United States adamant at stopping ships entering Red Sea

After the latest attacks at Yemen on Saturday, it has become evident that United States and its allies, particularly Britain, are adamant at stopping ships passing through Red Sea. The strikes at Yemen are aimed at opening a new front in the Middle East and take attention away from ongoing genocide in Gaza by Israel.

It is necessary to understand why United States is targeting Yemen. For a long time US has fought a proxy war in Yemen. After the resumption of diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran and Saudi refusal to join the US-led naval force, United States wants to target Yemen.

It may be recalled that ships had resumed journey through Red Sea, which was not appreciated by United States. Therefore, it raised false flag of attacks on ships by Houthis to create a justification of attacks on Yemen.

Readers can recall the US hoax call of presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to pave way for attack on the country. Even at that time British Prime Minister, Toney Blair was the mouthpiece of US President George Bush.

 According to Associated Press (AP), the US military early Saturday struck another Houthi-controlled site in Yemen that it had determined was putting commercial vessels in the Red Sea at risk.

The latest strike came after the US Navy on Friday warned American-flagged vessels to steer clear of areas around Yemen in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden for the next 72 hours after the initial airstrikes.

The warning came as Yemen’s Houthis vowed fierce retaliation, further raising the prospect of a wider conflict in a region already beset by Israel’s war in Gaza.

 “We will make sure that we respond to the Houthis if they continue this outrageous behavior along with our allies,” Biden told reporters during a stop in Emmaus, Pennsylvania.

US Lawmakers Slam Strikes on Yemen

US lawmakers said Thursday that the Biden administration's barrage of airstrikes in Yemen—launched in coordination with American allies but without congressional approval—was blatantly unconstitutional and dangerous, heightening the risk of a full-blown regional conflict, reports Common Dreams.

"This is illegal and violates Article I of the Constitution," Cori Bush wrote on social media following the strikes. "The people do not want more of our taxpayer dollars going to endless war and the killing of civilians. Stop the bombing and do better by us."

The Biden administration said the airstrikes, which it characterized as a response to Houthi attacks on commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea, hit more than 60 targets in Yemen. Administration officials reportedly briefed congressional leaders on its plans to bomb Yemen, but there was no formal authorization from lawmakers.

"This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution," said Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress."

Rashida Tlaib echoed Jayapal, writing that US President Joe Biden is "violating Article I of the Constitution by carrying out airstrikes in Yemen without congressional approval."

"The American people are tired of endless war," Tlaib added.

Article I of the Constitution states that Congress has the power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 seeks to constrain the president's ability to take unilateral military action. As Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman have explained, the War Powers Resolution "does not authorize the president to use force," calling the belief that it does "a common misperception."

"It takes a limited view of the president's authority to introduce US armed forces into such situations in the absence of congressional authorization or an attack on the United States," Egan and Bridgeman noted.

The WPR states that, within 48 hours of a military action, the president must deliver a report to Congress explaining the rationale and legal authority under which such an action was launched. The statute clarifies that the president can only take military action under three circumstances: "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

In a statement, US President Joe Biden called the Yemen strikes defensive, signaling the administration's intention to invoke Article II of the Constitution as its legal foundation for Thursday's bombing campaign. Article II designates the president as commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, and it has been used by multiple administrations as a blank check for military action.

Yemen's Houthis have been targeting ships in the Red Sea since October, when Israel launched its devastating assault on the Gaza Strip in response to a deadly Hamas-led attack.

The Houthis say they are acting to prevent genocide by blockading ships headed for Israel.

The US and allied nations have been working to repel Houthi attacks on commercial vessels since October, shooting down Houthi drones and missiles and sinking Houthi ships in the Red Sea.

The White House said Thursday that Houthi attacks on commercial shipping have had very little impact on the US economy.

Stephen Miles, the president of Win Without War, called the US strikes on Yemen "deeply troubling," arguing that "it's an action clearly at odds with both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution."

"Congressional authorization isn't some sort of courtesy, it's a legal requirement for this kind of act," Miles wrote. "And since we're all about to hear a whole lot about 'self-defense' let's be very clear.

Under the WPR, presidents are required to seek authorization before knowingly introducing US forces into where combat may become imminent. It was written expressly for situations like this."

Barbara Lee said Thursday that the worsening cycle of violence in the Middle East is why she "called for a cease-fire early."

"Violence only begets more violence," Lee added. "We need a cease-fire now to prevent deadly, costly, catastrophic escalation of violence in the region."

 

United States and Britain strike Yemen

United States and British warplanes, ships and submarines launched dozens of air strikes across Yemen overnight, widening regional conflict stemming from Israel's war in Gaza.

According to Reuters, witnesses confirmed explosions at military bases near airports in the capital Sanaa and Yemen's third city Taiz, a naval base at the main Red Sea port Hodeidah and military sites in the coastal Hajjah governorate.

"These targeted strikes are a clear message that the United States and our partners will not tolerate attacks on our personnel or allow hostile actors to imperil freedom of navigation," said US President Joe Biden.

The Houthis said five of their fighters had been killed in a total of 73 air strikes, and that they would retaliate and continue their attacks on shipping, which they describe as intended to support Palestinians against Israel.

The commander of US air operations in the Middle East, Air Force Lieutenant-General Alex Grynkewich, said 60 targets at 16 separate locations had been hit using more than 100 precision-guided munitions.

A US official said the targets were not just symbolic but intended to weaken the Houthis' ability to attack, "We were going after very specific capability in very specific locations with precision munitions."

In a country only just emerging from nearly a decade of war that brought millions of people to the brink of famine, morning brought long queues at petrol stations from people fearing an extended new conflict with the West.

According to an AP Report, Houthi spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree, in a videotaped address on Friday said “American and British enemy bears full responsibility for its criminal aggression against our Yemeni people, and it will not go unanswered and unpunished.” He described 73 strikes hitting five regions of Yemen under Houthi control.

The strikes marked the first US military response on Yemeni soil since attacks on commercial ships of Israeli origins and ships carrying goods to/ from Israel. Houthis have avoided attacking other commercial ships.

President Joe Biden said the strikes were meant to demonstrate that the US and its allies will not tolerate the ceaseless Red Sea attacks. And he said they only made the move after attempts at diplomatic negotiations and careful deliberation.

 

Netanyahu and his war cabinet must be punished for committing genocide

Human rights defenders and legal experts on Thursday lauded what many called South Africa's "compelling" opening presentation at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in a case accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians in the embattled Gaza Strip.

In a bid to obtain an ICJ emergency order for the suspension of Israel's relentless 97-day assault on Gaza, South African jurists including Justice Minister Ronald Lamola argued that Israel is violating four articles of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, commonly called the Genocide Convention. The landmark 1948 treaty—enacted, ironically, the same year as the modern state of Israel was born, largely through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's Arabs—defines genocide as acts intended "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group."

South African lawyers detailed Israel's conduct in the war, including the killing and wounding of more than 80,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, forcibly displacing over 85% of the besieged enclave's 2.3 million people, and inflicting conditions leading to widespread starvation and disease. They also cited at length statements by Israeli officials calling for the destruction and even nuclear annihilation of Gaza in their presentations, which eschewed graphic imagery in favor of arguing "clear legal rights."

"In its opening argument thus far, South Africa has made a compelling case showing how the genocidal statements by [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and other senior officials were interpreted as official orders by Israeli forces in their attacks against Gaza," US investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill said on social media.

"Beyond the citations of the vast civilian deaths and injuries caused by Israel in Gaza, [South Africa's] lawyers argued effectively that Israel's 'evacuation' orders were in and of themselves genocidal, demanding the immediate flight of a million people, including patients in hospitals," Scahill continued.

"What becomes crystal clear listening to the openly genocidal words of Netanyahu and other Israeli officials is that they know exactly what they are saying," he added. "And they are comfortable saying these things publicly because they know the US will shield them from accountability."

Left-wing author and activist and former South African parliamentarian Andrew Feinstein said, "South Africa's presentation to the ICJ thus far has been exceptional, overwhelming, and devastating," opining that "the only way the ICJ doesn't impose interim measures is if the judges are open to pressure from 'the West.'"

"South Africa's lawyers have done the nonracial, post-apartheid country proud," he added.

Legal scholar Nimer Sultany, a Palestinian citizen of Israel, called South Africa's presentation "compellingly argued and powerfully presented."

"Given the court's case law, and given the lower threshold required for issuing provisional measures, it will be very surprising if the court does not issue provisional measures against Israel," Sultany asserted.

"This also should prompt reflection amongst all those governments and media outlets who supported [Israel's war,] because they have been supporting a genocide," he added.

Sultany and numerous other observers said the most powerful presentation of the day was made by Irish lawyer and case adviser Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, who delivered South Africa's closing statement.

Israel—some of whose officials have condemned South Africa's case as a meritless "blood libel"—is scheduled to present its defense on Friday. Israeli jurists are expected to focus heavily on the atrocities committed by Hamas-led attackers who killed more than 1,100 Israelis and took around 240 others hostage on October 07, 2023. They will likely argue that the country has a right to defend itself, and that it is seeking to eliminate Hamas, not the Palestinian people.

While an emergency order from the World Court would not be enforceable, it would represent a major international embarrassment for Israel, which is increasingly isolated on the world stage.

A growing number of nations including Brazil, Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia, Jordan, and Bangladesh are supporting South Africa's case, as are the Arab League, more than 1,250 international human rights and civil society group, and progressive US Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush.

"Whatever the outcome, we are witnessing an amazing moment of rule of international law history," said Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard.

Iran seizes oil tanker in Gulf of Oman

According to a Reuters report, Iran has seized a tanker with Iraqi crude destined for Turkey on Thursday in retaliation for the confiscation last year of the same vessel and its oil by the United States.

The seizure of the Marshall Islands-flagged St Nikolas coincides with weeks of attacks by Yemen's Houthi militias targeting Red Sea shipping routes.

"After the theft of Iranian oil by the United States last year, St Nikolas tanker was seized by Iran's Navy this morning with a judicial order ... it is en route to Iranian ports," the semi-official Fars news agency reported, citing a statement by the Navy.

The St Nikolas, was seized by the United States last year in a sanctions enforcement operation when it sailed under a different name, Suez Rajan. Following the move, Iran warned the United States that it would "not go unanswered".

The St Nikolas was boarded by armed intruders as it sailed close to the Omani city of Sohar, according to British maritime security firm Ambrey, and its AIS tracking system was turned off as it headed in the direction of the Iranian port of Bandar-e-Jask.

The ship loaded 145,000 metric tons of oil in the Iraqi port of Basra and was heading to Aliaga in western Turkey via the Suez Canal, its operator Empire Navigation told Reuters, adding that it had lost contact with the vessel.

While Yemen's Houthis have since October last year attacked commercial vessels in the Red Sea to show support for Palestinian militant group Hamas in its fight against Israel, those incidents have been concentrated on the Bab al-Mandab Strait, to the southwest of the Arabian Peninsula.

Thursday's incident is located closer to the Strait of Hormuz, between Oman and Iran.

The vessel is manned by a crew of 19 including 18 Filipino nationals and one Greek national, the operator said, adding it was chartered by Turkish oil refiner Tupras.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) authority said earlier on Thursday it had received a report that a vessel located around 50 nautical miles east of Oman's coast was boarded by four to five armed persons.

The armed intruders were reported to be wearing military-style black uniforms and black masks.

The UK authority, which provides maritime security information, said it was unable to make further contact with the vessel and authorities were still investigating the incident.

The United States Navy's Fifth Fleet did not immediately respond to a request for comment or further information.

The Suez Rajan was carrying more than 980,000 barrels of Iranian crude oil last year when it was seized and the oil confiscated in the US sanctions enforcement operation.

The United States said at the time that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had been trying to send contraband Iranian oil to China, in violation of US sanctions.

The vessel was unable to unload the Iranian crude for nearly two and half months over fears of secondary sanctions on vessels used to unload it. It was renamed the St Nikolas after unloading the cargoes.

 

Pakistan facing election delay

Calls from multiple players to delay Pakistan's upcoming general election threaten what is left of the country's fragile democracy, experts say, though many expect the polls will go ahead in the end.

The clearest push for a postponement so far came last Friday, when the Senate passed a resolution urging the government to put off the February 08 vote due to security concerns. Molana Fazal ur Rehman, Pakistan's leading Islamist politician, also endorsed the resolution.

Fears of violence are not unfounded. On Monday, six policemen were killed by the Pakistani Taliban in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province during an anti-polio campaign, just the latest attack on security personnel. Last Friday, a religious cleric belonging to a Sunni sectarian group was gunned down in Islamabad, sparking protests.

But while deteriorating security provides a pretext for pushing back the election, many politicians, civil society activists and political commentators told Nikkei Asia that further delaying the already late vote would damage the democratic system.

"A prolonged caretaker setup that is beholden to the [military] establishment but not accountable to the people of Pakistan has eroded civilian say in governance," said Amber Rahim Shamsi, a political commentator based in Karachi.

After former Prime Minister Imran Khan was ousted in April 2022, a coalition government led by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party took over. Last August, it dissolved for a caretaker government to oversee elections, which were originally supposed to be held in late 2023.

Cyril Almeida, a politics expert in Islamabad, believes that Pakistan is now operating outside constitutional parameters. He said a fixation has developed on simply preventing Khan - a former cricket star turned Islamist populist now jailed over corruption allegations he denies - from making a comeback.

"Military and the civilians not aligned with Imran Khan have a single-point agenda: Keep Imran Khan out of power," he said. "So whatever it takes to achieve that, the military and its civilian allies are willing to contemplate."

Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, which complains of an uneven playing field, is down but not necessarily out. Election nomination papers for Khan and an overwhelming majority of PTI leaders were initially rejected. Later, appellate tribunals overturned most of the decisions, albeit not for Khan.

On Wednesday, the High Court in Peshawar ruled that the PTI can contest elections under its trademark symbol, a cricket bat. Earlier, the Election Commission had deprived the PTI of its symbol on a technicality.

Meanwhile, once-exiled former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif this week had his ban from politics lifted, clearing him to run. Sharif and his PML-N party are now widely considered the preference of the military establishment.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has expressed concern about the electoral process. "At this point, there is little evidence to show that the upcoming elections will be free, fair, or credible," it said in a January 01 statement on X, formerly Twitter.

Shahid Maitla, another political analyst in Islamabad, believes the establishment and caretaker government have failed to check the popularity of Khan, who still has vast appeal among the masses. "The curtailment of Khan's party is being achieved through the management of courts, police and media," he said.

He said that some in the "business community, caretakers and unpopular political players like JUI-F are the ones having vested interests are exerting pressure on the establishment to postpone [the] polls," referring to Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazal, the largest Islamist party, led by Rehman.

Maitla even suggested that some members of the caretaker government are lobbying prominent journalists to influence the establishment and judiciary to delay the elections so that they can continue to rule.

Yet, the growing unpopularity of the interim administration is making that case more difficult, experts say.

In recent days, caretaker Prime Minister Anwaar ul-Haq Kakar and Information Minister Murtaza Solangi have faced severe criticism for comments they made at different forums. Kakar suggested women from Balochistan province protesting forced disappearances were "advocates of terrorists" and asked those who are supporting them to "go and join them."

Maitla said that the caretaker government has also failed to effectively communicate Pakistan's position on the repatriation of Afghan migrants and the Israel-Hamas war. "Kakar proved a poor choice" for prime minister, he argued, saying Kakar is keen to interact with the media but "earned embarrassment."

"The establishment is not happy with the caretakers at all," Maitla said. "If elections had not been nearing, many of them would have been replaced."

Almeida in Islamabad said the interim government has overstepped.

"All caretaker governments lack political legitimacy, but this particular group has tried to leverage the support it has of the military into space for weighing in on policy matters and national controversies," he said.

That leaves elections as the best bet to form a more legitimate government, despite the efforts to delay them.

A well-placed source within the security establishment denied rumors that Kakar could be replaced. "'[Kakar] will complete his tenure and elections will be held on time," the source told Nikkei on condition of anonymity.

"With Nawaz Sharif back in the country and now cleared to take part in elections, it is unlikely elections will be postponed at this late stage," Almeida argued.

Maitla agreed. The "election is a compulsion rather than a choice for the country and more so for the establishment, as it is losing its capital fast from the domestic to the international front."

Courtesy: Nikkei Asia

China committed to work with Hasina

Chinese ambassador to Bangladesh Yao Wen has congratulated Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for successfully holding of the 12th general election and Awami League’s victory.

Ambassador Yao conveyed warm congratulations and best wishes from Chinese leaders to Hasina.

The Chinese ambassador called on Hasina at Ganabhaban and reaffirmed that Chinese leaders are committed to working with her to carry forward the long-established friendship, enhance mutual trust, and deepen practical cooperation – thereby uplift the China-Bangladesh strategic partnership of cooperation to a new height.

Ambassador Yao noted that both China and Bangladesh are at a critical stage of development and revitalization, and China would always be the most trustworthy partner and the most reliable friend of Bangladesh on the way to modernization.

Under the guidance of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, China and Bangladesh have set a model of mutual respect and win-win cooperation, said the Chinese Embassy in Dhaka.

China will firmly support Bangladesh in safeguarding national sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, and in opposing external interference, it said.

China will also support Bangladesh in maintaining unity and stability, and in playing a more active role in international and regional affairs, said the embassy.

China is committed to assisting Bangladesh in realizing the ‘Vision 2041’ and the dream of ‘Sonar Bangla,’ it said.

Ambassador Yao said that China is prepared to strengthen all-round cooperation with Bangladesh, and take due actions to facilitate and expand trade and investment with Bangladesh, promote high-quality China-Bangladesh Belt and Road cooperation, and make its own contribution to realizing ‘Smart Bangladesh’.