Panic Attacks
Eritrea’s regional security dilemma with Ethiopia, Venezuelans reverse colonial era injustice to reunify Essequibo region, 90% of $68 Billion of US aid goes to US arms industry.
UPDATE: Eritrea’s regional security dilemma with Ethiopia and its troubled ties with Djibouti’s Western partners arguably impede its policymakers’ ability to appreciate the strategic importance of those two’s growing ties with Russia.
A dispute between Guyana and Venezuela over oil-rich Essequibo is threatening regional instability. Venezuelans approved the referendum called by the government of President Nicolás Maduro to reverse colonial era injustice and reclaim sovereignty over an oil- and mineral-rich piece of neighbouring Guyana stripped from the country in 1899 by the UK and US.
Here is the best-kept secret about U.S. military aid to Ukraine: Of the $68 billion in military and related assistance Congress has approved since Russia invaded Ukraine, almost 90 percent is going to US business to build new weapons or to replace weapons sent to Kyiv from U.S., NATO and allied stockpiles.
Djibouti-Eritrea Dispute
By Andrew Korybko
Eritrea’s regional security dilemma with Ethiopia and its troubled ties with Djibouti’s Western partners arguably impede its policymakers’ ability to appreciate the strategic importance of those two’s growing ties with Russia. If they continue to perceive everything through that zero-sum security-centric prism instead of the win-win economically driven one, then they risk missing the opportunity that Russia can provide for alleviating pressure upon their country.
The latest UNSC Resolution prolonging sanctions against Al Shabaab was mildly criticized by France and the US for omitting any reference to the Djiboutian-Eritrean dispute, while Russia praised the resolution precisely because it didn’t include any such references. Those neighboring coastal states have feuded over their border since 2008, during which time they each requested Qatari peacekeepers, though they withdrew in 2017 after those two took Saudi Arabia’s side amidst its dispute with Qatar at the time.
Here’s what the official UN website reported about the French Ambassador’s latest words on this issue:
“Speaking after the adoption, Nicolas de Rivière (France) expressed unequivocal support for the lifting of the arms embargo on Somalia. While he welcomed the just-adopted resolution renewing the sanctions regime and arms embargo against Al-Shabaab, he had abstained because references to the territorial disputes between Djibouti and Eritrea are lacking in the resolution.
References to that dispute in prior Council resolutions on the Al-Shabaab sanctions regime allowed the attention of the Council and the international community to be maintained, he said, adding: ‘We must not give the impression that this Council is less interested or losing interest in the situation, which still constitutes a threat to peace and security.’”
That same source reported that the American Ambassador said the following:
“Robert A. Wood (United States) said the renewal of the arms embargo, travel ban and asset freeze measures will ensure that the Panel’s oversight and reporting will continue to inform the Al-Shabaab Sanctions Committee and the Council.
All Member States must implement existing sanction measures to help curb Al-Shabaab’s ability to access funds, weapons and other support they need to carry out attacks and support Somalia’s security and police institutions.
Voicing disappointment by the omission of ‘Djibouti and Eritrea language’, he said his country remains committed to working constructively with all parties to support the normalization of relations between those two countries.”
By contrast, here’s what Russia’s Deputy Permanent Representative Anna Evstigneeva had to say:
“We welcome that none of the resolutions mentioned dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea.
It is clear that this issue was not and is not relevant to the documents under consideration. Resolution of the outstanding disputes between those countries lies belongs with the area of bilateral diplomacy, which we strongly encourage Asmara and Djibouti to do. The absence of references to the dispute in UNSC resolutions does not mean that we will not be prepared to address the issue should the situation change or new circumstances arise.
Both Djibouti and Eritrea can count on our balanced and impartial approach in this regard.”
As can be seen, France and the US – which each have military bases in Djibouti and count it as one their closest allies in Africa – want to keep that country’s dispute with Eritrea on the UNSC agenda, while Russia believes that it’s bilateral and should only be internationalized if both request mediation. Quite clearly, the first two are interested in politicizing this issue whereas Russia is interested in politically resolving it, thus making them representatives of totally different approaches towards this issue.
It’s no secret that Eritrea has troubled ties with the West, but what few outside the region have realized is that Russia’s ties with traditionally Western-aligned Djibouti have greatly improved over the past year. Here are four relevant news articles from Russian media documenting their achievements since the start of the year, which will show readers that Russia is impressively well positioned to play its envisaged role as a balanced and impartial mediator if requested by both to do so.
As for Russian-Eritrean ties, they’ve only begun to blossom since the start of the year, but each has done their utmost to make up for lost time. In particular, Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki paid his first-ever trip to Moscow in May to meet with President Putin and then participated in the Second Russia-Africa Summit in St. Petersburg in July. The following analyses documented the comprehensive expansion of their relations since Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s trip to Asmara in January.
For as promising as these two sets of ties are, “Russia’s Balancing Act In The Horn Of Africa Is Challenged By The Region’s Security Dilemma”, particularly the Eritrean-Ethiopian one that returned after November 2022’s peace deal with the TPLF as explained here. Unlike Djibouti, which is a comparatively open country that multi–aligns between Great Powers in pursuit of win-win deals, Eritrea is a comparatively closed one that has much less foreign policy flexibility and sees the world in zero-sum security terms.
Accordingly, Eritrea might misinterpret any potential Russian-led series of Ethiopian-Djiboutian deals for aiding Addis’ peaceful port plans as being at its expense, so too might it misinterpret the same regarding Russia’s Eritrean-Djiboutian mediation remark. Eritrea trusts Russia, but it doesn’t trust Ethiopia and Djibouti, the first due to the regional security dilemma between coastal-hinterland states while the second is due to its troubled ties with the West.
With all due respect to Eritrea’s sovereign rights to perceive International Relations however it wants and then formulate policy accordingly, that country also shouldn’t overlook the strategic importance of its neighbors’ growing ties with Russia. Ethiopia’s refusal to capitulate to Western pressure to condemn and sanction Russia contributed to Chairman John James’ scathing opening statement at last week’s House Committee on Foreign Affairs open hearing on “Ethiopia: Promise or Perils, the State of U.S. Policy”.
Likewise, while Djibouti hasn’t come under anywhere near as much pressure from the West for its own such refusal that eventually resulted in Russia agreeing to supply it with free wheat, that country’s growing ties with Russia reduce its hitherto disproportionate strategic dependence on the West. Taken together, those two’s relations with Russia promote multipolarity in the Horn of Africa (HoA), which is the same world system that President Afwerki told Sputnik Africa that his country officially supports.
Nevertheless, Eritrea’s regional security dilemma with Ethiopia and its troubled ties with Djibouti’s Western partners – particularly the US – arguably impede its policymakers’ ability to appreciate the strategic importance of those two’s growing ties with Russia. If they continue to perceive everything through that zero-sum security-centric prism instead of the win-win economically driven one, then they risk missing the opportunity that Russia can provide for alleviating pressure upon their country.
To explain, the coastal-hinterland dimension of the regional security dilemma was inadvertently worsened by Ethiopia recently prioritizing its peaceful pursuit of a port, so it would serve Eritrea’s interests if Russia potentially mediated a series of Ethiopian-Djibouti deals for aiding Addis’ port plans. As for Eritrea’s troubled ties with Djibouti’s Western partners, the US and France just revealed that they want to keep those two’s dispute on the UNSC’s agenda, so it would help if Russia mediated a resolution.
In times past, Djibouti might have been disinterested in the scenario of Russia mediating anything between it and those two, but the past year proved that their ties have greatly improved to the point where it’s nowadays politically possible for this to happen. It would therefore be in Eritrea’s objective national interests for its policymakers to no longer fear either of these possibilities, but instead support them so as to promote multipolarity in the HoA exactly as its leader said that he wants to have happen.
Read more here.
Venezuelans claim sovereignty over Guyana Essequibo
A dispute between Guyana and Venezuela over an oil-rich region is threatening regional instability and has been worsened by a referendum in Venezuela. Venezuelans approved the referendum called by the government of President Nicolás Maduro to claim sovereignty over an oil- and mineral-rich piece of neighbouring Guyana, the country’s electoral authority announced.
The National Electoral Council claimed more than 10.5 million ballots were cast in the country of 20 million eligible voters. Voters were asked whether they support establishing a state in the disputed territory, known as Essequibo, granting citizenship to current and future residents and rejecting the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ top court in settling the disagreement between the South American countries.
Venezuela has long argued the territory, which comprises two-thirds of Guyana, was stolen when the border was drawn more than a century ago. But Guyana considers the referendum a step toward annexation, and the vote has its residents on edge.
“It has been a total success for our country, for our democracy,” Maduro told supporters gathered in Caracas, the capital, after the results were announced, before highlighting the “very important level of participation of the people” in the referendum.Venezuelans who turned out to vote in a referendum on the status of a long-running border dispute with Guyana have overwhelmingly backed Venezuela’s territorial claim.
The dispute in fact goes back to the 19th century, when the border between the then British colony of Guyana, and newly independent Venezuela, was established. Guyana is the only South American nation in which English is the official language and is part of the Anglophone Caribbean maintaining strong cultural, historical, and political ties with its former colonial master Britain.
In 2017, 41% of the population of Guyana lived below the poverty line.
The oil-rich region is called Essequibo, covering 159,500 square kilometres of land, which is currently under the control of Guyana.
It came under their sphere of influence in 1899 via the ruling of an international panel giving it to Britain, which at the time was the controlling colonial power.
Venezuela argues this was an arbitrary imperialist decision, and the issue is now before the International Court of Justice, which Venezuela does not recognize on this matter.
Venezuela has now held its own referendum. The most biting and controversial question is whether a new Venezuelan state should be created.
According to Venezuelan authorities, 95.5 percent voted “Yes”.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced that this is a clear and decisive victory and that the territory in question must now be reclaimed and incorporated. This has been denounced by Guyana’s President, Ifaan Ali, who says it is precipitating the possibility of conflict on an issue of sovereignty.
The spat surfaced after huge oil deposits were discovered by geologists from the US controlled Exxon Mobil oil behemoth. Tensions worsened after Guyana held auctions last September for exploration licences. Guyanans protested on Sunday, forming a human chain to interlock their national rights. Guyana’s government says they will defend their territory and borders.
The International Court of Justice is warning Venezuela against taking any further action at this time. Their final decision is yet to be announced.
Although the practical and legal implications of the referendum remain unclear, in comments explaining Friday’s verdict, ICJ president Joan E Donoghue said statements from Venezuela’s government suggested it “is taking steps with a view toward acquiring control over and administering the territory in dispute”.
“Furthermore, Venezuelan military officials announced that Venezuela is taking concrete measures to build an airstrip to serve as a ‘logistical support point for the integral development of the Essequibo,’” she said.
The 61,600-square-mile (159,500 sq km) territory borders Brazil, whose defence ministry said earlier this week it has “intensified its defence actions” and boosted its military presence in the region as a result of the dispute.
Essequibo is larger than Greece and rich in minerals. It also gives access to an area of the Atlantic where US controlled energy giant ExxonMobil discovered oil in commercial quantities in 2015, drawing the attention of Maduro’s government.
Venezuela’s government promoted the referendum for weeks, framing participation as an act of patriotism and often conflating it with a show of support for Maduro.
Venezuela has always considered Essequibo as its own because the region was within its boundaries during the Spanish colonial period, and it has long disputed the border decided by international arbitrators in 1899 when Guyana was still a British colony.
That boundary was decided by arbitrators from Britain, Russia and the United States. The US represented Venezuela on the panel in part because the Venezuelan government had broken off diplomatic relations with Britain.
Venezuelan officials contend that Americans and Europeans conspired to cheat their country out of the land and argue that a 1966 agreement to resolve the dispute effectively nullified the original arbitration.
Guyana, the only English-speaking country in South America, maintains the initial accord is legal and binding and asked the International Court of Justice in 2018 to rule it as such, but a decision is years away.
Voters on Sunday had to answer whether they “agree to reject by all means, in accordance with the law”, the 1899 boundary and whether they support the 1966 agreement “as the only valid legal instrument” to reach a solution.
“I came to vote because Essequibo is ours, and I hope that whatever they are going to do, they think about it thoroughly and remember to never put peace at risk,” merchant Juan Carlos Rodríguez, 37, said after voting at a center in Caracas where only a handful of people were in line.
Compiled from reports: Vatican News, CGTN, Guardian, El Pais,
Ukraine aid money funds U.S. military
Marc A. Thiessen
Here is the best-kept secret about U.S. military aid to Ukraine: Most of the money is being spent here in the United States. That’s right: Funds that lawmakers approve to arm Ukraine are not going directly to Ukraine but are being used stateside to build new weapons or to replace weapons sent to Kyiv from U.S. stockpiles. Of the $68 billion in military and related assistance Congress has approved since Russia invaded Ukraine, almost 90 percent is going to Americans.
At a time when both major parties are competing to win working-class votes and strengthen the U.S. manufacturing base, our military aid to Ukraine does exactly that — it is providing a major cash infusion into factories across the country that directly benefits American workers. It is also creating jobs and opportunities for local suppliers, shops, restaurants and other businesses that support the factories rolling out weapons.
We have identified 117 production lines in at least 31 states and 71 cities where American workers are producing major weapons systems for Ukraine. Many other weapons systems are being built for Ukraine in factories around our country. Nor does this list count the suppliers that provide these contractors with parts, such as plastic and computer chips, or produce smaller items for Ukraine, such as cold-weather and night-vision gear, medical supplies, spare parts and millions of rounds of small-arms ammunition. As one Ukrainian official told me, “Every single state in the U.S. contributes to this effort.”
In other words, as happens with foreign military aid, our aid to Ukraine is not only creating American jobs but also reinvigorating our dangerously atrophied defense industrial base. Vance said in October that “the condition of the American defense industrial base is a national scandal. Repairing it is among our most urgent priorities.” Well, our aid to Ukraine is doing exactly that.
Most senators would take credit for these successes. Not Hawley, who is trying to cut funding for these systems being built in his state. The same goes for Rep. Jason T. Smith, who represents Missouri’s 8th Congressional District, where the Patriot radars are built, yet has voted against such aid multiple times. Missouri’s other Republican U.S. senator, Eric Schmitt, has not yet voted on Ukraine aid but has said, “I don’t support these forever wars.” Perhaps he will support defense investments that benefit Missouri workers and strengthen our military production capacity to defend against Communist China?
Among the most shocking examples of our defense industrial base’s decline is our struggle to produce a relatively simple munition: 155mm artillery shells. So the Pentagon has allocated $1.5 billion to boost production by 500 percent and is on pace to reach 100,000 per month. Even then, the U.S. output in 2025 is likely to not match that of Russia in 2024. Our aid to Ukraine is not only forcing the Pentagon to rapidly increase the United States’ ability to produce weapons; it’s also modernizing the U.S. military.
The U.S.-led effort to arm Ukraine reinvigorates our defense production capacity in still other ways. The United States is also creating incentives for NATO allies to donate their old U.S.-produced and Soviet-era weapons systems to Ukraine by authorising the sale of newer, modern U.S.-made systems to replace them.
Efforts to arm and equip Ukraine have also dramatically boosted sales of U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets. Analysis found at least 13 production lines in 10 states and 11 U.S. cities producing new American-made weapons for NATO allies to replace the equipment they have sent to Ukraine.
“Much of the money directly supporting Ukraine is spent not abroad, but here in the United States.” This makes it “a misnomer” to call the $68 billion he calculates we have spent to arm Ukraine “aid.” (Mark Cancian, CSIS)
“the United States cannot get involved in every conflict around the world […] We borrow $1 trillion every six months, and our growing national debt is our most dire national security threat […] I don’t vote for or against wars based on which congressional districts get the jobs”.
As I have pointed out, it is in the United States’ vital interests to arm Ukraine in its fight to defeat Russian aggression. Our support for Ukraine is decimating the Russian military threat to NATO, restoring deterrence with China, dissuading other nuclear powers from launching wars of aggression and improving American military preparedness for other adversaries. The “America First” case for helping Ukraine is clear.
But if those arguments are not persuasive, then this should be: Our military aid to Ukraine is revitalizing manufacturing communities across the United States, creating good jobs here at home and restoring the United States’ capacity to produce weapons for our national defense. Helping Ukraine is the right thing to do for U.S. national security. It is also the right thing to do for American workers.
Read more here.