The News Editorial Analysis 19th Jan 2022
No one died of hunger in recent times: Centre
Comprehensive steps have been taken, it tells Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court’s questions on hunger deaths saw the Union government insist on Tuesday that no one died of starvation in recent times across the country, even during the pandemic.
“Thanks to the progress made by the nation since Independence and the comprehensive policies and steps taken by both State and Central governments, there have been no starvation deaths in the country during recent times, even during adverse situations like the pandemic,” the Ministry of Consumer Affairs told the court.But the court’s insistence on specific data to back the claim of zero deaths saw a scattered response from the government. The Centre’s reply in court spanned from urging the court to ask the States for the data to making sweeping comments about malnutrition in “developing countries” and reading statistics out of a 2015 health survey report and a newspaper article.“Why are you looking at a 2015-16 report? Are you looking through that prism to say there are no starvation deaths now? So you have to look at a newspaper report?” a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli asked the Centre, represented by Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal. The debate began with the Bench referring to an affidavit filed by the Centre, which said that not a single State had reported starvation deaths.“Can we understand that there are no starvation deaths in the country? Our limited question is whether your officers have the latest information on starvation deaths… Is there any survey report indicating whether starvation deaths are happening or not? Give us some data. Ask your officers to furnish some information,” the CJI asked Mr. Venugopal.“Our officers said there are no such starvation deaths,” the top law officer replied at one point.Advocate Ashima Mandla, for petitioners, intervened to submit that starvation deaths could only be detected through autopsy. She said the authorities have to make a conscious effort to identify starvation deaths.The CJI underscored that the “hunger of the poor on the streets has to be satisfied”.The court said that usually many freebies were announced by political parties during election time.“But this is election time and we do not want to comment much,” it stated.
Welfare schemes
Mr. Venugopal said that the Centre was on the front foot in food welfare schemes. “We have 131 food related programmes,” he said.“That malnutrition exists is not disputed by us. That community kitchens are needed is not disputed. The problem is the funding,” he observed. The States have to source the funds for community kitchen programmes by themselves, even if by additional taxation, and the panchayats were obliged under the Constitution to provide the logistics for distribution.The Bench asked the Centre to explore the possibility of a “model” community kitchen scheme by which it could support the States to ensure food security for the poor. It said it was not up to the judiciary to formulate a “uniform” community kitchen scheme for the States, but the Centre ought to do it in consultation with the States.
Broad guidelines
“We cannot prepare a straitjacket and uniform scheme for the entire country… You can make a model scheme and leave it to the States to follow the guidelines depending on their individual food habits,” the Bench addressed Mr. Venugopal.The Attorney-General agreed to convey to the Union government the court’s suggestion to provide the States with an additional 2 per cent food grains.The court asked the States to file reports on the status of malnutrition and hunger deaths in two weeks along with suggestions for community kitchen schemes.The court is hearing a petition that highlights how starvation deaths continue to eat into the right to life.The petition was filed jointly by activists Anun Dhawan, Ishann Dhawan and Kunjana Singh. It drew attention to how Tamil Nadu’s Amma Unavagam had become a roaring success by involving peers in self- help groups, employing the poor to serve hygienic food to eradicate the problem of hunger on the streets.
Tableaux selection fair, says Rajnath
Well-established system in place, Defence Minister tells CMs of Bengal, Tamil Nadu
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Tuesday conveyed to the Chief Ministers of West Bengal and Tamil Nadu that there exists a well-established system for selection of tableaux for the Republic Day parade in the national capital. Following the system, the Defence Ministry invites proposals from all States, Union Territories, Union Ministries and departments, he said.Mr. Singh was responding to letters from Chief Ministers Mamata Banerjee of West Bengal and M.K. Stalin of Tamil Nadu to the Prime Minister over the rejection of their State tableaux. In the letter to Mr. Stalin, Mr. Singh said, “For RDP-2022, a total of 29 proposals were received, including the proposal from State of Tamil Nadu. The tableau from the Government of Tamil Nadu was considered in the first three rounds of meetings. After the third round, the tableau could not make it into the final list of 12 tableaux selected for RDP-2022.”Mr. Singh said that tableaux from Tamil Nadu had been selected during 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021. “In view of the above, you would appreciate that the selection of tableaux is as per the prescribed guidelines.”
Display in Chennai
Shortly after Mr. Singh’s letter, Mr. Stalin announced that the same tableau would be showcased in the Republic Day celebrations organised by the Tamil Nadu government in Chennai and taken to key places in the State.The Chief Minister expressed shock and regret that no reason was cited in Mr. Singh’s letter for rejection of the proposed tableau.Pointing out that Tamil Nadu’s contribution in the country’s freedom struggle predated the 1857 battle, Mr Stalin said its role was “no less than other States.”Besides, a photo exhibition titled ‘Tamil Nadu in Freedom Struggle’, which was held earlier in Chennai, would be organised in major cities across the country.Mr. Singh, in his letter to Ms. Banerjee, said: “It was our government that celebrated the 75th anniversary of the government-in-exile of India led by Netaji in a grand manner in 2018 and honoured the surviving soldiers of the Azad Hind Fauj in the Republic Day Parade.”“I would also like to tell you that this time the CPWD tableau has also paid tribute to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose on his 125th birth anniversary,” he added.
Explaining the selection process, Mr. Singh said the tableaux proposals received are evaluated in a series of meetings of the Expert Committee comprising eminent persons in the field of art, culture, painting, sculpture, music, architecture and choreography. The Committee examines the proposals on the basis of theme, concept, design and its visual impact before making its recommendations. “As per the time slot allotted for tableaux in the overall duration of the parade, short listing of tableaux is done by the Expert Committee.”ADefence official said on Tuesday that a total of 21 tableaux, including from nine Ministries and government Departments were selected this year. The States from which tableaux have been selected include Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
Three Navy personnel killed in explosion aboard INS Ranvir
Inquiry ordered into incident at Mumbai naval dockyardThree Navy personnel were killed and 11 injured in an explosion aboard the destroyer INS Ranvir at the Naval Dockyard in Mumbai on Tuesday.“In an unfortunate incident at Naval Dockyard Mumbai, three naval personnel succumbed to injuries caused by an explosion in an internal compartment on-board INS Ranvir,” the Navy said in a statement.The ship’s crew responded immediately and brought the situation under control quickly, it said. “No major material damage has been reported,” the Navy added.Officials said the incident took place at 4.30 p.m.INS Ranvir had been on cross-coast operational deployment from the Eastern Naval Command since November 2021 and was due to return to the base port shortly, the Navy said. A Board of inquiry has been ordered.
The SilverLine project is anti-development
It poses a threat to Kerala’s ecological security, and could end up as a white elephant
Six months after I first proposed in these pages that the Kerala government review its SilverLine rail project, critical voices have only grown in strength. The Chief Minister, however, has publicly affirmed his intention to proceed with it nevertheless, alleging that its opponents are against ‘development’. This response is no different from that of the Narendra Modi government when its economic policies are queried, and which nurtures its own vanity project, a superfast train between Mumbai and Ahmedabad. The stance is hardly credible though.
Concerned voices
Dissenters on the SilverLine project include ecologists, engineers, lawyers and activists to reckon with. Madhav Gadgil, E. Sreedharan, Prashant Bhushan and Medha Patkar are perhaps the best known among them but the list also has on it concerned citizens, who all want the best for their country. It also includes the Kerala SasthraSahithya Parishad, which is significant, as the body is perceived as a fellow-traveller of the Left parties now in power. Recently, Mr. Sreedharan, perhaps India’s most famous railway engineer, has described the proposed project as an invitation to environmental disaster, mainly through flooding. He had also expressed surprise that the Government has not yet made public the detailed project report, a standard practice, which brings transparency to large-scale public infrastructure projects. (Since then the Kerala government has hurriedly uploaded a related document on a restricted site), Professor Gadgil, India’s pre-eminent ecologist, has spoken of SilverLine being against the interests of the people of the State, on grounds of the ecological damage it is likely to cause. Based on his unmatched knowledge of Kerala’s topography, he has both explained how this could happen and pointed to the experience with the railways elsewhere in India, suggesting that the prediction is not mere speculation.
A distant government
The response of the Pinarayi Vijayan government to calls to reason on SilverLine has been disappointing. By stonewalling the concern expressed by citizens, a government shows itself to be distant and authoritarian. The dissenters are, after all, equal stakeholders in Kerala as anyone else, with the moral right to be heard on a matter with a bearing upon the ecological future of the State. In a democracy, the government must be guided by public opinion rather than attempting to manufacture consent on its schemes, as Kerala’s present government is doing. There are several instances of the state in India changing its mind when public opinion is arrayed against some grand project of its, but one stands out. In the 1970s, Indira Gandhi, a charismatic and strong leader, responding to a long-drawn agitation against a hydel project in Palakkad district, declared that the Silent Valley threatened by it will be protected. It took a little longer for the project proposal to be dropped altogether, but it finally was.
A high cost
While it is the threat to ecological security from it that has been flagged by our scientists and engineers, there is also the concern that the SilverLine project may end up as a white elephant. It is always difficult to figure out how much people are willing to pay for a new service to be publicly provided, in this case faster transportation. Even if a survey were to be conducted, the truthfulness of the stated willingness to pay would remain moot, undermining the reliability of the numbers in any project report. It is perhaps for this reason that light rail projects in many parts of the world have ended up making a loss. Even if break-even does materialise, the rate of return could end up being lower than anticipated. This often happens due to the cost overrun observed in such projects. A reason for this is that rather than padding costs, governments, determined to have their high visibility, technological marvels, manage to somehow ensure that the project cost is pitched unreasonably low.
In the case of SilverLine, it has been hinted that the cost of the complementary infrastructure, such as underpasses, may not have been incorporated, and that they may be substantial. It is for this reason that independent external scrutiny of the detailed project report is essential. Global accountancy giants have in the past proved to be unreliable as a source of disinterested advice when high fees are at stake, but we are fortunate that there is available in India financial expertise of the highest class. It is hoped that advice from this source is sought, with the Kerala government having shown a surprising dependence on international management consultancy firms for advice in the past. With a public sector that still receives budgetary support, a State already strapped with high per capita public debt cannot afford to be saddled with another white elephant. Yet, financial viability cannot be taken as the sole criterion in investment planning. There is no universally accepted method for imputing a monetary value to the environmental threat posed by a project with so great a geographic reach as SilverLine, spanning as it will do the entire length of the State. It is essential that our judgment be deployed in this case.
What Kerala does need
When a proposed project meets pushback, its purveyors often respond with the challenge “So, what is the alternative?” In the present case, though, this would only beg a deeper question, which is whether Kerala needs another railway line at all. As the two extremities of the State are already connected by road and rail, a light rail built at an astronomical cost is hardly necessary, even when it promises to save some travel time. The State already has the highest road density in the country. It is odd, then, that the Government sees a second railway as the priority for the State today.
On the other hand, there are several projects deserving of public investment. Among them would be the transition to a steady power supply based on green energy, the provision of safe drinking water and urban sewerage, and building infrastructure for the scientific disposal of waste. These projects would address our most pressing needs today, yield high social returns and contain progressive environmental degradation in the State. They are the ‘alternative’.
Preventing genocide
It is imperative that international legal protections against genocide are incorporated in domestic legislationIn the last few weeks, incendiary speeches by YatiNarsinghanand at a religious assembly have reignited discussion regarding hate speech, and the limits of the law. The speeches made include calls for the genocide of Muslims in India and can be seen as part of an ongoing pattern of targeting minorities. In discussions regarding the applicable law, a fundamental point must not be missed – the international legal obligations that are incumbent upon India, by virtue of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, which India has signed and ratified.
Objective of the Convention
Raphael Lemkin is credited with the use of the term ‘genocide’ and campaigned relentlessly for it to become an international treaty. In 1946, Cuba, India and Panama co-sponsored General Assembly Resolution 96(I), which affirmed genocide as a ‘crime under international law’. As a result of this resolution, a convention on the prohibition of genocide was drafted, which was passed by the General Assembly in 1948 and came into effect in 1951, with more than 150 states party to the convention presently. The Genocide Convention has as its objective the prevention of genocide as well as the punishment of the crime. Legal obligations on states that are party to the convention include the obligation not to commit genocide, to prevent genocide, and to punish genocide(Article I), to enact legislation to give effect to the provisions of the convention (Article V); to provide for effective penalties for those found guilty of criminal conduct (Article V); and the obligation to try those charged with genocide in a competent tribunal (Article VI).
It is no small irony that India was an early and key sponsor of the General Assembly resolution condemning genocide and confirming its status as an international crime. However, since signing the Genocide Convention and ratifying it, to date India has not enacted any legislation in accordance with Article VI of the Genocide Convention. At the outset, India is in violation of its international obligation to criminalise genocide within its domestic law per Articles V, VI and VII, and to take all means to ensure the prevention of genocide.
An examination of Indian domestic law shows that there are no comparable provisions for the prosecution of any mass crimes, least of all genocide. Indian Penal Code provisions relating to rioting, unlawful assembly and ‘promoting enmity between different groups’ do not embody the basic elements of the crime of genocide, which is against a collectivity or a group, with the specific intent to cause its destruction. These also do not pertain to another key aspect of the Genocide Convention – that of prevention, and creating the conditions in which such hate speech and other associated acts are not allowed to flourish, which may facilitate the commission of genocide.
Significant legal development
It is also worth noting a significant and recent international legal development relating to the Genocide Convention. The Gambia has initiated proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Myanmar on the basis of the Convention. While the case is still in the early stages, it is noteworthy for a key point – that the court seems to have, in its first ruling, taken note of a key argument of The Gambia – that the Genocide Convention embodies such a key concern that even a state that may not be specially affected can still raise a legal claim on the basis of being part of the community of states. This is a significant legal development and will have implications for the future. The ICJ, relying on a previous case of Belgiumv. Senegal, stated, “It follows that any State party to the Genocide Convention, and not only a specially affected State, may invoke the responsibility of another State party with a view to ascertaining the alleged failure to comply with its obligations erga omnes partes, and to bring that failure to an end.”
The ICJ previously addressed the question of violation of the Genocide Convention in the Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro). In its final judgment in 2007 the court found a failure to prevent genocide by Serbia. The breaches of the Genocide Convention related to the obligations to prevent and the lack of cooperation, but not for the commission of genocide.
In the overall analysis, it is more imperative than ever that international legal protections against genocide are incorporated in domestic legislation. Furthermore, the fact that India has international legal obligations under the Genocide Convention which it is not adhering to must be rectified.Priya Pillai is an international lawyer, who previously worked at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, The Hague
Drone attacks ‘unacceptable’, says India
Embassy working to bring back bodies of two Indians who were killed in explosion at UAE oil firmTerming the drone attacks by Houthi rebels in Abu Dhabi that left two Indians dead and two others injured, as “unacceptable”, India on Tuesday expressed solidarity with the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
In a telephone conversation, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan exchanged condolences over the attacks that led to fuel tank explosions at the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) facilities in the Emirati capital on Monday, in which three ADNOC employees — two Indians and one Pakistani — were killed and six others injured. The Ministry of External Affairs said Mr. Jaishankar had condemned the attack and “emphasised that in this day and age, such an attack on innocent civilians was completely unacceptable and against all civilisednorms”.The conversation came on a day the Saudi and UAE-led coalition bombed the Yemeni capital Sana’a in reprisals for the drone attacks for which Houthis claimed responsibility, killing at least 11 people, according to local reports, even as tensions in the Gulf region threatened to rise. However, the strikes weren’t referred to in the readouts issued by India or UAE.Indian Embassy officials said they were coordinating with local authorities to complete formalities needed to send the bodies of the two Indians back as early as Wednesday, while the two Indians injured in the attacks have been discharged after medical treatment. The Embassy said it had established the identity of the two deceased Indian nationals but did not disclose their names.
“[I] conveyed our strong solidarity with UAE in face of such unacceptable acts,” wrote Mr. Jaishankar in a tweet. “Our Embassy is working with UAE authorities to provide the fullest support to families of the deceased,” he added.A statement issued by the UAE Foreign Ministry said Mr. Jaishankar had “expressed India’s strong condemnation and denunciation of the terrorist attack by the terrorist Houthi militia on civil areas and facilities in the UAE.”Mr. Zayed spoke to Mr. Jaishankar amidst a number of telephone calls with his counterparts in the region, a day after the UAE Foreign Ministry had called on the international community to “condemn and completely reject these terrorist acts”.
Drone attacks ‘unacceptable’, says India
Embassy working to bring back bodies of two Indians who were killed in explosion at UAE oil firmTerming the drone attacks by Houthi rebels in Abu Dhabi that left two Indians dead and two others injured, as “unacceptable”, India on Tuesday expressed solidarity with the United Arab Emirates (UAE).In a telephone conversation, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan exchanged condolences over the attacks that led to fuel tank explosions at the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) facilities in the Emirati capital on Monday, in which three ADNOC employees — two Indians and one Pakistani — were killed and six others injured. The Ministry of External Affairs said Mr. Jaishankar had condemned the attack and “emphasised that in this day and age, such an attack on innocent civilians was completely unacceptable and against all civilisednorms”.The conversation came on a day the Saudi and UAE-led coalition bombed the Yemeni capital Sana’a in reprisals for the drone attacks for which Houthis claimed responsibility, killing at least 11 people, according to local reports, even as tensions in the Gulf region threatened to rise. However, the strikes weren’t referred to in the readouts issued by India or UAE.Indian Embassy officials said they were coordinating with local authorities to complete formalities needed to send the bodies of the two Indians back as early as Wednesday, while the two Indians injured in the attacks have been discharged after medical treatment. The Embassy said it had established the identity of the two deceased Indian nationals but did not disclose their names.“[I] conveyed our strong solidarity with UAE in face of such unacceptable acts,” wrote Mr. Jaishankar in a tweet. “Our Embassy is working with UAE authorities to provide the fullest support to families of the deceased,” he added.A statement issued by the UAE Foreign Ministry said Mr. Jaishankar had “expressed India’s strong condemnation and denunciation of the terrorist attack by the terrorist Houthi militia on civil areas and facilities in the UAE.”Mr. Zayed spoke to Mr. Jaishankar amidst a number of telephone calls with his counterparts in the region, a day after the UAE Foreign Ministry had called on the international community to “condemn and completely reject these terrorist acts”.
Oil rises past 7-year high on supply fears
Brent jumps to highest level since October 2014; analysts see shortfalls pushing prices to $100 a barrelReuters SINGAPOREOil prices rose more than $1 on Tuesday to a more than seven-year high on worries about possible supply disruptions after Yemen’s Houthi group attacked the United Arab Emirates, escalating hostilities between the Iran-aligned group and a Saudi Arabian-led coalition.The “new geopolitical tension added to ongoing signs of tightness across the market,” ANZ Research analyst said in a note.
Brent crude futures rose $1.37, or 1.6%, to $87.85 a barrel by 0738 GMT.The benchmark climbed to its highest level since October 2014 on Tuesday.After launching drone and missile strikes which set off explosions in fuel trucks and killed three people, the Houthi movement warned it could target more facilities, while the UAE said it reserved the right to “respond to these terrorist attacks”.UAE oil firm ADNOC said it had activated business continuity plans to ensure uninterrupted supply of products to its local and international customers after an incident at its Mussafah fuel depot.Analysts said oil prices also were being supported by colder winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere which were driving up demand for heating fuels.“Analyst forecasts expect demand to outstrip supply this year as the world opens up from 2 years of lockdowns and resumes a more normal trajectory for demand,” said Ash Glover at CMC Markets.The tight supply-demand balance is unlikely to ease, analysts said.Some producers within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are struggling to pump at their allowed capacities, due to underinvestment and outages, under an agreement with Russia and allies, known as OPEC+, to add 4,00,000 barrels per day each month.“That should continue to be supportive for oil and increase talk of triple figure prices,”
Escalation of the ‘forgotten war’ in Yemen
The fight over Marib, which is outside Houthi control, will decide the outcome of the conflictThe new year began badly for Yemen. On January 2, the Houthis hijacked a UAE-flagged ship, Rwabee, in the Red Sea, alleging that it was carrying military cargo. Seven of its eleven crewmen are Indians. The Saudis retaliated with massive bombardment of Sanaa airport and then diverted a ship carrying fuel to Yemen to its own port. The Houthis have refused to release the vessel despite a United Nations Security Council resolution and have criticised the United Nations for siding with “murderers who violate international laws”.The two-year fighting to take the energy-rich province of Marib has intensified. The Houthis are just 20 km from the provincial capital, but now face freshly deployed crack troops mobilised by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – the ‘Giants Brigade’ that is rapidly moving north after taking Shabwa province.The war in Yemen will complete seven years in March. As 2021 ended, nearly 3,50,000 Yemenis had died, with 60% dying because of being denied food, clean water and healthcare. Seventy-five per cent of Yemen now lives below the poverty line.
After the Arab Spring
After President Ali Abdullah Saleh, in place since 1978, stepped down in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings in 2012, he was allowed to retain his ill-gotten wealth and stay on in the country. From the outset, he worked to undermine his successor, Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi. Seeing the weak government in Sanaa, the Houthis, representing the disgruntled Zaydi/Shia community which had been marginalised in political and economic spheres by Mr. Saleh (under Saudi pressure), seized the opportunity to assert their claims for inclusion in national governance. The militants of the movement, Ansarullah, descended on the capital and, in January 2015, forced the Hadi government to seek exile in Riyadh.
Large sections of the Yemeni armed forces loyal to Mr. Saleh now joined the Houthis to take control of the country. This raised serious concerns in Saudi Arabia – though the Zaydis had few doctrinal or political ties with Iran, the kingdom viewed them as surrogates of the Islamic Republic on the basis of their sectarian affiliation. Saudi Arabia commenced a bombing campaign on Yemen on March 26, 2015. In 2015-21, there were about 25,000 Saudi air attacks on Yemen, with the Houthis retaliating with about 4,000 missile and drone attacks. During the fighting, Iran-Houthi ties have strengthened, with substantial military supplies sustaining the Houthi war effort.
Geopolitical competitions
After seven years of fighting, the conflict has now mutated into a fierce regional competition for geopolitical advantage. While Hodeidah port is under Houthi control, it is blockaded by the Saudi navy, while its Yemeni partners are ranged outside the city. Again, while Taiz is with the Houthis, forces from Al-Islah, the kingdom’s Islamist partners, are in the west of the province. In the south, the UAE-supported separatist entity, Southern Transition Council (STC), controls Aden and much of the southern territory.The UAE and Saudi Arabia are now engaged in a major territorial re-ordering of Yemen. The former is seeking unchallenged influence over the strategically valuable Bab al-Mandeb strait. At its narrowest, this strait is just about 30 km wide; it links Asia with Africa and, through the Suez Canal, with Europe. Ten percent of global trade traverses these waters annually. By 2050, the value of this trade is expected to grow from $880 billion to $4.7 trillion, while the GDP of the littoral states is expected to go from $1.8 trillion to $6.1 trillion.The UAE has now taken control of littoral ports and islands on both sides of the Red Sea – in Eritrea, Puntland and Somaliland – besides Aden and Mocha in Yemen. While initially the UAE had sought to establish a military presence in the region, its priority now is to develop the ports to make the region a major commercial hub. However, it retains its objective of protecting the area from militants and flow of weaponry, and maintains a military presence at Perim Island, at the mouth of Bab al-Mandeb, and Socotra Island, off the Yemeni coast in the Gulf of Aden. The UAE is also partnering with Israel in this area to neutralise any effort by Iran to intervene in these waters through its Houthi allies.The Saudi geopolitical interest is at the other end of Yemeni territory – the Al-Mahra province that abuts Oman’s entire southern border and also has a 560-km coastline on the Arabian Sea. This province has so far been cut off from the conflict.
The kingdom has been expanding its presence in this province since 2017 by taking control of Nishtun port, the Ghaydah airport, and two border crossings with Oman. The Saudi interest is to construct an oil pipeline from its Eastern Province to Nishtun port on the Arabian Sea, thus bypassing the Strait of Hormuz where Iran has a dominant presence. The Saudis have been pushing this proposal since the 1980s, but made no headway earlier as they insisted on placing their own security forces at a 4-km buffer zone along the pipeline. Taking advantage of the ongoing conflict, the kingdom is preparing for a long-term military presence in this province.The fight over Marib, the last province in north Yemen outside Houthi control, will decide the outcome of this seven-year conflict. The city now has two million people and provides 90% of the country’s oil and gas. With the Giants Brigade moving to the front, there could be some heavy civilian casualties. The Houthis have sought to deter the UAE-supported forces in Marib with drone attacks on Monday on an oil facility in Abu Dhabi and the airport. They have also condemned UAE efforts to control the shipping lanes in the Red and Arabian Seas to serve U.S. and British interests, and have threatened further attacks on Abu Dhabi.
The Houthi game plan
Victory in this conflict will give the Houthis the financial resources to consolidate their rule over the north of Yemen, possibly resurrecting the former North Yemen that had existed before unification with the south in 1990. North Yemen then had a Zaydi majority and had been ruled by Zaydi imams for a millennium, until the republican revolution of 1962. As of now, the Houthi game plan seems to be to consolidate itself in the north, put in place a functioning administration with Marib’s resources, and then seek international recognition and humanitarian assistance.Here, Saudi and UAE interests are likely to diverge. The UAE may find the de facto partition of Yemen acceptable as it would retain its control over the southern ports and the Bab al-Mandeb strait, and manage the south through the STC it has sponsored. But Houthi control of the north will not be acceptable to the kingdom as it will view this as an Iranian proxy planting itself along its porous 1,400-km border. To add to Saudi concerns, a former Lebanese general has also predicted that, after taking Marib, the Houthis could cross the border to “liberate” the former Yemeni provinces that are now part of the kingdom. Thus, continued fighting in Yemen is the most likely prospect for the country. And, with limited interest in the conflict in the international community, this will remain a “forgotten war”.Talmiz Ahmad is the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE, and had earlier served as Charge d’Affaires in North Yemen
Rising sea levels prompt Indonesia to relocate capital
Indonesia’s parliament on Tuesday passed a law approving the relocation of its capital from slowly sinking Jakarta to a site 2,000 kilometres away on the jungle-clad Borneo island that will be named “Nusantara”.The House of Representatives vote provides the legal framework for the move, which was first tipped by President Joko Widodo in April 2019, citing rising sea levels and severe congestion on densely populated Java island.Home to more than 30 million people in its greater metro area, Jakarta has long been plagued by serious infrastructure problems and flooding exacerbated by climate change.The new capital will cover about 56,180 hectares in East Kalimantan province on the Indonesian part of Borneo.Early plans for the new capital depict a utopian design aimed at creating an environmentally friendly “smart” city, but few details have been confirmed.Environmentalist critics of the capital’s move have warned it could damage ecosystems inthe region.Budget details have not yet been revealed in a presidential decree, though previous reports have pegged the project’s costs at $33 billion.
