United States responsible for bringing Vienna talks to a halt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Germany takes temporary control of Gazprom subsidiary

Germany said Monday it has temporarily taken control of Russian gas giant Gazprom's German subsidiary to secure energy supply and critical infrastructure amid growing distrust between the trade partners in the wake of the Ukraine war.

Energy Minister Robert Habeck said the Bundesnetzagentur energy regulator would become the trustee of Gazprom Germania until September 30, 2022.

"The government is doing what is necessary to ensure security of supplies in Germany, and that includes not exposing energy infrastructures in Germany to arbitrary decisions by the Kremlin," Habeck said.

The move comes after state-owned Gazprom unexpectedly said it was withdrawing from Gazprom Germania last Friday, without disclosing a new ownership structure.

The German unit holds several key energy assets, including natural gas supplier Wingas, which has a market share of around 20% in Germany, gas storage firm Astora, a London-based trading arm and other foreign subsidiaries.

The German government made the decision to step in because of the current unclear legal structure behind Gazprom Germania and the mother firm's failure to comply with the obligation to inform German authorities of ownership changes, the Minister said.

Under German law, the government has the right to examine transactions involving non-EU firms deemed systemically relevant.

Habeck said Gazprom Germania operates critical infrastructure in Europe's biggest economy.

Under the interim arrangement, voting rights in Gazprom Germania will be transferred to the Bundesnetzagentur.

The energy regulator will also be allowed to dismiss management members and appoint new ones, as well as take all necessary measures to guarantee supplies, Habeck said.

Germany has backed sweeping Western sanctions against Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine.

But because of its heavy reliance on Russian energy imports, Berlin has so far resisted pressure to boycott Russian oil and gas.

Those calls have grown louder at home and abroad following the recent allegations of atrocities committed against civilians in the Ukrainian town of Bucha.

EU antitrust investigators last week raided the German offices of Gazprom, on suspicion the Russian state gas giant had illegally pushed up prices in Europe.

United States pressurizing European Union to buy its LNG and quit Russian gas

Pressure is mounting on the European Union to abandon Russian gas supplies as individual countries begin turning off the tap. The Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia became Europe’s first region to abandon Russian gas supplies entirely past weekend, and they urged other nations on the continent to do the same.

Lithuania, the first EU nation to make the move, declared on Saturday that the country was acting “in response to Russia’s energy blackmail in Europe,” according to a news release from the country’s Energy Ministry.  

But whether this leads to other countries in Europe abandoning Russia’s gas is a big question.

German Finance Minister Christian Lindner on Sunday said Russia’s crimes could not go unanswered, but on Monday argued a full-scale embargo would hurt Germany more than Russia.

“We must plan tough sanctions, but gas cannot be substituted in the short term,” Lindner told reporters before meeting with the Eurogroup, the informal body of EU finance ministers.

“We would inflict more damage on ourselves than on them,” Lindner said.

Germany is in a particularly difficult position, as it imported about 55% of its gas from Russia last year. The EU as a whole gets about 40% of its gas from Russia.

The Baltic states comparatively import much less gas from Russia. Lithuania received about 26% of its gas from Russia directly last year, according to Bloomberg. The country will now rely on liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the United States and Norway, Bloomberg reported, citing the country’s Energy Minister.

Morgan Bazilian, a public policy professor at the Colorado School of Mines, told The Hill that Lithuania eight years ago developed a floating storage and regasification unit at the country’s Klaipėda LNG terminal, which enables the country to take in gas from other countries.

“They were able to make the statements because of planning they had done eight years ago,” he said. “And Latvia and Estonia are sort of coming along with them.”

“While Lithuania might not be an example of how nations can get rid of Russian gas overnight, the country is a very good example of planning for your energy security and not just leaving it to market forces”, Brenda Shaffer, an international energy specialist at the Naval Postgraduate School, told The Hill.

Lithuania’s gas transmission system has been running without Russian gas imports since April 1, with zero flow of Russian gas coming through the Lithuanian-Belarusian interconnection, according to the country’s Ministry of Energy.

“From this month on — no more Russian gas in Lithuania,” Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda tweeted on Saturday.

Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė followed up on Sunday by tweeting, “from now and so on Lithuania won’t be consuming a cubic centimeter of toxic Russian gas.”

Meanwhile, Uldis Bariss, CEO of Latvia’s Conexus Baltic Grid, told Latvian radio this weekend, “Since April 01, 2022 Russian natural gas is no longer flowing to Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.”

The Baltic states are much smaller economies than other nations in Europe that import Russian gas, and as a result the moves, while important, will have a smaller affect on Russia than if larger nations turned off the spigot.

Bazilian noted that while the shift gives the right optics, it is a relatively small piece of the European puzzle.

“It’s very small in comparison to, say, Germany or Italy or other countries that rely on natural gas,” Bazilian said.

In the short to medium term, a larger European embargo on Russian energy is unlikely given the dependence of nations such as Germany on Russian gas, Shaffer said.

Germany and other big EU members also have much larger industrialized manufacturing sectors dependent upon Russian gas.

This has given Russia leverage over Germany, which before Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was backing a controversial new pipeline from Russia.

“For a country like Germany, which is heavily manufacturing based — like steel and cars and other equipment — the question of the price of the gas has very different economic impact than for a country like Lithuania, which is mostly light industry,” Shaffer said.

Shaffer also noted the tension between European climate goals and the present need to bolster traditional energy needs through more pipeline projects and LNG infrastructure.

“There is a conflict in a sense between European climate goals and building new infrastructure that would ensure their energy security,” Shaffer said. “In a strange way, almost, the climate camp would prefer the status quo.”

While the decision of the Baltic states to stop importing Russian gas will not likely carry over to the entire EU, Bazilian described the weekend’s events as a symbol that the rest of Europe is really serious about this and that the continent “is going to look to diversify from Russia.

One way to do that will be through US LNG supplies. President Biden recently announced the US would be supplying an additional 15 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe this year.

The EU has also said it is going to release a pathway on how to wean off Russian energy imports by 2027, and Bazilian expressed confidence that the US will be part of that solution.

Despite its small size, the Baltic region is yet another market that will be importing LNG, according to Shaffer. And while that won’t be solely from American sources, more market demand for LNG in general also means more demand for American LNG, she explained. 

Lithuania’s capital, Vilnius, also houses the NATO Energy Security Center of Excellence, which reflects how the country views energy “as a really important issue of national security,” Shaffer added.

“They’re sort of like the main voice within NATO on these issues, so I think it will have some impact on NATO thinking,” she said. 

 

UNHRC approves 4 anti-Israel resolutions, also calls for limited arms embargo

The United Nations Human Rights Council 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.

Israel was the only country the UNHRC censured multiple times. Russia, which is a UNHRC member, was censured only once for its invasion of Ukraine, with a resolution passed 32-2, with 13 abstentions.

Other countries – North Korea, Iran, Belarus, Myanmar, Nicaragua, and Syria – were taken to task for human rights abuses with only one resolution per country.

Israel is not a voting member of the UNHRC but spoke multiple times about UNHRC bias during the voting process on Thursday and Friday.

When it comes to Israel, Ambassador Meirav Eilon-Shahar said, the council was an echo chamber of fantasy and hatred against Israel.

“The problem with this echo chamber is that no reality comes in but certainly the hatred seeps out,” she said.

Out of the four resolution texts, the accountability resolution which spoke of the arms embargo is considered to be the most contentious. It was approved by the UNHRC in a 37-3 vote, with seven abstentions.

The three countries that stood with Israel were: Brazil, Malawi, and the United States, which rejoined the council as a voting member this year.

US Ambassador to the UN Michele Taylor said that the Biden administration was disappointed that UNHRC member States continue to disproportionately single out Israel and are dismayed by the many repetitive and one-sided resolutions that run year after year.

The countries that abstained from the vote on accountability were: Cameron, Honduras, India, the Marshall Islands, Nepal, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

All the European Union countries on the council supported the text, including France and Germany.

It urged “all states to refrain from transferring arms when... they assess that there is a clear risk that such arms might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations or abuses of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

Last year, the resolution passed 32-6, with eight abstentions. The shift in the voting pattern had to do with changes to the rotating membership of the 47-member body and was not reflective of shifts in the positions of individual countries.

The Palestinian Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Ibrahim Khraishi said that it was important to hold Israel accountable for its actions against his people.

“This draft resolution should ensure justice and should hold to account all those who violate international humanitarian law and… to provide reparation and compensation to the Palestinian loved one of the victims,”

The other three resolutions were voted on under Agenda Item 7. The UNHRC is mandated to debate alleged Israeli human rights violations at each session. No such requirement is leveled against any other of the UN’s 193 members.

United Nations Human Rights Council approved four anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian resolutions, condemning Israeli settlement activity and calling for a boycott of settlement products and an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines was approved 38-4, with five abstentions.

Of the three Agenda Item 7 resolutions, the one condemning Israeli settlement activity and calling for a boycott of settlement products and an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines was approved 38-4, with five abstentions.

Those who stood with Israel were: Malawi, the Marshall Islands, the United Kingdom and the United States. Those who abstained were: Brazil, Cameron, Honduras, Lithuania and Ukraine. Last year the same text passed 36-3, with eight abstentions.

The resolution on the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination was approved 41-3, with three abstentions.

Those who stood with Israel were: the Marshall Islands, the United Kingdom and the United States. Those who abstained were: Cameron, Honduras and Lithuania. Last year, it passed, 42-3, with two abstentions.

Those who opposed or abstained from the text were not making a statement against Palestinian sovereignty, but wanted to take a stand against the council’s anti-Israel bias.

The resolution with the least amount of support was the text that asked Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights, which was approved 29-15, with three abstentions.

United Nations Human Rights Council approved four anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian resolutions. Resolution that asked Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights, which was approved 29-15, with three abstentions.

Those who stood with Israel were: Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, the Marshall Islands, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Korea, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Those who abstained were: Brazil, Cameroon and Honduras.

Khraishi defended the continued presence of Agenda Item 7.

The focus should be on ending Israel’s “occupation” and not the debate about it, Khraishi said, as he accused Israel of “colonialism and apartheid.” Earlier in the session, the special investigator into alleged Israeli human rights abuses submitted a report in which he accused Israel of the crime of apartheid.

Taylor said that “the continued existence of this agenda item calls into question the credibility of this body. None of the world’s worst human rights violators, some of whom are the subject of resolutions at this session, have their own stand-alone agenda item at this Council. Only Israel receives such treatment.

“Further, we strongly reject the characterization voiced by some that Israel’s actions constitute apartheid,” Taylor added.

Indian media finds similarity between Sri Lankan and Pakistani economic catastrophe

According to oneindia, both Pakistan and Sri Lanka have plunged into a crisis and the blame lies entirely on the Chinese debt. The situation in these two countries has now forced nations like Maldives, Bangladesh and Nepal to think again on the Chinese infrastructure and also being part of the BRI initiative.

In Sri Lanka the blame clearly lies on Rajapaksa who began leaning towards the Chinese heavily much to the displeasure of India. The nation brought upon itself immense economic stress by taking high interest loans from China in the name of developing infrastructure.

Pakistan on the other hand has more than 10% of its debt owed to China. Imran Khan has been blamed squarely for the economic mess the country is in today.

Due to these high value debts the country has not only fallen economically, but has also plunged into political crisis. Khan is making matters worse by whipping up public sentiments and blaming the situation on a foreign conspiracy against him and his government.

Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka face complex situations as the United States has a great amount of control on the global financial institutions. This would make it harder for the two nations as they have shifted their loyalties to China.

Finally, Imran Khan discloses name of US official who sent threat letter

According to Geo News, hours after the National Assembly Deputy Speaker trashed the Opposition’s no-confidence motion on Sunday; Prime Minister Imran Khan disclosed the name of the US diplomat who had allegedly sent the threat letter to Pakistan.

During a meeting with ex-lawmakers, PM Khan, who seemed much calmer and more confident after the proceedings of the day, revealed that the threatening message that was received from the US was sent by its Assistant Secretary of State for the South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu.

He was quoted as saying that during a meeting between Lu and Pakistan's Ambassador Asad Majeed, note-takers from both sides were present and minutes of the meeting were released after the meeting ended.

Lu, who is currently visiting India, in an interview with Hindustan Times, was questioned regarding the threatening message controversy. He denied responding to the allegations of Imran Khan.

The top US official had said that the US is closely monitoring the situation in Pakistan and we respect and support Pakistan’s constitutional process and the rule of law.

On March 31, Khan claimed to have received a threat letter against his government from a foreign country. He named the United States to be behind the conspiracy.

In an apparent slip of the tongue, he named "the United States..." but quickly moved on and stated that "a foreign country" had sent a "threatening memo" which was against the Pakistani nation.

However, the US State Department and White House together spurned Imran Khan’s allegation in which he had held foreign powers responsible for attempting to topple his government, Geo News reported.

The White House responded after PM’s speech, in which he named the US government over the no-trust motion against him.

During a regular press briefing, White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield categorically rejected Imran Khan’s allegation.

Responding to a question that the Prime Minister of Pakistan accused the US government of working to remove him from power, Bedingfield said, "absolutely no truth to that allegation".

Who is Donald Lu

Lu became Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs on September 15, 2021. Prior to this assignment, Assistant Secretary Lu served as the US Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic from 2018 to 2021 and the US Ambassador to the Republic of Albania from 2015-2018.

Before his posting in Albania, Assistant Secretary Lu worked on the Ebola crisis in West Africa as the Deputy Coordinator for Ebola Response in the Department of State.

Lu is a Foreign Service Officer with more than 30 years of US government service. He served as Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) in India (2010-2013), Chargé d’Affaires (2009-2010) and DCM (2007-2009) in Azerbaijan, and as DCM in Kyrgyzstan (2003-2006).

Earlier in his career he was assigned as Deputy Director in the Office of Central Asian and South Caucasus Affairs, Bureau of European Affairs (2001-2003), Special Assistant to the Ambassador for the Newly Independent States in the Office of the Secretary of State (2000-2001), Political Officer in New Delhi, India (1997-2000), Special Assistant to the Ambassador in New Delhi, India (1996-1997), Consular Officer in Tbilisi, Georgia (1994-1996), and Political Officer in Peshawar, Pakistan (1992-1994).

As a Peace Corps volunteer in Sierra Leone, West Africa from 1988-1990, he helped to restore hand-dug water wells and to teach health education and latrine construction.

 

 

 

Saudi Arabia and UAE view United States an unreliable partner under Joe Biden

A professor at Georgetown University in Qatar says that leaderships in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates look at the Biden administration as an unreliable partner who is not worthy to jeopardize the ties with Russia.

“They feel that under Joe Biden the United States has not been a reliable partner, especially since the close, personal relationship that existed with the Donald Trump and since the United States is indirectly talking to Iran in Vienna,” Mehran Kamrava told The Tehran Times.

Though US-Persian Gulf ties are deep-rooted when it comes to military contracts, the Russia-Ukraine conflict shows that Arab states in the region may leave United States alone in some cases. 

The UAE and Saudi Arabia appear to be sending a message to the US, said Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a Middle East fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Talking to Al Jazeera last month, Ulrichsen said they are going to act upon their interests and not what the US think their interests are.

Giorgio Cafiero, CEO of Gulf State Analytics, a Washington, DC-based geopolitical risk consultancy, also said, “Syrian President Al-Assad coming to the UAE, shortly after the (Persian) Gulf Arab country opted to abstain from a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine last month, tells us that the Emiratis are very serious about asserting their autonomy from the United States.” 

“For Arab states, Russia is an important actor with whom they can hedge their bets with the United States.”Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, felt they lost a close friend in the White House after Donald Trump was defeated in the 2020 elections. 

“Clearly, the Saudi and Emirati leaderships do not have the same kind of relationship with Biden that they had with Trump, and they feel slighted,” Kamrava notes. 

“Also, given the very close relationship between both Saudi Arabia and the UAE with Russia, neither wants to risk alienating President Putin,” adds professor from Georgetown University. 

Following is the text of the interview:

Do you think the Ukraine war would expand to other countries? 

Since the war is currently ongoing, it is difficult to guess whether or not it will expand and if it will usher in a new order in the region. 

Are we going to witness a new order in the region?

Clearly, we see the emergence of diverging trends, however, and the gap between the EU and the US on the one side and Russia and a number of other countries, like China and Iran, on the other. 

Saudi and UAE leaders declined calls with Biden amid the Ukraine conflict. What are the implications of such a reaction?

Clearly, Saudi and Emirati leaderships do not have the same kind of relationship with Biden that they had with Trump, and they feel slighted as a result. They feel that under Biden the United States has not been a reliable partner, especially since the close, personal relationship that existed with the Trump White House is gone and since the US is indirectly talking to Iran in Vienna. Also, given the very close relationship between both Saudi Arabia and the UAE with Russia, neither wants to risk alienating President Putin. 

Why do the Arab states prefer not to be engaged in the US-Russia conflict while they are allied with Washington?

The Arab states do not want to jeopardize their increasing closeness with Russia. For them, Russia is an important actor with whom they can hedge their bets with the United States, and as a result, they are reluctant to take positions that are overtly antagonistic toward Russia.

China and the many Arab states avoided condemning Russia for launching war on Ukraine. Do you think the Ukraine crisis will turn into a new form of confrontation between the West and the East?

That might indeed be the case, but, again, it is too early to tell. Clearly, we are seeing tectonic shifts occurring in regional alignments. But how these shifts will turn out is hard to tell. There are new and emerging powers in the East, the most notable being China and South Korea, and, at least in relation to South Korea, it would be difficult to say that it is not part of the Western or American orbit. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Russia is seen in the US and in the EU as a “disruptive actor” and China is perceived as a major technological competitor. 

Do you see a kind of hesitation in Persian Gulf Arab state's betting on America in the defense system? Do they think that America left them alone, especially in the Yemen war?
    
I think the US will remain to be an outside security provider for the southern states of the Persian Gulf in the near future. The personal relationship between Persian Gulf rulers and US President may change, but there are deeper structural factors that for the time being tie the two sides together. Some of the more important of these include deep military and security ties, with the Persian Gulf states continuing to prefer American weaponry and equipment; massive and growing economic and commercial ties between the two sides, with the US having emerged as a favorite destination of money and investments going from the Persian Gulf; and continued political and economic ties. In addition to all this, there is also heavy psychological reliance on the US as a security provider. Therefore, there is no indication that the US military presence in the Persian Gulf region will be lessened at all in the near future. 

Courtesy: The Tehran Times