Maritime security and rules based order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy: The Bangladesh Chronicle

UN suspends Russia from human rights body over Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Can barter trade between Iran and Pakistan become a reality?

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

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

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

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

Sanctions and solutions

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

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

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

Regulatory barriers

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

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

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

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

Trading in national currencies

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

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

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

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

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

Developing Transit

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

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

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

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

 

Maersk Air Cargo for overcoming port congestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Five Reasons Why Kashmir Matters

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

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

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

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

Peace Either Everywhere or Nowhere

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

Status Quo Benefits Only a Few

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

The Untold Costs

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

Principles Matter

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

Rule by Fear

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

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

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

 

bp joins Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation as a strategic partner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Taliban Supreme Leader orders ban on poppy cultivation in Afghanistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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