International events

The F-16 and other armament issues

by Dave

Biden does not want to play into Putin’s hand, whose narrative is that Ukraine is the aggressor. Of course, Ukraine is vastly outnumbered in the battlefield, so this is plainly absurd. But, Putin’s narrative is that Ukraine with NATO is a threat to Russia. NATO is a defense organization and because Ukraine is not a member, is not obligated to come to Ukraine’s defense. When US and Russian forces are on the same battlefield, you have the real possibility of World War III. Similarly when NATO and Russian forces meet in combat in Ukraine, there is not stopping the potential escalation that will occur.

So, from the onset of hostilities, the US has tried to make this an Ukrainian war, arming Ukrainians to defend themselves with limited range arms beginning with the Obama administration, and then ramping up quickly during the Trump administration. Then on February 24, 2022, the Russian army with the cooperation of Belarus, made their initial tank assault from the Ukraine-Belarus border. (To first occupy the site of the abandon Chernobyl nuclear reactor, was a terrible error, as the ground is still radio-active in many parts).

The bellicose nature of Putin, his autocratic rule and his hostilities towards NATO did not go unnoticed. NATO expanded into Eastern Europe in 2004, with the admission of seven countries, under President George W. Bush. I believe this was the right decision, approved by all members of NATO as required.

Link: Wikipedia, Members of NATO

Sending fighter jets to Ukraine will be viewed by Russia as arming Ukraine with offensive weapons which could be used to attack Russia. I believe this is exactly what Ukraine wants to do, principally to knock out the Russian supply bases on the Russian-Ukraine border. So, there are some really scary escalation scenarios.

It maybe a surprise to many, to know that the F-16 is a single engine plane, with just one pilot, first produced in 1978. But of course, it has been modified many times, so they refer to it as the Fighting Falcon or F-16C. Military experts give it high praise against the Russian MiG-29 in dogfights. Experts also conclude that if the US provided F-16’s, it could be a real game changer in knocking out Russia’s superiority in the sky. It would not stop the constant missile attacks.

Link: MiG 29 verses F-16

Ukraine is not trained to fly F-16. And there will be all sorts of issues with maintaining the aircraft. For those who remember the Vietnam war, the escalation began with the US providing helicopters and pilots to South Vietnam. Then more US troops were needed to defend these bases which we built.

The US has supplied helicopters to Ukraine, and a very long list of military equipment and funding for their defense. Other countries, most notably the UK, Germany and France, have been constantly helping Ukraine, but it is really a worldwide effort. See link below:

Link: List of Military Aid to Ukraine

At the very end of this list, a summary of future US aid to Ukraine is provided. The number of countries is long, and honestly, I didn’t expect to see New Zealand, Taiwan or South Korea on the list of countries.

I have commented in prior blogs on the automated battlefield weaponry including the suicidal drone like the switchblades, javelins and the HIMAR missile launchers. Military equipment is not my forte, but there are plenty of websites which go into extensive details.

I believe some countries are helping Ukraine, but through other countries and doing it quietly, so not to get on the bad side of Putin. Then there is a lot of Russian arms left behind by retreating Russian (or mercenary) soldiers. So, Russians are being killed sometimes by their own weapons.

There’s a lot of politics, and misinformation around which is bound to get worse as we approach the 2024 elections. In general, there has been bipartisan support of military aid to Ukraine, with some exceptions some select members of Congress, who want either less money to be spent or approval for the F-16. A number of guests on conservative Fox News, have advocated less money to Ukraine and more to stop illegal immigration. My thinking is we should not short change foreign policy because spending more on domestic policy is more popular with voters.

Trump has bragged about the 250 million dollars of aid given to Ukraine in 2019, but leaves out the fact that he held up providing the aid, in an attempt to pressure President Zelensky to lie to his people and announce that Ukraine was investigating Hunter Biden for possible violation of the law regarding Burisma. In exchange, Trump would unfreeze aid to Ukraine. This was the basis for his first impeachment. It was clearly an abuse of presidential power and grounds for impeachment.

Trump also exaggerated how little aid Obama gave Ukraine. Trump’s claim that Obama gave the former president only “pillow and sheets” has been debunked.

CNN: Fact-checking Trump’s claim that Obama gave Ukraine ‘pillows and sheets’

Politifact: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/

Both of these links are from 2019. Going back in time and spreading disinformation does not help.

I guess there are enough real issues going forward, on whether more weapons will bring this war to an end, or broaden the conflict. The latest developments in regards to Moldova are scary. Hopefully, there are some countries in the background, helping to broker a ceasefire, as a first step to a Russian withdrawal.

Stay tuned,

Dave

UN Vote on Russia Annexation

by Dave

The UN was created from the ashes of World War II. The Security Council, with 15 members had the power not only to condemn invasions, they could authorize military action. This happened when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950. But, the UN also allowed the 5 permanent members the power to veto resolution. Thus the Security Council is powerless when the aggression is from any permanent member, including Russia and China.

Russia’s veto of the condemnation of the annexation in the Security Council was no surprise. Ten members voted to condemn Russia and four members abstained. China, India, Brazil and Gabon abstained.

China with a population of 1.45 billion constitutes 18% of the world’s population. China has been firmly on the fence over the conflict (Reuter’s reporting). It is very sad to see China expressing concerns about the expanding war, but not backing sanctions. Thus, the abstention of China is likely due to the numerous sanctions imposed by the US on trade related issues. How I wish China would have condemned Russia, because the Russian elites and military would have taken notice.

India sadly joined China in basically looking the other way. They urged peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict, which is really nonsense when Russia is looking to recruit 300,000 fresh troops and talks about using nuclear weapons.

Brazil is quick with the normal platitudes and lacks all conviction. They condemned the referendum in occupied areas, but wanted a “toned down” resolution. What! Russia is claiming ownership of 15% of Ukraine and threatening to use nuclear weapons to defend their occupied lands. President Bolsonaro is highly nationalistic, so it is in keeping to look the other way at Russia’s atrocities. Today (Oct 2, 2022) is election day, and Bolsonaro likely will lose to his left-leaning opponent, Lula da Silva. I am hoping the change in government will lead to more international cooperation on both climate change and condemnation of Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Gabon a small African country has numerous internal conflicts. Official corruption is reported to be very high. A coup d’etat was attempted in 2019. The health of President Bongo is being questioned.

How I wish the vote was 14-1, with every single member of the UN Security Council being responsible, and not looking for sidelines in this conflict. It is truly amazing that Ukraine has survived this long against the Russian military. They should have global support in defending their nation.

It is fundamental to world peace that each country respect its national boundaries. It is the function of the UN to resolve territorial disputes. By invading Ukraine, Putin believes more in the power of his war machine in settling disputes and has no concerns about bombing schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and other civilian targets.

The annexation requires strong condemnation of all leaders. Shame on China, India, Brazil and Gabon.

Stay tuned,

Dave

NY Times: Excellent Journalism

by Dave

If done right, I know the reporter was there without a single picture as the words paint the scene, and give it life. And a little bit of humor goes a long way as Cara Buckley did so well in the coal mines to solar farm on January 2. “Peak stripped of coal to get a solar upgrade” the front page NYT story on January 2, from Martin County, Kentucky begins, “For a mountain that’s had its top blown off, the old Martiki coal mine is looking especially winsome these days. With vast stretches of emerald green grass dotted with hay stacks and ringed with blue-tinged peaks, and the wild horses and cattle that roam, it looks less like a shattered strip mine and more like an ad for organic milk.”

News with a bit of poetry, i.e., “Up at the now-flattened summit, the sky yawns big and wide.” Interviews with residents in the area gave mixed opinions to the idea of transforming the area to a solar farm. After all, this is coal country. See link.

Yes, this is not breaking news. It adds a bit of balance to the front page of Sunday’s New York Times, with local, national, and international stories on the front page.

“Tests predicting rare disorders in fetuses are usually wrong,” is another front page story in Sunday’s paper. As I read the article, I would have liked the headline to read, “Some initial tests … ” as there are tests which are highly accurate. Testing errors which fail to identify someone with a problem (false negative) is difficult to assess because the disorder is so rare. On the other hand, it’s easy to identify false positives (test gives a positive to someone who is negative) because so many patients would be negative.

I’m still on the front page, and yet to read, “Harsh backlash meets feminists in South Korea”, “Human toll of America’s Air Wars” (repeated from 12/19), and the swearing ceremony of Eric Adams, the new mayor of NYC.

On page 3, international new, art clashes with politics. Provocative art exhibits in the city of Diyarbakir, Turkey’s largest Kurdish city, caused the exhibition to be shut down. See link.

It’s tough to keep up. North Korea’s president promises better time, in South Africa, the sad news of Archbishop Tutu’s passing, (What a wonderful, passionate and powerful leader!) and an investigative story on how Nashville, TN is changing after the 2020 Christmas bombing. I’m just up to page 10.

Yes, these are not the CNN breaking news stuff. These stories go a bit deeper.

Got a lot to read in a very short time. Monday’s edition will be soon arriving.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

I’m not sure if all NYT articles can be read without an online subscription. All stories cited were in the print edition.

Jan 2 NYT Coming Soon to This Coal County: Solar, in a Big Way

Jan 2 NYT When They Warn of Rare Disorders, These Prenatal Tests Are Usually Wrong

Jan 2, NYT Human toll of America’s Air Wars

Jan 2 NYT An Exhibit Meant to Showcase Kurdish Suffering Provoked a Furor Instead

Covid-19 hits South America hard

by Dave

Covid-19 is exponentially increasing in  Peru, Brazil and Mexico.   Covid-19 has the capability of doubling the new cases in 2-3 days.  Each infected person gives it to 2-3 people before they become so sick that they are confirmed infected.  The lax attitude of their leaders is partially to blame.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/06/americas/latin-america-coronavirus-intl/index.html

If anything has proven effective, it is lockdowns including travel  and social distancing, whether we like it or not.   Someone with Covid-19 symptoms must immediately be isolated.

Covid-19 is worldwide, and international cooperation, including the WHO and aid organizations, is critical.  I am hoping that a vaccine can be found which is safe, effective  and easily accessible to everyone in the world.  If not, it will come back to China or  Europe, and we will see a second wave.  World problems are solvable when we pull together.

Stay tuned and safe,

Dave

 

 

 

Globalization – Not an option

by Dave

Donald Trump tells his loyal base in his rallies that he is a nationalist, and does what’s best for our country. This distinguishes himself from the Obama era, which looked for global cooperation, usually ending in a compromise.  I mean putting American interests first really does  sound good..   But then something comes along like coronavirus,  a terrible contagious disease and we have a crises that needs international cooperation like never before.

The broad drop off in the stock market yesterday was at least in part due to the announcement that the  incubation period (time until the disease displays symptoms)  of coronavirus could be about 14 days and during that time, the person infected with the virus could be spreading it to others.  Previously, it had been reported that the disease could only be spread through close contact, which sounded like good news.  France officially became the first European country to be touched by the viral pneumonia, which has already contaminated almost 2,000 people and killed 56 others, mostly in Wuhan. Small number of cases have also been reported in Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, Thailand, United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and Nepal. Yes, the World Health Organization has to be very busy.

My point is this attitude of “We can take care of our own problems”  and the rest of the world should do similar, just doesn’t seem to be working on so many levels.  I like the saying more over, “What goes around, comes around.”   We’ve seen the horrors of climate change in Australia and the immense forest fires in the Amazon forests of Brazil.  Our dry periods have become longer increasing our vulnerability to devastating fires.  We have seen equally terrifying fires in California and the increase in hurricanes in the Caribbean and Gulf Coast states.  Yet,  Trump was among other world leaders downplaying the impacts (can that seriously be done!),   criticizing Greta Thonberg and others as “prophets of doom.”   Constructive steps to working with others was not on Trump’s agenda.

Under Trump,  we seem to be involved in a series of trade wars, which result in almost an immediate retaliatory tariffs imposed on the US.   Most notably is the current trade war with China.   I view the current Phase 1 agreement as simply an agreement to delay the trade war escalation.  After the election, should Trump win, things could get very grim as Trump will not be constrained by the need to be re-elected.   The US in the past, relied on the World Trade Organization to resolve disputes, which wasn’t always effective.  However, this going it alone, with increasingly higher tariffs, seems not only fail, but with real economic consequences for US businesses (primarily agriculture, but also primary materials)  and Chinese companies which rely on exports.

The list of what doesn’t work with the nationalistic approach is pretty long.  I could add pressuring North Korea to abandon its intent to abandon its nuclear program, has truly backfired.   Yes,  North Korea had no problem meeting with Trump and agreeing to denuclearization of the Korean peninsula in general terms, but it was all for show.   We hardly can expect China’s support as we engage in a trade war with them.   The uncompromising position of the US on the electronic firm, Huawei, seems just another bargaining chip, rather than a real security risk, as the Trump administration claims.  From Wikipedia:  “In September 2019, Microsoft’s top lawyer and president Brad Smith expressed concern about the continued US ban of Huawei products and services. In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek, he remarked that the ban shouldn’t be imposed without a “sound basis in fact, logic, and the rule of law”. Microsoft Corporation, which supplies Windows 10 for Huawei PCs, says the allegations by the Trump administration that Huawei is a genuine national security threat to the US are not supported by any evidence.”

And I’ve saved the worst for last – the Iran Nuclear Deal.  It appears to be falling apart, and the last thing I want to see, is Iran joining the list of nuclear nations.  Iran argues it is no longer bound by the agreement along with inspections and limits on enriched uranium, because the US re-imposed sanctions on Iran.   The US will not be able to put pressure Iran through sanctions, the way Obama did, through cooperation of China and Russia.  It looks bad.

Nationalism sounds good, but fails really to fix the problems.  Globalism may seem at times to be slow, and not fully solve problems,  but it at least makes progress in the right direction.  Health issues involved in the coronavirus really must be addressed as a global problems.  Similarly climate change, trade issues and nuclear non-proliferation (Iran and North Korea at present, there will be more to come) are global in nature, and there isn’t any other choice on how to solve them, except by international cooperation on a very large scale.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

The loss of our “soft power”

by Dave

I just felt that the transcript of Fareed Zakaria’s My Take  fit so well within the last blog on the Saudi attack.   Fareed looks at all the crises:  North Korea Disarmament talks, China Trade war,  Israel – Palestine conflict,  Afghanistan disengagement and talks with the Taliban,  and concludes Trump has failed badly,  because he isn’t a good negotiator.

But he held out some hope for a US-Iran deal, something which would allow the Iran nuclear deal from unraveling.  Fareed’s piece was likely concluded just prior to the drone attack on Saudi Arabia.   The US now threatens to bomb Iran, in part because that’s what the Saudi’s would like.   Now,  none of these conflicts are new, except the hostilities between the US and Iran.  This occurred because Trump and the Republican party waged war against the Iranian nuclear deal.  The China trade wars are new, but the problem of China’s unfair trade practice are not new.

So, bottom line, Trump hasn’t really resolved any of the international conflicts he inherited from Obama, and has added Iran nuclearization to the heap of threats.   I would add climate change as sixth major threat, which Donald Trump has taken a giant step backwards by pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord.   The next president will arrive in 2020 with his or her plate full.

Diplomacy is the art of the compromise.   It is our strength.   It is why the US pushed for international organizations, like the UN, World Trade Organization, World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Commission which is still doing the inspections in Iran, and many others.   It is soft power, and it looks like we are losing it.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

 Trump’s foreign policy is in shambles (Fareed Zakaria)

Soft Power

 

Weaker alone and it’s getting worse (China, Iran, Climate Change) + Over the top distractions

by Dave

Trump has started a number of highly disruptive “wars” without a clear end in sight.  The two big ones is his economic war with China and the political war with Iran.   A third huge division among us and our allies is our recent action against international cooperation in climate change.  Our Department of Justice is currently waging war against our automobile manufacturers who are working with California to improve exhaust emissions standards.  I guess the idea is that we all must breathe the same polluted air.   I’ll leave this last one for separate blog.

— Trade War – No end in sight.

The trade war with China, just seems to get worse every month.  According to experts, China has engaged in unfair trade practices.  But, the current trade wars are just the US and China.  We failed to obtain international support.  We created the World Trade Organization to address issues such as unfair trade practices and currency manipulation.  Now we take action without their involvement.  Trump pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) which included 12 countries (China not one of them) and would have been the best counter measure against China’s unfair practices.  Trump has correctly stated that prominent Republicans and Democrats were against it.   Likely, if Clinton were elected president, then she would have attempted to make  changes in the agreement.

The TPP agreement is long and complex.  It has survived without the US in a new agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP).   The US was insisting on certain provisions which would be best for the US. and none of the other countries before we signed it.  See links below.  When Trump pulled out, all the contested provisions were pulled out.  It includes however, what seems at the top of Trump’s wish list – respect for intellectual property as follows:

It [CPTTP] includes the most detailed standards for intellectual property of any trade agreement, as well as protections against intellectual property theft against corporations operating abroad.

Manufacturing as measured by the US ISM manufacturing employment index, last month hit a two year low of  47.4 in August 2019, down from a high of 60.17 on September 2017.  See link.

Trade wars are a lose-lose proposition.   There are 18 countries which are party to the CPTPP agreement including Japan, Mexico, Australia, Singapore and Canada.  They are stronger together, and the US is now weaker as it stands alone.

—  IRAN

Now Iran.  As long as the sanctions were lifted, Iran obeyed by its commitments.  They had a strict monitoring program.  The agreement basically called for the US to lift sanctions as long as Iran was in compliance.  When Trump imposed economic sanctions by refusing to import oil from Iran, it put the US in violation of the agreement.  Further, the US was pressuring other countries and companies not to lift Iran’s oil.

Thus, Iran correctly stated that they had the right not to be bound by the terms of the agreement, primarily on the amount of uranium it could enrich.   None of our European allies want Iran to get nuclear weapons, so they are pleading with the US, to drop the sanctions, so Iran can be brought back into compliance.  President Macron is leading this effort.  The head of the UN atomic energy watchdog agency (IAEA)  is in Iran now,   Iran makes no secret of its violations of the treaty and in fact will comply with thorough IAEA inspections,   It is simply tit-for-tat against actions taken by the US.

Trump’s theory, that once Iran felt the pain of sanctions, it would do anything to please the US hasn’t worked at all.  In fact, it has been a terrible failure.   Treaties are tough to put together, but much easier to fall apart.

I’ll stop here.  I’ve got a lot more to say on Trump’s misguided policies on reducing our carbon emissions and minimizing the real threat it is creating throughout the world, including droughts and extreme weather events.  But that will be a separate blog.

— DISTRACTIONS

I have to contend with a huge number of distracting events in July and August.  It’s really nuts.  Vice President Mike Pence wants an American on Mars by 2024, about 6 years earlier than planned, price tag around 500 billion dollars (a trillion here and there eventually adds up to real money) plus the militarizing of space with the Star Wars themed “Space Force.”   Then the trip to Ireland, was a publicist nightmare.  His grandfather was Irish, but he fled Ireland as a refugee escaping violence and poverty, just the folks Trump is trying to ban from the US.  Plus,  it was a terrible snub to stay at the Trump hotel, far outside of Dublin, for “security reasons.”  Nobody bought this one.   See link.

What else:  Trying somehow link Bill Clinton and Jeff Epstein by repeating social media nonsense,  buying Greenland and insulting Denmark (whose next?), the Trump drawn hurricane maps to include Alabama, pulling funds for Puerto Rico hurricane rebuilding effort to build the Mexican border wall (seeing just how far the National Emergency Act can be stretched), and a barrage of tweet attacks against Jay Powell for basing his decisions on interest rates on economic data and Fed Reserve objectives, rather than Trump’s polling numbers.  Remember, Jay Powell was Trump’s nominee to the Fed and highly qualified for this position by both Democrats and Republicans.

I’m not sure if any of the above means much. Our policies on Iran, China and Climate Change are real issues where an immediate course correction is necessary.  More like 180 degree turn, as we are “stronger together.” This will have to wait until the 2020 elections.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Manufacturing Unemployment index is down

Wikipedia: Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP)

Atomic watchdog chief in Iran for high-level talks

The distractions:

Mars Confusion 

Pence’s disasterous trip abroad

The Irish love anyone who can drink beer and has a bit of Irish heritage.  I believe they’ll make an exception with VP Mike Pence.

Irish Times Review of Mike Pence’s visit

 

 

 

 

 

The tanker attacks

by Dave

Let’s first look at the facts:

On June 13, two tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman.  The first attack occurred  on the Norwegian tanker,  The Front Altair.   It loaded with the flammable hydrocarbon mixture naphtha from the United Arab Emirates. They  radioed for help as it caught fire. A short time later, the Japanese tanker,  Kokuka Courageous, loaded with methanol from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, was attack and also called for help.  Fortunately, there was only one injury reported.

Tankers have between 8 to 12 separate tanks for holding petroleum products.  They are structured so a fire in one tank does spread to other tanks.   The tankers are being taken to the United Arab Emirates where their cargo will be offloaded.

The attacks occurred in the Gulf of Oman. The US military has stated that the evidence points to Iran. It’s evidence comes from a speedboat which pulled up along side of the Kokuba, and shows one of the crew trying to remove a limpet landmine.   These mine can be attached to the side of a tanker by magnets.   The US claims that members of Iran’s revolutionary guard were on the speedboat and trying to cover up evidence of the attack’s source.

The British have stated they concur with the US, stating there is high certainty the  attack was from Iran.   The United Arab Emirates has stated they feel this was the attack was “state sponsored” but importantly, did not point the finger at Iran.  Saudi Arabia concurs with the US, and urges the US to take decisive action.

For political reasons, it is easy for Saudi Arabia and UAE to side with US, against Iran.   UAE is attempting to buy military equipment from the US.   At the same time,  the US is making it increasingly difficult EU countries to buy Iranian oil.

Company president Yutaka Katada said Friday he believes the flying objects seen by the sailors could have been bullets. He denied any possibility of mines or torpedoes because the damage was above the ship’s waterline. He called reports of a mine attack “false.”   Katada said the crew members also spotted an Iranian naval ship nearby, but didn’t specify whether that was before or after the attacks.

The owners of the Norwegian tanker have not weighed in on this.

Iran has vehemently denied any involvement.   Experts in Middle East politics are puzzled, saying Iran would have nothing to gain from an attack on foreign tankers.  I agree.

If I had to guess who had the most to gain,  I would argue that it would be Saudi Arabia or UAE.  They would benefit from an attack on Iran.  And maybe UAE is wrong and it wasn’t a foreign government responsible for the attack.  If land mines were used, as the US is convinced, attached to the side of the ship, this would spill cargo and certainly put the crew at risk,  but it would not sink a tanker.  There are plenty of groups which would benefit from increase tensions between the US and Iran, and total US support of Saudi Arabia as the powerhouse of the Middle East.

There is developing a huge divide in the Middle East, along Sunni-Shia lines.  A proxy war is rapidly developing in Libya, with Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia on one side (Tobruk government).    Middle East policy seems to go along with what Prince MBS of Saudi Arabia wants.    Remember Iran and Iraq are both Shia, while Saudi Arabia and UAE are Sunni.   By choosing the Sunni group lead by Saudi Arabia,  we will undermine our relations with   Qatar, Turkey and Iraq.

It is in the interest of the US to reduce tensions rather than choose sides.  I go along with the latest Houston Chronicle opinion,  “Oil tanker attacks aren’t worth war with Iran.” See link below:

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Links:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Oil-tanker-attacks-aren-t-worth-war-with-Iran-13999257.php

 

 

Libya and the reversal of Arab Spring (Part 1)

by Dave

kaftar 1

A lot of people think international relations is like a game of chess.”  But, it’s not a game of chess, where people sit quietly, thinking out their strategy, taking their time between moves.  It’s more like a game of billiards with a bunch of balls clustered together.”

Madeline Albright, former Secretary of State

The analogy to billiards applies very much to the current state of civil war in Libya.  The balance of power between the eastern faction, or “Tobruk government” and the western faction, or “Tripoli government” is one,  seems based more on military strength than popular support.  Military strength comes from external funding, so the civil war looks more like a proxy war.

Libya’s only international airport,  may be captured any moment by a military force lead by General Haftar,  representing the government established on the eastern side of Libya.  He has the support of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE and for the most part Russia.

In the years following the 2011 Arab Spring uprising, the sequence of events seemed to follow the unpredictability of billiards,  Yet, I believe in this case, one can argue that the table is larger than anyone could imagine, and there are many balls on the table that may not be as visible, but strongly influence the game.

I note that  Trump seems to believe international relations is a game of one on one poker and plays by a series of threats and  bluffs.   He couldn’t be further off the mark and the US has lost its role as a negotiator  in resolving crises.  He also seems intent on reversing as many Obama era policies, even ones that were working.     He is a strong believer in nationalism, but then feels he can bully around lesser countries, such as Guatemala and Honduras.

A bit of background to the first civil war (2011) and second civil war (2014- present)

The spark that set off Arab Spring was the death of Mohammed Bouazizi in Tunisia on January 4, 2011.

The catalyst for the escalation of protests was the self-immolation of Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi. Unable to find work and selling fruit at a roadside stand, Bouazizi had his wares confiscated by a municipal inspector on 17 December 2010. An hour later he doused himself with gasoline and set himself afire. His death on 4 January 2011[78] brought together various groups dissatisfied with the existing system, including many unemployed, political and human rights activists, labor, trade unionists, students, professors, lawyers, and others to begin the Tunisian Revolution.[70]

The rapid spread of  rebellions during Arab Spring was really incredible.  It seemed in early 2011,  a new spirit of change toward honest and open government  had swept through the Middle East.  The common people were in the streets, directly confronting their leaders first in Tunisia, then in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen.  The list of grievances were hardly new – lack of democratic process,  government officials who were stealing from the people and anyone who protested would be thrown in prison.  Fear was the driving force.   All these countries were run by a single strong dictator, but no one could match the erratic, flamboyant and egotistical  Muamar Ghadaffi, leader of Libya.  He compared protesters to cockroaches, and proudly waved the “green book” during speeches, saying that the protesters were traitors, punishable by death.  Arab Spring was a battle of the people against autocracy, which is defined as follows:

An autocracy is a system of government in which supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of a coup d’état or mass insurrection).[1] Absolute monarchies (such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Brunei and Swaziland) and dictatorships (such as Turkmenistan and North Korea) are the main modern-day forms of autocracy.

We have for decades simultaneously rallied against autocracies, and maintain friendly relations with their leaders.  This includes both Republican and Democrat administrations.   When the US has intervened, such as in Libya Afghanistan,  and Iraq, they were based on national security issues, principally that these countries would be a danger to other countries or support radical groups in the future.   We intervened in Libya, through NATO bombings to opponents of Gadaffi   However,  we never sent troops to Libya.   Our Libyan intervention was supported by the UN Resolution 1973 passed 10-0 in March 2011.

This is somewhat personal, as I was in Libya in the early part of the Arab Spring in 2011 and ultimately had to be evacuated along with a large number of expats by a British frigate.    I went back in 2013, at a period of relative calm.  There was a lot of optimism for a  new Libya.

It was clear to me by  June 2017 that the long road to re-unify Libya might end in disaster, because key players, including Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, were quietly backing their man (General Haftar)  to the east of Libya.  I wrote the following in my blog of June 26, 2017:

“The only path forward is re-unification through UN Negotiations.   On the Tobruk side, Chief of the Army, Haftar must not be allowed to purchase arms and escalate the war.    The conflict in Libya will only become worse if the US turns a blind eye towards the arming of the Tobruk government by the Saudi supporters.  Washington and the EU need to work jointly on the  the massive refugee problem.  This is a rapidly developing story.   To follow it, it is best to do a Google search on the news.   The latest story to appear, is the release of Saif al-Islam Gadaffi and   some discussion that he could play a some leadership role.  I have very serious doubts.   The areas under control by the various rival groups seems to change regularly.  The New York Times, The Guardian and Al Jazeera seem to be the best sources of information.”

I post a  three part blog, posted on June 25 to 26, 2017.  To explain recent events, it was really necessary to give some recent historical facts on the situation.  I began with a simple statement, “Nothing is normal in Libya. At least, in the last 3 years, what happens doesn’t seem normal or logical to outsiders.”   The three  key outside players in Libya are  Saudi Arabia, Egypt and UAE.  There is a major rift between the public policy (UN negotiated re-unification)  and their actions – namely military and financial support to the Tobruk side.    The players back the strong man, not because his policies will lead to a more stable country, but because they perceive him as the likely winner in the conflict.

I began the series with an observation, that the Tobruk administration had announced it was cutting off diplomatic relations with Qatar  This was very weird because there was never the normal recognition of the eastern government as being the legitimate government of Libya.  But, it made sense in terms of regional politics, as Haftar was just aligning himself on the side of the new Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia (Mohammed bin Salman) and other members of the Gulf Cooperative Council (GCC), in particular the UAE,

To gain control of Libya,  military success is more  important than diplomatic success 

The civil war in Libya is not about ideology.  It is all about getting outside support to buy military equipment.  Simply put, Money rules.

General Haftar need Russia on his side.  Russia seemed to be hedging its position, but I think at this point, it is firmly supporting General Haftar, because his success at capturing the oil fields held by the Tripoli government.  I said in 2017, that Qaddafi’s son,  Saif al-Islam would play some role on the side of General Haftar.   He has been busy lining up Russian support for the General’s plan to take over the country by force, since it can’t be won in the UN negotiations.

In early April, 2019, a window of opportunity opened for General Haftar.  The Tripoli government lost one of its  key supporters.  The 82 year old president of Algeria, Abdelaziz Bouteflika,  stepped down amid widespread protests in the streets of Algiers.   Protesters are now attacking  his replacement either, so Algeria is in chaos right now.

While losing one key supporter,  General Haftar’s efforts were paying off  gaining another, much more important ally – Saudi Arabia.   To understand this relation, it is necessary to understand Hafter shares with Saudi Arabia a a deep animosity towards the Muslim Brotherhood, because this has become an international political organization.  It was instrumental in electing Mohammed Morsi to replace Hosni Mubarek in Egypt after his fall in 2011.

So these are some of the factors which lead to General Haftar’s success.  Next blog, I will focus more on the current situation.

Links:

Could Libya be Russia’s new Syria

Saudis gave Libya Haftar millions of dollars before the offensive

Fighting echoes through Tripoli as thousands continue to flee
WHO says it fears the outbreak of infectious diseases among the thousands of families fleeing their homes in Tripoli.

As events have unfolded in the past week, the Al Jazeera news reporting has been excellent.  See https://www.aljazeera.com

Wikipedia: Muslim Brotherhood

Wikipedia: Second Civil War (2014 – 

Arab Spring

Trade Wars – No winners

by Dave

March 2 is getting way too close for comfort.  The stock market crashed yesterday as hopes dimmed on any negotiated settlement.  The two hard core hawks in Trump’s administration (Lighthizer and Navarro) are likely in control, working on the premise that once we exert enough economic pressure, China will cave in.

Trade wars are unlike real wars.  In this case, we know exactly how China will react on March 2 when tariffs go to 25%.  They will try to match us dollar for dollar. It will simultaneously  hurt both countries.   The slowing Chinese economy coupled with a general slowdown in Europe, will make for less demand for US goods abroad.

China can withstand a lot more pain than we can.  They know this and we know this.   Trump talks about doing what is right for our country, while Chinese leaders talk about global cooperation.   Wow, it used to be the other way around.   It is a mess, because we need China’s help in convincing North Korea to end their nuclear plans.

Republicans used to be for free trade, but by embracing Trump’s policies, they are really for isolation and protectionism.

Stay tuned.

Dave

Friends of America

by Dave

US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, held a reception for the “Friends of America” to thank the countries who voted against the UN resolution, condemning President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem.    It was a bit bizarre, as of the 193 members representing almost all of the 7.6 billion inhabitants of our planet, only 9 countries voted against the resolution.   Of these 9 countries,  only 5 have populations over 1 million residents: US,  Israel, Guatemala, Honduras, and Togo (See list  at end of this blog).  Some reception!

If Donald Trump is dividing the world into proper civilized countries, and shithole ones, Guatemala probably would fall in the latter.  The State Department’s Travel Advisory states:

Reconsider travel to Guatemala due to crime. Violent crime, such as sexual assault, carjacking, armed robbery, and murder, is common. Gang activity, such as extortion, violent street crime, and narcotics trafficking, is widespread, particularly in the border regions. Local police may lack the resources to respond effectively to serious criminal incidents.

This is Level 3 advisory.   The top warning  is Level  4 which advises travelers not to visit the countries and if  intrepid travelers ignore this advice,  the State Department suggests having a will prepared prior to travel.  The only other South American countries with a Level 3 advisory (Reconsider Travel) are Honduras and El Salvador.

Personally,  I have nothing against Honduras and Guatemala. I have been several times to Guatemala, and each visit was fantastic.  The other country, Togo, is in Africa, and has been struggling for years due to low prices for its agricultural exports.  It has an astounding dense population of approximately 8 million residents. I was actually surprised at Togo’s vote, with a 20% Muslim population.

So, Nikki’s party invitees of “No Voters” had one wealthy country (Israel), three countries in economic dire straits (Guatemala, Honduras, and Togo) and 4 tiny island states in the Pacific.  Nauru is one of them, which has a population of 13,000 residents,  whose best asset is it’s seat in the UN and a vote that comes cheap.  See link below on Nauru’s recognition of Russia’s breakaway republics in exchange for aid.

It is our President which is dividing up the world, through his travel bans, cuts in aid and policy decisions, to make the US disliked around the world as never before.  He’s been able to sour relations with our close neighbors, Mexico and Canada.

The invitees to the Haley’s reception included all those who  didn’t vote at all or abstained so the total number of invitees was 64.   I can see why – as the resolution was going to pass anyway, and it really had no effect except to embarrass the US.  So, to be a friend of the US doesn’t take much, just sit at home on the day of the vote.   Still, it was a landslide vote against the US.

Usually, when you tell nation leaders that they must support US policies or else, “We’re taking names” comment by Nikki Haley, it is counter productive.  The recent violence in Pakistan, is directed at Trump’s cut off of military aid.  It’s regrettable as we need them as an ally against terrorism.

We seem to be antagonizing both friends and enemies.  We lost the chance to broker some peace settlement between Palestine and Israel,  with our decision to recognize Jerusalem.  South Korea seems to be making inroads to reducing hostilities with North Korea, after we  exchanged increasingly higher threats with North Korea.  The humanitarian crisis in Yemen seems of little importance to Trump.  It is a Iran-Saudi proxy war, and we’ve sided with the Saudi’s.

The Middle East countries are now more divided into the Sunni and Shi’a factions, and doing less to curb real terrorism.  We may eventually undermine the moderates control in Iran,  by President Rouhani, by imposing new sanctions, and threatening to abandon the nuclear agreement.  In doing so, we discourage any deal with North Korea over their nuclear program.  Meanwhile, the State Department continues to shrink under Secretary  Rex Tillerson, with many of the diplomatic posts unfilled.  Yet I consider him one of the best of the cabinet leaders.  I would include Gen.  Mattis at Defense as well.

I would like to have seen a “Friends of the US” reception with leaders from all the continents of the world.   This would require a major re-think of the America First agenda.  We are “Stronger Together”  the slogan of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

CNN:  How each country voted at the UN

Yes votes: 128 No votes: 9 Abstaining: 38 votes Not voting: 21

Tiny Nauru struts world stage by recognising breakaway republics

I’ve often thought about a service on the internet, similar to “Letgo.com” where countries could bid on the UN representatives’ vote. Maybe “Cash4votes.com” would work.  Of course, the country would first have to let the world know it’s vote is up for sale.

Nikki Haley’s New Best Friends at the UN

Hundreds of Pakistani protesters burn US flags after Trump says he is cutting aid to the country because it ‘does not take terrorism seriously enough’

 

Terrorism

by Dave

I’ve been working on a blog on Hezbollah.   It’s a very hot button issue.  Israel  consider Hezbollah as one of the worst terrorist groups.  The US also condemns Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.  Other countries do not and in particular Lebanon has been trying to co-exist with the presence of Hezbollah.   The US accuses Iran of supporting Hezbollah.  Hezbollah militia fought against ISIS in Syria in the destruction of Raqqa.   But,  I’m really jumping ahead in this blog.

It is tempting to lump all groups with an extensive cache of arms as terrorist organizations.  I would more likely term such organizations as collectives of angry people who are contemplating acts of violence.   Even in the US, there are organizations which purchase and store arms as they believe they are part of a larger resistance movement their rights as citizens.  It is in fact, their constitutional right to store arms in defense of their home.

On the Wikipedia site,  it is stated no single accepted definition of terrorism.  I’ve provided two links on this subject.  However, Wikipedia provides one “broad” definition as follows:

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror, or fear, to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim.  It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence against peacetime targets or in war against non-combatants.  The terms “terrorist” and “terrorism” originated during the French Revolution of the late 18th century but gained mainstream popularity during the U.S. Presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981–89) after the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and again after the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. in September 2001 and on Bali in October 2002.

The September 2001 is obviously the “9/11” attack on the US by Al-Qaeda, and it was indiscriminate as the action targeted anyone who was in the buildings at the time.  I would include in the definition that terrorist organizations plan violent acts  intended to cause large scale loss of human life.  The broad definition would include both non-state and state organized terrorists.

Further, Wikipedia states their definition is hardly rigorous or universally accepted as follows:

There is no commonly accepted definition of “terrorism”.[7][8] Being a charged term, with the connotation of something “morally wrong”, it is often used, both by governments and non-state groups, to abuse or denounce opposing groups.[9][10][4][11][8] Broad categories of political organisations have been claimed to have been involved in terrorism to further their objectives, including right-wing and left-wing political organisations, nationalist groups, religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[12] Terrorism-related legislation has been adopted in various states, regarding “terrorism” as a crime.[13][14] There is no universal agreement as to whether or not “terrorism”, in some definition, should be regarded as a war crime.[14][15]

Regardless of how one wishes to define terrorism, the horrific actions of ISIS, Boko Haram and  Al-Shabaab, clearly make them the worst terrorist groups.   All countries repudiate the actions of these organizations.   Similarly, the actions of Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups are repudiated by all countries.  For these groups, the “I know it when I see it” (Potter, 1964, US Supreme Court)  test works well for these groups, but it doesn’t help in many other cases.  This is exactly the point made in the Wikipedia’s summary.

Political groups and individuals within many Arab countries and Iran, may be extremely anti-American, but this can be simply rhetoric and  does not mean they support terrorism.  Further complications come into play when there are groups of extremist groups within a country, and governments for political reasons, are not making a priority to arrest or otherwise destroy extremist groups.  Wealthy individuals may support ISIS or al-Qaeda groups within many countries.  Should the governments be held responsible?  They may allow individuals accused of terrorist activities to live within their country.  Is that mean the country is complicit in terrorism?

Fethullah Gulen has been accused of acts of  terrorism by the Turkish government.   He lives in Pennsylvania and the Turkish government wants him deported to stand trial.  The US has demanded the evidence against Gulen before extraditing him.   He is 76 years old and in fact has denounced terrorism as a violation of his faith as follows:

Gülen has condemned terrorism.[135] He warns against the phenomenon of arbitrary violence and aggression against civilians and said that it “has no place in Islam”. He wrote a condemnation article in the Washington Post on September 12, 2001, one day after the September 11 attacks, and stated that “A Muslim can not be a terrorist, nor can a terrorist be a true Muslim.”[136][137] Gülen lamented the “hijacking of Islam” by terrorists.[78]

The extradition of Fethullah  Gulen for terrorism is weak, and the US so far has taken no action, except to request more evidence.

As I was completing this blog,  President Erdogan invoked the terrorist label, on condemning Israel, in response to Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as its capital, as follows:

“Israel is a state of occupation and a terror state,” Erdoğan said in a speech in the Central Anatolian province of Sivas on Dec. 10, vowing that Turkey “will not leave Jerusalem to the consciousness of a child-killer state.”

The west bank and Gaza strip are areas that Israel took by force during the Six Day war in 1967.

During the Syrian civil war,  President Bashir Assad would claim that the US and other European countries were assisting terrorist, as we were training and providing arms to groups against the Assad regime.  However, the US was also fighting against ISIS in Syria,  with the support of Syrian government.    So what were we to Assad – enemy or friend?

When there is a rebellion within a country,  immediately the leader of the country will denounce the rebel groups as traitors, or agents of foreign governments.  This is exactly what the President Gaddafi did in 2011 during the Libyan civil war.  The US  and NATO supported the rebel group with air support.

The Yemen civil war is a clash between the Houthi rebels and the Yemen government.   By their rhetoric and slogans, the Houthi would seem just as radical as Al-Qaeda or ISIS. Written in Arabic on their flag:

“The God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam”

However, the Houthi appear to simply want to take over Yemen, not wreck havoc in the western world.    The Houthi’s gained control in 2014 to 2015, through a coup d’etat.  What sparked the uprising in 2014, was an end to government subsidies on fuel.

The Houthi have committed acts of indiscriminate violence, hence it would be easy to call them terrorists by the broad definition.  Yet the coalition of countries fighting against the Houthi, with air strikes conducted by Saudi Arabia, has acted equally brutal bombing a Doctors without Frontiers hospital (October 13, 2016) and other civilian targets.

Since the Saudi-led coalition began military operations against Ansar Allah on 26 March 2015, Saudi-led coalition airstrikes unlawfully struck hospitals and other facilities run by aid organizations, according to Human Rights Watch.[352] Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) medical facilities in Yemen were attacked four times in three months.[353] On 26 October 2015, HRW documented six Saudi-led airstrikes which bombed a MSF hospital in Haydan district (Sa’dah Governorate), wounding two patients.[352][353][354] An Saudi-led coalition airstrike then hit a MSF mobile clinic on 2 December 2015, in Al Houban district (Taizz). Eight people were wounded, including two MSF staff members, and one other civilian nearby was killed. On 10 January 2016, six people were killed and seven wounded when a hospital in Sa’ada was hit by a projectile.[352][353] MSF said it could not confirm whether the hospital was hit in an air strike by warplanes of the Saudi-led coalition, or by a rocket fired from the ground, and at least one other landed nearby.[352][355] On 21 January 2016, an MSF ambulance was hit by an airstrike. Seven people were killed and dozens were wounded.[352][353]
MSF’s director of operations Raquel Ayora said: “The way war is being waged in Yemen is causing enormous suffering and shows that the warring parties do not recognise or respect the protected status of hospitals and medical facilities. We witness the devastating consequences of this on people trapped in conflict zones on a daily basis. Nothing has been spared – not even hospitals, even though medical facilities are explicitly protected by international humanitarian law.”[353]

Iran is accused of supporting the Houthi,  which  Iran denies.   Iran was instrumental in the formation of Hezbollah, which they consider is a group defending the borders of Lebanon and Syria from Israeli aggression.   Yet Iran joined with others in the  war against ISIS.    Both Hezbollah and the Houthi’s are Shi’a organization, so they would never align themselves with ISIS or Al-Qaeda.

Just yesterday,  UN Ambassador Nikki Haley stood in front of parts of a recovered missile from Yemen,  claiming this was hard evidence that Iran had supported Houthi rebels in direct violation of an UN resolutions.  While it was great for the media,  the problem was that it could have been supplied to the Houthi’s before the UN Resolution.   Further, it was apparent to experts, that the missile could not carry a nuclear warhead (a violation of another UN resolution).   There are various links on the internet, and I just posted the one from the NYT.

You see how complicated the label “terrorist organization” has become when it is extended beyond ISIS and Al-Qaeda.   I will explore more the Hezbollah group in a future blog.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links

Terrorism

Definition of Terrorism

NYT: U.S. Accuses Iran of U.N. Violation, but Evidence Falls Short

Six Day War

Hezbollah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trial of Ahmed Khattala

by Dave

The trial of Ahmed Abu Khattala is proceeding in Washington, DC.  He is accused of being the mastermind of the attack in Benghazi in September 2012.    Why did it take so long to arrest Khattala and bring him to stand trial in the US?  It is because the FBI  and the Department of Justice wanted to build a  rock solid case against  Khattala and any of his associates involved in the attack on the US diplomatic mission and CIA compound in Benghazi.   They are going after the top dog who planned the attack, and not the many followers.   Excellent!

It really looks like the time was well spent.  The New York Times  reports the prosecution is presenting a strong case against Khattala in federal court.  They must show that Khattala was more than just a leader of a group who hated Americans and Western influence in the country.   They have to show he was part of the attack.

The case relies on the testimony of two  Libyan who provided damaging details about Mr. Khattala before and after the attack.  The really critical details comes from a third Libyan, who befriended Khatttala in 2012, with the objective of collecting damning evidence to be used against Khattala.   It was a very slow process to gain Khattala’s trust.  Any slip up by this informant would have meant certain death for him and likely his family.  He testified on Tuesday, November 7 under the pseudonym of Ali Majrisi.

Khattala slowly opened up to Majrisi on the attack.   Khattala revealed one critical element – he had planned to attack and  kill the American rescue team.  His words, recalled by Majrisi  were, “I intended then to kill everyone there – even those who were at the airport.”    There was no saving the two Americans who died at the diplomatic mission; they died of smoke inhalation approximately 15 minutes after the attack.   The rescue mission would have been directed at saving lives at the CIA mission, in which two Americans died.  The Republicans have been making a case that not enough was done to save lives at Benghazi.  The reality is that the delay at the Benghazi airport was likely a fortuitous event, as many more would have been in harm’s way had a rescue attempt been made.

Majrisi was able to provide the vital evidence to link Khattala to the attack, and also a second leader, Mustafa al-Iman.   Iman appeared on surveillance videotape on the night of the attack.  The attack was well planned.  It was not a spontaneous angry  reaction to a video about the Prophet Mohammed, as originally speculated by National Security Adviser Susan Rice.   The Obama administration quickly backed off from this assertion, but it was later reported that the leaders were able to recruit others for the attack, because of the anger generated by the release of the video.   Hopefully the trial may clarify this issue.

Over the years,  Majrisi was well paid for his services, up to 7 million dollars.   This fact is being used now to discredit Majrisi’s testimony as being financially motivated.  In my opinion, it was  money well worth it, as nothing could be worse than being unable to make a case against Khattala for lack of evidence.  Hopefully both Khattala and Iman will be convicted.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations deserve credit for what appears to be a highly successful investigation.   It is extremely difficult for the FBI or the CIA to conduct an investigation without total cooperation of the Libyan government, or at least the part of the government now controlling Benghazi.  The credit goes to the Department of Justice and the FBI.  During most of this investigation,  Director James Comey was in charge of the FBI, and there was never a single leak to the media.  It would have been devastating to the investigation if Khattala knew he was being spied on.

The Libya witnesses who came forward, provided the real hard evidence and are my heroes.    I am hoping for life sentences for Khattal and Iman.   Up until President Trump took office, the people of Benghazi were extremely grateful for the support of the US, as we helped them in 2011, when Qaddafi was certainly going to bomb their city.   Obama was able to push through UN Resolution 1973, essentially grounding Qaddafi’s air force.  Now,  I think this support is being lost as Trump includes Libya as one of the countries in his travel ban.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Link:

New York Times story

I really hate this headline, as the print version has the headline “Libyan Informant Describes His Role in the Benghazi Suspect’s Capture.”   I believe the trials of Khattala and Iman will provide new details on what was transpiring outside the compounds, for a long time prior to the attacks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freshly brewed morning news on trade

by Dave

Front page of today’s  New York Times.   “As US Steps back on Trade, Allies Move on,” Peter Goodman, correspondent from London, writes:

In the master plan advanced by President Trump, an unabashedly aggressive United States is supposed to retain its rightful perch as the center of the commercial universe, wielding its economic dominance to dictate the rules to the rest of global trade.

As it turns out, the rest of the planet has its own ideas.

Gee, what a wonderful way to say we don’t all think the same.  And what sounds good, sometimes isn’t!  Two  beautifully written sentences in the morning goes well with coffee and toast.

The rest of the article adds more details on the collaboration between the European Union and Japan on trade. It certainly adds to other stories of the day, such as the Qatar crisis,  where unintended consequences can be completely contrary to the original intent of a strategy.

Madeleine Albright got it right when she said international relationships should be considered more like a game of billiards rather than a game of chess.    The balls in billiards are all clustered together, but when hit, they go in different directions.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

The Qatar-Iran Mega Gas Field

by Dave

The political world in the Middle East seems to be in continual flux,with the Iraq and Syria conflicts,  Qatar crisis and the Libyan civil war.     However, the business world seems very different and much more stable,  as investments in oil and gas must be made over decades, not timed to local or regional  politics.   It appears the business deals transcends all the political rhetoric and cultural differences, with the common goal of sound investments for the long term for the mutual benefit of all stakeholders.

The Trump administration seems obsessed with blaming everything linking terrorism to Iran.   It is a theme popular with  Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt, but I think now, it is a pretext for their blockade of Qatar.    The only other non-Arab  country with this fixation is Israel.

The business world doesn’t see this as a problem.   Simply put, “Money talks and nobody walks away from a profitable deal.”   Even the French, who have seen more of their fair share of terror attacks.

Iran and Qatar  economically they have no choice, but to cooperate, as they are “joined at the hip”  by a mega gas field, the South Pars (belonging to Iran) and North Dome (belonging to Qatar) field. The division of the field based on maritime agreements.  Fortunately, for both countries, there is no dispute on gas ownership.

South_Pars

The South Pars  reserves account for roughly 7.5% of the world’s gas reserves and almost 40% of Iran’s total natural gas wealth. The field  is the world’s largest gas field in terms of recoverable gas with a reserves of 1235 trillion cubic feet (tcf).  The second largest gas field, Urengoy, in Russia has 222 tcf.   The field  produces both natural gas and condensed gas liquids (condensates).   See links below for more details.

The field was discovered in 1971, but first production did not occur until 1989.   With the discovery of  a mega field, why wait so long to develop?  Gas discoveries are a blessing and a curse.   Gas,  unlike oil,  can not be easily transported and sent to European and Asian markets.   Gas can be liquified  transported in specially built tankers.  The curse is that mega gas fields require mega investments, in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars.   To develop the field, Iran needed international partners from France (Total) and China (CNPC).

The French company, Total, operates South Pars, which means they are responsible for exploration, development and production, but Iran and the other partners have  approval authority on all activities.   The Pars Oil and Gas Company (POGC). a subsidiary of National Iran Oil Company, has jurisdiction over all South Pars-related projects.

Since the mid-2000s development of the field has stagnated due to a lack of foreign investment and export opportunities because of United Nations (UN) and Western sanctions against Iran.  A partial lifting of these sanctions in 2015 has enabled POGC, which was established in 1998, and the government to move forward with the 24th development phase set out for the field.

Total benefited from the lifting of sanctions as field development, aimed at increasing gas production could continue.  As Republican candidates where crisscrossing the US, denouncing the Iranian nuclear agreement  deal as the most horrible deal of the century,  Total was quietly discussing with Iran on the next development phase of the South Pars field.  By November 2016, Iran announced a memorandum of agreement, and in April 16, 2017,  President Rouhani  concluded contracts for  5 new phases of field development worth 20 billion dollars. See links below. It is expected that Iran’s production will surpass Qatar’s.

All this depends on an accessible market.  It is a big “if.”   Iran ships its gas via pipeline.   Qatar has a far reach to the rest of the world through its liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities.   Qatar exports 1/3 of all LNG worldwide.   Qatar supplies the UAE by the Dolphin pipeline and LNG shipments.

As Iran was announcing development plans in South Pars,  Qatar followed by the announcements of further developments in the North Dome.   The withdrawals from both sides of the field must be done in a way to avoid significant migration across the maritime country boundary.  So it made sense that as Iran planned increases, Qatar would do the same.   Also,  engineers on both sides have to collaborate to avoid excessive withdrawals which could impact total recoverable gas and liquids.   This is called “reservoir management.”

So,  the GCC countries likely could see the gas supply was going to be increasing,  and both Iran and Qatar would seek ways of extending the lines of  supply either by pipeline or LNG tankers.    Interestingly,  even though the UAE has taken the extreme position that the 13 demands are non-negotiable,  the critically important gas from Qatar still flows to the UAE.

The current Qatar crisis likely came to a boil, as a number of actions taken by Qatar.  This includes the payment of ransom to Shite militants in Iraq which could be used to support the claim of terrorism.  It also saved the  lives of members of the royal family.  Others have commented on the open reporting on the 2011 Arab Spring uprising by Al Jazeera, upset many of the Arab countries.  A “respectful press” would have immediately taken the side of the government, not the dissenters.  Qatar’s willingness to accept exiled dissidents from other Arab countries angered Saudi Arabia and the other GCC country.

But, perhaps what has not received enough attention is the economic power of the tiny nation of Qatar, was on the rise.   Could it partner with Iran in the future, by processing Iranian gas for LNG  export?   Could Qatar  invest in  LNG  projects or construction companies?  This would seem to be a perfect fit.

Qatar was really understood that its hydrocarbon assets would not last forever,  and it needed to diversify into other areas.  Exactly what the Saudis are doing right now.

In sum,  Iran’s planned increases in gas production, would result in more gas development  from Qatar, and a push to increase LNG processing capacity.   The other GCC countries knew the rising economic wealth of both Iran and Qatar  would change the balance of power in the Middle East.  While Iran was too big to isolate or pressure, Qatar looked vulnerable.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Offshore Technology: Developing South Pars: a look at Iran’s mega gas field (undated but likely written prior to April 2017)

Iran opens new South Pars gas field phases worth $20 billion

Qatar crisis: Have the Saudis gone too far?

Middle East Eye:  Iran seeks stronger Ties with Qatar

(Any suggestions- I know there is a lot of discussion on these points, and I’ll add more later)