Connect with us

DIPLOMACY

Full support for Saudi Arabia against the threats from the US

Published

on

Following the decision of the OPEC+ group -a group of countries made up of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and some non-OPEC member countries- to reduce their crude oil production, Saudi Arabia has received wide support from the Arab world and Turkey, after receiving political pressures from the United States.

After the decision to reduce the crude oil production, Washington came forth against Saudi Arabia with harsh statements and threats of sanctions, while reactions from all over the Arab world and the countries in the region are now rising. The countries that support the OPEC+ decision, are also opposing the accusations against Saudi Arabia by the United States of America.

While the Secretary-General of the Arab League Ahmed Aboul Gheit has expressed “full support” for Saudi Arabia’s decision to reduce the crude oil production, he also condemned the harsh smear campaign launched against Riyadh administration.

Regarding the accusations from Washington, Gheit stated “They are aimed at politicizing purely economic decisions that everyone realizes are necessary for the stability of the global economy given the dangerous challenges it is facing”.

The speaker of the Arab Parliament Adel Abdulrahman Al Asoomi also said they reject and condemn the accusations made against Saudi Arabia. Asoomi stated that the Arab Parliament is in full solidarity with Saudi Arabia, and that the decisions taken by OPEC and OPEC+ are taken by the unanimous vote of the member states, and that the decision is made taking the supply and demand in the global oil market into account.

Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Secretary-General Hissein Brahim Taha has also approved the slams from the Saudis, regarding the accusations against it, just after the OPEC+ decision.

Another individual who expressed support for the Riyadh administration, had been the Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita. Bourita stated that the Rabat administration supports all decisions of the Saudi foreign policy. Bourita also added that “the Kingdom’s foreign policy in the diplomatic or energy fields is based on a long-term vision, and a rational and wise basis, and is not subject to pressure”.

And the Algerian Energy Minister Mohamed Arkab also said the OPEC+ decision was taken due to “purely technical” needs, given the global economic trends and the current state of the energy market.

Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have also reiterated their support for the OPEC+ decision, stressing that the decision had no political motivations.

Iraq: We reject the policy of threats and oppression

Iraq was also among the countries that declared its support for the OPEC+ decision and for Saudi Arabia.

The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday they reject any policies that is threatening or oppressive, while reiterating the support for Saudi Arabia.

In a statement issued through the state-owned news agency, the ministry called for “resolving any disagreement related to this case through the natural means and in the context of a direct and balanced dialog”.

Cavusoglu: You have to lift the sanctions if you want prices to fall

Turkey was also among the countries that expressed support for OPEC+ decision to reduce the oil production, and the reactions against Washington’s statements against Saudi Arabia.

In his statement regarding the oil prices, the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said, “We are seeing that a country is threatening Saudi Arabia, and this bullying is not correct. Sanctions need to be lifted if the world wants oil prices to decrease, this issue cannot be resolved by threatening a single country”.

The Decision from OPEC and the US reaction to it

The OPEC+ group, which consists of all OPEC members and some non-OPEC oil producers, have taken a decision to reduce daily crude oil extraction by 2 million barrels from the beginning of November, after a meeting held in Vienna, Austria on October 5th.

The United States and Europe, which are among the countries that are affected by the rising oil prices after the Russian intervention in Ukraine, have instead expected Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries to increase their oil production in order keep the prices stable.

And it was also reported that the US President Joe Biden had asked the Riyadh administration to increase their crude oil production.

The decision contrary to the expectations of the US and Europe, to reduce the oil production led to reactions from the Washington administration. The White House has commented on this decision as “OPEC+ is clearly on the Russian side” while accusing Saudi Arabia of “helping Russia” in the Ukrainian War.

After protesting this decision, Joe Biden said that the US would revise its relationship with Saudi Arabia, threatening that such decision would have uncertain “consequences” for the kingdom.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia denies the accusations, saying this decision was taken due to economic reasons.

Saudi Arabia’s refrains to condemn the Russian intervention in Ukraine, despite pressures from the United States and the West, has further strained relations.

Experts share the view that the tensions between the Biden administration and OPEC+, and especially the Gulf members of the group, will increase even further.

OPEC members

OPEC member countries are as follows: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Kuwait, Algeria, Angola, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Nigeria.

The 10 extra members of the OPEC+ group, which was established in 2016 after a decision to collaborate with 10 other oil producers, are as follows: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brunei, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Oman, Russia, South Sudan and Sudan.

All these countries listed above, make up about 40 percent of the total crude oil production in the world.

Saudi Arabia stands as the largest producer among OPEC members.

DIPLOMACY

US proposes controversial ‘colonial’-style agreement to Ukraine

Published

on

The US is pushing to control all future major infrastructure and mining investments in Ukraine, veto the role of Kyiv’s other allies, and undermine its goal of European Union membership.

According to a draft document obtained by Bloomberg, the Donald Trump administration is demanding the “right of first refusal” on investments in all infrastructure and natural resource projects under a revised partnership agreement with Ukraine.

If accepted, the partnership agreement would give the US enormous power to control investments in projects in Ukraine such as highways and railways, ports, mines, oil and natural gas, and the extraction of critical minerals.

The agreement would give the US first claim on profits transferred to a special reconstruction investment fund controlled by Washington.

The most crucial point of the document is that the US considers the “material and financial benefits” it has provided to Ukraine since the beginning of the war as a contribution to this fund.

In effect, this means the Trump administration would force Ukraine to pay the cost of all US military and economic support provided since the start of the war before Kyiv receives any income from the partnership fund.

According to the draft document, the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) will control the investment fund by nominating three of the five board members and holding a “golden share” giving it special voting rights to block certain decisions. Ukraine will appoint the other two members and will be prevented from interfering in the fund’s daily management.

The Kyiv government will be required to deposit 50% of the earnings from all new natural resource and infrastructure projects into the fund. The draft states that the US will be entitled to all profits until its investment is recouped, plus a 4% annual return.

Ukraine will be obliged to submit all projects to the fund for review “at the earliest possible time,” and the DFC will gain board membership or oversight rights in all funded programs.

Kyiv will also be prohibited from offering rejected projects to other parties on “materially better” terms for at least one year.

Furthermore, according to the draft, the US government will have the right to purchase Ukraine’s metals, minerals, and oil and gas on commercial terms before other parties, regardless of whether the fund finances the project.

The agreement, which has no time limit, also prohibits Kyiv from selling critical minerals to countries that are “strategic rivals” of the US.

The US presented a revised agreement to officials in Kyiv last weekend after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s plans to sign an earlier deal fell through following a tense discussion with Trump in the Oval Office last month.

The White House said last week that the administration has moved beyond the previously negotiated agreement covering critical minerals in Ukraine.

Negotiations between the two sides are ongoing, and the final draft may include revisions to the terms. A person familiar with the matter told Bloomberg that Ukraine would respond to the US document with its own changes this week.

Speaking to reporters in Paris on Thursday, where he traveled to attend a summit with European leaders, Zelenskyy said the full agreement proposed by the US requires “detailed study” and that the terms are constantly changing during negotiations.

While it is too early to say an agreement has been reached, he said, “We support cooperation with the US, we do not want to send a single signal that could cause the US to stop helping Ukraine.”

In response to a request for comment, a US Treasury Department spokesperson stated that the US remains committed to the swift finalization of the agreement and securing a lasting peace for Ukraine.

National Security Council spokesperson James Hewitt said, “The minerals agreement offers Ukraine the opportunity to establish a lasting economic relationship with the US, which is the foundation for long-term security and peace. This agreement will strengthen relations between the two countries and benefit both sides.”

Ukraine gained EU candidate status in 2022 and is set to begin accession talks for full membership, which could take years to complete. This situation is likely to become more complicated if the US gains effective control over investment decisions covering large areas of the Ukrainian economy.

Ukraine had previously stated that an agreement with the US should not conflict with its association agreement with the EU. It had also previously rejected the US demand that Washington’s past support for Ukraine be included as a contribution to the joint fund.

Continue Reading

DIPLOMACY

EU to continue funding Türkiye despite İmamoğlu concerns, Politico reports

Published

on

Protests following the detention and arrest of Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu seem to have put Europe in a difficult position.

In an assessment published in Politico titled “EU faces a billion-euro dilemma in Türkiye crisis,” politicians and officials cited say that regardless of what happens on the streets of Istanbul, Ankara is too important an ally to alienate.

The report states, “The European Union will continue to transfer billions of euros to Türkiye despite President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s extensive crackdowns on political opponents.”

Recalling that European officials warned their southern neighbor to “uphold democratic values” following Ekrem İmamoğlu’s arrest, Politico writes, “But Türkiye’s strategic importance means the bloc will likely look the other way. Erdoğan knows this too.”

Dimitar Bechev, a lecturer at Oxford University, says, “Whatever the Turkish leader does, the EU will have to follow suit.”

Two European officials, speaking to Politico on condition of anonymity, said that Türkiye’s EU candidate status requires it to protect democratic values and that Brussels would respond to violations. Although one of them stated, “We are following the developing situation in Türkiye with great concern” and “Recent developments contradict the logic of EU membership,” they also acknowledge that given Türkiye’s importance in migration, trade, energy, and defense matters, any reaction from the EU is unlikely to disrupt relations between Brussels and Ankara.

Pointing out that although Türkiye’s EU membership negotiations have stalled over the past decade, the country still receives billions of euros in accession funds, Politico notes, “Ankara has also received about 9 billion euros in aid to host refugees from the Middle East and is in line to receive large sums to support European defense industries.”

Highlighting that Türkiye, which has become a major hub for oil and gas exports, has a trade flow with the EU exceeding 200 billion euros annually, the publication writes, “Türkiye has also played a key role in controlling access to the Black Sea and enforcing sanctions against Moscow since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Recently, its potential significant contribution to a possible peacekeeping mission in Ukraine has been discussed.”

Bechev says, “The status quo before İmamoğlu’s arrest was comfortable for the EU because there was enough democracy,” and suggests that recent developments are not dire enough to change this.

According to the “Readiness 2030” plan presented by EU leaders last week, Türkiye, as an EU candidate country, has the potential to access 800 billion euros worth of joint procurements from funds designed to increase the bloc’s defense spending.

However, Greece and Cyprus, both long in conflict with Türkiye, are pushing for restrictions. Diplomats speaking to Politico said they intend to enact a clause requiring the defense move to occur “without prejudice to the specific character of the security and defense policy of certain Member States.”

Arguing that Athens and Nicosia, which were in the process of normalizing relations with Ankara before the recent crisis, now have to perform a “delicate balancing act,” Politico quotes a senior Greek official admitting that “even Athens cannot go too far.”

The Greek official involved says, “Of course, we will support a firm stance condemning the current developments in Türkiye, but without being provocative. The defense industry remains a major gap for Europe, which paves the way for this policy of trade-offs that we see happening.”

Even Cypriot MEP Michalis Hadjipantela, calling for “targeted sanctions” by stating “Effective pressure from the EU is essential,” also said that “sanctions should be targeted and linked to progress on the above issues to prevent further alienation of the country.”

Continue Reading

DIPLOMACY

Fidan and Rubio discuss Syria, Gaza, and defense in US meeting

Published

on

Minister of Foreign Affairs Hakan Fidan and his accompanying delegation began a two-day visit to the US.

During the visit, Fidan met with US Senator Marco Rubio. According to a statement attributed to US State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce, the two discussed cooperation on key issues in security and trade.

Rubio requested Turkey’s support for peace in Ukraine and the South Caucasus, while appreciating Ankara’s leadership in the “Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.”

According to the spokesperson, the American senator reiterated the need for close cooperation to support a “stable, unified, and peaceful Syria,” stating they do not want Syria to be “either a base for international terrorism or a pathway for Iran’s destabilizing activities.”

Rubio also highlighted recent progress in bilateral trade and encouraged an even greater economic partnership moving forward.

Finally, the Senator expressed concerns regarding the recent arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu in Turkey and the subsequent protests.

Turkey has not made an official statement: AA reported based on ‘foreign ministry sources’

According to Turkish Foreign Ministry sources cited by AA, Fidan and Rubio emphasized the “importance of engaging with the Syrian government” during their meeting on Tuesday.

The sources stated, “Both sides emphasized the importance of engaging with the Syrian government and expressed their determination regarding the stabilization of Syria and the fight against terrorism.”

According to the sources speaking to AA, Fidan and Rubio discussed a range of regional and bilateral issues, including the need for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, deemed essential for “regional peace.”

The sources also mentioned that the issues discussed in the phone call between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US President Donald Trump on March 16 were followed up on during the meeting.

The two sides also discussed preparations for upcoming presidential-level visits and expressed their determination to remove obstacles to defense cooperation.

The report added, “Both sides clearly expressed their political will to remove obstacles to cooperation in the defense industry. Technical meetings will be held to resolve existing issues.”

The two sides also discussed efforts to achieve a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, with Turkey expressing support for recent US efforts in this direction.

The talks also covered the ongoing peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia and the importance of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s stability for the entire Balkan region.

Is Hamas on the table?

Meanwhile, Trump, during a White House meeting with a group of US Ambassadors confirmed by the Senate, referred to Turkey and Erdogan as a “good country, a good leader.”

The new US Ambassador to Ankara, Thomas Barack, was also present at the meeting. Barack, known as a close friend of Trump and a real estate magnate, thanked the President for appointing him to Turkey, “one of the ancient civilizations.”

In an article penned by Murat Yetkin in Yetkin Report, it is alleged that Trump might engage in bargaining over Hamas and Gaza in exchange for steps such as lifting CAATSA sanctions against Turkey.

Yetkin relays that CHP leader Ozgur Ozel, in a statement on March 18, referred to the Trump-Erdogan phone call, criticizing the lack of mention of Gaza and Israel, and accused Erdogan of “selling out the Palestinian cause for Trump.”

Recalling that Trump’s special representative Steve Witkoff told Tucker Carlson in an interview that they expect “good news” from Turkey, Yetkin underscores that Witkoff also stated elsewhere in the interview, “A terrorist organization cannot run Gaza; this is unacceptable for Israel. But their disarmament is possible. Then they can stay for a while longer and even get involved in politics.”

Yetkin asks, “Is Trump supporting Erdogan because of a plan to disarm the PKK and Hamas together?” while also noting that the Secretary of the PLO Executive Committee, Hussein al-Sheikh, met with Foreign Minister Fidan in Ankara on March 19, before Fidan flew to the US.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey