Benjamin Netanyahu loses control of Knesset

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lost control of the Knesset and may soon also lose the Prime Minister’s Office. Anti-Netanyahu bloc has defeated him in a key vote in the parliament on Monday, thanks to the support of the Ra’am (United Arab List) Party led by Mansour Abbas.

Netanyahu’s opponents succeeded in passing their proposal for control over the powerful Knesset Arrangements Committee, which runs the Knesset until a government is formed. The proposal of Yesh Atid faction chairman Meir Cohen passed by a vote of 60 to 51. Party sources said their victory came following a successful meeting earlier Monday between their leader, Yair Lapid, and Abbas.

“I am thankful to my partners,” Lapid wrote on Twitter. “The victory in the vote on the Arrangements Committee is another step on the way to a unity government in Israel.”

In exchange for his support, Lapid offered Ra’am a spot on the Knesset Finance Committee, chairmanship of a committee on fighting violence in the Arab sector and a deputy Knesset speaker post. But in an interview with Channel 12, Abbas said the posts did not influence his decision.

“We wanted to keep our role holding the balance of power in the Knesset and show we weren’t in anyone’s pocket,” said Abbas, who added he was also angered by the constant attacks on him by Religious Zionist Party leader Bezalel Smotrich, a key member of Netanyahu’s bloc.

Yesh Atid officials said their first goal would be to bring to a vote having Cohen replace Knesset Speaker Yariv Levin, who is the MK closest to Netanyahu. The Lapid bloc’s majority on the committee could help it advance anti-Netanyahu legislation, including a bill that would prevent a candidate who is under criminal indictment from forming a government.

The Arrangements Committee will decide the makeup of the temporary Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and Finance Committee, which provide oversight over Netanyahu and his government. It will also appoint the Knesset speaker’s deputies, which will allow starting the process of electing a new president.

Netanyahu thought he would have a majority on the committee, due to an agreement between Likud and Yamina. According to the deal, Yamina would receive a second slot on the committee at the expense of Likud, in return for its votes. But then, the Ra’am MKs, who were angered by Netanyahu’s deal with Yamina, came into the plenum and defeated the Likud proposal by a vote of 60-58. That led to the vote on the anti-Netanyahu bloc’s proposal, which Yamina’s seven MKs did not attend.

Yamina leader Naftali Bennett has made a decision to “go with the Left,” Netanyahu said in a closed-door meeting with United Torah Judaism MKs on Monday at the Knesset.

He and Bennett held a tense meeting on Monday, their fifth since Netanyahu received a four-week mandate to form a government from President Reuven Rivlin two weeks ago.

“His feeling is that he has closed a deal over there,” a UTJ MK told The Jerusalem Post after the meeting with Netanyahu.

Earlier, Netanyahu told his Likud faction that a government led by Bennett, whose party has seven seats, would be “absurd.”

“The moment of truth for Bennett has arrived,” Netanyahu said. “He promised not to sit under Lapid, with Meretz and Labor and with the support of the Joint List. He must stop galloping toward a left-wing government.”

In the closed-door portion of the faction meeting, Netanyahu said that what his opponents call a unity government would only bring more governmental paralysis and would be “very bad for Israel.”

Abbas said on Monday that he does not rule out enabling a government led by Bennett, just like he would not rule out enabling a government led by Netanyahu. Speaking with the emblem of Israel behind him, he said it is wrong to call his faction’s MKs supporters of terror, as Smotrich has.

Smotrich meanwhile called on Bennett to decide whether he will be with the Right or the Left. He said he did not believe that Bennett really backs a government that would rely on Ra’am, which he said identifies with Israel’s enemies.

“As soon as it is clear where everyone stands, I am sure a right-wing government of the entire nationalist bloc can be formed,” Smotrich told his faction meeting.

New Hope leader Gideon Sa’ar told his faction that he would not enable Netanyahu to form a government, or initiate a new Knesset race or a direct election for prime minister.

Sa’ar spoke for the first time since Netanyahu called on him to “come home to Likud” in a speech in Ramat Gan on Friday.

“Our view hasn’t changed,” Sa’ar said. “There are two alternatives: A right-wing government led by someone else [besides Netanyahu] or a unity government that will allow New Hope to maintain its worldview. Both options are better than new elections, whether for the Knesset or just for prime minister.”

In an effort to build a coalition, Lapid met on Monday with the heads of Yisrael Beytenu, Labor, Meretz and the Joint List, as well as Ra’am.

Defense Minister Benny Gantz told his Blue and White faction that continued political uncertainty would be dangerous for Israel.

“If we don’t unite among us, we won’t be strong against our enemies,” Gantz said.

Is US opposition of Rampal coal plant due to love for Sundarbans or to keep India away?

During his six-hour trip to Dhaka on 9th April 201, US President Joe Biden’s special envoy for climate change, John Kerry, bluntly raised the Rampal coal based plant issue during his official talks with Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen.

However, Kerry didn’t raise this issue in his talks with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. He did say in a general way that coal-fired power plants are one of the main causes of environmental damage. He drew attention to the US opposition to coal-fired power plants.

John Kerry raised the Rampal issue again towards the end of the talks. “Can I ask an outrageous question? Can you stop Rampal?”

At one point Kerry said that he was confused about Bangladesh’s stance on the Sundarbans. On the one hand it is taking steps to protect the forest, and on the other it is taking up projects like the Rampal coal-fired power plant. “How is this possible”, he asked.

John Kerry was told that Bangladesh has always given importance to environmental protection. Despite resource constraints, various steps have been taken to face the climate change challenge. The protection of the Sundarbans is being given due importance in the construction of the Rampal power plant.

Earlier in 2017, the former US Vice President, environmentalist Al Gore, had appealed to Prime Minister Hasina to halt the construction of the Rampal power plant.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina asked Al Gore to visit Bangladesh to see the Sundarbans and see if the project is harming the environment.

In 1997, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) declared the Sundarbans as a World Heritage Site.

UNESCO has been raising objections to the project since 2018. A study carried out by UNESCO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on the project says that it will do irreparable harm to the Sundarbans. This may also cause the Sundarbans to lose its status as a World Heritage Site, UNESCO has repeatedly warned.

There seems also a split within Bangladesh.  The official version is, “The Bangladesh government has taken up various initiatives to protect the Sundarbans mangrove forests.” While some experts say that the power plant will put the mangrove forest at risk but the government is not paying attention to this issue.

It goes without saying that now financial and technical assistance for mega projects is driven by geopolitics rather that economic viability.  Based on this stance, I am ready to say that Bangladesh is being pressurized to give up this project, only because of Indian involvement.

The Bangladesh Power Development Board and India’s National Thermal Power Corporation are jointly constructing the 1,320 MW power plant at Rampal in Bagerhat, next to the Sundarbans.

Opponents of the plant go to the extent of saying that the technology used in the Rampal project is of low standard. They raise a question if in other countries coal-fired power plants are being closed down, why Bangladesh should go for this.

Supporters of the plant say, it is a reality that at present, work on the Rampal power plant has advanced considerably. The government would not be able to do anything about it now, even if objections are raised.

The Bangladesh Foreign Minister, Abdul Momen, highlighted the various steps taken by Bangladesh to tackle threats from climate change and to protest the Sunderbans.

US intelligence agencies playing mantra orchestrated by military complexes

I have often raised this point that the US foreign policy is driven by ‘military complexes’. The survival of these conglomerates is dependent on internal conflicts and proxy wars, often created and proliferated by the US intelligence agencies. 

If presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was the biggest joke of the century, Iran getting ready to attack United States is another point to laugh. If you don’t agree with me read the highlights of ‘The Annual Threat Assessment Report’.

According to The Annual Threat Assessment Report – 2021 prepared by the office of the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and sent to Congress three major threats have been identified. These are: 1) China’s push for global power, followed by 2) Russia’s provocative actions and 3) threats from Iran.

DNI’s annual threat assessment reports are shared with congressional intelligence committees as well as the committees on the Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

While assessing possible threats from South Asia, the report warned that “under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi India is more likely than in the past to respond with military force to perceived or real Pakistani provocations.”

The report noted that heightened tensions in the region raise the risk of conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, with violent unrest in Kashmir or a militant attack in India being potential flashpoints.”

The report also said that a general war between India and Pakistan during 2021 was unlikely, but crises between the two are likely to become more intense, risking an escalatory cycle.”

Another US intelligence report to Congress, released last week, had warned that India and Pakistan could go to a war in the next five years over real and perceived provocations.

The report pointed out that some regional conflicts – such as the fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria – had “direct implications for US security,” while “tensions between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan remain a concern for the world.”

The report assessed the prospects for a peace deal between the Afghan government and the Taliban in 2021 as low. The Taliban are likely to make gains on the battlefield, and the Afghan government will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support, the report predicted. It also noted that Kabul continues to face setbacks on the battlefield, and the Taliban are confident they can achieve military victory.

Commenting on Iran’s role in Afghanistan, the report said that “Iran will hedge its bets in Afghanistan,” adding that “Iran publicly backs Afghan peace talks, but it is worried about a long-term US presence in Afghanistan.”

As a result, “Iran is building ties with both the government in Kabul and the Taliban so that it can take advantage of any political outcome,” the report added.

Walking away from Afghanistan now, is a mistake

A few days back I had posted a blog ‘Joe Biden faces resistance on withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan’. Then I posted another blog ‘Chinese soldiers may enter Afghanistan after departure of US troops’. One of the comments received in response to the second blog was “United States seem to have decided to handover charge of Afghanistan to China.” 

Today, I am posting below a message of Marvin G. Weinbaum, Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies at the Middle East Institute.

The Biden administration decision to disengage militarily from Afghanistan by 11th September 2021 may seem warranted; perhaps even overdue, after a commitment of two decades and spending US$2 trillion. The initial objectives of the US for intervention in Afghanistan were seemingly achieved years ago and its subsequently acquired aims in staying have proved mostly unattainable. But while a full unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan may appear to be defensible as the US weighs its global threats, the president’s action is nevertheless shortsighted and narrow in its understanding of US long-term security interests. Foremost, it is an “America First” policy that shows callous indifference to the consequences for a current-day Afghanistan that is to a large extent of our making. We are putting in motion developments that will eliminate any remaining possibilities for a negotiated peace, lead to increased violence, undermine a sitting government, collapse the formal economy, and place at risk the hard-won rights of Afghan women and minorities. The stage is also being set for an open-ended, proxy-driven civil war that in creating millions of refugees is likely to destabilize and radicalize the region.

In many ways we have been here before. After the Soviets bailed out of Afghanistan in 1989, the US decided that it had little stake in what happened in the country and the region. Virtually all government assistance ceased. We decided to let the Afghans sort out their differences and left Pakistan, our erstwhile partner in the jihad against communism, to fend for itself in coping with the fallout of the decade-long Afghan conflict. What we got in Afghanistan was a bloody, anarchic, fratricidal civil war, the rise of the Taliban, the settling in of al-Qaeda, and 9/11. In Pakistan, there followed a decade of political instability, an undeterred decision to go nuclear, and a high-altitude shooting war with an also nuclear-armed India that it took the US to help stop. It would have to do much the same three years later to prevent a potentially more deadly, globally impacting conflict on the subcontinent.

If walking away from Afghanistan and the region was a mistake in the 1990s, it is ever so much more so now. The US was not then worried about global terrorism or nuclear proliferation emanating from the region. Geo-strategically, we were unconcerned with having an adversarial Russia, China, and Iran among others filling the vacuum of an American absence. It is misguided to believe that we can compartmentalize our global interests. If tragedy befalls Afghanistan and the region falls into turmoil, it is difficult to believe that the US can expect to realize its objectives in areas now deemed of higher priority. A continued American military presence in Afghanistan small enough to be politically palatable but large enough to contribute to the country’s stability might not seem very satisfying but given the alternatives it might have been the least bad of all possible outcomes. Unfortunately, the Biden administration decision now rules that out.

Pakistan oil and gas production declines during Jan-Mar 2021 quarter

Pakistan’s indigenous crude oil production in 3QFY21 declined to 77,139, down 6%YoY barrels per day (bpd) mainly because of sharp fall of 63%YoY in Makori Deep’s production, followed by 23%YoY decline in Mardankhel and 11%YoY in Maramzai’s productions.

These three fields belong to Tal Block (operated by MOL Pakistan) of which production in total has declined by 13%YoY to 17,840 bpd during Jan-Mar 2021 quarter as against 20,597 bpd during Jan-Mar 2020 quarter.

The decline in production from Tal Block was contained to 13% due to 3%YoY increase in oil production from Makori East (which contributes 54% to Tal Block and 12% to country’s production).

On a QoQ basis, Pakistan oil production was up by 2%.

During 9MFY21, Pakistan oil production declined by 6%YoY to 75,924 bpd due to decline in flows from Makori Deep, Mardankhel and Nashpa fields.

Pakistan domestic gas production declined to 3,550 mmcfd, down by 3%YoY during the quarter under review due to lower flows from Qadirpur, Kandhkot, KPD and Maramzai ranging from 7% to 15%YoY.

Mari field’s production increased by 3%YoY and 2%QoQ as it has replaced Kandhkot field volumes to the National Grid. As a result, Kandkot field volumes have come down by 11%YoY and 1%QoQ.

On QoQ basis, gas production increased by 5% during the quarter due to sharp improvement in flows of Uch Field, rising to 35,013 mmcfd.

On 9MFY21 basis, gas production was down 3%YoY to 3,525 mmcfd due to decline in flows from Qadirpur, Kandkot, and KPD to the tune of 4% to 17%.

Chinese soldiers may enter Afghanistan after departure of US troops

A very interesting, but equally perturbing situation is likely to emerge in Afghanistan. As the United States has announced to completely withdraw troops by 11 September, China has expressed its intentions to deploy its troops.

According to a report, Beijing may consider sending a peacekeeping force to Afghanistan if the security situation in the South Asian country poses a threat to the neighboring Chinese province of Xinjiang after American troops pull out.

US President Joe Biden said on Wednesday that he would withdraw all remaining US troops – about 2,500 – from Afghanistan by 11^th September, the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attack on the United States.

The withdrawal may pose a threat to Afghanistan’s security and stability, which could spill over into Xinjiang and disrupt China’s counterterrorism efforts.

In 2018, China trained Afghan troops and helped set up a mountain brigade. The training took place in China and the aim of the brigade was to counter possible attacks by al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

“The security forces of the Afghan government are not capable of ensuring Afghan security,” said Sun Qi, an international relations specialist at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.

“The situation in Afghanistan might go further into chaos in the future. Cross-border crime, drug trafficking and smuggling of firearms may proliferate,” he said.

China may send peacekeeping troops to Afghanistan under the terms of the UN Charter, according to an international relations specialist at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.

While Beijing would not station troops in Afghanistan, it might work with other countries in the region to promote political stability and reduce the security risk to China, Sun said.

 “If the security situation poses a significant threat, China may send peacekeeping troops along with humanitarian assistance to the region under the terms of the Charter of the United Nations to ensure the safety and interests of Chinese people and companies there,” he said.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian informed that foreign troops stationed in Afghanistan should withdraw in a “responsible and orderly manner” to prevent terrorist forces from taking advantage of the chaos.

“The United States is the biggest external factor affecting the Afghan issue. The relevant decisions and actions of the United States should fully respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Afghanistan, earnestly take responsibility for maintaining the results of peace and reconstruction in Afghanistan,” he said.

Soon after Biden’s announcement, Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said the alliance planned to withdraw its troops – about 7,000 – from Afghanistan by next month. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Thursday that Australia would also complete its military withdrawal from Afghanistan in September.

Other experts said China was unlikely to push too hard to gain influence in Afghanistan as there was already fierce competition in the region.

“A number of countries, including Pakistan, India and Russia, want to exert their influence in the region, so China really needs to be careful of getting involved in the chaos,” said Wang Jin, a research fellow at the Charhar Institute think tank in northern China.

China and the US were unlikely to engage in any significant cooperation in Afghanistan after the US troop withdrawal, given the tensions between the two countries, he said.

“We can see from the withdrawal of US troops that the willingness of the US to intervene in Afghanistan’s affairs is declining,” he said.

“Primarily the idea of solving local conflicts by establishing a Western-style democracy in Afghanistan has failed.”

Sun said the US was likely to withdraw its military deployments from Central Asia and redeploy them to the Asia-Pacific.

“The withdrawal from Afghanistan allows the US to boost its military presence in Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions, with the aim of containing China,” he said.

“The US is highly likely to increase its military activity in the South China Sea and China-Indochina peninsula.”

Can secret talks between India and Pakistan yield any result?

It is believed that both India and Pakistan are busy in minimizing tension on the instructions of some external forces. This may bring a temporary calm for a while, but just can’t establish sustainable peace. The lingering on of Kashmir issue can be attributed to super powers fighting a sort of proxy wars in the region, including Afghan war going on for nearly twenty years.

Analysts say that now besides United States, China and Russia are also controlling the string. Ironically, these super powers don’t wish to engage in any direct encounter but want the proxies to hit strategic interests of each other.

Let everyone keep in mind that Russia and other Central Asian countries want access to warm waters, though Afghanistan and Pakistan. Similarly, China wants full control and security of projects being constructed under the auspicious of CEPC.

According to a Reuters news, top intelligence officers from India and Pakistan held secret talks in Dubai in January this year in a new effort to calm military tension over the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir.

While the super powers are pursuing their agenda, hawks present in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan continue to play the role of ‘spoilers’. Ironically the status of these hawks keeps on changing from friend to foe to friend.

Having read the preamble, now let us talk about secret talks going on between India and Pakistan on the behest of United Arab Emirates or to be little rude China and United States.

Keeping a few points in mind that over the last 74 years Kashmir issue has not been resolved, both the countries have fought numerous wars and attained the status of atomic powers to stain supremacy on each other, while millions of people on both sides of the border live below the poverty line, maintaining peace and tranquility in the regions seems only diabolic thinking

Both the Pakistan and Indian governments have re-opened a backdoor diplomacy aimed at a modest roadmap to normalizing ties. Such meetings have taken place in the past too, especially during times of crises but never been publicly acknowledged.

 It is not loner a secret that Indian and Pakistan intelligence officials have been meeting for several months in third countries. It is believed that these meeting have been held in Thailand, Dubai and London between the highest level people.

There is a lot that can still go wrong, it is fraught that is why nobody is talking it up in public, we don't even have a name for this, it's not a peace process, one can call it a re-engagement.

"It’s better for India and Pakistan to talk than not talk, and even better that it should be done quietly than in a glare of publicity," said Myra MacDonald, a former Reuters journalist who has just published a book on India, Pakistan and war on the frontiers of Kashmir.

Analysts don't see these meeting going beyond a basic management of tensions, possibly to tide both countries over a difficult period - Pakistan needs to address the fallout of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, while India has to confront a far more volatile situation on its disputed frontier with China.