Emboldened by Impunity, Russia Abandons Protections for Syrian Hospitals

Throughout the course of the Syrian civil war, Vladimir Putin and the Russian government have avoided the Hague, despite evidence of Moscow’s culpability in the deaths of medical workers and destruction of hospitals.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia has been able to shield itself from accusations and act with a de facto impunity. Despite overwhelming evidence of Moscow’s involvement in a systematic bombing campaign against hospitals, Russia has thus far largely avoided the scrutiny of the international community.

Moscow’s ability to shield itself from criticism became most evident in April. That month, the UN launched an internal inquiry into a series of attacks in 2019 targeting healthcare facilities, a school, and a refuge for children in northwest Syria. Although the inquiry concluded that it was “highly probable” that the Assad regime and its allies were responsible, it fell short of actually condemning Damascus or Moscow for the attacks.

Transparent targeting

Emboldened by the consistent exoneration it has received from the international community, Russia has now pulled out of an international agreement designed to prevent hospitals and medical workers from being caught in the crossfire between the Syrian government and its opposition.

Under the deconfliction agreement, the UN shared the coordinates and locations of hospitals, medical facilities, and other humanitarian sites in Syria with other actors in the conflict in order to prevent the sites from sustaining damage in the crossfire between parties.

However, Syrian health care workers have criticized the agreement in the past, arguing that Russia had appropriated the list of sites as a list of targets. Meanwhile, Moscow has denied any responsibility for deliberately destroying hospitals, redirecting blame towards the opposition for harbouring terrorists.

For its part, the UN has emphasized that regardless as to whether Russia participates in the agreement or not, international laws against targeting civilians and medical facilities are still binding.

“If Russia thinks this will help them escape accountability for war crimes, they’re dead wrong,” said Louis Charbonneau, UN director for Human Rights Watch.

“We and other groups will continue to investigate and document the deliberate bombings of hospitals and other grave crimes in Syria.”

The Kremlin’s impunity

The targeting of hospitals, either deliberately or recklessly, is a war crime. However, since the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, the country has seen more than 580 attacks on medical workers, more than 260 of which occurred after the Kremlin began to intervene. These attacks resulted in the death of more than 916 doctors, nurses, and medical personnel.

Russia’s intervention into the war in Syria in 2015 signaled the start of a drastic change to the conflict. With the backing of Russian fighter jets and armored vehicles, the Assad regime was put on the path to victory.

However, as Assad and his Russian allies began to grow bolder and advance on opposition forces, attacks on hospitals began to increase. In northern Syria, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure continue to be targets as the Syrian government struggles to capture remaining rebel-held pockets.

Hospital Bombing
Nabad al Hayat Surgical Hospital in Idlib was one of many hospitals destroyed in 2019 as part of the Russian bombing campaign in Syria.

Moscow has vehemently denied any responsibility for the destruction of hospitals across Syria, arguing that any hospitals destroyed were occupied by “terrorists.” Healthcare workers in the country have disputed the claim that hospitals are harbouring terrorists, instead arguing that the destruction of medical facilities is a systematic campaign against civilians.

“The argument by the Russians or the regime is always that hospitals are run by terrorists,” said a head nurse at a destroyed Syrian hospital, who asked to remain anonymous because he feared being targeted. “Is it really possible that all the people are terrorists?”

Meanwhile, attempts to bring allegations of Moscow’s involvement with the widespread destruction of medical infrastructure has routinely failed. Russia, and its close ally China, have both actively impeded the UN’s ability to investigate the war crimes of the Assad regime and of Russia’s troops in Syria. In particular, the two countries vetoed previous attempts to bring allegations of Russia’s destruction of hospitals to the International Criminal Court.

In the wake of the UN’s failure to provide justice for the victims of the widespread devastation, Syrian activists have been outspoken in their desire for a formal investigation by the international community.

“The attacks on health in Syria, as well as the indiscriminate bombing of civilian facilities, are definitely war crimes, and they should be prosecuted at the level of the International Criminal Court in The Hague,” said Susannah Sirkin, director of policy at Physicians for Human Rights, an advocacy group.

An emboldened Russia

Over the past two decades, the Kremlin has struggled to reclaim the mantle of “superpower,” expanding its influence to Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and others. Unfazed by international sanctions and condemnation, Moscow has become more ambitious in its desires for global influence.

The Kremlin’s decision to leave the agreement in Syria has now given Moscow plausible deniability for any further devastation they cause to the country’s medical infrastructure, as they will no longer have overt access to the UN’s list of hospitals and humanitarian sites.

Prior to leaving the agreement, the Kremlin could not deny knowing that their targets were hospitals. However, henceforth, Moscow will be able to dispute allegations that they were aware that a strike target was civilian in nature.

In its unilateral decision to abandon protections for medical infrastructure, Russia has signaled to the world that civilian casualties are less important than winning the war. Moreover, Moscow has now made it clear that it knows it can get away with potential war crimes so long as they maintain their influence in the UN.

Economic Woes Could Trigger New Levant Conflict

When the militant extremists of ISIS started occupying territory in 2013, Iraq and Syria seemingly became the center of the world. Camera-crews from around the world reported breathlessly on each small town where black-clad men in pick-up trucks were advancing. Cities like Mosul, Raqqa and Palmyra became common features in news items as each small conquest was widely shared.

But in 2020, it seems very few still care about the region. Camera-crews have moved on and politicians have found new enemies to worry about. The reporting in the region does garnish is a stream of negative news. Financial crises, the impact of COVID-19, rising bread prices, it appears the region just cannot catch a break from misery.

Countries like Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria face multiple crises at once, with far-reaching consequences for neighboring countries and the region as a whole. What seems like an uncommonly troubled region where misery appears to simply compound and evolve, is largely a strategy of orchestrated and controlled chaos at the behest of foreign powers and institutions.

Hyperinflation

Comments on “hyperinflation” are becoming more common in reports on Syria and Lebanon, as extreme inflation causes prices for basic necessities to skyrocket amid stagnant or diminishing wages. Hyperinflation has sparked renewed protests in Syria, unseen since Bashar al-Assad and Russia reasserted control over the country through a brutal military campaign.

In Lebanon protests have again rocked the country, with much of the ire aimed at the country’s banking sector and the Lebanese central bank itself. A crisis of institutionalized corruption and sectarianism have intertwined with the country’s dwindling foreign currency reserves and the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic to create a “perfect storm” of troubles for the Lebanese.

Austerity

In response to a historic drop in oil demand, oil prices have tumbled to levels that no expert could have predicted at the start of the year. For countries in the region, the drop in state revenue leaves large gaps in their national budget amid an increase of costs for the healthcare sector and much needed basic support for the poorest and most vulnerable.

In order to find funds abroad, countries like Lebanon and Iraq face increasing pressures from global institutions to reform their countries in order to cut public spending, boost the private sector and increase foreign direct investment. Receiving loans from institutions like the World Bank and the IMF means bending domestic policy to align with foreign visions and implementing unpopular reforms.

Sanctions

Then there are ever increasing sanctions that further weaken local economies. The US targets the leadership of Syria by halting most international trade, including from its destitute neighbor Lebanon. Washington similarly limits Iraq’s ability to buy much needed energy from its neighbor Iran, with the US issuing “waivers” that allow Iraq to import Iranian electricity.

Iran itself is facing crippling sanctions that have turned a health crisis into an unmitigated human tragedy, as the country continues to have the life squeezed out of its last remaining international trade. Iran has faced severe medical shortages and faced major barriers to importing much needed protective equipment and medicine, making the spread of COVID-19 in the entire region more likely.

Misery by Design

While hyperinflation, austerity, and sanctions continue to make an impact on citizens’ lives in the region, none of these are accidental byproducts, but instead are very much the intended goal. Financial support only comes when nations submit to the “Washington Consensus,” turning their countries into neoliberal countries rife for exploitation by foreign multinationals.

Sanctions and hyperinflation are similarly highly related to foreign influence. Sanctions on Syria intend not just to hurt its leadership but actively intend to starve the people of Syria and Lebanon into revolt against its leaders. US officials regularly regurgitate their belief that economic hardship for citizens will lead to a popular uprising that will replace elements of the government that the US does not like.

Sovereignty

While it appears that countries in the region roll from one crisis to the next, in truth these countries have never been “granted” the ability to stop these crises. Iraq cannot exercise any sense of a sovereign foreign policy because of its reliance on US support, Lebanon cannot reform its banking sector without demands from the IMF, and Syria is unlikely to have a “successful” new revolution after al-Assad’s inhumane crushing of dissent.

If foreign powers are genuine about creating stability in the region, they would be best served by leaving the region to determine its own future. The US alone could make a significant contribution to local stability by following the will of the Iraqi people by withdrawing its forces. The US could also lift sanctions on Syria and Iran and allow Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to freely decide who it trades with.

Freedom to choose

Stability in the region will only materialize when local economies are allowed to grow, politicians are permitted to succeed, and nations can freely trade with one another. The only standard the West needs to follow, is the standard of national sovereignty that it sets for itself. Greater personal freedoms, religious tolerance, and gender equality all depend on rising living standards and the absence of fear and chaos.

By removing foreign influence from the region, the Levant and its neighbors could have a genuine shot at improving the lives of its citizens, unconstrained by the motivations and goals of nations thousands of miles away. As long as foreign powers freely meddle with the fate of millions of local people, the Levant and its neighbors will continue to spiral into further chaos, exactly as was intended.

Egypt Claims Right to Intervene in Libya

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi announced on Saturday Egypt’s intentions to intervene within its troubled neighbor’s borders if the Libyan conflict moves further east. The call comes in response to repeated advances by the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) that is making gains against the eastern-based Libyan National Army (LNA).

After being besieged in the country’s capital Tripoli for a year, GNA forces have enjoyed new momentum after a significant military intervention by Turkey. In exchange for drilling rights in Libyan waters and influence in Tripoli, Turkey has changed the Libyan war with an influx of drones, military hardware, and mercenaries.

Escalation

In response to the GNA’s newfound military advantage, the LNA has acquired Russian MiG-29 and Su-24 fighter jets to counter the increasing use of drones against the military bases and air defenses of the Eastern faction led by Khalifa Haftar. But the Tripoli-based government is pressing its current military advantage to push further east, reducing Haftar’s sphere of influence in Libya.

Turkish-backed GNA forces are now advancing on Sirte, located roughly halfway between Tripoli and the LNA’s capital in Benghazi. El-Sisi said on June 20 that any further military movements towards Sirte and the Jufra district below it are a “red line.” With combatants nearing Egypt’s borders, they bring the chaos of irregular fighting between militias that has defined the Libyan conflict since its onset.

Egyptian response

Egypt, el-Sisi declared, will consider direct military intervention within Libya’s borders if fighting moves further east. The Benghazi-based LNA government expressed support for Egypt’s intentions as it issued a statement calling on the United Nations in Libya to increase efforts to enforce the weapons embargo that has become an embargo in name only as more and more advanced weaponry enters the Libyan theater of war.

Without a ceasefire in place, the eastern Libyan government could invite an Egyptian response, according to el-Sisi. “Any military intervention by Egypt will be according to the principles of international law,” the Egyptian leader stated. But the Western-based GNA called the Egyptian statement a “declaration of war.”

International reception

On Sunday the United States released a statement in response to el-Sisi’s remarks. “The United States strongly opposes military escalation in Libya – on all sides,” a National Security Council (NSC) statement said, urging “parties to commit to a ceasefire and resume negotiations immediately.”

As the Egyptian military mobilizes for a possible intervention on its western borders, the NSC hopes to steer progress through the ongoing negotiations between both sides. “We must build on progress made through the UN’s 5+5 talks, the Cairo Initiative, and the Berlin process,” the Council stated on the matter.

If an Egyptian incursion into Libya’s eastern districts would occur, it could pit several US allies against each other. France, Qatar, Egypt, the UAE and Turkey all have strong military ties to the US, and an escalation away from proxy war and towards direct military deployment could see US and European weaponry on both sides being used in what amounts to another dark page in Libya’s recent history.

France Deems Turkish Ambitions in Libya ‘Unacceptable’

On June 10, a Greek navy ship approached a Turkish cargo vessel in the high seas off the coast of Libya. The European ship, tasked with upholding the Libyan arms embargo, approached the vessel and sent a message requesting to board and inspect the suspicious cargo ship. This is a standard procedure that regulatory ships have repeated 75 times in recent months, but this time it yielded unprecedented results.

The cargo freighter did not respond; instead a Turkish warship appeared that told the Greeks to back off. With no mandate to forcibly board the freight ship, the Greek naval ship was forced to retreat without any inspection. French President Emmanuel Macron called the act “unacceptable” as the event adds fuel to an escalating diplomatic row between France and Turkey.

UN mandate

An EU spokesman on June 11 was reluctant to give details about the events, instead referring to the head of “Operation Irini” in Rome, which hosts the task force monitoring the Libyan arms embargo.

The renewed focus on the repeated breaches of the UN embargo on the supply of arms to Libya had earlier resulted in UN Resolution 2526, which mandates a naval force with daily inspections of vessels approaching and departing the Libyan coast.

The task force aims to stop the flow of arms in exchange for Libyan oil by inspecting naval trade, with the results of these inspections going to a UN panel of experts tasked with evaluating the situation. While the arms embargo faces no opposition in diplomatic circles, in practice most foreign actors involved in the chaotic conflict breach it daily.

French response

With a fresh round of peace negotiations approaching, military operations on the ground are accelerating as both sides hope to make “gains” which they can then use in negotiations. Macron had earlier highlighted Turkish “broken promises” as the new GNA gains appear to be the result of a large-scale Turkish intervention that has introduced new aerial capabilities for the Tripoli government through the use of drones.

News confirmed the horror of the Libyan conflict yet again on June 12, when UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres expressed deep shock over the discovery of mass graves in the country. But the Turkish intervention last week that prevented UN inspection of one of its vessels presents a new escalation according to the French.

“The Turks are behaving in an unacceptable manner and are exploiting NATO. France cannot just stand by,” a French official stated, while another added that France had concerns over the “even more aggressive and insistent stance from Turkey, with seven Turkish ships deployed off the Libyan coast and violations of the arms embargo.”

Further chaos

France nominally supports both sides in the conflict. As part of the UN, it recognizes the Tripoli GNA government, but France also supports Libya’s eastern LNA faction led by leader Khalifa Haftar. Macron hosted Haftar at the Elise Palace in March and has attempted to mediate a cease-fire, but with Haftar’s forces in retreat after several GNA victories, the conflict has changed.

As the GNA advances, it has brushed aside calls for a cease-fire, as the LNA did when they were at their strongest. The inconclusive back-and-forth between the two factions has led to a radical escalation of foreign troops, mercenaries, and weaponry, all in a clear breach of the embargo.

The chaotic conflict has turned Libya into a lawless state where already desperate refugees hoping to reach Europe face exploitation and die by the dozens in Libyan slave markets and refugee camps or drown in the Mediterranean Sea.

What was initially a civil war fought by Libyan militias using civilian cars and light arms has devolved into a proxy war featuring Naval frigates, fighter jets, anti-air batteries, and drones. What was once an internal conflict over the future of the country has become a sandbox for a proxy-war between foreign nations, where the Libyans themselves have little to do with an eventual resolution.

Has Saudi-Arabia Won the Oil Price War?

Riyadh will likely celebrate in receipt of a new report by investment bank JP Morgan Chase. “Saudi Arabia will come out on top in the fight for market share as non-OPEC and U.S. production fades,” Christyan Malek, a managing director at JP Morgan Chase told Reuters. The report predicts that Saudi Arabia’s share of the oil market will be the highest since the 1980s.

It appears Saudi Arabia has increased its market share because of a decline in higher-cost oil production around the world, a development unimaginable even a year ago. The development will be much-needed positive news for most OPEC countries who have collectively seen a dramatic drop in government revenue because of a historic drop in oil prices.

Amid low oil prices, investment in the development of new fields drops and higher-cost oil production such as American shale gas or oil produced from Canadian tar-sands is no longer profitable. Because of the massive global scale of oil production, even a temporary dip in investment or bankruptcies of competitors can give low-cost producers an advantage for the foreseeable future.

Oil price war

Saudi Arabia and Russia together drove down oil prices by refusing to curb production even before the COVID-19 pandemic drove down demand to unprecedented levels. The combination of high production levels and dropping demand meant oil prices crashed to hit an absolute first: They fell to negative $40 as the expiration date for oil futures approached with no buyers for the actual crude.

While low oil prices are extremely painful for the state budgets of both Russia and Saudi Arabia, for countries where oil is produced at a much higher cost, like in the US shale gas industry, such low prices are potentially lethal.

Large-scale state-owned oil producers such as Saudi Arabia’s Aramco can dial back production without too much long-term damage, but for smaller producers that depend on a few wells or fields, closing down wells can mean buckling under debt and going bankrupt.

Saudi market share

By keeping production high while demand was dropping, Saudi Arabia directly influenced global oil prices. Media reported on the decision to continue high production levels as a price war between Russia and the Saudis continued until both countries agreed on production cuts in April.

However, both countries ultimately stood to benefit much more from a drop in production in the US than any fathomable end-game of a Russo-Saudi dispute could have realized. This begs the question if their “disagreement” was ever the real underlying motivation.

Russia and Saudi Arabia were both declining in market share as the US enjoyed its “shale gas revolution” over the last decade, with no end in sight. Although Russia likely has unexplored oil and gas reserves, the Saudi reserves have little way to go but down.

Their gamble to continue oil production and even send cheap crude to the already overflowing US oil market appears to have paid off in the long-run.

US shale gas decline

The victims of the geopolitical plays to influence oil prices will be those working in the US shale gas industry. While environmental groups will likely cheer the decline of shale gas, or “fracking,” millions of Americans are employed in the industry, working-class people who have been part of the essential workforce that has kept America running throughout the first wave of the pandemic.

Adopting a Green New Deal would more than offset these jobs with new positions in industries that support a healthy environment and provide good working conditions. However, hope for such a legislative move runs thin amid entrenched partisan tensions.

The international supermajors have already written off previously cherished gas assets in a sign of the time, yet the fate of Chesapeake Energy, one of the US shale gas pioneers, could signal what World Oil called “the end of an era.”

Because of the absence of available credit that saved many smaller oil firms during the last oil crash in 2015-2016, many smaller companies are now facing bankruptcies. The continued uncertainty over the future value of oil assets makes mergers and acquisition a risky game.

Between January and May, 18 oil and gas firms filed for bankruptcy protection in North America with more expected as “lower for longer” becomes the expectation.

The Saudi-led OPEC bloc has now promised to extend production cuts with an additional one-month voluntary cut, which is enough to prevent a new crash in oil prices, but likely not enough to help US producers.

Russia, China, EU Tell US to Pull Back from Iran Arms Embargo Threats

Russia and China have echoed the European Union’s sentiments, reiterating that the US is in no position to use the Iran nuclear deal as a platform for imposing a permanent weapons embargo on Iran. In a May 27 letter, to the UN Security Council, and  U.N. chief Antonio Guterres made public today, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticized the US position as “ridiculous and irresponsible.” 

“This is absolutely unacceptable and serves only to recall the famous English proverb about having one’s cake and eating it,” Lavrov wrote.  

Last week, US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft said a draft resolution would soon be introduced to the Security Council calling for a permanent arms embargo on Iran, as it has violated the conditions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Despite no longer being part of the accord, Craft and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have both intimated that reintroducing UN-backed weapons sanctions, under the basis of the JCPOA agreement, is currently a top US priority.  

Top Chinese and European Union diplomats have also questioned the Trump administration’s call for a snapback to pre-JCPOA sanctions. All permanent Security Council members — Russia, China, the US, France and UK — have a right to veto resolutions. 

“The United States, no longer a participant to the JCPOA (nuclear deal) after walking away from it, has no right to demand the Security Council invoke a snapback,” Wang told the Security Council and Guterres in a letter on June 7. 

On June 9, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell Frontelles agreed, stating, “the United States has withdrawn from the JCPOA, and now they cannot claim that they are still part of the JCPOA in order to deal with this issue from the JCPOA agreement.”  

“They withdraw. It’s clear. They withdraw,” he stressed. 

The US unilaterally pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) accord

between the U.S., Britain, Germany, France, China, Russia and Iran in 2018. Under the 2015 plan Iran promised to limit sensitive nuclear activities, in return for an easing of sanctions. However the agreement began to unravel when Trump pulled out of the deal under his “maximum pressure” campaign, and re-imposed stringent US economic sanctions. 

Under the JCPOA, which is enshrined in a UN resolution, if Iran violates the terms of the accord, sanctions, including an arms embargo, can be reinstated. Iran has violated the terms of the nuclear deal since the US pulled out, but Lavrov, Wang, and Borrell argue that the US has waived its rights to push for renewed sanctions since pulling out of the accord.  

“A party which disowns or does not fulfil its own obligations cannot be recognized as retaining the rights which it claims to derive from the relationship,” Lavrov explained, invoking 1971 International Court of Justice precedent. 

Read also: Iran to Execute Spy Who Gave Soleimani’s Location to US

 

 

Giant Arctic Oil Spill Prompts State of Emergency in Russia

An oil spill in northern Russia has prompted the government to declare a state of emergency after 22,000 tons of red diesel oil spilled into Arctic waters. A diesel storage tank collapsed at a Nornickel power plant in Norilsk, Russia when the permafrost it was built on started to thaw. One of the supporting posts of the storage tank suddenly sank, damaging the tank and spilling its contents.

The diesel fuel spilled onto a nearby roadway, causing a passing car to catch fire, before spilling into the local waterways. For two days, the power plant attempted to stop the spill and clean up the 6,000 tons of oil that covered the ground and an additional 15,000 tons that had leaked into the local Ambarnaya and Daldykan Rivers, flowing down into their tributaries.

But the company was unable to undo the damage, the Ambarnaya River had turned bright red, and diesel oil flowed as far as seven miles from the power plant. After two days, the plant officials decided to contact the government as they realized the scale of the disaster.

Environmental concerns

Their communication came too late. The disaster is now described as a “135-square mile oil spill,” with Greenpeace warning the clean-up could cost as much as $85 million to deal with damage to waterways alone. The environmental NGO called the spill “catastrophic” as the first large-scale oil spill in the Arctic.

The Russian branch of the World Wildlife Fund released a statement expressing fears that the red diesel fuel may have spread as far as Lake Pyasino, situated 20 kilometers from the Norilsk power plant. “The most toxic components of diesel fuel are light aromatics (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene), which in significant quantities will nevertheless dissolve in water and can in no way be collected by booms,” WWF Russia stated.

State of emergency

Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a federal state of emergency after reportedly shouting, “Are we going to learn about emergency situations from social media?” at Nornickel’s CEO during a televised video conference. By putting the responsible company at the front-and-center of the clean-up efforts, Vladimir Putin appears to be following Barack Obama’s communication playbook used during the 2010 BP oil spill.

With a state of emergency in place, clean-up efforts are underway. The cold conditions and large scale of the spill will likely slow down progress and many fear that the damage done to local nature will be irreversible.

OPEC Countries Face Difficult Choice as Volatile Oil Prices Rise

With oil prices now close to $40 per barrel, member states of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have a difficult choice to make. Oil prices have benefited from voluntary and involuntary production cuts amid a global demand slump that is slowly easing.

However,with countries gradually reopening their economies and some airlines restarting national and international flights, oil prices are likely to rise as demand steadily increases.

The significant impact that production cuts have had on the volatile oil markets has not gone unnoticed and OPEC’s contribution to global cuts has been significant. The budgets of OPEC member states have also been impacted by the effects of production cuts as oil-dependent states have seen their revenue evaporate with mounting deficits and painful austerity in national social welfare spending.

Volatility

Global oil industry experts and commodity traders have been closely monitoring the developments around an upcoming meeting between Saudi Arabia and Russia, in order to discuss a potential one month extension to its production cuts. When news broke that the meeting could be delayed, global oil prices dipped again.

However, the Saudi-led OPEC bloc has not been able to universally cut production. Iraq, for instance, has little power over its production levels as most oil is extracted by international oil companies. The country has negotiated with these supermajors but has been unable to sufficiently cut back production, a situation similar to Nigeria’s. The fate of an upcoming OPEC meeting now hangs on whether these non-complying nations can meet their pledged cuts or not.

Dependence

For many countries that are dependent on oil for significant parts of their state income, the current prices are tempting. With prices at their highest since March 6, many countries would like to crank up production and increase revenues. But doing so might cause oil prices to fall again as global demand has not reached sufficient levels to justify a free-for-all in oil production.

Low prices do have a long-term strategic advantage as they would exacerbate the widespread bankruptcies and consolidation in the US shale gas industry and potentially reduce investment in high-cost oil production like off-shore and tar-sand extraction. While traditional low-cost producers in the Middle East and North Africa would stand to benefit from increased market-share in the long-term, current budget difficulties and plummeting state revenue could prompt countries to favor a more short-term solution.

Short-term pain

The other option is to continue with cuts, suffer another month of pain with an eye on a recovery in oil prices once demand picks up. This means that 2020 national budgets could suffer less and austerity can be minimized.

In the long-term this would mean that traditional low-cost oil producers in the Middle East would have to continue to compete with more expensive producers that have taken a large chunk of market-share in the last decades.

The short-term pain of continuing production cuts could help raise the price of oil to levels where national budgets produce lower deficits, and unrest associated with austerity can be avoided. Choosing to increase national production could create a few weeks of income at current levels before prices go down once again, with the potential of increased market-share in the long-run.

With no easy options, the coming OPEC meetings and another possible Saudi-Russian agreement will likely have widespread effects on global oil markets for years to come.

UN: Libya Truce Talks Imminent

A surprise statement by the UN late Monday has signaled that Libya’s warring parties have accepted a resumption of talks to establish a ceasefire. Both the Tripoli government (GNA) and the eastern forces led by Khalifa Haftar (LNA) appear to have agreed to the draft agreement that the UN mission in Libya (UNSMIL) proposed on February 23.

Unexpected ceasefire

The talks will revolve around establishing a sustainable ceasefire agreement but also cover “associated security arrangements,” according to the June 1 statement from the UN mission in Libya.

“UNSMIL emphasizes that the resumption of dialogue constitutes a response by the parties to the desire and calls of the overwhelming majority of Libyans who long for a return to a safe and dignified life as quickly as possible” the statement said. But UNSMIL is remaining cautiously hopeful within Libya’s difficult context.

The statement made sure to emphasize that it “hopes that the response of the parties coincides with the cessation of hostilities and a reduction in the use of incitement and hate speech.” The UN also signaled directly to the foreign powers that continue to interfere in Libya’s conflict, saying “UNSMIL also hopes that all parties, Libyan and international alike, heed the desire of the Libyans to end the fighting.”

Truce amid escalation

The statement came as many expected Libya’s conflict to enter a new escalation as increased aerial firepower was being introduced to its theater of war. Turkish drones, Russian jet-fighters, and even US brigades in neighboring Tunisia were bound to change the nature of the already chaotic conflict.

The Libyan conflict has repeatedly seen both sides either call for or reject appeals for ceasefires depending on which side was “winning” at the time.

For Libyans the statement comes as a welcome surprise as the conflict has evolved from a civil war to a proxy war between several foreign powers who introduce new weaponry and mercenaries to the country, prolonging a war over which Libyans have long lost control.

Continuing talks

The current potential truce has been made possible by the UN peace process in Libya. Both parties had agreed on many points in the first two rounds of Joint Military Commission talks in February, and the UN now hopes to build on that in the next round of negotiations.

In order for the talks to produce a comprehensive and sustainable conclusion, the UN has asked both sides to empower their representatives and commit to respecting the earlier agreed-upon conclusions of the Berlin Conference in February and UN resolutions. One of the UN resolutions the local mission is most eager to emphasize is the arms embargo that both sides and their foreign backers have repeatedly breached.

The first rounds of talks were concluded in Geneva, but in the interest of time, the next round will be done via videoconference as air travel continues to be restricted due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The statement concluded with the UN mission in Libya expressing hope for a “professional, serious and responsible spirit” to build on the first two rounds of negotiations and hopefully produce sustainable peace in Libya.