Africa, another major coal producer, is facing logistical problems in their own coal supply chains.

According to Fortune, the European Union will likely be looking to the United States and Colombia for coal imports come August, and Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic will be ramping up their domestic production levels.

China, too, will be massively increasing its production levels. While Beijing will not be exporting domestically produced coal, the production increase will lessen demand for international imports, thereby freeing up some supply on the global marketplace for other nations scrambling to keep the lights on without cutting a check to the Kremlin.

 

Afghans condemn attack on Iranian missions

A large number of Afghan citizens participated in a gathering in Kabul to show their vigilance against the hypocrisy of the enemies of the Iranian and Afghan nations. The rally in the Afghan capital held to condemn the attack on Iranian diplomatic facilities ended with the reading of a joint statement.

The final statement, titled “No to seditionists”.

This gathering means raising the voice of saying no to the enemies and the hypocrites as well as the beautiful whisper of solidarity between the brotherly nation of Iran and Afghanistan. We call on the two governments of Iran and Afghanistan to prevent a division of the two nations by the enemies through sound management and to prevent the destructive moves of the enemies.

Today, we will shout for the unity of the two heroic and brave nations many times, so that there will be a loud call against the enemy's conspiracies and a voice for empathy, friendship and convergence of the two nations.

If a number of ill-intentioned people threw stones at the door of the Iranian consulate in Herat on Monday, today, on behalf of the Afghan people, we will open the door of the Iranian embassy in Kabul as a sign of brotherhood and friendship.

The people of Afghanistan and Iran must say no to the conspiracies of the enemy with full vigilance and with empathy and brotherhood, punching the slaves of the hypocrites.”

At the end of the gathering, the participants, representing the people of Afghanistan, placed flowers on the doors of the Iranian embassy in Kabul.

On Monday, protesters in Herat broke the windows and CCTV cameras of the Iranian consulate. They also set tires on fire in front of the consulate’s building. 

On Tuesday, the Director General of South Asia at the Iranian Foreign Ministry summoned the charge d'affaires of the Afghan embassy in Tehran to strongly protest against the attacks on the Iranian embassy in Kabul and the consulate in Herat.

Recalling the responsibility of governments in ensuring the security of diplomatic missions, the diplomat called for legal action against the attackers on the Iranian missions in Afghanistan.

The Director General also informed the Afghan chargé d'affaires that the consular sections of the missions of Iran in Afghanistan have ceased their activities until further notice in order to get the necessary assurances from the Afghan Foreign Ministry about the full security of the diplomatic offices.

In this regard, Na’eem al-Haq Haqqani, Head of the Taliban Government's Information and Culture Department, called the gathering and attacks of an unidentified group in front of the Iranian consulate in Herat “an arbitrary act”.

He wrote on his Twitter account, “A number of people had protested arbitrarily in front of the Iranian consulate, and the demonstrators immediately were dispersed with the intervention of the security forces of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban). After the Taliban took action, the situation was brought completely under control, and since this move (attack) was controlled very quickly, nothing special happened.”

Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh announced on Tuesday that Iran’s embassy in Kabul and its consulates in other cities in Afghanistan are open and are continuing their activities.

“Yet, it is expected Afghanistan’s interim governing body to responsibly provide the full security of diplomats and diplomatic buildings of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Afghanistan,” Khatibzadeh told reporters.

Iran on Tuesday summoned Afghan envoy in Tehran over attacks the previous day on Iranian diplomatic missions in the neighboring country, state media in Iran reported.

According to the reports, Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Afghan chargé d’affaires in protest over Monday’s attacks on the Iranian Embassy in Kabul and the Iranian Consulate in Herat, where protests had turned aggressive. In Herat, angry Afghan protesters pelted the consulate with rocks.

The ministry demanded that Afghanistan’s new Taliban rulers provide the missions with full security and said they stopped working until further notice. On Monday, ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said more needed to be done by the Taliban to ensure security to Iranian missions.

In recent weeks, unverified videos purporting to show Afghan refugees being tortured in Iran have been published on social media, angering many Afghans. Iran has denied the accusations.

Iran hosts millions of Afghan refugees. Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian said the number of Afghans in Iran has jumped to 5 million, from nearly 4 million before the Taliban took power last August

 

 

 

 

How does an Indian analyst see Imran Khan ouster?

“Imran Khan’s shortened tenure and the crisis his ousting offers a sharp reminder of the tenuousness of its democratic institutions in face of the mightily powerful political force wielded by the military,” Mahima Duggal tells the Tehran Times.

Following is the text of the interview

Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan has been ousted from power after losing a no-confidence vote in his leadership. What are the main reasons for such a decision?

The main reason behind Prime Minister Imran Khan’s ousting from the leadership of Pakistan is the escalating tensions between Khan and the top-level military leaders. Reports of frictions between the political and military establishments of Pakistan caused intense turmoil and fuelled further panic and tension in the country in the weeks prior to Khan’s no-confidence vote. In fact, recent reports suggest that alongside deploying his allies to filibuster the no-confidence vote and call the opposition traitors for going against the Prime Minister, Khan also sought to dismiss Pakistan’s army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, a highly influential and powerful figure in Pakistani politics. Although, his efforts to sack Gen. Bajwa were blocked by a pre-emptive petition to the high court, this botched attempt only went to show the extent to which ties between Khan and the military had soured, especially considering the fact that in 2018, when Imran Khan assumed leadership, it was with the help of the army and intelligence establishments of the country. Ultimately, following a highly tense situation – even by the measure of Pakistan’s turbulent political history – wherein he fiercely fought to retain leadership, Khan lost a no-confidence vote in his leadership.

Imran Khan claims that Washington was behind a conspiracy to remove him from power. To what extent this allegation is true?

As of now, there is little evidence to suggest that the effort to remove him from power is anyway a result of a US-led conspiracy, despite strong allegations by Prime Minister Khan alleging this. The assertions first emerged at a rally in Islamabad on March 27, when Khan stated that he held a letter containing a threat by the US directed toward his government. Thereafter, he specifically pointed to Donald Lu, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, as being a part of this alleged conspiracy. The various (and vague) factors mentioned as reasons for US supposed action range from refusal to allow a US base on Pakistani soil to maintaining neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict – but no confirmation or verification has been provided, with Khan relying on rumors to spur support for his leadership. In other words, his intention was to tap into the simmering anti-American sentiments prevalent in the nation, whose people frequently view the US as unfairly scapegoating Pakistan in its post 9/11 war on terror. Members of his political party, Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), have supported Khan’s stance – with PTI member and Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri even attempting to block the initial motion for a no-confidence vote earlier in April by claiming that the alleged letter showed interference by foreign forces. 

Khan could very well succeed in pushing for an earlier ballot that allows him to capitalize on the public support he has gathered and reattain office. Yet, the US has bluntly and categorically and repeatedly rejected such assertions of a conspiracy to overthrow Khan’s government, saying there was “absolutely no truth” to them. While it is certainly possible that Khan’s foreign policy of pursuing a closer partnership with China and recent actions like his visit to the Kremlin on February 24 – just as the Ukraine invasion began – upset Washington, there is little real evidence to credibly suggest that the US instigated the no-trust vote in Khan’s leadership. By all accounts, Imran Khan’s ousting is more a result of cracks between his administration and the country’s military establishment, and one reason for these gaps could be Khan’s pivot away from the U.S.

Apparently the Pakistani army supports close ties with America rather than Russia. Given the army’s long role in Pakistani politics, do you see any attempt by the army to remove Imran Khan?

Interestingly enough, Pakistani Army Chief, Gen. Bajwa, has given several statements in support of expanded relations with the US – in addition to those with China – by building on their “long and excellent” history of strategic ties and America’s status as Pakistan’s largest export market. In the same vein, a day before the no-confidence vote, Gen. Bajwa also asserted that the Ukraine invasion was a “huge tragedy” that must be “stopped immediately”. This came in stark contrast to statements by Khan which depicted neutrality and his efforts to carefully avoid siding with either camp. Khan’s policy came as part of the tone his government had adopted over the past four years that saw Pakistan move closer toward China and further away from the US For many, Pakistan’s guarded stance was unexpected considering it shared considerably strong trade ties with Ukraine and has only looked towards a new improved era of bilateral ties with Russia since 2014. However, in view of regional security and a focus on Afghanistan, building better relations with Russia as well as China, both key players in Afghanistan, has become not only prudent but also critical for Islamabad. Although this clash of positions may have been a spark prompting the Pakistani military establishment to move to remove Khan from office, it was only a symptom of a steadily heightening rift between the political and military institutions.

What will be the future of government in Pakistan after Imran Khan? 

Shehbaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the rainbow coalition of opposition parties, was elected prime minister two days after Imran Khan’s ouster, via a parliamentary vote that was widely boycotted by over 100 lawmakers of PTI. Notably, Sharif was the only contender for the post after PTI, and its candidate Shah Mahmood Qureshi, the former foreign minister of Pakistan, staged a protest and walked away from the vote altogether. Sharif was a three-time chief minister of the Pakistan Punjab province and is renowned for his positive administration style. As chief minister, he worked closely with Beijing to attract and implement developmental projects funded by China. He also enjoys good relations with the Pakistani military, which is likely to continue at least in the immediate future, as he looks to appease the traditionally powerful army chief and top military leaders so as to cement his political position. Accordingly, we will likely see the Pakistani military be a strong driver of the country’s foreign and security policies. Notably, after the walkout by PTI parliamentarians, Sharif is faced with a considerably smaller 174-seat assembly which comprises primarily of his supporters; this number exceeds the simple majority required to pass laws, which will make it considerably easier for Sharif to speedily implement any regulations, unchecked by an opposition that is critical to the democratic process.

At the same time, it is worth noting that through his show of strength in the days before the no-confidence motion, Imran Khan has managed to garner incredible support from the nation’s public, especially youth voters who resonated with Khan’s conspiracy theory narrative and blamed the US for his removal from office. On April 10, footage showed hundreds of thousands of citizens gathered in protest of the no-confidence vote, calling any new administration a forcefully “imposed” government. Although the Pakistan general elections are only due at the end of 2023, Khan could very well succeed in pushing for an earlier ballot that allows him to capitalize on the public support he has gathered and reattain office – although any such endeavour would be highly complicated without the support of the country’s military.

How do you think about the fate of Pakistani prime ministers in Pakistan’s history? 

Pakistan’s politics has long been dominated by a handful of powerful, influential, wealthy, and well-established political dynasties, especially the Sharif and Bhutto factions – a trend that Imran Khan vowed to break when he was elected in 2018. At the time, he had everything in his corner; not only was he a populist leader, enjoying fame as a cricket star that had hailed him a national hero, but had also proven to be a charismatic political leader with promises to bring change to forge a new Pakistan. Most importantly perhaps, he also enjoyed the favor of the support of the all-influential Pakistani military. No prime minister in the history of Pakistan has ever been able to complete their full term of five years in office; but it seemed that with his rapport with the army and public, Khan could be the first to do so, thereby ushering in a new era. Yet, post the pandemic, which left the Pakistani economy in tatters with slow growth and double-digit inflations, Khan was ousted with still another year to go.

Imran Khan’s shortened tenure and the crisis of his ousting offers a sharp reminder of the tenuousness of its democratic institutions in face of the mightily powerful political force wielded by the military. It is an indication, and a confirmation, of how deeply compromised the country’s politics is while powerful military leaders, like the army chief, are ultimately in control. It was the military that eased the way for Imran Khan in 2018, reportedly by tactics of gross coercion and intimidation of PTI’s opposition; now, after Khan moved away from the priorities set forth by the military to pursue closer ties with China and challenged the military leadership over certain top-level appointments, it is the military that holds the reins and has helped choreograph his ouster. The Pakistani military’s role in the fall of the country’s political administration is not unprecedented but has frequently occurred in history whenever a sitting prime minister lost the favor of the military. What is unique with Khan’s case is perhaps the use of constitutional mechanisms to enable a change of guard rather than outright coups. It remains to be seen whether the chaos caused by the military’s interference and Khan’s blatant and malicious violation of constitutional procedures for personal political gains will result in lasting chaos and deep damage to the country’s democracy.