US War on terror has killed more than 4.5 million since 9/11

A report, by the Costs of War project at Brown University in the American state of Rhode Island reveals that around 4.5 million people have been killed due to the US-led military adventurism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia.

According to the research, the operations have indirectly killed millions more due to destruction of economies, public services, infrastructure, and the environment, which adds to the death toll long after bombs are dropped and increases over time.

Many long-term and under-appreciated consequences of war that was need to be studied in more detail.

The research indicates that the direct war fatalities or killing of nearly one million people is an undercount “precise mortality figure remains unknown”.

The estimates of war deaths in Iraq have been particularly controversial. A 2006 article in The Lancet estimated that approximately 600,000 Iraqis had died due to war violence between 2003 and 2006.

The controversy over the conflicting reports on the death toll in Iraq stems from news outlets that are opposed to the war, who overplayed the death toll, while those who supported the illegal invasion downplayed the death toll.

There have been various unbiased studies that concluded more than one million Iraqis have been killed as a result of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq from 2003 to 2011.

The Iraqi deaths can be considered an undercount because of almost daily bombings that killed hundreds of Iraqis. Add to the era of the US and Daesh from 2014 to 2017 where hundreds of thousands of others were slaughtered and it’s not difficult to imagine more than one million Iraqis have died and continue to die today as a result of the US war on terror.   

There is little doubt that the US has brought nothing but insecurity and instability to West Asia, with its military presence. In January 2018, the Leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said,

"America's corrupting presence in this region should end… In this region, they brought war, discord, sedition, destruction, destruction of infrastructure.  Of course, wherever they stepped in the world, they acted the same way... this must end."

The report put special emphasis on the effects of US wars on women and children who suffer the brunt of these ongoing impacts the most.

The report notes that while people were killed in fighting, far more, especially children, have been killed by the reverberating effects of US wars, such as the spread of disease and damage to public services.

"More studies are necessary on the impact of war’s destruction of public services, especially beyond the healthcare system, on population health," the report says.

"Damage to water and sanitation systems, roads, and commercial infrastructure such as ports, for instance, have significant but less understood consequences."

The research says wars and conflicts which the US has waged or been engaged in under the pretext of countering terrorism since September 11, 2001 makes clear that the impacts of war's ongoing violence are so vast and complex that they are unquantifiable.

It should be noted that after the September 11 attacks, the US waged wars and sparked conflicts, especially in West Asia under the pretext of fighting terrorism. However, as a result of the US military adventurism, there has been an extremely sharp rise in terrorist groups that had no presence in West Asia or countries such as Somalia before Washington’s intervention in the region.

In other words, war on terror has had the complete opposite effect of the slogan under which the Pentagon waged a campaign of instability in West Asia that allowed terrorism to flourish.

Millions of people are still in distress, pain and traumatized in both current and former warzones, the study says, calling on the US as well as its allies to alleviate the ongoing losses and suffering of millions of people and provide the required reparations, though not easy or cheap. This is something imperative, the report points out.

The report focuses on Afghanistan as an example of how people, in particular women and children, the most vulnerable in society, are dying because, despite the US (shambolic) withdrawal, the damage Washington inflicted on Afghanistan’s vital services, such as the health sector and the damage the US caused to the country’s sanitation and other infrastructure in the 20 years of war and occupation means Afghans are still dying today.  

"Though in 2021 the United States withdrew military forces from Afghanistan, officially ending a war that began with its invasion 20 years’ prior, today Afghans are suffering and dying from war-related causes at higher rates than ever," the report alarmingly points out.

In the case of Somalia for example, US intervention and the war that followed has prevented the delivery of humanitarian aid, which the research says exacerbated famine; this is a natural disaster that could have been alleviated if the US instead chose to spend a vast amount of money in humanitarian assistance programs and not radicalizing the local population (and increasing terrorism and bloodshed) by bombing civilians with drones in the sky.  

Critics argue that if the United States had not waged war against countries in West Asia or provoked conflicts in the region, then other parties would not have engaged in any combat missions. In this case, the US must be solely held responsible for the disturbing direct and indirect death toll as a result of its provocative and illegal military measures. 

 

Sudan rivals sign ceasefire pact in Jeddah

Saudi Arabia and the United States announced that representatives of the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces signed an agreement on a short-term ceasefire and humanitarian arrangements in Jeddah on Saturday.

The short-term ceasefire, which enters into force 48 hours after the signing of the agreement, shall remain in effect for seven days and may be extended with the agreement of both parties, Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported.

Under the agreement, the parties agreed to facilitate the delivery and distribution of humanitarian assistance, restore essential services, and withdraw forces from hospitals and essential public facilities.

The parties also agreed to facilitate the safe passage of humanitarian actors and commodities, allowing goods to flow unimpeded from ports of entry to populations in need.

Both parties have conveyed to the Saudi and United States facilitators their commitment not to seek military advantage during the 48-hour notification period after signing the agreement and prior to the start of the ceasefire. The ceasefire will go into effect at 09:45 p.m., Khartoum time, on May 22.

The agreement reached in Jeddah was signed by the parties and will be supported by a United States-Saudi and international-supported ceasefire monitoring mechanism. This short-term ceasefire is in line with the step-by-step approach agreed by the parties.

Saudi Arabia and the United States demanded the parties to fully abide by their commitments under this agreement for a short-term humanitarian ceasefire to provide them with urgently needed relief.

Peep into South Africa through Bloomberg eye

When Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress came to power almost three decades ago, South Africa was blessed with a surfeit of electricity—a legacy of the apartheid regime’s obsession with self-reliance in the face of crippling sanctions against its White supremacist rule.

The democratic government that replaced it prioritized expanding access, electrifying 2.5 million predominantly Black households in its first four years. The surplus from a fleet of coal-fired plants was even tapped to light up homes in neighboring nations.

Today some 86% of South African households are connected to the grid, compared with 40% for Africa as a whole. But the good news ends there. Those households go without electricity at least 10 hours a day on average. It was apparent years ago that a lack of planning by ANC governments, and their failure to build new plants while maintaining that already in place, had hobbled the continent’s most-industrialized nation.

Now the consequences of the ANC’s inability to resolve its power crisis are growing dire. As the world’s biggest economic powers court Africa with an intensity unseen in decades—the leaders of both the US and China are expected this year—South Africa risks being left in the dark.

Brownouts and blackouts aren’t the only challenges the nation faces. The continent’s biggest freight rail network is crumbling, the country’s ports are among the world’s most inefficient and crime is rampant.

South Africa’s foreign policy is also in disarray. Failing to condemn Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and hosting naval exercises with Russia angered key trading partners, including the US and European Union. This month, the US ambassador accused the country of allowing arms to be loaded onto a Russian ship at a military base.

For a nation that’s billed itself as Africa’s leader—touting its role as the only African member of the Group of 20—South Africa is arguably starting to lose its position.

This month, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz both visited Africa, but neither included South Africa on the itinerary. And South African officials weren’t invited to this weekend’s G-7 summit—for only the second time in six years. So who will be there? The leaders of its emerging-market peers: Brazil, India, Indonesia and Vietnam. 

Much of South Africa’s decline comes back to the absence of reliable electricity and the broader economic malaise it’s causing. The ANC’s responsibility for the outages, which are not only a hindrance for households but deter investment, can be traced back to around 2001, when the national utility, Eskom, was told not to build new power plants.

The government’s thinking was that new generation would be built by private investors. The problem is they never came.

And while corruption and managerial neglect have also been issues, there’s little evidence the policies that triggered the crisis have changed.  

President Cyril Ramaphosa appointed the country’s first-ever electricity minister, Kgosientsho Ramokgopa two months ago. But Ramaphosa has yet to give him any authority, leaving the minister to conduct a series of tours to power plants and TV studios.

Authority instead resides with the energy and public-enterprises ministers—strong political allies of the president who have accomplished little. 

The cost of procrastination is becoming clear. With power cuts deepening into the South African winter, Rand Merchant Bank recently reversed its prediction of 0.3% economic growth this year, and now sees a 0.8% contraction. Even central bank governor Lesetja Kganyago said this month the country was suffering from largely self-inflicted wounds. 

As the ANC is set to face its toughest-ever electoral test in a year’s time, there have been some positive steps. Private companies are now allowed to build generation plants of any size for their own use, and municipalities are seeking supplies independent of Eskom. 

But these moves will take time, and aren’t the hard decisions needed to resolve the situation.

 

 

 

 

India: Implications of scraping 2000 rupee note

India will withdraw its highest denomination currency note from circulation, the central bank said on Friday. The 2000 rupee note, introduced in 2016, will remain legal tender but citizens have been asked to deposit or exchange these notes by September 30, 2023.

The decision is reminiscent of a shock move in 2016 when the Narenda Modi-led government had withdrawn 86% of the economy's currency in circulation overnight.

This time, however, the move is expected to be less disruptive as a lower value of notes is being withdrawn over a longer period of time, according to analysts and economists.

When 2000-rupee notes were introduced in 2016 they were intended to replenish the Indian economy's currency in circulation quickly after demonetization.

However, the central bank has frequently said that it wants to reduce high value notes in circulation and had stopped printing 2000 rupee notes over the past four years.

"This denomination is not commonly used for transactions," the Reserve Bank of India said in its communication while explaining the decision to withdraw these notes.

While the government and the central bank did not specify the reason for the timing of the move, analysts point out that it comes ahead of state and general elections in the country when cash usage typically spikes.

"Making such a move ahead of the general elections is a wise decision," said Rupa Rege Nitsure, group chief economist at L&T Finance Holdings. "People who have been using these notes as a store of value may face inconvenience," she said.

The value of 2000 rupee notes in circulation is 3.62 trillion Indian rupees (US$44.27 billion). This is about 10.8% of the currency in circulation.

"This withdrawal will not create any big disruption, as the notes of smaller quantity are available in sufficient quantity," said Nitsure. "Also in the past 6-7 years, the scope of digital transactions and e-commerce has expanded significantly."

But small businesses and cash-oriented sectors such as agriculture and construction could see inconvenience in the near term, said Yuvika Singhal, economist at QuantEco Research.

To the extent that people holding these notes chose to make purchases with them rather than deposit them in bank accounts, there could be some spurt in discretionary purchases such as gold, said Singhal.

As the government has asked people to deposit or exchange the notes for smaller denominations by September 30, bank deposits will rise. This comes at a time when deposit growth is lagging bank credit growth.

This will ease the pressure on deposit rate hikes, said Karthik Srinivasan, group head - financial sector ratings at rating agency ICRA Ltd.

"Since all the 2000 rupee notes will come back in the banking system, we will see a reduction in cash in circulation and that will in turn help improve banking system liquidity," said Madhavi Arora, economist at Emkay Global Financial Services.

Improved banking system liquidity and an inflow of deposits into banks could mean that short-term interest rates in the market drop as these funds get invested in shorter-term government securities, said Srinivasan.

Is Pakistan liable to pay penalty to Iran for not completing its portion of gas pipeline?

An interesting debate has initiated that Pakistan would have to pay US$18 billion penalty to Iran for failing to construct its portion of Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline.

The project, aimed at supplying around 750 million cubic feet of natural gas to Pakistan daily, ran into snags, the chief being imposition of sanctions on Iran.

Originally this pipeline was named, Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline. Pakistan was responsible for providing transit and security to the pipeline and in exchange get transit fee and also draw a small quantity of gas. However, under the US pressure India abandoned the project. Iran and Pakistan went ahead hoping that sanctions imposed on Iran would be withdrawn by the time project is complete. The US not only withdrew from nuclear talks but also imposed new sanction in Iran when Donald Trump was the US President.

Reportedly, Iran has already built its own portion of the pipeline but Pakistan has not, the work was to be completed by 2024. If Pakistan fails in completing its portion, Iran will have a right to demand compensation of US$18 billion.

The pipeline should have been completed by 2019 but the two countries revised their original agreement to give Pakistan more time to build its portion of the pipeline.

The Pakistani foreign ministry said it was going to discuss the problems with relevant parties, i.e. Iran and the United States.

Under the prevailing conditions, looming US sanctions on Iran, Pakistan just could not dare to compete this pipeline and buy gas from Iran. Therefore, no penalty can be imposed on Pakistan.

Technically, United States becomes liable to pay the penalty or let Iran and Pakistan go ahead with the project.

This demand gets credence because the United States is following double standards — being lenient with India in meeting its energy needs while punishing Pakistan for the same.

The gas from Iran via this pipeline is essential for meeting Pakistan’s energy requirements. If India is allowed by the United States to buy crude oil from Russia, why restrictions on Pakistan on buying gas from Iran?

Last year, Pakistan suffered serious problems amid the surge in international LNG prices as European buyers who could afford the higher prices took all available LNG in, leaving poorer countries such as Pakistan out in the cold and dark.

 

 

 

Jeddah Declaration reaffirms bolstering Arab unity

Wrapping up their one-day summit in Jeddah on Friday evening, the Arab leaders reaffirmed the need for further cementing their unity to achieve a more secure and stable region with prosperity and welfare for its peoples.

The Jeddah Declaration, approved by the leaders at the end of their 32nd ordinary summit, reiterated that sustainable development, security, stability, and peaceful coexistence are inherent rights of the Arab citizen, and this will only be achieved by complementing efforts, combating crime and corruption decisively and at all levels.

Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammad bin Salman, chaired the summit, which saw the participation of Syrian President Bashar al Assad for the first time, ending Syria’s decade-long isolation from the 22-member bloc.

The summit discussed major topics on its agenda, including the Palestinian –Israeli conflict, the latest developments in Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Lebanon.

The declaration rejected foreign interferences in the internal affairs of the Arab countries. “We completely reject supporting the formation of armed militias and warn that internal military conflicts will only aggravate people’s suffering,” the declaration read.

The summit reaffirmed centrality of the Palestinian cause to Arab countries as one of the main factors of stability in the region.

The leaders condemned in the strongest terms the hostile practices and violations of Israel that target the Palestinians’ lives. They called for intensify efforts to reach a comprehensive and just settlement for the Palestinian issue, and to find a settlement to achieve peace on the basis of the two-state solution in accordance with international resolutions and initiatives, notably the Arab Peace Initiative, mooted by Saudi Arabia.

The leaders welcomed Syria’s return to the Arab League fold following years of isolation, and voiced hope that this would contribute to Syria’s stability and unity. “We must intensify Arab efforts to help Syria resolve its crisis,” the declaration stated. The declaration also hailed the decision of the ministerial level meeting to resume participation of Syrian government delegations in its meetings.

The summit rejected foreign interferences that inflame conflict in Sudan, in a way threatening regional security and stability. The leaders called for dialogue and unity among the warring factions.

The declaration reaffirmed support for everything that guarantees security and stability of Yemen and achieves aspirations of the Yemeni people.

The summit also pledged solidarity with Lebanon, and urged all Lebanese parties to engage in dialogue to elect a president who satisfies people’s aspirations to restore regular work of constitutional institutions and conduct required reforms.

The declaration reiterated that during its current presidency, Saudi Arabia will strengthen joint Arab action in various cultural, economic, social and environmental sectors.

“These initiatives include teaching the Arabic language to non-native speakers and sustain the supply chains of basic food commodities for Arab countries,” the declaration read.

Assad wins warm welcome at Arab summit

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was given a warm welcome at an Arab summit on Friday, winning a hug from Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince at a meeting of leaders who had shunned him for years, in a policy shift opposed by the United States and other Western powers.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman shook hands with a beaming Assad as the summit got underway in Jeddah, turning the page on enmity towards a leader who drew on support from Shi'ite Iran and Russia to beat back his foes in Syria's civil war.

The summit showcased redoubled Saudi Arabia efforts to exercise sway on the global stage, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in attendance and Crown Prince Mohammed restating Riyadh's readiness to mediate in the war with Russia.

Oil powerhouse Saudi Arabia, once heavily influenced by the United States, has taken the diplomatic lead in the Arab world in the past year, re-establishing ties with Iran, welcoming Syria back to the fold, and mediating in the Sudan conflict.

With many Arab states hoping Assad will now take steps to distance Syria from Shi'ite Iran, Assad said the country's past, present, and future is Arabism, but without mentioning Tehran - for decades a close Syrian ally.

In an apparent swipe at Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, who has backed Syrian rebels and sent Turkish forces into swathes of northern Syria, Assad noted the danger of expansionist Ottoman thought, describing it as influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood - an Islamist group seen as a foe by Damascus and many other Arab states.

Crown Prince Mohammed said he hoped Syria's return to the Arab League leads to the end of its crisis; 12 years after Arab states suspended Syria as it descended into a civil war that has killed more than 350,000 people.

Saudi Arabia would not allow our region to turn into a field of conflicts, he said, saying the page had been turned on painful years of struggle.

Washington has objected to any steps towards normalization with Assad, saying there must first be progress towards a political solution to the conflict.

“The Americans are dismayed. We (Gulf states) are people living in this region, we're trying to solve our problems as much as we can with the tools available to us in our hands," said a Gulf source close to government circles.

A Gulf analyst told Reuters that Syria risked becoming a subsidiary of Iran, and asked: "Do we want Syria to be less Arab and more Iranian, or ... to come back to the Arab fold?"