With energy comes wealth and with wealth comes prosperity! No one can doubt the veracity of this conclusion. But most of the times we forget to scrutinize the “energy” which generates that wealth and societal well-being. For a developing nation state like Pakistan, good infrastructure and plentiful energy are very necessary ingredients to grow and stabilize its economy. A friend in need is a friend indeed. China, the all time friend of Pakistan, showed the act of friendship in April 2015, when President Xi Jinping visited the country to oversee the signing of agreements aimed at building $46 billion (now worth $62 billion) China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a part of his One Belt One Road initiative between Pakistan’s Gwadar Port on Arabian Sea and China’s western region of Xinjiang. This multibillion-dollars project is intended to develop Pakistan’s infrastructure, transportation and very importantly will help the country alleviate chronic energy crisis. The mega project has been declared “a game changer” for Pakistan by its government, but I think that it has been failed in properly analyzing the costs and benefits of the project. There isn’t only a huge monetary cost associated with the economic corridor which Pakistan will bear- as it has to pay back the principal amount of loan with interest, that China is providing her in the name of CPEC, but will also incur hefty environmental cost .
A big portion of total cost of CPEC, nearly $33 billion will be invested in the energy sector of the country. Pakistan’s average demand of electricity (according to the International Energy Agency) is around 19000 MW, while its generation capacity is around 15000 MW, that is, a total energy deficit of 4000 MW. According to IEA’s prediction, by 2025 Pakistan’s per day average electricity demand would reach as high as 45000 MW. To help Pakistan getting out of this serious energy crisis, the multi-billion-dollar economic corridor has numerous power plant projects. Most of the energy which will be generated under CPEC will be from coal fired power plants. $5.6 billion worth of coal power projects are expected to be completed by 2019 in CPEC’s “Early Harvest” projects, but what about the environment?
There are certain compounds (mainly in the form of gas) which trap heat energy in the earth’s atmosphere, keeping the earth’s surface warmer than it would be if they were not present. Such compounds are termed as greenhouse gases. Ability of these compounds to trap heat energy is what causes greenhouse effect. Sun is the main source of heat energy on earth. Greenhouse gases allow sunlight, shortwave radiations, to pass through the atmosphere freely, where some of it gets absorbed by the earth’s surface and the remaining bounces back out towards the space in the form of heat. A portion of this is then trapped by the greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere. It is the shape of these compounds which allow them to trap and then re-emit the heat towards the ground which increases the temperature of the globe. Natural greenhouse effect maintains the temperature of the earth and makes it suitable for the life to exist. It shows that basically these gases have a great role in making the life possible on the earth – without them the average temperature on the earth would be -18 °C! But they become a source of great trouble when their concentration in the atmosphere grows to the level where they cause century-scale rise in temperature of the earth’s climate system, also known as global warming, and as a result of it we observe rise in sea level because of the melting of glaciers and ice caps, extreme weather events like cyclones, droughts and floods, increase in the rate of evaporation which causes extreme rainfalls and snow events around the globe and much more.
You may think what this explanation has to do with Pakistan, CPEC, coal and energy. The biggest problem associated with burning coal is that it releases a number of pollutants and airborne toxins which contribute to climate change and negatively affect human health. Carbon dioxide which is the major output of coal combustion is a forcing greenhouse gas! We call it forcing because it takes many years to leave the atmosphere. Methane also comes in the same category. It is not a by-product of coal combustion but is formed as part of the process of coal formation. Thus it gets released from the coal seam and surrounding disturbed rock strata when coal is mined. China Pakistan Economic Corridor, as I already have mentioned, includes majority of coal-fired power plant projects and with that it also includes project under which 1.57 billion tons of lignite coal will be extracted (3.8 billion tons per annum in first phase as “Early Harvest” stage of the economic corridor) from the allocated area of Block II in Tharparkar.
Sindh Engro Coal Mining Company (SECMC), a joint venture company with the Government of Sindh, Engro Powergen and Affiliates namely, Thal Ltd. (House of Habib), Hub Power Company, Habib Bank Limited, China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC) and State Power International Mendong (SPIM) will be responsible for the extraction of this coal which will be utilized by a mine-mouth power plant (a part of CPEC) having sub-critical power generation technology (emits approx. ≥880g CO2/kWh :Adapted from IEA, Technology Roadmaps, High-efficiency low-emissions coal-fired power generation, 2012) which is being established by Engro Powergen Limited, a Joint Venture Company of Engro Powergen, China Machinery and Engineering Company, Habib Bank Limited and Liberty Mills Limited. Commercial operation date for phase one of both Projects is expected to take place by mid – 2019.
There are total 7 coal-fired power plant projects under “Early Harvest” stage of CPEC. Out of these seven, 2 are currently operational, namely Coal-fired Power Plants at Port Qasim Karachi with generation capacity of 1320 MW and Sahiwal Coal Fired Power Plant with generation capacity of 1320 MW . Both are based on super critical technology which is efficient Up to 42%, emits 800-880g CO2/kWh and consumes 340-380g of coal per kWh. Other then these 2 plants 5 are either under construction or still need approval.
Engro Thar Block II 2×330MW Coal fired Power Plant (already discussed in paragraphs above), TEL 1×330MW Mine Mouth Lignite Fired Power Project at Thar Block-II and ThalNova 1×330MW Mine Mouth Lignite Fired Power Project at Thar Block-II which are collectively classified as Thar Block- II Coal Power Projects is currently under construction. This power station will use sub-critical power generation technology.
Sino Sindh Resources Limited (SSRL) Thar Coal Block-I Mine Mouth Power Plant (under-construction) , with generation capacity of 1320 MW will also have sub-critical power generation technology which is in general efficient up to 38% , emits ≥880g CO2 (Carbon dioxide) per kWh and consumes ≥380g of coal per kWh. These figures are same for all coal-fired power plants which use sub-critical technology. 6.5 million tons of coal per annum will be extracted from Block I of Thar coal mine. Never-ending hunger of coal!
China Power Hub Generation Company 1,320MW Coal-Fired Power Plant in Hub, Balochistan (needs approval of the provincial government of Balochistan) will have super-critical technology installed which is efficient Up to 42%, emits 800-880g CO2/kWh and consumes 340-380g of coal per kWh. Again, these figures are same for all coal-fired power plants based on super critical technology. Thar Mine Mouth Oracle Power Plant, with generation capacity of 1320 MW was elevated to the priority list of projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in June 2017 but is still in pre-permit development stage.
It is crystal clear that Pakistan’s romance with coal has no place for the environment. Seven priority coal-fired power projects, out of which two are currently operational and very soon all will together be polluting the environment with tons of carbon dioxide being emitted. Furthermore, coal extraction from Thar coal mines block I and II will pump bulk of methane into the atmosphere and altogether both power generation and mining projects will contribute to increased greenhouse effect in Pakistan. It shows that the environmental cost of the economic corridor is much more than its economic gains. Indeed a bitter truth. Most shocking part of the story is that China itself is putting more focus on renewable energy resources for its electricity demands but pushing Pakistan towards a fossil-fuel dominant energy structure. In 2017, China eliminated or suspended 65 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired capacity which exceeded the national target of 50 gigawatts! The country has vowed to improve its notorious air pollution and upgrade its coal based energy structure by reducing coal consumption and boosting clean energy use.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have accelerated to an unprecedented level. The report indicates that in 21st century the global average temperature is likely to increase by 0.3°C to 1.7°C for their lowest emissions scenario, and 2.6°C to 4.8°C for business as usual carbon intense emissions. According to the report, to limit the global average temperature by 2°C, global GHG emission must have to be curtailed by 40 to 70 percent. High rate of carbon dioxide and methane emission from coal combustion and mining is posing a greater risk to the climate of Pakistan than ever before. Greenhouse gas inventory of Pakistan for the year 2011-12 show that the total carbon dioxide emission was 369 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) . 45.9% of the total CO2 emission was contributed by energy sector, 44.8% from agriculture and livestock sector, 3.9% by industrial procedures and 2.6% from forestry sector. The situation is alarming! 90.7 % of the total emission bulk comes from energy and agricultural sector.
Now that you know greenhouse gases traps heat energy and when they re-emits it back toward the surface of the earth, results in the increase in average temperature, which we also called greenhouse effect. This effect is very prominent in Pakistan. According to the Asian Development Bank’s 2014 report, namely “Assessing the Cost of Climate Change and Adaptation in South Asia – Manila”, in the last century, warming trend of 0.57°C in the annual mean temperature was observed from 1901 to 2000 in Pakistan. From 1961 to 2007, an increase of 0.47°C, which was more accelerated, observed. According to the 2009 Technical Report by Pakistan Meteorological Department, winters got more affected as the average winter temperature for increased from 0.52°C to 1.12°C (province to province variation) . Highest increase in winter temperature was observed in the province of Balochistan. From 1960 to 2007, the average annual temperature in Pakistan got increased by 0.87°C (max) and 0.48°C (min) . The fact that winter temperature is increasing in all four provinces of Pakistan and that mean annual temperature showed an increasing trend, that is, increased by 0.57°C in 20th century makes it clear that greenhouse effect is very prominent in Pakistan and don’t forget to take into account the accelerated trend of warming, a rise of 0.47°C, from 1961 to 2007. Increasing winter temperature means more summer (warm days).
According to the Global Change Impact Studies Centre’s 2005 Final Technical Report for APN CAPaBLE Project , the annual and seasonal trends in the average annual temperature in different climatic zones of Pakistan from the year 1951 to 2000 are as follows : A) the average annual temperature has been increasing in most parts of the country. B) all the regions show an increasing trend for the pre-monsoon summer months (April-May). C) The Balochistan Plateau is getting hotter in all the seasons.
Increasing temperature affects water cycle in negative ways. A warmer climate means more evaporation from land (soil moisture) and water bodies (rivers, lakes, sea and oceans), thus it results in a rise in moisture holding capacity of the atmosphere, and when a storm passes through a warmer region holding more water, we witness heavy rainfall (an atmosphere with more moisture can produce more intense precipitations events, which is exactly what has been observed). For each degree rise in temperature, the moisture holding capacity of air goes up by 7%. Heavy precipitation doesn’t mean an increase in total rainfall over a season or over a year. This simply indicates a decrease in moderate rainfall, thus an increase in the length of dry periods. Moisture holding capacity of the atmosphere increases with increasing temperature but it doesn’t mean that increased moisture will fall evenly all over the country; rather some zones will see more extreme rainfalls while other areas will see less due to shifting weather patterns and other factors. Most immediate impact of heavy rainfall is the prospect of flooding. According to the statistics mentioned in Asian Development Bank’s 2013 report, namely, “Indus Basin Floods: Mechanism, Impacts and Management. Manila” , the super flood of 2010 in Pakistan, alone resulted in over 1,600 casualties. Furthermore, it inundated an area of 38,600 square kilometers and caused damage worth USD 10 billion! In addition to flooding, intense rainfall also increases the risk of landslides. When above-normal downpour increases the water table and saturates the ground, it results unstable slopes, causing a landslide. According to 2014 “Climate Change and Infrastructure, Urban Systems, and Vulnerabilities: Technical Report for the US Department of Energy in Support of the National Climate Assessment. Island Press”, heavy rainfall-induced landslides in mountainous urban centers have been observed in Pakistan.
Global Change Impact Studies Centre’s 2005 Final Technical Report for APN CAPaBLE Project says that annual precipitation has been increased by 61 mm in Pakistan from 1901 to 2007. Monsoon rains increased by 22.6 mm and winter precipitation got raised by 20.8 mm. The report summarized that annual precipitation has generally been increasing except coastal areas.
With increase in global temperature, it is observed that oceans are expanding (thermal expansion) and glaciers are melting, thus it results in global mean sea level rise. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) says that global mean sea level rose to 0.19 meter over the period of 1901-2010. Sea level rise for Pakistan is estimated at 1.1 millimeter per year from 1856 to 2000 along the coast of Karachi (Arabian Sea coast). (Source: The Impact of Sea Level Rise on Pakistan’s Coastal Zones – In a Climate Change Scenario. 2nd International Maritime Conference at Bahria University, Karachi). According to IPCC’s fifth Assessment Report (AR5), mean sea level rise of 0.2 – 0.6 meter will be observed by the end of 21st century. Of course it will affect low-lying coastal areas of Karachi. Inundation of low-lying coastal areas, destruction of mangrove forests and reduction in fish and shrimp productivity (mangroves are breeding grounds for fishes and shrimps).
Let us now see the effects of climate change due to increased greenhouse effect (because of greenhouse gases emission, especially carbon dioxide and methane from coal-fired power plants and coal mining under CPEC respectively) on different sectors of Pakistan. Because of increase in annual mean temperature and precipitation, agriculture sector will be affected the most. Pakistan’s economy is agro-based, and it contributes 21% to the total GDP of the country. According to a report produced by World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF) Pakistan, by 2040, a rise in temperature (0.5°C to 2°C), agricultural productivity will decrease by 8-10 percent.(Source: A. Dehlavi et al. 2015. Climate Change Adaptation in the Indus Ecoregion: A Microeconometric Study of the Determinants, Impacts, and Cost Effectiveness of Adaptation Strategies. Islamabad: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Pakistan). A study has shown that there will be a 6% decrease in wheat yield and 15 to 18% decrease in the yield of basmati rice will be observed across the country (except northern areas) by 2080. (Source: M. M. Iqbal et al. 2009. Climate Change Aspersions on Food Security of Pakistan. Science Vision. 15 (1). Islamabad.)
Due to increased greenhouse effect, increased recession of Hindu Kush- Karakoram- Himalayan (HKH) glaciers is observed. This will affect river flows in Indus River System. As Himalayan glaciers will be melting for next 50 years, water flow will raise in Indus River, but after that, because of no glacier reservoirs, flow will decrease substantially by 30 to 40 percent over the next 50 years. (Source: K. Hewitt. 2005. The Karakoram Anomaly? Glacier Expansion and the ‘Elevation Effect’, Karakoram Himalaya. Inner Asia. Mountain Research and Development: Special Issue – Climate Change in Mountains. 25 (4).). This variation won’t just affect the availability of water in upper and lower Indus but will also hit Pakistan’s overall agricultural sector. Increasing number of floods due to increase in heavy precipitation in the form of rain because of greenhouse effect, results in high sediment inflows in artificial water reservoirs (dams) and therefore reduces storage capacity.
Greenhouse gases emission from coal-fired power plants and coal mines, which are and will increase greenhouse effect (increase temperature) will affect the energy sector as well. Hotter temperatures will increase energy demands (increase in air-conditioning requirements) in summers and as a result more dirty energy from coal will be generated and thus more greenhouse gases emission. Himalayan glaciers are melting because of high annual mean temperature, which will reduce the availability of water for hydropower generation. Floods as a result of heavy precipitation will damage power plant infrastructure. Increased atmospheric temperature increases the temperature of water bodies. Nuclear and coal-fired power plants use water for cooling purpose. Not so cool water won’t be effective for cooling purpose, thus the efficiency of these plants get reduced.
System of transportation also gets affected by greenhouse effect. Heavy precipitation events cause flooding. Because of old infrastructure of road railways and airports extreme weather events affect their quality. Landslides (as discussed before) affect mountainous transportation.
Mining of coal in Thar Block II by SECMC (Sindh Engro Coal Mining Company- as discussed above), is done by open pit mining procedure because the coal is buried inside layers of ground water . Therefore, the water has to be pumped out of the mines and then it has to be stored somewhere. SECMC has planned to build an effluent disposal reservoir (near Gorano village) in which this waste water will be stored for two and a half years (or more). In 2016, people living in this area protested to stop the construction of reservoir. The waste water will contain Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) , the quantity of which is around 5000 ppm, which is much higher than the World Health Organization (WHO) standards, that sets the maximum contaminant level for TDS at 1000 ppm. People of Gorano village are worried about the seepage from this reservoir, that will possibly damage the quality of the underground water which is being used by them for drinking, farming and other daily life purposes. Furthermore, coal mines puncture and drain groundwater reservoirs in its vicinity and thereby depriving communities living around from the precious natural resource – water! Before burning coal, it is washed to clean it from impurities. This wastewater, full of harmful toxins has to be disposed off somewhere. In Pakistan where no one cares about following rules and regulations, this water could end up being disposed in nearby lakes and rivers. On one hand it makes the water undrinkable and on the other, destroys fresh water habitat.
Combustion of coal not only pollutes air with carbon dioxide, but also with other harmful pollutants, which negatively affect human health. Mercury emissions from coal fired power plants damage nervous, digestive and immune system in human beings. 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make fish unsafe to eat. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), which is produced when sulfur in coal reacts with oxygen, when reacts with other molecules in atmosphere it produces acidic particulates. When these particulates are inhaled they can cause asthma and bronchitis. Sulfur dioxide is also responsible for acid rain! These plants also emits nitrous oxides (NOx), which when inhaled can cause irritation of lung tissues and make the inhaler susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases like pneumonia and influenza.
Coal ash, which is the by-product of coal combustion and contains concentrated heavy metals, including many known carcinogenic and neurotoxic chemicals, is either buried underground or stored in open reservoirs. During heavy precipitation event, this highly toxic ash mixes with water that runs off into nearby fresh water bodies and pollutes them.
So what is the ultimate purpose of CPEC? At such hefty environmental cost, all that economic prosperity becomes meaningless. You are digging in the land of Thar for coal and at the same time depriving the communities living there of fresh water! Because of greenhouse effect, Himalayan glaciers are melting which is affecting water flow in Indus river system has been affected, crop yields are reducing, people are dying from extreme weather events like floods, droughts and heat waves, coastal land is inundating due to sea level rise, transport infrastructure is being destroyed by heavy precipitation and people are inhaling polluted air and drinking water full of carcinogenic and neurotoxic pollutants because we want energy form coal! World is progressing. Countries, including China are reducing their fossil fuel energy infrastructure and boosting the use of renewable energy resources. Protecting climate is necessary. For Pakistan burning coal for energy is like firing your own house for some heat! Stop it! Stop burning coal!
- K. A. Mir and M. Ijaz. 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Pakistan for the Year 2011–2012. GCISC-PR-19. Islamabad: Global Change Impact Studies Centre (GCISC).
- M. Ahmed and S. Suphachalasai. 2014. Assessing the Cost of Climate Change and Adaptation in South Asia. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
- Global Change Impact Studies Centre. 2005. Final Technical Report for APN CAPaBLE Project. Islamabad. http://www.gcisc.org.pk/2005-CRP01-CMY-Khan_CAPaBLE_FinalReport.pdf
- Q. Z. Chaudhry et al. 2009. Climate Change Indicators of Pakistan. Technical Report. No. 22.Islamabad: Pakistan Meteorological Department.
- T. J. Wilbanks and S. Fernandez. 2014. Climate Change and Infrastructure, Urban Systems, and Vulnerabilities: Technical Report for the US Department of Energy in Support of the National Climate Assessment. Island Press.
- Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. 2011. Climate Risk and Adaptation Country Profile. Washington DC: World Bank.
- Dehlavi et al. 2015. Climate Change Adaptation in the Indus Ecoregion: A Microeconometric Study of the Determinants, Impacts, and Cost Effectiveness of Adaptation Strategies. Islamabad: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Pakistan.)
- M. M. Iqbal et al. 2009. Climate Change Aspersions on Food Security of Pakistan. Science Vision. 15 (1). Islamabad.)
- K. Hewitt. 2005. The Karakoram Anomaly? Glacier Expansion and the ‘Elevation Effect’, Karakoram Himalaya. Inner Asia. Mountain Research and Development: Special Issue – Climate Change in Mountains. 25 (4).
Energy Research Platform Takes Central Stage under Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship
After the Ufa declaration in 2015, BRICS, an association of five major emerging economies that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, has made energy cooperation one of its priorities besides attaining an admirable significant influence on regional affairs and very active on the global stage.
That 7th summit held in July in the Russian provincial city of Ufa in Bashkortostan, under Russia’s initiative the BRICS adopted the key guideline for expanding among many other spheres, development of energy cooperation, bridging the scientific and technological gap, as well as finding solutions to the challenges in the energy sector among the members.
The Ufa Declaration (point 69) states “Recognizing the importance of monitoring global trends in the energy sector, including making forecasts regarding energy consumption, providing recommendations for the development of energy markets in order to ensure energy security and economic development, we call on our relevant agencies to consider the possibilities of energy cooperation within BRICS.”
“Taking into consideration the role of the energy sector in ensuring the sustainable economic development of the BRICS countries, we welcome balancing the interests of consumers, producers and transit countries of energy resources, creating the conditions for sustainable and predictable development of the energy markets,” it further stated.
Worth to remind here that it was Russia’s proposal to hold the first meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Energy during the fourth quarter of 2015. While reaffirming the importance and necessity of advancing international cooperation in the field of energy saving, energy efficiency and developing energy efficient technologies, the BRICS look forward to developing intra-BRICS cooperation in this area, as well as the establishment of the relevant platform.
In 2020, Russia holds the rotating chair of BRICS. BRICS has neither a secretariat nor a charter. The country that chairs BRICS organizes the group’s summit and coordinates its current activities. Russia has been holding series of conferences focusing on different directions. In mid-October, the BRICS Energy Ministers held their meeting and approved a roadmap for cooperation in energy sphere that runs until 2025. Due to coronavirus pandemic, it was video conference chaired by Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak.
The influence of BRICS nations on the international arena is increasing due to the increasing economic power of the participating states, and it is imperative for them to coordinate their positions in energy cooperation, Minister Novak said during the meeting.
“Today, the BRICS nations represent nearly one fourth of global GDP and over a third of global consumption and production of energy. In this regard, it is very important to coordinate the positions of our nations where we have common interests and speak from a unified position in global platforms which concern themselves with matters of international energy cooperation,” he said.
“We have already begun to implement this idea in practice. Our nations have launched informal consultations on the sidelines of the G20 and on the sidelines of the World Energy Council. Beginning our work this year, we have collectively determined three key vectors of the energy dialogue. These are the support for the development of the national energy systems of BRICS nations, technological cooperation and facilitation of improved terms for investment in energy, contributing to the stability of energy markets and increasing the role of BRICS in the global energy dialogue,” Novak emphasized.
The roadmap adopted at the end of the meeting is the first comprehensive document that sets out agreed plans for the development of the energy dialogue between the five countries. The meeting also issued a communique confirming the intention to strengthen their strategic partnership in the energy sector and the area of energy security, and noting the important role of all types of energy, including fossil fuels and nuclear power.
The ministers affirmed that energy transition should correspond to national conditions and each country should determine the optimal policy without being compelled to adopt models that do not fit BRICS countries, according to the Russian ministry statement.
On October 15, Moscow hosted the first Annual Meeting of the BRICS Energy Research Platform, where analytical reports by the BRICS countries presented. That was followed by the largest youth energy event in BRICS. This year, delegations from all five countries comprised of representatives of Line Agencies responsible for the implementation of energy and youth policies as well as over 150 young scientists and experts from 40 leading universities and industrial organizations took part in the summit.
According to surveys conducted by the VTsIOM, Russian public opinion research centre, the number of families that have been taught to save energy has doubled over the past five years. That the BRICS countries are taking part in the #TogetherBrighter International Energy Saving Festival, as part of the BRICS Energy Week (October 16 – 20) was a landmark event of Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship.
Notably, the Energy Research Platform designed to encourage the research community’s involvement in the practical activities on drawing up energy resource plans. Two major events took place as part of the Energy Research Platform. The results submitted for consideration by the heads of state for effective industrial interaction and practical cooperation in developing and implementing new joint energy.
Based on national statistics and forecasts, leading BRICS experts have prepared the “BRICS Energy Report” – a review of the energy sectors in the five countries, and the “BRICS Energy Technology Report” – focuses on the priorities of technological development of the fuel and energy sectors in BRICS. The reports came from leading experts, representatives of major research institutes and energy companies from the BRICS countries as well as international energy organizations, such as OPEC, GECF, the World Energy Forum, the Clean Energy Ministerial and the World Energy Council.
In September, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held an online meeting of the BRICS Foreign Ministers Council in Moscow. That was second of such meetings this year under Russia’s chairmanship. The first one was dedicated exclusively to mobilizing efforts to prevent the spread of the coronavirus infection.
Within an updated Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership to 2025, Russia has drawn proposals on developing a new mechanism for the five member’s interaction in securing sustainable economic development in the post-pandemic age.
The theme of the Meeting of the Leaders of BRICS countries is “BRICS Partnership for Global Stability, Shared Security and Innovative Growth” which is planned for November 17 via videoconference, to be coordinated and moderated in Moscow. This year the five countries have continued close strategic partnership on all the three major pillars: peace and security, economy and finance, cultural and people-to-people exchanges.
“Despite the current global situation due to the spread of the coronavirus infection, the activities under the Russian BRICS Chairmanship in 2020 are carried out in a consistent manner. Since January 2020, more than 60 events have been organized, including via videoconferencing. The BRICS Summit will provide impetus for further strengthening cooperation together with our partners and ensure well-being of BRICS countries,” – noted Anton Kobyakov, Adviser to the President of the Russian Federation, Executive Secretary of the Organizing Committee to Prepare and Support Russia’s SCO Presidency in 2019 – 2020 and BRICS Chairmanship in 2020.
Since 2009, the BRICS nations have met annually at formal summits, with Brazil having hosted the most recent 11th BRICS Summit in November 2019. Russia is pushing forward significant issues of five-sided cooperation in the bloc’s three areas of strategic partnership: policy and security, economy and finance, and cultural and educational cooperation. The five BRICS countries together represent over 3.1 billion people, or about 41 percent of the world population.
Don’t Expect Sanctions to Stop Nord Stream II
Republican Senator Ted Cruz has become the principal Sisyphus-like character to take over the task of rolling the boulder of sanctions against Nord Stream II. The last four years have seen tumultuous U.S. sanctioning efforts against the project and have epitomized an outdated, stale, and dangerous policy against the Russian Federation that should be re-prioritized and established alongside American principles and level-headed recommendations. This current policy of the passé will not change overnight, however, a sober, self-reflective examination of the failed sanctioning efforts on the part of U.S. policymakers could lead to one less thorn in the side of the Russo-American relationship. As the project nears completion, European and American critics of it have attempted to wield a Russian domestic issue, the alleged poisoning of opposition politician Alexey Navalny, as a pressure tool to stop it. With Denmark recently granting permission to continue laying the pipeline using pipe-laying vessels with anchors along the southeast coast of Bornholm, this disheartened push may now prove too weak.
It’s Time to Let Go
When former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden first voiced his disapproval of the Nord Stream II pipeline and called it a “bad deal” for Europe in 2016, it was to be expected that the weight of his utterance would have the power to transform into a discernible political reality sooner rather than later in the halls of U.S. Congress. Especially in light of America’s perspective LNG aspirations hoping to meet Europe’s growing import needs. This would not come in the form of recurring strong-worded messages or initiating a new wave of tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomats but by way of economic sanctions. After all, this has long been the U.S. go-to.” When it comes to Russian pipelines, U.S. efforts to derail them since the 1960s, the time of the construction of the Druzhba (Friendship) pipeline, have largely seen a string of failure. Sanctions have also more generally become, as Hunter Cawood aptly frames it, “a mythology that has persisted and lived on in spite of failure after failure”. Hopes of finding an exception to this convention did not begin with a flying start.
It’s time to let go…because of an incoherent strategy, appearing in a historical context of failure, signals peril.
Round One: Shaky First Steps
This new task of sanctioning the NS2 project appeared not as a unilateral and relatively clear-cut scenario as had been the case of sanctions vis-à-vis, for example, Iran, where its effects could do minimal damage to the robust transatlantic relationship with the EU. Overarchingly, the principal argument and qualms from the side of the U.S. was the claim of its detrimental impact on the EU’s energy security and, as a shared concern with various EU countries spearheaded by Poland, the “threat to EU unity”. As we shall discover, U.S. justifications for sanctioning NS2 would zig-zag around different lines of reasoning but would frequently come back to this notion of Russia’s malign influence. NS2, more interestingly, became a scenario where entanglements of linking the target of sanctions with a particular cause could become awkward in light of any signs of ambiguity or lack of clarity. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, from her part, was clear in this regard: this was an economic project, first and foremost, that required no extra mandate from the EU. To disagree on this principle, as the U.S. would do from the onset by likening it to that of a “weapon”, would become the root of the disagreement.
In August 2017, this is precisely what occurred when the subsequent Trump administration dealt the first real blow by targeting foreign investments into Russian export pipelines and against energy companies which owned 33% shares or more. This arose in light of the multi-faceted bill called the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Receiving praise in Congress, President Trump did not share the same optimism about the bill and called it “seriously flawed”, namely due to its encroachment on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate. In such a move, the issue was that major European companies involved, including Austria’s OMV, were left in limbo about realistically being able to finance the project. It would spark debate in Europe and evoked serious questions about the legal implications of the sanctions bill itself and the role of the U.S. in European affairs; Germany and Austria jointly called it an “unacceptable intervention” in the EU’s energy sector. This initial European reaction would ultimately reach the Department of State that went on to clarify and water down their effects the following October — the project effectively gained immunity from the capital restrictions. It appeared that NS2 could steamroll ahead for now, however, the first fissures in the relationship with Europe had materialized over it.
It’s time to let go…because the sanctions damage the transatlantic relationship with the EU.
This begs the question: what did sanctions achieve in round one? Deriving from a historical context where the efficacy of sanctions rests on a measly success rate of around 4%, a coherent approach could, once again, not be identified. Apart from the initial uncertainty, the effects of the first round of watered-down sanctions did not require any kind of major adjustments from the side of the partners involved and Germany could effectively grant permission for the project’s construction in its territorial waters in January the following year. There were, nevertheless, a few caveats. The sanctions did serve as an attempt to scare off Russia’s European partners and Gazprom did issue a warning to its investors that the sanctions had the possibility of delaying the project. They would also hamper efforts to raise money with an added risk premium demanded by stakeholders.
The initial steps, moreover, appeared to have a principal strategic intention in mind from the part of the U.S. — a type of “CNN Effect”: signaling for greater awareness and visibility of the alleged detrimental impact of NS2, stimulating the desire of American and European policymakers to respond to this perceived threat and opening up another front of pressure against Russia. While, concurrently, evaluating options for the future that would still require intensive lobbying, identifying and acting upon the right legal mechanisms, and providing a strong argument to wary Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) nations like Finland, Sweden, and Denmark to put an end to the pipeline. What the U.S. seemed unready for was Gazprom’s hefty lobbying activities on U.S. soil, spending $1 million to shield the pipeline from the sanctions and ensuring that American legislators were “correctly informed about the project”/ At this stage the sanctions had developed into a nuisance at most, however, this initial round sounded the alarm for European and Russian stakeholders that future pressure was to be expected.
It’s time to let go…because they are treated as a nuisance rather than effective policy.
Round Two: Not So Easy, EEZ
In early 2018, it was Poland that assumed re-energized attempts of pushing for additional U.S. sanctions against the project and called U.S. efforts surrounding a new bill, not covering NS2, as “ambiguous and unsatisfactory” for the Polish side. Once again, clarity and concreteness from the U.S. could not be identified in the response. On April 12, despite this renewed talk of sanctions, Finland granted a full set of permits for its construction in its EEZ, the second country to do so after Germany. Sweden followed suit on June 7. However, if Poland wanted another chance for the project’s complete shutdown, they would just have to wait another few months when they were presented with a golden opportunity right at the height of Russiagate following the Trump-Putin Helsinki Summit on July 16. This time Republican Senators John Barrasso and Cory Gardner introduced a bill, which through Section 232 of CAATSA, would be used to “identify and sanction U.S. and foreign entities supporting or expanding Gazprom’s near-monopolist role in providing energy to U.S. allies.” For President Trump, it was an opportunity to slam his fist down on allegations of “bowing down to Putin” at the Summit. The geopolitical theatre now served another domestic purpose. All things considered; this new round was deemed the one — it was the “kill-switch” that its advocates hoped would terminate the project for good. John Barrasso, the chief architect of the bill, had simply had enough of, what he called, “Europe’s addiction to Russian gas”.
It was not to be. Regardless of the buzz surrounding this bill in U.S. Congress, Germany and the companies involved in the project expressed the same position as they had done previously by emphasizing its lucrative economic gains for the European continent. However, ambiguous positions had now started to appear within the U.S. government itself with Trump admitting that Germany had the right to participate in the project just days after the Helsinki Summit, even though he had labeled Germany a “captive” of Russia before the NATO Summit just weeks before. Nevertheless, Nord Stream II gained enough confidence to begin construction in German waters despite not yet having found the last piece of the legal puzzle — Denmark. The year would finish with the intrigue of the Nordic country still not giving the go-ahead after proposed changes to the country’s laws even threatening to block the project back in April. Further U.S. threats took the year to a close.
With Barrasso’s bill and the unanimous efforts by U.S. policymakers, the sanctions now had further backing domestically, although questions about their potency were now a concern upon the realization of the steadfastness of the EEZ countries. Three out of four of them were, until that point, not swayed by U.S. pressure. To put an end to the project would not solely be in the hands of the U.S.
It’s time to let go…because key variables are beyond U.S. control.
Round Three: Loopholes, The Deciding Factor?
If the U.S. had hoped that 2019 would be the year for the project’s shutdown, such wishful thinking would see a reality check early on. In February, Nord Stream II scored a partial victory that was handed to it by the EU itself in the form of a new deal governing import gas pipelines. The catch was not in the deal itself, which was aimed at ensuring that the principles of EU energy legislation apply to all gas pipelines to and from third countries, but in the loopholes that were created because of it. The intrigue of Denmark had become relevant again and its threats to block the project would now seemingly not matter as the Danish regulatory authority would be denied a decisive say. It would now practically be in the hands of German regulators. However, while it initially seemed favorable to NS2, the pipeline project company would launch a notice of the dispute to the EU as it claimed it was in breach of the Energy Charter Treaty and discriminated against the project, which resulted in successive failed agreements over the next few months. NS2 and the partners involved were determined to put up a fight wherever it arrived.
In May, the leadership of Nord Stream II signaled that it was so confident in the project’s completion that it did not even need a “Plan B” against the sanctions. It was also this month that saw further justification efforts from the side of the U.S. for ramping up their implementation, and it would involve Russia’s neighbor to the West – Ukraine. Due to the diversion of gas around the country made possible by the project, major U.S. statements about its plans for further sanctions tend to surround official visits to the country. The U.S. Energy Secretary at the time, Rick Perry, during the inauguration of President Vladimir Zelensky, was firm in his assessment that the pipeline will be used to “split eastern European nations away from those of central and western Europe.”
The split was very real but not what Rick Perry had in mind. The Visegrád Group, initially solid in opposing the project and creating a united front against it in the European Commission, had seen a divergence of opinion from 2016 when the project was in its early stages and before the wave of successive Russian lobbying efforts. Czechia, Hungary, and Slovakia have diverted or hushed up their positions about the project for various reasons and it had now become, as some describe, an “imaginary unity” against it. Out of these four countries, only Poland has maintained a persistent position.
It’s time to let go…because old partners have moved on, losing interest in rallying against it.
In October and November, NS2 scored two major victories. One, by claiming victory in Denmark when the country finally approved the construction of the pipeline in the waters that are part of its economic zone. Two, Germany’s parliament effectively allowing the project to “skirt European rules that forbid one entity from the being both the producer and the supplier of natural gas.” The nervous U.S. response came in the form of a U.S. Energy Department official stating that “The United States will examine all tools at its disposal regarding the project.” One of these tools would arrive in December.
On the 21st, Donald Trump signed a new package of sanctions, part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2020, that were labeled by the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, as being “pro-European.” The problem was that Europe, now as clear as ever, had started to see it in a very different light with the German finance minister, Olaf Scholz, reiterating Germany’s position by calling it a “serious interference in German and European affairs.” Most alarmingly, moreover, was not the European reaction to this round but the Trump administration had now shown a major sign that was the culmination of this failed years-long effort to see its demise. Two anonymous Senior U.S. Administration officials admitted, in a rare concession, that this move was too late to have any effect.
Despite these statements, this new round did complicate the situation for the project with the main contractor of the pipeline, Swiss group Allseas, suspending its operations in light of their announcement. The language of the NDAA targeted “vessels that engaged in pipe-laying at depths of 100 feet or more below sea level for the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project.” As such, the project would have to find alternative contractors and vessels for the remainder of it. To date, it can be regarded as the most convincing move in this chronicle of sanctioning efforts. A nuisance, financially and temporally, but far from project-terminating. Despite this setback, the next year would require something extraordinary in a last attempt to derail the project completely. Could the U.S. find another one of these tools? It was the eleventh hour and the project was 90% complete.
It’s time to let go…because, after four years, the U.S. has come to the realization: it’s too late.
Round Four: The Present
In light of the situation with Allseas and the suspension of the work of contractors, the year began with Russia’s announcement that the country would seek to complete the pipeline without the assistance of these foreign companies. It would simply need a pipe-laying vessel equipped with a dynamic positioning system, additional organizational work, and a permit from Denmark on the use of pipe-laying vessels with an anchor, which would seek to expand on their ability to complete it on their own. The vessel, the Akademik Cherskiy, would be found, but it was months away on the other side of the world docked at Russia’s Pacific port of Nakhodka. It was acquired in 2016 as part of a contingency plan should European companies drop out of the project. The issue, however, was that it had no relevant experience conducting such large-scale work and would need months to complete it, delaying the expected completion time to the end of 2020 or even the first quarter of 2021.
In February, Donald Trump’s top energy official, Dan Brouillette, dismissed any talk of delay and put forth the most confident U.S. stance on the project yet: the project will not be completed. Citing Russia’s “absence of technology,” Brouillette was adamant that the current phase was too difficult for Russia to get out of. Especially as a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators, spearheaded by Ted Cruz, was preparing the next round of sanctions that made one question what even there was left to target. It would become known in June that the bill would expand on the scope of the sanctions enacted in December and extend beyond vessel-owners; it would target insurance, tethering-facilities, equipment, and other firms having any involvement in the project. It has been hailed as a “super-sanctions” bill. Another case of being the one. Russia’s immediate response was in direct contrast to Brouillette: nothing will stop it from being built. As the chronology reaches the present, three major events have occurred in July and August.
The first being Denmark’s green light allowing for less technologically advanced ships to continue laying the pipeline off the coast of Bornholm, which would potentially negate the impact of the sanctions. The need for such an allowance relates to the toxic warfare substances left at the bottom of the Baltic Sea after WWII and thus, because of Denmark’s obligations to the Law on the Continental Shelf and under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a permit was needed for pipe-laying vessels with an anchor as these carry a greater element of risk. Russia has one such vessel — the Fortuna. This move expands Gazprom’s freedom of choice in vessels for finalizing the construction as these are not affected by the sanctions.
The second, the U.S. House of Representatives passing the NDAA amendment of sanctions, which would still need to be approved by the Senate and the President before becoming law. As the opposing sides claim victory with these events, the war of words has ramped up with the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, threatening the companies involved and telling them to “Get out, or risk the consequences.” On the other side, the harshest response has come from the German Eastern Business Association (OAOEV) that has, for the first time, started planning for retaliatory measures and the German Defense Minister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, calling the latest move as running afoul of international law. In August, a letter was additionally sent by three U.S. senators to the operator of Mukran port, threatening “crushing legal and economic sanctions” if it continues its support for the project, which was harshly responded to by German policymakers. This has, undoubtedly, galvanized a scene of tension as both parties look towards an uncertain future of the transatlantic partnership.
The third, a domestic issue concerning Russian opposition blogger and activist, Alexey Navalny — German allegations of his poisoning with a Novichok-class nerve agent during his journey from Tomsk to Moscow. It would’ve seemed far-fetched to assume that an internal matter of the Russian Federation would uproot calls to cancel an unrelated project from the side of European and American policymakers, but the year is 2020 and anything can be used as leverage. Merkel was immediately bombarded with pressure to scrap it, but her cabinet has been adamant in their assessment that its completion should not depend on the case of Navalny.
It’s time to let go…because it is the right opportunity to save face concerning international law.
Forecast: Observations and Russian Counteractions
160 kilometers remain. A Danish green light. A new round awaiting approval by the Senate and President. Backlash from Europe. An American election. An alleged poisoning. These are the current circumstances of a project that has seen a cliff-hanger of a journey that is ready for its grand finale. As we approach it, several observations can be made about what to expect considering this complex reality and what Russia’s availabilities are for effective counteraction.
Nord Stream II Will be Completed Despite a Delay
It has become clear that, due to the amount of time and resources invested in the project and being this close to the finish line, Russia is going to seek to complete it regardless if the new round of sanctions pulls through, be it alone or with the assistance of its European partners. The Danish green light has facilitated this move significantly, however, it is up to the latter to decide on whether to prioritize these deemed lucrative economic gains through making this process even smoother by standing firm and actively counteracting the ongoing sanctioning efforts. Bolstered EU efforts would be an advantage, pragmatically and symbolically.
As Germany grows increasingly displeased with the sanctions and business entities already considering the pursuit of retaliatory measures, it is likely that it will do so. Nevertheless, a delay is expected due to the technological lag of the Akademik Cherskiy and because of the sanctions in December of last year, as has been admitted by the Russian President. This is without factoring in the consequences of the new round that could create a further temporary cessation of activities. The added issue of using the case of Navalny as leverage and as a pressure tool with the intention to scrap it should also be expected from the side of both European and U.S. policymakers. Germany has given mixed signals in this regard, suggesting that it should not be used as a factor in the completion of the pipeline, but has recently pressured Moscow to cooperate in the investigation for the country not to “force it to rethink the project.” Regardless, further debate and pressure from this angle can be forecasted.
For Russia, such an effort to complete it continues to be necessary, not only due to the prospective economic gains but as yet another way to reiterate Russia’s rejection of unilateralism in international politics. Should Russia succeed, it would further its reputation of maintaining resilience in the face of the long-standing reality of U.S. sanctions and would allow the country to continue the tradition of being a reliable supplier of natural gas to Europe. Anthony Scaramucci, the former White House Director of Communications, described such resilience already in 2017: “I think the sanctions had in some ways an opposite effect because of Russian culture. I think the Russians would eat snow if they had to survive.” Furthermore, it would exemplify the failure of current U.S. policy vis-à-vis Russia that would bring it one step closer to realizing that a novel approach is needed.
It’s time to let go…because Russian resilience will allow for the project’s completion, no matter the cost.
Further Damage to the Transatlantic Relationship
Since the initial fissures first perceived in 2017, the deterioration of relations between the U.S. and the EU has been apparent in connection with the project. If the new round passes both the Senate and President, it is to be expected that Europe will respond with more than just words of disappointment. The effects of this years-long tiptoeing around Europe’s reaction to the sanctions are likely to surmount further this year; Germany is now weighing in on countersanctions and so is its wider business community. If these are applied, the ball would be in the American court to respond as it sees appropriate, which will likely become yet another source of contention.
If the EU continues to be ignored in its requests to discuss the issue as allies and U.S. unilateralism continues, the latter may damage its perceived role on the European continent. As the EU expresses its intention to pursue a path of sovereignty and freedom of choice in international trade, by impeding and dictating this want, it treats the former as under-valued and incapable of discerning what is in their best interest. It does not show signs of a healthy alliance or relationship. Should Europe succumb to this pressure, as a matter of principle concerning its multilateral agreements with the U.S., it will set a precedent of continued interference and would demonstrate a complete lack of sovereignty.
For Russia, this entails another scenario of strongly condemning this new round of sanctions as it has done throughout by shattering the link of being a political, rather than an economic, project. Europe, for the most part, is aware of this distinction, however, the focus should be on American policymakers, conveying this message through all possible channels.
U.S. Election Unlikely to Have an Impact on Project Completion
November 3 is fast approaching, and the American domestic situation remains tense and unpredictable. The two front-runners, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, would be welcomed in attempts to settle the issue of sanctions against the project. However, judging by their previous actions, the former evidently having more to judge from, it is unlikely that Election Day will radically transform the overarching U.S. position vis-à-vis the project.
Joe Biden’s critical remarks from the onset as Vice President, right before Trump’s election, demonstrate that the Democratic Party would’ve likely pursued, at least, a similar path. This is more notably evidenced by the mostly bipartisan support of the bills introduced in this years-long process, which is a rare occurrence in the present polarized climate. What is different this time is that Joe Biden is running for President and has been escalating a hostile campaign against Russia in the process. Whether this will convert into a more unbending and obstinate stance on the issue of NS2 can be drawn upon his vital role and previous history of convincing Europe to institute a sanctions regime against Russia — a likely scenario of continuation.
In the event of a Trump re-election, we can simply extrapolate the administration’s actions over these last four years. That is unless Trump can use his second term to pursue the improved Russo-American relations he initially had pursued with Russiagate now losing its appeal. With this freedom to maneuver, dropping sanctions against NS2 can potentially be used as a bargaining chip.
For Russia, the crux of the issue lies in the bipartisan support for the sanctions. Russia should adhere to its current strategic plans and not rely on a favorable outcome in the election for their removal. Even so, the election period itself is unlikely to bring any sharp-pointed tools with the potential to terminate the project, as the result in November will occur at a time when Nord Stream II is projected to be completed. It will be too late, and a “kill-switch” can, therefore, only be found in the actions of the present, which are currently en route to the Senate.
An ideal scenario would entail a tripartite summit involving Russia, USA, and Europe to find a solution to the issue — a push towards an entente. Given the current complexity of affairs, however, it would require a strong willingness from all parties involved, a willingness that has been absent from the American side.
From our partner RIAC
The U.S. Oil Ambitions Threaten Economy and Sovereignty of Syria
From the very beginning an open U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict caused heated discussions in the world community concerning legality of activities of the White House in Syria. Many political experts and officials repeatedly spread the opinion that the U.S. military presence in Syria has no legal basis, despite the participation of the U.S.-led International coalition in the fight against ISIS.
The particular interest in legality of the U.S. presence in Syria is caused by its undisguised concern for extraction of Syrian oil, which fields had come under control of pro-American Kurdish groups after military operations. Moreover, economic reasons for U.S. forces participation in the Syrian conflict have been personally announced by Donald Trump during one of his press conferences. And all this was after a long time since the official announcement of a clear victory over ISIS in Syria.
According to official statistics reflecting the Syrian economy, it is possible to see how harmful a long-term war with the terrorist organizations and intervention of foreign countries was for Damascus. For example, the oil industry had been playing a very important role in budgeting Syria and average oil production had been 385 thousand barrels per day. At this moment, as a result of the conflict and the economic crisis in conjunction with assignment of the largest oil fields by the U.S. forces in the Eastern Syria the oil production index fell 24 times, and the total damage to the Syrian economy amounted to 400 billion U.S. dollars. According to the Syrian government advisory council, the oil industry of the country will be able to reach the level of 2011 not earlier than in 5 years at best.
It should be especially noted the recent agreement of the American oil company “Delta Crescent Energy” with Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria to develop and modernize existing oil fields. At the same time it is really hard to know something about this company; it has no markets, own oil refineries and even a website. And the fact that it was founded by the former American official only strengthens an ordinary opinion about close ties between “Delta Crescent Energy” and the U.S. Ministry of Defense.
Not only does this agreement indirectly confirms the White House’s concern for preserving the military contingent in Syria, it also poses a serious threat to the sovereignty of the Arab state and its integrity. Having relied on the Kurdish administration, Washington will create preconditions for an independence of Kurds from the rest of Syria that will increase existing tensions between the largest ethnic groups of Syria. Thus, the U.S. by supporting Kurds got an allied regional formation that protects the oilfields.
The U.S. policy in the Middle East is successful if we estimate it from the side of oil companies’ administrations close to the White House. However, from the point of view of those countries, where Washington interfered in the pursuit of crude oil, suffer huge economic losses along with damage to their state integrity. The Syrian economy is seriously harmed by the ongoing conflict and Western sanctions. And such aggressive policy of the United States is only worsening a humanitarian disaster in Syria.
UN chief calls for end to reported police brutality in Nigeria
The UN Secretary-General on Wednesday said he was closely following recent developments across Nigeria, in the wake of reports that protesters had been shot...
Women ‘far from having an equal voice to men’- UN Study
The COVID-19 pandemic is “interrupting efforts” to achieve gender equality and threatening to “reverse hard-won gains” over the past decades,...
Human rights violations in India
In yet another damning report, the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet expressed `concern over restrictions on...
A few ‘green shoots’, but future of global trade remains deeply uncertain
Although global trade is making a frail recovery, the outlook remains uncertain, UN trade and development body UNCTAD said on...
Building World Order from “Plague”: Utopian, but Necessary
“In the end, we are creatures of our own making.”-Goethe, Faust From the start of the current worldwide “plague,” US...
Researchers unveil roadmap for a carbon neutral China by 2060
Chinese president Xi Jinping told the UN general assembly on 22 September that China would achieve carbon neutrality by 2060....
Burkina Faso ‘one step short of famine’
Unless access is urgently granted to humanitarian organizations, thousands in the Central Sahel will be “pushed into further destitution”, the UN emergency food relief agency warned on Monday. Ahead of...
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Azerbaijani civilians are under Armenian military attacks: Time to live up to ‘never again’
Defense2 days ago
Nagorno-Karabakh: Will the Landscape Change following the Latest Unrest?
Eastern Europe3 days ago
War in the Caucasus: One more effort to shape a new world order
Europe3 days ago
A Recipe For The War
Southeast Asia3 days ago
India-ASEAN relations under Vietnam Chairmanship of ASEAN
Green Planet3 days ago
COVID-19 has given a fillip to biodiversity
Finance2 days ago
10 Reasons Why Learning a New Language Can Make You a Successful Entrepreneur
Americas2 days ago
Trump’s failed Cuba policy signals lack of concern for human rights in practice