Category: Nation

In an unexpected turn of events, Pakistan’s military executed targeted strikes against alleged militant hideouts in Iran, marking a rare escalation of tensions between the two neighboring countries. This move came in response to Iran’s strikes against Jaish al-Adl, a separatist group reportedly based in Pakistan’s Balochistan province.

According to Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry, the morning strikes were aimed at “terrorist hideouts” in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan province. The Foreign Ministry justified the action, stating, “This action is a manifestation of Pakistan’s unflinching resolve to protect and defend its national security against all threats.” However, the consequences were severe, as Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency reported the death of as many as nine foreigners, including four children, in the retaliatory strike.

The tit-for-tat response represents a significant escalation between Pakistan and Iran, both of whom are allies of China, with a history of strained relations. This incident occurred amidst heightened turmoil in the Middle East due to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Despite the tensions, officials from both countries expressed a desire to prevent further escalation.

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian took the initiative to ease tensions by reaching out to his Pakistani counterpart on Wednesday. Simultaneously, Pakistan maintained its stance, asserting its right to respond to what it deemed an “illegal act” by Tehran. Analysts speculate that China, being closely tied to both Pakistan and Iran, might play a role in mediating the situation.

“Pakistan has also always emphasized dialogue and cooperation,” stated Mumtaz Zahra Baloch, the foreign ministry spokeswoman, adding, “We will continue to engage with our neighbor Iran to ensure that peace prevails.” Baloch highlighted the existing communication channels between the two nations to discuss the unfolding events.

Even Pakistan’s military, which employed various military technologies such as “killer drones, rockets, loitering munitions, and stand-off weapons” in its strikes, acknowledged the importance of dialogue and cooperation in resolving bilateral issues. The army emphasized that moving forward, a prudent approach would involve diplomatic measures to address concerns between the two neighboring nations.

China, another key player in the region, expressed its concern over the situation. China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Mao Ning, stated, “We hope both parties can exercise restraint and calmness, and can avoid escalation.” The global impact of the rising tensions was reflected in the oil market, with prices surging as concerns grew over potential disruptions to crude production.

The developments unfolded during a sensitive period for Pakistan, scheduled to hold delayed national elections early next month. The situation also coincided with Iranian-backed proxies engaging in conflicts in Israel and the Red Sea, heightening fears of a broader regional conflagration. Iran, in a separate development, carried out limited strikes in Iraq, targeting what they claimed was an “Israeli spy base.”

Iran clarified that its strikes in Pakistan were specifically aimed at Jaish al-Adl, a separatist group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. The group operates along Iran’s porous border with Pakistan, predominantly inhabited by Shiites. Jaish al-Adl has been responsible for multiple attacks on Iranian security forces, including a December assault on a police station that resulted in the death of 11 people.

The retaliatory attack by Pakistan resulted in the death of as many as nine people, occurring in two locations around the border city of Saravan at approximately 4:30 a.m., as reported by AFP citing Iranian media. The situation remains fluid, with diplomatic efforts underway to de-escalate tensions between the two neighboring nations and mitigate the potential for further conflict.

The U.N. Security Council passed a revised resolution on Friday, emphasizing the need for urgent aid to Gaza while omitting the original call for an immediate cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas. The 13-0 vote, with the U.S. and Russia abstaining, followed a series of delays and diplomatic efforts.

“This was the Christmas miracle we were all hoping for,” remarked UAE Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh, the resolution’s sponsor. She stressed its signal to Gaza that the Security Council was actively addressing the humanitarian crisis.

After a prolonged diplomatic process involving the U.S., the UAE, and others, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield expressed relief, stating the vote supports efforts to address the crisis, provide assistance, and work towards lasting peace.

However, the resolution faced criticism from Russia, which considered it “entirely toothless.” The U.S. vetoed a Russian amendment that aimed to reinstate the call for an immediate suspension of hostilities. Russia’s Ambassador accused the U.S. of “shameful, cynical, and irresponsible conduct.”

The resolution’s crucial provision calling for the “urgent suspension of hostilities” was removed, replaced by a call for “urgent steps” to ensure humanitarian access and create conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities. Ambassador Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. envoy, saw it as a positive step but emphasized the need for immediate implementation and a ceasefire.

Hamas deemed the resolution insufficient, criticizing the U.S. for hindering the council from demanding a halt to the conflict. Israel, represented by U.N. Deputy Ambassador Brett Jonathan Miller, criticized the Council for not condemning Hamas for the October 7 attacks.

The resolution, addressing aid deliveries, removed a request for exclusive U.N. monitoring and instead called on Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to appoint a coordinator for relief deliveries, emphasizing cooperation from Israel and Hamas.

Israel expressed willingness to increase aid, but Miller highlighted challenges with U.N. aid monitoring, emphasizing the importance of Israel’s security inspections. Guterres countered, stating that Israel’s offensive hindered aid distribution in Gaza.

Guterres reiterated the call for a humanitarian ceasefire, emphasizing the dire situation in Gaza and the risk of a complete breakdown of public order.

With over 20,000 Palestinians killed since the conflict began, the resolution reiterated the Security Council’s commitment to a two-state solution and the unification of Gaza and the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority.

Despite being legally binding, Security Council resolutions may face non-compliance. The latest resolution followed previous actions, including an abstained vote on humanitarian pauses and a U.S. veto on resolutions condemning violence and urging a ceasefire. The General Assembly also approved a similar resolution.

The situation in Gaza remains precarious, with the hope that the latest resolution will contribute to alleviating the crisis and fostering a path towards peace.

In a historic move, almost 200 nations gathered in Dubai on Wednesday and issued an unprecedented call for a global transition away from fossil fuels, addressing the primary contributor to climate change after years of avoidance. Following 13 days of intensive discussions and sleepless nights in a nation built on oil wealth, the Emirati president of the UN-led COP28 summit, Sultan Al Jaber, signaled consensus by banging a gavel.

“You did step up, you showed flexibility, you put common interest ahead of self-interest,” remarked COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber, acknowledging the global effort. Jaber’s role as the head of the United Arab Emirates’ national oil company had raised suspicions among environmentalists. Describing the agreement as a catalyst for “transformational change” on climate, Jaber highlighted the UAE’s role in restoring faith in multilateralism and showcasing the power of global unity.

EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra characterized the agreement as “long, long overdue,” emphasizing that nearly three decades of climate meetings were necessary to “arrive at the beginning of the end of fossil fuels.” Despite the need for more robust action, Jaber skillfully adjusted the text to gain the support of countries ranging from small islands fearing extinction due to rising sea levels to major oil exporter Saudi Arabia, which championed petroleum exports.

The revised agreement calls for a “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner,” toughening language from an earlier draft criticized by environmentalists. It advocates for increased action “in this critical decade” and renews the commitment to achieving no net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, aiming to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The negotiator from the Marshall Islands, expressing concern about an earlier draft being a “death warrant” for his nation, emphasized the urgency of decisive action. Although the small islands did not block the Dubai deal, a representative from Samoa criticized the language as insufficient, calling for a more significant leap in global actions. Brazil, set to lead climate talks in 2025 in the Amazon, stressed the importance of wealthy nations delivering on their commitment to assist the worst-hit developing nations.

US climate envoy John Kerry praised the agreement as a remarkable achievement in bringing together a divided world for the common good. “I think everyone has to agree this is much stronger and clearer as a call on 1.5 than we have ever heard before, and it clearly reflects what the science says,” Kerry stated. A Saudi representative expressed “gratitude” for the UAE’s efforts, deeming the outcome a “great success.”

While the agreement refrains from endorsing calls for a “phase-out” of oil, gas, and coal, which contribute to approximately three-quarters of emissions causing the planetary crisis, it surpasses Jaber’s initial draft. Environmentalists, although generally viewing the agreement as a positive step, caution that more significant actions are imperative.

“We are finally naming the elephant in the room. The genie is never going back into the bottle, and future COPs will only turn the screws even more on dirty energy,” remarked Mohamed Adow, director of the Power Shift Africa think tank. He acknowledged that while expectations may have been raised too high, the outcome would have been unimaginable just two years ago, especially at a COP meeting in a nation heavily dependent on petroleum.

The agreement outlines more explicit near-term goals, calling for a 43 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 2019 levels in pursuit of ending net emissions by 2050. However, Jean Su of the Center for Biological Diversity cautioned that there are still “cavernous loopholes” for fossil fuels. The agreement primarily addresses fossil fuel use in energy, excluding industrial sectors such as plastics and fertilizer production.

Su expressed concern about the recognition of the role of “transitional fuels,” interpreting it as a code word for natural gas and other fossil fuels, notably in the context of energy security. While the deal supports a phase-down of “unabated” coal power, it allows for the preservation of this controversial energy source if carbon capture technology is employed—a technology contested by many environmentalists as unproven.

In a historic turn of events, the world reached a groundbreaking climate deal in Dubai on Wednesday at the COP28 summit after two weeks of intense negotiations. The agreement, known as the Global Stocktake, marks an unprecedented call to shift away from fossil fuels. However, the use of vague language in the agreement raises concerns about the level of commitment from some nations.

The COP28 President, Sultan Al Jaber, declared the agreement as “historic” during his address to national delegates at the final session. He highlighted the inclusion of language on fossil fuels for the first time, emphasizing that the deal has the potential to redefine global economies. Despite this apparent progress, differing interpretations of the agreement’s language have sparked a debate on its effectiveness.

“At long last, the loud calls to end fossil fuels have landed on paper in black and white at this COP,” remarked Jean Su, the energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity. However, she cautioned that “cavernous loopholes threaten to undermine this breakthrough moment.”

The agreement falls short of mandating a “phase-out” of oil, coal, and gas, a demand voiced by over 100 countries and numerous climate groups. Instead, it “calls on” countries to “contribute” to global efforts to reduce carbon pollution in ways they deem fit. Options include “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems and accelerating action in this critical decade to achieve net-zero by 2050.”

The COP28 summit unfolded against the backdrop of a year marked by unprecedented global heat, resulting in deadly extreme weather events. This year, officially the hottest on record, has been marred by controversies at the Dubai conference, with accusations of oil interests influencing the talks.

Deep divisions emerged among nations, with oil-producing nations, led by Saudi Arabia, rejecting language on phasing out fossil fuels. On the opposing side, more ambitious parties, including the European Union and a coalition of island states, expressed dissatisfaction with a previous draft containing diluted language on fossil fuels. U.S. climate envoy John Kerry acknowledged that these divisions nearly derailed the conference but ultimately deemed the deal a success and a testament to multilateralism.

While Kerry celebrated the agreement as a significant step towards moving away from fossil fuels, critics voiced disappointment and concerns about the adoption process. Anne Rasmussen, the lead negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), expressed concern that the decisions were gavelled without the input of small island developing states, a powerful voice in climate talks.

AOSIS, despite acknowledging the agreement’s positive elements, voiced exceptional concern, stating that the needed course correction has not been secured, and the presence of numerous loopholes threatens its efficacy. Many climate experts cautiously welcomed the reference to fossil fuels but pointed out weaknesses, such as leaving room for fossil fuel expansion, particularly through controversial technologies like carbon capture and storage.

Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy at Climate Action Network International, noted that COP28 highlighted fossil fuels as the primary culprits of the climate crisis. However, he criticized the agreement for containing loopholes that provide escape routes for the fossil fuel industry, relying on unproven and unsafe technologies like carbon capture and storage.

Despite the positive early momentum on finance, with the formal adoption of a loss and damage fund and pledges exceeding $700 million, concerns arose over the lack of requirements for developed countries to provide adequate funding to the most vulnerable nations. Developing countries, heavily dependent on fossil fuels, face challenges without robust guarantees for financial support to adapt to climate impacts and transition to renewable energy.

The COP28 summit concludes with a historic climate agreement, but lingering concerns about vague language, loopholes, and insufficient financial support for vulnerable nations cast a shadow over the optimism expressed by some delegates. The world may be taking a step away from fossil fuels, but the journey ahead remains challenging and uncertain.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not scheduled to be at the high-level UN General Assembly session in September this year but two newly elected leaders of troubled South Asian countries, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Sri Lanka’s President Ranil Wickremesinghe, are among the scheduled participants, media reports here stated.

Prime Ministers Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh, Sher Bahadur Deuba of Nepal and Lotay Tshering of Bhutan are also listed to be speakers during the 2022 General Assembly of thew world body.

The Taliban regime, which is not recognized by any country, does not have a slot, nor does anyone from the government of ousted President Ashraf Ghani, which still in effect holds the country’s seat at the UN.

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar is likely to be the possible speaker at the UN, representing India, according to the roster of speakers available Wednesday at the United Nations.

Modi has so far addressed the General Assembly four times in person and once by video. He skipped the meeting in 2016, 2017 and 2018.

In a sign of the world emerging from the grip of the Covid-19 pandemic, all the speeches will be in person at this year’s session that begins on September 20, Paulina Kubiak, the spokesperson for Assembly President Abdulla Shahid, said on Wednesday.

The high-level session went all virtual in 2020 and turned hybrid last year with some speaking remotely and others like Modi attending in person.

The leaders are scheduled in a hierarchical order starting with the 101 heads of state, followed by prime ministers, the deputies, the ministers and others.

Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, which will take up a chunk of the session’s bandwidth, is scheduled to be at the meeting this year.

By Conrad Hackett

The world’s population will cross 8 billion in November, according to recently released projections from the United Nations. And more than half of all people live in just seven countries.

China has the world’s largest population (1.426 billion), but India (1.417 billion) is expected to claim this title next year. The next five most populous nations – the United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria and Brazil – together have fewer people than India or China. In fact, China’s population is greater than the entire population of Europe (744 million) or the Americas (1.04 billion) and roughly equivalent to that of all nations in Africa (1.427 billion).

As recently as 2015, half the world’s population was concentrated in just six countries – the same as above, with the exception of Nigeria, which was then the seventh most populous country and has since passed Brazil to move into sixth place. Recent population growth, however, has been faster in the rest of the world than in these nations, meaning that the top six now hold slightly less than half (49%) of the world’s people. Including Brazil’s 215 million people puts the world’s seven most populous countries at 51.7% of the global population.

In the UN’s “medium” scenario for future population growth – its middle-of-the-road estimate – the global population is expected to reach 9.7 billion in 2050 and 10.4 billion in 2100. Growth is expected to be concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, where an estimated 29% of all the world’s births happened last year. The 2021 total fertility rate in sub-Saharan Africa, 4.6 births per woman, is double the global average of 2.3 births per woman and triple the average in Europe and Northern America (1.5) and in Eastern and South-Eastern Asia (also 1.5).

Sri Lanka is seeking a way out of political and economic chaos after its President Gotabaya Rajapaksa resigned and fled the country. Two days after former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled Sri Lanka, his two brothers – former PM Mahinda Rajapaksa and former finance minister Basil Rajapaksa – were barred from leaving the island nation until July 28.

The country’s Supreme Court on Friday passed an order during the hearing of a petition filed by Transparency International, a global NGO, alleging that these persons were directly responsible for the unsustainability of Sri Lanka’s foreign debt, its debt default and the current economic crisis.

Acting President Ranil Wickremesinghe was sworn in as Sri Lanka’s acting president on July 15th after parliament accepted the resignation of Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Secret vote: For the first time since 1978, Sri Lanka will elect its next president through a secret vote by the MPs and not through a popular mandate, on July 20. The new president will serve the remaining tenure of Gotabaya Rajapaksa till November 2024.

Sigh of relief: Rajapaksa’s departure from office marks a major victory for the anti-government protesters, who for months have demanded his removal. “We are so happy today that he resigned and we feel that when we, the people, come together, we can do everything,” said Arunanandan, 34, a school teacher told Reuters. “We are the real power in this country.” 

As people celebrated in the streets, Parliament Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana promised a swift and transparent political process that should be done within a week.

The new president could appoint a new prime minister, who would then have to be approved by Parliament. After Rajapaksa resigned, pressure on the prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, was rising.

In a televised statement, Wickremesinghe said he would initiate steps to change the constitution to curb presidential powers and strengthen Parliament, restore law and order and take legal action against “insurgents.”

It was unclear to whom he was referring, although he said true protesters would not have gotten involved in clashes Wednesday night near Parliament, where many soldiers reportedly were injured.

The process of parliament electing a new president began on Saturday, with MPs expected to take a vote on 20 July. The initial formal meeting lasted just 13 minutes, with a letter being read out from Mr Rajapaska defending his record.

“It is a matter of personal satisfaction for me that I was able to protect our people from the pandemic despite the economic crisis we were already facing,” he wrote.

According to news agency AFP, more than 16,500 people died during the pandemic in Sri Lanka, while the country’s official foreign exchange reserves dropped from $7.5bn (£6.3bn) to just $1m during his tenure.

After being sworn in as interim leader, Mr Wickremesinghe promised to act quickly to put a democratically elected president in place. “I will take immediate steps to establish the rule of law and peace in the country. I accept 100% the right to peaceful protests. But some are trying to do acts of sabotage,” he said.

Meanwhile, Singapore says ousted president Rajapaksa did not ask for political asylum when he arrived there.  The former president, who arrived with his wife and two bodyguards, no longer has legal immunity as a head of state and his position is now more precarious as he tries to find a safe country to shelter in. 

He is expected to stay in Singapore for some time before possibly moving to the United Arab Emirates, Sri Lankan security sources told AFP news agency.

The US House of Representatives has passed by voice vote a legislative amendment that approves waiver to New Delhi against the punitive CAATSA sanctions for its purchase of the S-400 missile defense system from Russia. However, the waiver will become effective only if the US Senate clears the amendment and the President signs it.

The Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act or CAATSA is a tough US law that authorises Washington to impose sanctions on countries that purchase major defence hardware from Russia in response to the latter’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its alleged meddling in the 2016 US presidential elections.

The Trump administration sanctioned Turkey, a NATO ally, for purchasing the S-400 air defence systems from Russia.

In the face of a two-front military threat from China and Pakistan, India is procuring the Russian-made S-400 surface to-air missiles as part of a $5 billion deal signed in 2018. The systems will be deployed along northern and western borders.

The S-400 TRIUMF is considered one of the advanced air defense systems in the world. The long-range missile is capable of intercepting up to 36 targets simultaneously including aircraft, ballistic and cruise missiles.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs has said that New Delhi is pursuing an independent foreign policy and its defense acquisitions are guided by its national security interests.

India has abstained from voting against Russia, its trusted defence partner, at the UN over the issue of Ukraine war. At the same time, it has remained aligned with the US to counter China in the Indo-Pacific. Seen from this perspective, the CAATSA waiver could be a big boost for India’s strategic autonomy.

The US House of Representatives on Thursday passed a legislation measure that will urge the Biden administration to waive sanctions on India for purchasing Russian S-400 missile defence systems.

The measure passed in a voice vote as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2023 (the defense budget). To make it to President Joe Biden’s desk for enactment, it must be a part of the final legislation that comes out of a process called reconciliation in which bills passed by the House and Senate are made into one.

India is potentially facing US sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) for its purchase of the Russian 3-400s. The 2017 law seeks to punish Russia for the 2016 election interference and other issues by scaring away buyers of its defence equipment with the threat of secondary sanctions. China and Turkey, a NATO ally, are the only two countries sanctioned by the US under this law yet.

India has started receiving these systems, which technically should have triggered CAATSA sanctions, but the Biden administration has not publicly declared its intentions, either way.

The amendment that passed Thursday was introduced by Ro Khanna, an Indian American lawmaker from California who is now widely believed to be considering a run for the White House in 2024 if Biden decides to not run again.

“The United States must stand with India in the face of escalating aggression from China. As Vice Chair of the India Caucus, I have been working to strengthen the partnership between our countries and ensure that India can defend itself along the Indian Chinese border,” Khanna said in a statement. “This amendment is of the utmost importance, and I am proud to see it pass the House on a bipartisan basis.”

The amendment says India relies on Russian weapons because it faces “immediate and serious regional border threats” from China. And the US should take further steps to encourage India to accelerate its “transition off Russian-built weapons and defense systems”.

The amendment argues then that it’s in the best interest of the US and the US-India partnership to waive the sanction. “While India faces immediate needs to maintain its heavily Russian-built weapons systems, a waiver to sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act during this transition period is in the best interests of the United States and the United States-India defense partnership to deter aggressors in light of Russia and China’s close partnership,” it said as approved.

Talk of impending CAATSA sanctions has dogged India-US engagements from the time the law was enacted in 2017, under the Trump administration; it was a bipartisan congressional initiative and then President Donald Trump had no option but to sign. Then Defense Secretary James Mattis and then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had publicly pressed lawmakers to exempt India and other countries that used to be too heavily reliant on Russian military hardware.

Speculation about sanctions picked up in recent months as India began receiving the missiles. But there has been no public indication that the administration is considering them.

By, Alex Gangitano, Morgan Chalfant and Brett Samuels At The Hill

President Biden on Saturday, July 13th capped his first trip to the Middle East since taking office, a four-day visit that saw both progress and controversy.

The president met with Israeli officials to promote ties between the U.S. and Israel, as well as Palestinian officials amid efforts to maintain peace and foster collaboration in the region.

And Biden, who pledged on the campaign trail to make Saudi Arabia a global pariah over human rights violations, met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and other officials about energy and defense issues, highlighting the way political realities have necessitated cooperation between the U.S. and the kingdom.

Here are five takeaways from Biden’s trip:

Biden wades into controversy with Saudi crown prince

Biden and his team had for weeks disputed that he was meeting with the Saudi crown prince, instead arguing Crown Prince Mohammed would merely be present at meetings with other leaders.

But one of the defining images of the trip depicted Biden fist-bumping the crown prince, prompting outrage from critics who raised concerns about his involvement in the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. 

U.S. intelligence had concluded in a report released this year that the crown prince was involved in the plot to kill Khashoggi, an outspoken critic of the country.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) tweeted that the fist bump was a “visual reminder of the continuing grip oil-rich autocrats have on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.” Washington Post publisher Fred Ryan called the fist bump “shameful.”

A short time after the greeting, the president sat across a table from the crown prince as part of a meeting with Saudi leaders.

Biden later told reporters he raised Khashoggi’s murder at the very start of the meeting, and that he told the crown prince that he believed him responsible for Khashoggi’s death.

“I said, very straightforwardly, for an American president to be silent on the issue of human rights is inconsistent with who we are and who I am,” Biden said. “I’ll always stand up for our values.”

A White House fact sheet said that Biden in his meetings “received commitments with respect to reforms and institutional safeguards in place to guard against any such conduct in the future.”

No immediate breakthroughs on oil 

Biden emerged from his meetings in Saudi Arabia without an immediate deliverable on oil production, but he expressed optimism that oil-producing nations would take steps to boost the global supply in the coming months. 

White House officials downplayed the significance high gas prices would play in Biden’s trip, but high gas prices in the U.S. and global energy disruptions from Russia’s war in Ukraine were widely seen as primary motivators for the trip to Saudi Arabia, one of the biggest oil producers.

The president said in remarks Friday evening that he and Saudi ministers, as well as the crown prince, “had a good discussion on ensuring global energy security and adequate oil supplies.”

“I’m doing all I can to increase supply for the United States of America, which I expect to happen,” Biden said in remarks from Jeddah. “The Saudis share that urgency and based on our discussions today I expect we’ll see further steps in the coming weeks.”

The White House also emphasized a new framework between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia on clean energy production.

Experts said Biden’s trip to Saudi Arabia was unlikely to produce any major announcement on oil production on its own, but that the president could nudge the kingdom in the hopes of a future move to free up more supply.

The White House is eyeing an August meeting of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC+), a group of roughly a dozen nations that influence global oil supply, saying any major announcement would likely stem from that meeting.

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters Friday that any concrete action on oil supplies would need to result from a decision by OPEC+, of which Saudi Arabia is a de facto leader. 

During his meeting Saturday with the Gulf Cooperation Council, Biden said the nations agree on the need to ensure “adequate supplies to meet global needs” adding he was looking “forward to seeing what’s coming in the coming months.” 

Saudi Arabia, Israel inch toward normalization

Biden tried to carry on the work of his predecessor, former President Trump, to help Israel normalize relations with other Arab nations. His trip to the Middle East saw a modest, but meaningful, step in that direction. 

Saudi Arabia opened its airspace to all airlines, including those flying to and from Israel. The step was hailed by the White House as an important sign of progress toward normalization. Saudi Arabia is also reportedly going to allow direct flights from Israel transporting Muslims making the pilgrimage to Mecca. 

“This is the first tangible step on the path of what I hope will eventually be a broader normalization of relations,” Biden told reporters on Friday following meetings with Saudi officials. 

Biden in Israel also said he strongly supports the Abraham Accords, promoting the Trump-era normalization declarations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain that the Biden administration hopes to expand to other Arab nations. 

Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid called the Saudi announcement a positive “first step” and said the Israeli government would “continue working with necessary caution, for the sake of Israel’s economy, security and the good of our citizens.” 

Biden tries to display toughness on Iran

Biden sought to assure Israel that the U.S. is committed to its security and preventing a nuclear Iran, while vowing to continue diplomatic efforts to piece back together the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.  

Speaking alongside Lapid at a press conference Thursday, Biden affirmed his belief that diplomacy remained the best path to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but said the U.S. wouldn’t “wait forever” for Iran to return to the deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

“We’re not circling a date on the calendar. The deal is on the table. Should the Iranians choose to take it, we’re ready for a compliance-for-compliance return,” Sullivan told reporters on Friday, adding that the U.S. was not waiting to put “further economic pressure” on Iran even as Biden seeks a return to the deal. 

Israel is opposed to the Obama-era nuclear deal, from which Trump withdrew the U.S. in 2018. The cracks between the two countries over Iran were on display at Thursday’s press conference, as Lapid said at the same press conference that “diplomacy will not stop them.”

“The only thing that will stop Iran is knowing that if they continue to develop their nuclear program the free world will use force,” Lapid said. 

In an interview with Israel’s Channel 12, Biden said the U.S. was willing to use force to prevent a nuclear Iran but only as a “last resort.” In a joint declaration signed by Biden and Lapid, the U.S. said it is “prepared to use all elements of its national power” to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. 

Biden’s domestic agenda takes hit while he’s overseas

Biden’s trip came as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) delivered a tough blow to his agenda, saying he would reject the climate spending and tax hikes on the wealthy in the budget reconciliation package.

The president in response called on the Senate to move forward with the slimmed-down health only reconciliation package before August recess since Manchin said he would only support a provision to lower prescription drug prices and a two-year extension of expiring health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.  

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is pushing to move the reconciliation package to the floor before September. Biden vowed while on his trip to move on his climate agenda through executive action if it doesn’t pass in the Senate, which came during his conversations with Saudi leadership over energy security.

Gas prices in the U.S. have remained high, although are declining, but new inflation data this week showed that annual inflation hit 9.1 percent in June, the highest rate of price growth since November 1981. 

Biden returned to Washington with a sinking approval rating and support for his reelection in 2024 reaching record-lows among Democrats.

Three after Japan’s former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was felled by a cowardly assassin in the course of a campaign trail for elections to the Upper House, the governing party and its coalition partner scored a major victory in a parliamentary election Sunday, July 10, 2022, possibly propelled by sympathy votes in the wake of the assassination.

Abe was shot in Nara on Friday, June 8th and was airlifted to a hospital but died of blood loss. Police arrested a former member of Japan’s navy at the scene and confiscated a homemade gun. Several others were later found at his apartment.

He became Japan’s youngest prime minister in 2006, at age 52. But his overly nationalistic first stint abruptly ended a year later, also because of his health, prompting six years of annual leadership change.

He returned to office in 2012, vowing to revitalize the nation and get its economy out of its deflationary doldrums with his “Abenomics” formula, which combines fiscal stimulus, monetary easing and structural reforms. He won six national elections and built a rock-solid grip on power.

Early results in the race for the parliament’s upper house showed Abe’s governing party and its junior coalition partner Komeito securing a majority in the chamber and adding more. The last day of campaigning on Saturday, a day after Abe was gunned down while delivering a speech, was held under heightened security as party leaders pledged to uphold democracy and renouncing violence.

According to reports, preliminary vote counts showed the governing Liberal Democratic Party on track to secure a coalition total of at least 143 seats in the 248-member upper house, the less powerful of the two chambers. Up for election was half of the upper house’s new six-year term. With a likely major boost, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida stands to rule without interruption until a scheduled election in 2025.

That would allow Kishida to work on long-term policy goals such as national security, his signature but still vague “new capitalism” economic policy, and his party’s long-cherished goal to amend the U.S.-drafted postwar pacifist constitution.

“It was extremely meaningful that we carried out the election,” Kishida said. “Our endeavor to protect democracy continues.” Kishida welcomed early results and said responses to COVID-19, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and rising prices will be his priorities. He said he will also steadily push for reinforcing Japan’s national security as well a constitutional amendment.

Mourners visited the LDP headquarters to lay flowers and pray for Abe as party officials prepared for vote counting inside. “We absolutely refuse to let violence shut out free speech,” Kishida said in his final rally in the northern city of Niigata on Saturday. “We must demonstrate that our democracy and election will not back down on violence.”

The suspect, Tetsuya Yamagami, told investigators he acted because of Abe’s rumored connection to an organization that he resented, police said, but had no problem with the former leader’s political views. The man had developed hatred toward a religious group that his mother was obsessed about and that bankrupted a family business, according to media reports, including some that identified the group as the Unification Church.

Abe’s Legacy

Even after stepping down as prime minister in 2020, Abe was highly influential in the LDP and headed its largest faction. His absence could change the power balance in the governing party that has almost uninterruptedly ruled postwar Japan since its 1955 foundation, experts say.

Abe will be remembered for boosting defense spending and pushing through the most dramatic shift in Japanese military policy in 70 years. In 2015, his government passed a reinterpretation of Japan’s postwar, pacifist constitution, allowing Japanese troops to engage in overseas combat — with conditions — for the first time since World War II.

“This could be a turning point” for the LDP over its divisive policies on gender equality, same-sex marriages and other issues that Abe-backed ultra-conservatives with paternalistic family values had resisted, said Mitsuru Fukuda, a crisis management professor at Nihon University.

Japan’s current diplomatic and security stance is unlikely to be swayed because fundamental changes had already been made by Abe. His ultra-nationalist views and pragmatic policies made him a divisive figure to many, including in the Koreas and China.

Abe stepped down two years ago blaming a recurrence of the ulcerative colitis he’d had since he was a teenager. He said he regretted leave many of his goals unfinished, including the issue of Japanese abducted years ago by North Korea, a territorial dispute with Russia, and a revision of Japan’s war-renouncing constitution that many conservatives consider a humiliation, because of poor public support.

Abe was groomed to follow in the footsteps of his grandfather, former Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi. His political rhetoric often focused on making Japan a “normal” and “beautiful” nation with a stronger military through security alliance with the United States and bigger role in international affairs.

Japan is known for its strict gun laws. With a population of 125 million, it had only 21 gun-related criminal cases in 2020, according to the latest government crime paper. Experts say, however, some recent attacks involved use of consumer items such as gasoline, suggesting increased risks for ordinary people to be embroiled in mass attacks. The cancer of gun violence is spreading. The former Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe was felled by a cowardly assassin in the course of a campaign trail for elections to the Upper House. 

Abe had argued the change was needed to respond to a more challenging security environment, a nod to a more assertive China and frequent missile tests in North Korea. During his term, Abe sought to improve relations with Beijing and held a historic phone call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in 2018. At the same time, he tried to counter Chinese expansion in the region by uniting Pacific allies.

After leaving office, Abe remained head of the largest faction of the ruling LDP and remained influential within the party. He has continued to campaign for a stronger security policy and last year angered China by calling for a greater commitment from allies to defend democracy in Taiwan. In response, Beijing summoned Japan’s ambassador and accused Abe of openly challenging China’s sovereignty.

India’s bilateral ties with Japan grew closer during Shinzo Abe’s tenure, with the former Japanese Prime Minister visiting India four times. 

Abe was a prominent figure on the world stage. He cultivated strong ties with Washington — Tokyo’s traditional ally. Abe hailed the US-Japan alliance and said he wanted to “build trust” with the new President. He strongly supported Trump’s initial hard line on North Korea, which matched Abe’s own hawkish tendencies. 

More successful was Abe’s handling of the abdication of Emperor Akihito, the first Japanese monarch to step down in two centuries. He was succeeded by his son, Emperor Naruhito, in October 2019, starting the Reiwa era. 

“Like the flowers of the plum tree blooming proudly in spring after the cold winter, we wish the Japanese people to bloom like individual flowers with the (promise of the) future. With such a wish for Japan, we decided upon ‘Reiwa’,” Abe said on announcing the new era. 

Abe is survived by his wife Akie Abe, née Matsuzaki, who he married in 1987. The couple did not have children.

President Joe Biden prepares to travel to the Middle East, his administration faces several challenges in its relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other regional (non-treaty) allies. At the most basic level, the United States and these allies do not share the same priorities. Part of why Biden is traveling to Saudi Arabia is to convince the country’s leaders to pump more oil as global prices soar. In addition, the United States seeks to maintain pressure on the Islamic State group (IS) to prevent the terror organization from rebuilding. Yet both the Russia-Ukraine war and the struggle against the remnants of IS are ancillary concerns for regional states, and they are concerned that the U.S. focus on Asia and Europe will make the United States a less useful security partner.

Iran, the foreign policy priority for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and many other regional states, is a major sticking point. Indeed, most regional allies oppose the Biden administration’s efforts to restore the Iran nuclear deal, seeing it as making too many concessions to Tehran and fearing that the United States in general will not stand up to Iranian aggression and subversion. With regular Iranian missile strikes on Iraq and missile strikes from Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, this fear is quite strong. Nuclear talks appear to be floundering, and the Biden administration will need to decide whether to try to revive them at the risk of further alienating regional states or abandon them only to work on the next challenge — how to create other diplomatic —  and military — options that will stop the Iranian bomb and ensure regional security. Iran, for its part, will interpret the Biden visit as the United States further siding with its regional enemies.

Russia is another sticking point. The United States is trying to create a global coalition to oppose Russian aggression in Ukraine. Middle Eastern states, however, see Russia as a source of wheat, while their populations question why Ukraine should be the subject of global solidarity while Syria was not. Many are more anti-American than pro-Ukraine. Regardless of regime views on Ukraine, Russia is also a military player in Syria, and Israel works with Moscow to ensure that Israel can strike Iranian assets in Syria without interference from Russian forces.

In order to win over regional leaders, Biden will also need to curtail some of his critical rhetoric. This is especially true with his condemnation of the Saudi murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the brutal Saudi and UAE war in Yemen. These are the right stances from a human rights perspective, but Riyadh and its allies will not be accommodating in other areas if they are the subject of regular, public criticism.

Actually walking back his comments on these grave human rights issues would be politically difficult even if Biden were inclined to openly abandon the moral high ground. In practice, refraining from future criticism, the legitimacy bestowed by the trip itself, and other steps that make it clear that Riyadh is being embraced, not shunned. As in the past, the United States is again emphasizing that pragmatic concerns like oil prices and Iran, not human rights, will drive U.S. policy toward the kingdom.

Making these problems more difficult, the Biden administration inherited a weak hand from its predecessors. U.S. engagement with the Middle East has declined dramatically since the George W. Bush administration, when 9/11 and the Iraq War put the region at the center of U.S. foreign policy. President Barack Obama tried to reduce U.S. involvement in the Middle East, and President Donald Trump, while more sympathetic to autocratic Arab allies, also favored limited U.S. involvement in the region. The Biden administration has emphasized great power competition, with the war in Ukraine and the rivalry with China dominating strategic thinking. Biden’s trip is thus occurring with a regional perception that the United States is focused on other parts of the world and at home, with little appetite for resolving regional disputes and leading regional allies as it sought to in the past. Indeed, Biden’s understandable focus on energy and Russia will reinforce this, making it clear that it is non-regional concerns that are driving his visit rather than shared interests. The Biden administration also claims the trip is to encourage Saudi Arabia to formally make peace with Israel, though U.S. officials almost certainly recognize a formal peace is highly unlikely even though Riyadh and Israel have stepped up their security partnership.

Making the job even harder, Middle Eastern allies have preferred Republican presidents. Gulf state rulers believe Republican leaders are more anti-Iran and less concerned about human rights. Israeli leaders too believe Republicans are more pro-Israel and more likely to stand up to Tehran. In addition, regional allies rightly recognize that Trump or another disruptive leader may again assume the U.S. presidency. The United States, in other words, will be considered an erratic ally, with policies and interest in the Middle East varying wildly by administration.

One goal that may have more success is encouraging U.S. allies to work together. The United States historically has preferred bilateral cooperation, with countries working with Washington more than with one another. As the U.S. limits its involvement, however, it will want regional states to step up and combine their efforts, whether this is to counter Iran or to resolve regional wars like those in Yemen and Libya. Israel, with its formidable military and intelligence services, can play an important role here, offering high-end capabilities, such as providing radar systems to Bahrain and the UAE, when the United States is reluctant to do so for political reasons.

The United States is also likely to have help from partners in sustaining the fighting against IS and other dangerous jihadi groups. Although this struggle is less of a priority for allies, they too worry about violent jihadism and will continue longstanding intelligence and military cooperation. Jihadi groups also remain weak compared with their past selves, limiting the effort required.

Regional partners will be aware of U.S. pivoting to focus on Asia and Europe, and Biden’s visit will not change this perception. The best the administration can hope for is to make clear, both in private and in public, that the United States will remain diplomatically and militarily involved in the Middle East, whether it be to counter IS or deter Iran. The president’s visit is thus a useful signal, even if regional states will remain unsatisfied.

Perhaps the best that can be hoped from this trip is simply to restart the U.S. engagement with its allies in the region. Such a goal doesn’t promise big wins — there may at best be modest concessions like a Saudi announcement it will pump a small amount of additional oil — but it offers the hope of future improvements. For now, the U.S. relationship with regional allies is transactional, with little trust or respect on either side. Repeated visits by high-level officials will make them more likely to listen to Washington and consider U.S. interests rather than see U.S. concerns as irrelevant, or even opposed, to their day-to-day problems.