Democrat President Joe Biden’s decision to end support of the six-year-long Yemen war, and reassess American arms sales that began under his tenure as Vice President is surprisingly not what is making the headlines around the world this week. Jamal Khashoggi is a name that is familiar not just in journalistic circles but elsewhere too. Khashoggi was a Washington Post Saudi journalist who was killed in 2018 in Turkey. Following Khashoggi’s gruesome murder at the Saudi Embassy, fingers were instantly pointed at Saudi Arabia, and rather spectacularly on Mohammed Bin Salman, a.k.a, MBS. The Trump administration refused to publish a report linking MBS to the murder, despite the American legislature passing an act calling on intelligence services to provide evidence tying MBS to Khashoggi’s killing. However, matters are a bit different under the Democrat White House. Biden, who made it abundantly clear that his administration is not going to base their Middle East Policy on Saudi Arabia, unlike his predecessors, has finally called for the publication of the long blocked report in the public domain. What remains to be seen is how this is going to alter the relationship between the Americans and their strategically important partner in the Middle East.

Jamal Khashoggi had enjoyed a long and distinguished career in the Saudi Kingdom. He was known to have enjoyed close relations with the Royal family and often acted as an official spokesperson for them. . Khashoggi’s relationship with the ruling family and Saudi Arabia was redefined when King Salman’s son Mohammad Bin Salman started accumulating power and was soon made the Crown-Prince, set to inherit his father’s position. It is during this time Khashoggi distanced himself from the helm of power and became a critic of MBS and his policies often calling out the government and central political figures for imposing severe and autocratic policies. Despite his staunch stance, which fell well within the journalistic standards, no one foresaw what would befall Jamal Khashoggi. Khashoggi, having had come to terms with the threat looming over him, had relocated to the United States, in the form of a self-exile and had been a regular contributor to the Washington Post. Khashoggi in the summer of 2018 had travelled to Turkey in search of marital bliss. Tragically, before he could tie the knot, Jamal Khashoggi was reported missing from the Saudi embassy in Turkey and later pronounced dead.

Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia were extremely warm under the Trump administration. However, the defining feature in this relationship wasn’t the two heads of state, rather the shots were called by Mohammad Bin Salman, and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The two young and like-minded individuals forged a close relationship in the second part of the decade, mainly due to their shared business mindset. In fact, Trump on Kushner’s urgings decided to make his first official overseas visit to Saudi Arabia. From the very onset of his Presidency, Trump cultivated a very close relationship with the Saudi Kingdom making it the fulcrum of his Middle-East policy, and viewing the country as an important ally against America’s long Middle East rival, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The relationship was further strengthened through the Trump Administration’s decision to increase arms sales to Saudi Arabia, whilst backing its campaign in the Yemen war.

Despite Trump and Kushner obviously viewing their Saudi counterparts as their bosom companions, it was still an utter shock to see Trump adopt an ambiguous stance towards the killing of Washington Post Journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Trumps’ decision to blatantly believe what the Crown-Prince had to say, shook the Congress and American Intelligence Services, as the CIA itself concluded with medium-high certainty that Mohammad Bin Salman was aware of and directly involved in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.

In 2018, the United States Senate, unanimously passed Resolution 69, which recognised that the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has, in recent years engaged in concerning behaviour, which includes its conduct in the civil war in Yemen, the apparent detention of the Prime Minister of Lebanon, suppression of dissent in the Kingdom and of course the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. The resolution explicitly recognises the misleading statements issued by the Saudi government, and that the fact the recent actions have undermined trust and confidence in the long-standing friendship between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The following resolution having been passed unanimously proved that the United States Senate was ready to take up its role in shaping foreign policy which it had long abdicated in favour of the executive. Despite the directness and consensual adoption of the resolution, it fell short of having any effect on American foreign policy. Owing simply to the fact that the Trump Administration actively suppressed its publication and wrote a blank cheque to the Saudi Government.

The United States turned a new page under the Biden Administration, as it seeks to calibrate American ties with the Gulf country. From the inception of Biden’s bid for the Presidency, he has portrayed a hard stance against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. During his campaign trails, he has gone to the extent of calling the country a ‘pariah’ state. In the short time that he has been in office, he has already reduced arms sales to the country, and the report presented to the Congress a few days ago by the Biden-Harris Administration was the proverbial last nail in the coffin. However, it is still early to determine the exact ramifications the report will have on the American-Saudi relationship and more importantly on the Kingdom’s de facto ruler MBS himself. The Biden administration may seem to be on a war footing undeterred by policies followed by their predecessors, but they have been extremely strategic. Apart from the incessant repetition by the White House Press Office, that decision would be taken keeping in mind that current relationship the two states share, Joe Biden prior to releasing the report also spoke to King Salman, the current head of state. Another anomaly that we see, is a dearth of White House officials rushing to the press to give insights into what the publication of the report means for the Saudis.

In the past few years, it has been evident to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the intelligence services that Mohammed Bin Salman, wasn’t the top choice to be the leader of America’s closest ally in the Middle East. However, America’s top choice, Muhammad bin Nayef Al Saud, who served as the interior minister and was responsible for successfully countering the Al-Qaeda in the Kingdom, now lives in Canada in exile. The release of the report has just provided ammunition to the gun lying uncocked with the US Congress. Since the report by the Biden-Harris administration, we have already seen the imposition of the ‘Khashoggi Ban’, which is a new VISA policy, that sets new restrictions pursuant to section 21(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The largely unanswered question that remains is how the American officials aim to publicly cooperate with a man who they have held responsible for an act of such nature. A possible divorce driven by public sentiment, or even a temporary souring of relations between the two countries could be a blessing in disguise for the IS and Al-Qaeda. However, another international actor set to benefit is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ramifications of Joe Biden’s decision to halt arms sales to the Saudis were evident when Iran-backed Houthis rebels were quick to capitalise on this and decided to advance on several fronts. However, in the near future, we need to consider the possibility that America’s decision to distance itself from Riyadh, could very well open doors for China, Russia and may even push the Saudi officials to develop closer ties with the Israelis.

The release of the report, along with growing opposition to the Yemen war and President Biden’s insistence on speaking with King Salman, instead of his son MBS, has heralded a new era in US-Saudi relations. An era that is marked with a host of strategic calculations on the part of the United States, that are aimed at keeping Saudi Arabia at an arm’s length, while being able to exploit its strong position in the Middle East. Like many other acts of geopolitical significance that are often ignored in the hope of a natural solution, I fear this is not applicable in this case. Khashoggi’s death has stirred up feelings against the Saudi Kingdom and the leadership which could very well be directed towards America if they fail to act decisively in the near future.

The post JAMAL KHASHOGGI MURDER: SAUDI-US RELATION RECALIBRATION appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Middle Eastern Cinema Explained

Middle Eastern Cinema is an amalgam of multiple film industries of Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Palestine, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. It can’t be studied as a single entity because each nation has its own film industry with a distinct history and cultural influences. But here also, space is dominated by Egyptian cinema as it has the largest commercial film market in the middle east. In recent years, the Middle East has given some of the finest films to the world. The emergence of the Middle Eastern Film Industry has not only put it on the global lens but has also contributed towards debunking the religious and cultural stereotypes surrounding the Middle East. They have used their films to reclaim their voice and to tell their story from their own perspective. Middle eastern cinema touches upon the issues of gender, identity, the physical and psychological consequences of the wars and conflicts.

Problems Faced by Middle Eastern Film Industry

There is no doubt that  Middle Eastern Cinema has come a long way and is producing some of the finest works. But the road is not easy. The film industry faces a lot of problems because of the political and cultural institutions in the country. The governments in the majority of Arab nations do not consider the film industry as an important sector. Filmmakers with immense talent, often have to struggle because of a lack of opportunities and funds. According to Farida Marei, “The government usually does not give any help or gives a little in rare cases. Cinema is not one of the priorities on their agenda as they look at cinema as pure entertainment and therefore it comes at the bottom of their list”. Lack of government support is one of the main reasons why so many brilliant film ideas don’t materialize as the filmmakers don’t have the necessary means.

Censorship and demonisation of films and the film industry is another major issue that plagues the Middle Eastern film industry. Middle Eastern countries have stringent censorship laws. Countries like Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, censor their media and films heavily. In fact, Turkmenistan runs the third most stringent censorship program in the world and all foreign publications and non-government libraries are banned. These censorship policies apply to the film industry as well. A lot of films fail to get the approval of the government and hence never reach the audiences. According to middle eastern censorship laws, any material dealing with government policies, religion or any kind of sexual activity is prohibited. Farida Marei gives a few examples of the implications of stringent censorship laws- “There are many examples in this direction – the films Five Doors (Khamsah Bab), and The Road of Love (Darb al-Hawa) were both denied approval until the writer removed some intimate scenes. Even after removing them and after the films were ready for screening, they were both banned because there was still too much intimacy (in their opinion)”.

One of the main reasons why these strong censorship laws aren’t going to be relaxed anytime soon is because of the huge support from the masses. In middle eastern countries, religion is very strong and influences the masses. Religion and cultural beliefs could be the major factors why the films are demonised in the middle east by the government and the majority of the population, alike. Northwestern University in Qatar, in partnership with Doha Film Institute, conducted a survey ‘Entertainment Media Use In The Middle East: A Six nation Survey’. The results of this survey are a clear indicator that the people of the middle eastern nations heavily support the censorship laws and the restrictions on the media and entertainment industry. According to the survey-

“The large majority of the people surveyed believe entertainment should be more tightly regulated when it comes to violent and romantic content, and that some scenes should be deleted or whole programs banned if some people find them offensive (about seven in ten agree with each of these statements). Conversely, less than a third expresses the opposing opinion that films and television shows should be shown in their entirety even if some people find the content inappropriate (29%).”

The survey also uncovers the extent to which cultural beliefs influence the censorship laws as- “About eight in ten of those with strong feelings about cultural traditions support the regulation of violent and romantic content and also support banning or deleting offensive content, compared with two-thirds of those who are less concerned with preserving their cultural traditions”.

Conclusion

Even though the situation seems pretty bleak, there is still a ray of hope. Despite the stringent censorship laws and various other restrictions, The Middle Eastern film industry continues to produce some of the most profound and moving films. Even though the filmmakers have to face a lot of problems in order to produce good quality cinema and to ensure that it reaches a wide range of audience, they haven’t given up. A lot of filmmakers have repeatedly challenged the strict laws of the government in court. And a lot of times the results have favoured them. This is a great sign that middle eastern cinema is flourishing and will soon overcome the dilemma of censorship and demonisation to realise its full potential.

Featured Image: Still from Ghadi by Amin Dora

The post THE DILEMMA OF MIDDLE EASTERN CINEMA appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The Iranian regime has considered the United States to be a staunch adversary since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The killing of Fakhrizadeh was the last nail in the coffin. The Iranian leadership faces a perilous conundrum in a precarious environment.

With the recent election of Joe Biden as the forty-sixth president of the United States and Hassan Rouhani’s term drawing to an end in 2021, we must shed light on what the future holds for the adversaries. Recent months have recorded a tremendous increase in hostilities between the two countries. Within this highly complex geopolitical web, Iran though cornered has not lost all hope. There are two significant advantages that the regime enjoys in the region. There exists a general understanding in the Gulf that U.S allies, which includes Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, do not have the capacity to engage with Iran in a full out conflagration. The second advantage that Iran enjoys is its regional proxy networks.

The Iranian regime has aimed at executing a one state, two systems formula for conflict-ridden states. Through this strategy, Tehran does not wish to rebuild institutions in accordance with international convention, instead chooses an approach centred around a host of armed non-state actors, that help the regime establish networks and institutions that parallel national institutions. The presence of weak national institutions provides the regime with the opportunity to subjugate governing structures and political systems. With the election of Joe Biden to the Presidency of the United States, there is renewed optimism that real diplomacy and engagement will dictate relations between the US and Iran, as compared to wishful demands for Iran’s total capitulation.

The last four years under the Trump Administration has marked the most contentious period in US-Iran history since the 1980s. The fragile state of relations between the US and Iran is clear by the fact that the two countries have been on the brink of war twice. The first being in the aftermath of Iran shooting down a US drone in 2019 and the second being the start of 2020 when the US orchestrated the assassination of the Quads Force commander Qasem Soleimani. The situation under the Biden administration might be expected to take a veritable turn, as there could be a substantial reduction in tensions by easing sanctions on the Iranian economy, and a return to an approach involving multilateral diplomacy that initially led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015. But the question still remains, if the Biden White House can draw its European Allies-Britain, France, and Germany to rebuild a coalition, of a similar nature as seen during the Obama era.

However, there exist several hurdles in this entire process of renewed diplomacy that the Biden administration may or may not adopt towards the Iranian Regime. The first such obstacle that the United States faces is the lack of time. Iran is due to have its presidential elections in 2021, which would in all probability see Housan Rouhani step down. The Presidential election may act as a thorn for the United States government as there has been a substantial weakening of the pragmatic forces within the Iranian polity. According to Iranian-American scholar Mohamad Tabbar, Iranian politics has undergone a tectonic shift, which has resulted in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps assuming the leadership of this change. The Iranian military is also preparing for the upcoming presidential elections and a veteran of the IRGC is likely to take over the executive branch. These perceived changes within the Iranian political structure gives the Biden White House, approximately six months to deal with and straighten out US’s relations with Iran. The Biden Administration is predicted to be faced with surmounting pressure from its allies in the Middle-Eastern Region, this opposition to US engagement with Iran is a result of the growing concern that this would lead to a broader rapprochement between Iran and the US, which could diminish the importance of American allies to Washington D.C.

Another significant challenge faced by the Biden administration will be shoring up support for the JCPOA within the country itself. The JCPOA has always faced tough criticism in Congress, members of the two houses never warmed up to the idea of an agreement with the Iranian regime. The biggest point of contention for parties and other actors in American politics has been varying expectations. Many believe that Iran should not be permitted to have a nuclear civil program, while many are of the opinion that the country needs to change its behaviour in the regime before a revised deal can be entered. Some believed that the provisions of the original JCPOA focused solely on the short term, and felt that it was necessary to tie down Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the long run. Getting Congressional support for a revised JCPOA is not going to be a cakewalk. More importantly, entering into a revised agreement with Iran, Biden will have to ensure that both Iran and the United States will be able to uphold the provisions without any margin of error.

Lastly, American relations with Iran rely a great deal on the other parties that were originally a part of the JCPOA. This includes the “P=5+1”, that is Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany. Since the P-5 and Germany are all signatories to the JCPOA, the deal belongs to all of them. This essentially means that it is vital the United States can get each and every member on board with the revised provisions of a new agreement with Iran. However, this process of gaining support from European partners might be significantly more strenuous as compared to the last time, the countries agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This is mainly a result of a series of changes on the geopolitical stage. The U.K has now left the European Union, with the achievement of a trade deal. The Russians on the other hand have gotten more assertive. Whereas China seems to be at loggerheads with the Americans over its increasing presence in the Indo-Pacific.

Having assessed the current situation, it is evident that Iranians are relieved to have survived the last four years under Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign”, and there exists a glimmer of hope that Biden’s election represents the opening of a new chapter. This, however, does not mean that Iran will be ready to compromise on America’s insistence. The regime will expect a revived JCPOA that recognizes the economic damage that has been caused over the past four years. There seems to be appearing a rift between the Iranian moderates and the hardliners. Amidst this confusion, it would be interesting to see how an agreement, if there is one, influences the Iranian Presidential elections. Moreover, in the event of a failure to achieve an agreement before the 2021 election, it would be difficult to ascertain the effect this might have on the two countries, and how the Biden White House would handle the Iranian Regime and what would be future of US-Iran relations.

The post US-IRAN: INCEPTION OF CORDIAL RELATIONS? appeared first on WISER WORLD.

There is no denying the fact that the United Kingdom had a significant impact on the European Union’s Foreign Policy. Brexit, in terms of the Middle East, the UK has shared the same concerns as the leadership in Brussels. This has included securing the flow of oil, ensuring non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and combating radical groups. However, cooperation with continental Europe has not always been the UK’s top priority when it came to Foreign Policy. As seen most notably in 2003 when the British government, under Labour Prime Minister joined the US-led coalition in invading Iraq, abasing strong criticism from Germany and France. To analyze Great Britain’s withdrawal from the confederacy, we look at three specific effects.

EU’s Loss of Power — Brexit & Middle East

We have already established the centrality of the British in the European Union’s economic development, foreign policies, and trade activities. Given the UK’s heightened power with the confederation, Brexit has not only left a gaping wound within the EU but has also shown the fragility of the union. Cracks within the European Union are so evident that political experts and heads of state, have entertained the possibility that the confederation may eventually break down completely. Since the Brexit referendum, there have been various right-wing discussions across European countries. The most glaring example of this is Poland. There has been a set of disagreements between the Polish government and the European Commission over contentious judiciary reforms.

The seriousness of the disagreements between the two entities is reflected through the words of the European Council President Donald Tusk who said, “The Matter is dramatically serious. The risk is deadly serious. Polexit is possible.” A similar situation of contention has developed between Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Hungarian right-wing government, which has been at odds with the EU, ever since the union voted overwhelmingly to label Orban’s government as a “systemic threat to the rule of law”. Given the current state of the Union, a weaker and inward-looking Europe is predicted to be less involved in the Middle East. The nature of Europe’s dealings with actors in the Middle East will significantly be altered as it strikes to bargain with authoritarian figures in maintaining border security and stability while paying lip service to its values and ideals. In terms of seeing the actual effects of Europe’s or the UK’s dealings with the states of the Middle East, post-Brexit, it will be interesting to see if the EU still enjoys its power to promote its values of the rule of law and democracy, given the significant erosion in soft power after the Brexit.

UK’s Interventionist Policy

The second aspect that we focus on is the prediction that the United Kingdom may adopt an interventionist policy following Brexit — Even though, in regards to the Middle East, historically the UK has followed an independent foreign policy. Breaking away from the European Union, grants the country freedom from its regional commitments to mainland Europe and could lead to a more pragmatic and self-interested approach to its dealing with Middle Eastern states.

With the UK adopting a more selective role in the region, it is expected that the country will pursue short term goals over long term goals. This might include its interests in fighting terrorism and promoting UK business, rather than focusing on establishing a peace process in states like Syria. This however does not mean that the British will overlook the peace process completely. Being an important stakeholder in the Middle East Peace Process is vital for the country to maintain its relevance and influence in the region. If anything, a post-Brexit future may be the most ideal time for Britain to assert itself in the Middle East region, especially as the EU could be further weakened by Britain’s future departure and its internal problems. In terms of the business expansion in the Middle East, the Global Risk insight has predicted that the country will extensively focus on the Gulf region, along with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Regional and International Actors

Given the probability of the EU adopting a more inward-looking policy and the UK following a more self-interested pattern in its interactions with Middle Eastern Actors, there is a possibility that this could result in a greater role for global powers such as China, to develop strategic partnerships and political alliances with the countries in the region. There could also be an increased role of regional actors in combating security dilemmas and economic issues through the involvement of the Gulf Cooperation Council. In terms of the Council, the GRI has predicted that blocks such as the GCC will step-in to essentially develop security and economic frameworks to address regional issues. However, this seems a bit too idealistic given the current political issues the Middle East is plagued with, and the splintering of various member states into their network groups, such as the Saudi-Emirati Coordination Council.

Conclusion

From our discussion on the effects of Brexit, it is clear that the process has not only redefined relations between the Middle East, the United Kingdom and the European Union and reshuffled the intentional economy, but also has the potential of significantly altering Europe’s and the UK’s relations individually with other international actors. There exists tremendous insecurity and anxiety in markets around the world, as experts stand by to see the effects of these changes. A great amount of diffidence can be felt in the case of both the EU and the UK, as both remain unsure of how Joe Biden, the President-elect of the United States of America might react to the current situation. Had the Brexit deal gone through under Trump we could have expected him to adopt a more pro-British stance, but with Biden, the ball can be in anyone’s court. Only time will truly tell.

Featured Image: AFP/Getty Images

The post 3 MAJOR EFFECTS OF BREXIT ON THE MIDDLE EAST appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The Company’s shares began trading on the Tadawul stock exchange on 11 December 2019. The shares rose to 35.2 riyals, giving it a $1.88 trillion market capitalization, and reached the $2 trillion mark on the second day of trading.

Global Positioning

Being a major supplier of oil globally, the company holds a special value in the global supply market. Hence, disruptions in the production process or any other hindrance impacts the global economy as a whole. Saudi Aramco has been attacked twice in the last decade. The 2012 cyber-attack involved several computer systems of the company being hacked. Yet again in 2019, another event took place.

Saudi pipelines, oil installations, and tankers had occasionally been attacked over the past two years, but analysts say what happened in eastern Saudi Arabia in the early hours of Saturday morning is a much larger escalation: a hit to the jugular of the kingdom’s oil industry. At 3.31 am and 3.42 am on Saturday, loud explosions erupted at Khurais oilfield and Abqaiq processing facility, both owned by Saudi Aramco, the country’s state-owned oil company, often described as the kingdom’s crown jewel. The explosions set off fires that took several hours to douse and appear to have caused significant damage. Saudi oil ministry sources said the production had been disrupted by about 5m barrels a day – nearly half the kingdom’s estimated output of 9.7m barrels and 5% of global production.

Economic Implication

Saudi Aramco lost on its a huge portion of crude oil supplies due to the attacks. Eventually, the supply side of the oil market’s demand-supply mechanism changed. With limited oil refining and other activities, the supply decreased keeping the demand the same or slightly increased. These actions led to a new equilibrium where the prices of oil surged with a rise in the stock prices. Eventually, the stocks became overvalued shaking the financial markets with the soaring high prices of oil. The price of a Brent oil rose to almost $72 (£58, up from $60 an oil) by 20 percent early on Monday. That’s a massive jump — the biggest step since the 1980s contract was established.

It then fell down to around $66 a barrel after Donald Trump vowed to unleash some of America’s oil reserves, to make up for Saudi Arabia’s deficit. That’s a two-month record, 10 percent more than Friday night.  Higher oil prices have the potential to pull global growth. It pushes up transportation costs and petroleum-based goods prices. That fuels inflation, leaving less disposable income for consumers.

With appropriate measures and repairs, the oil supply was brought back to normal.

Impact of COVID & Price War with Russia on Oil Prices

With the advent of COVID-19, Saudi Aramco has faced another challenge with profits plunging more than 50% than expected in the first and second quarters. To understand the impact, we again need to consider the demand and supply mechanism. The major demand for oil is from the transportation sectors, business closures, domestic and international travel that kept on declining due to lockdown. This immensely declined the demand, shifting it inwards. A sharp decline in domestic consumption and a possible decline in new investments, declines in tourism and business travel, the spillover of weaker demand to other sectors and economies through trade and production linkages, supply-side disruptions to production and trade, and shifts in healthcare expenditure are just some of the channels through which the pandemic affects the demand side in the market.

Responding to this, Saudi Arabia decided to reduce the supply of oil so as to keep the prices at a moderate level. The proposal was although refused by the Russian’s and what followed was a price war. Saudi Arabia entered a price war with Russia on 8 March 2020, encouraging a 65 percent quarterly decline in oil prices. In the first few weeks of March, US oil prices plummeted by 34 percent, crude oil dropped by 26 percent, and Brent oil dropped by 24 percent. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the price war was caused by a break-up in the dialogue between the (OPEC) and Russia over potential cutbacks in oil supply. Russia walked out of the agreement and the OPEC alliance collapsed. Oil prices had already declined by 30% due to the reduced demand, but with the price war, the result came out to be a global stock market crash.

Saudi Arabia and Russia agreed to slash oil supply in early April 2020, and again in June 2020. On April 20, the price became negative. It should be noted that oil production can be slowed down but not totally halted, and even the lowest possible level of production resulted in higher supply than demand; those holding oil futures became willing to pay to offload contracts for oil they expected to be unable to store.

Current Scenario and Investment Prospects

Lockdowns were lifted in some of the countries including Saudi Arabia in June along with a set of instructions to be considered and followed. Thus Saudi Aramco has seen considerable growth after the oil price crash and managed to earn considerable profits but less than expected. As a result, Saudi Aramco has been reviewing its plans to expand at home and abroad in the face of sharply low oil prices and a heavy dividend burden.

One of the projects that are likely to face the axe or the pause button from the oil major may be its proposed investment in a $44 billion mega refinery project at Ratnagiri in Maharashtra. It is a 50:50 partnership between state-run Indian oil companies and Aramco. It would either exit the investment or would review it again once the market improves, putting it at a halt for the time being. However, Sources said Aramco has already made its stance known on refinery investments in China and a Texas, USA factory. It is also slowing on its planned investments in Pakistan. In India too, the privatization proposal for state-owned refiner BPCL has been delayed by three times so far, in the absence of any firm investment pledge from Saudi Aramco and other investors.

However, it is still working on the $15 billion stakes in Reliance Industries Ltd.’s refining and chemicals business, although lower oil prices are forcing it to slash investment spending. A deal with Reliance would help Aramco join the ranks of top oil refiners and chemical manufacturers. Aramco is already a major crude supplier to India while Reliance sells petroleum products to the kingdom, including gasoline.  The Reliance transaction will help Aramco achieve its target of more than doubling its refining capacity to between 8 million and 10 million barrels per day; At the end of last year, the Saudi corporation had a refining capacity of 3.6 million barrels per day, including wholly-owned plants and joint venture holdings. The gross capacity of the facilities with stakes in Aramco was 6.4 million barrels per day.

State oil company Saudi Aramco has discovered two new oil and gas fields in the northern regions, the kingdom’s energy minister said on Sunday, state news agency SPA reported. The fields haven’t been pinpointed as of now but are already producing oil, condensates, and gas. The two new fields have the potential to contribute to its non-hydrocarbon oil. The Kingdom has been striving for the same as an important aspect of its diversification efforts. A lot of the oil provided by Aramco is used locally for power production, and the business — and the government — are trying to minimize this by replacing gas oil. Moreover, this would also ensure that oil is freed up for exports, leading to an even better dominance over other nations as well.

Conclusion

The Saudi Arabian Oil Company plays an integral part in the world economy as a major supplier and producer of petroleum and its products, natural gas, and crude oil. Amongst many other companies and even countries, Aramco seems to have stabilized quite well considering the aftermath of several incidents that completely changed the market scenario. Moreover, Saudi Arabia relies heavily on its oil and petroleum industries as they are a major source of their income. Hence, how Aramco performs reflects directly on the country’s economy.

Despite the concerns regarding the oil market, analysts predicted that Aramco was better prepared to weather market volatility, owing to its size and scale, its low production cost, and solid free cash flow generation in a weak oil price environment. This is good news for its investment plan for Asia.

The post SAUDI ARAMCO AND ITS ECONOMIC PROSPECTIVE appeared first on WISER WORLD.

“Feminism isn’t about making women stronger. Women are already strong; it’s about changing the way the world perceives that strength”

– G.D. Anderson 

Women and Islam

In Islam, men and women are moral equals in God’s sight and are expected to fulfil the same duties of worship, prayer, faith, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage to Mecca. Islam by and large improved the status of ladies contrasted with before Arab societies, restricting female child murder and perceiving ladies’ full personhood. Islamic law stresses the authoritative idea of marriage, necessitating that a dowry is paid to the woman and not her family, and ensuring women’s rights of inheritance and to claim and oversee the property. Women were additionally allowed the option to live in the marital home and get monetary maintenance during marriage and a holding up period following demise and separation. 

Historical records show that Muhammad counselled ladies and gauged their opinions seriously. Umm Waraqah was selected imam over the family unit by Muhammad. Women contributed altogether to the canonization of the Quran. A lady is known to have adjusted the definitive decision of Caliph Umar on the endowment. Women prayed in mosques unsegregated from men, were involved in hadith transmission, gave sanctuary to men, engaged in commercial transactions were encouraged to seek knowledge, and were both instructors and pupils in the early Islamic period. Muhammad’s last wife, Aishah, was a well-known authority in medicine, history, and rhetoric. Caliph Umar named ladies to fill in as authorities in the market of Medina. Life stories of recognized ladies, particularly in Muhammad’s family unit, show that ladies acted moderately independently in early Islam. In Sufi circles, ladies were perceived as educators, followers, “otherworldly moms,” and even inheritors of the profound privileged insights of their fathers. 

No woman held religious titles in Islam, but many women held political power, some jointly with their husbands, others independently. The best-known women rulers in the premodern era include Khayzuran, who governed the Muslim Empire under three Abbasid caliphs in the eighth century; Malika Asma bint Shihab al-Sulayhiyya and Malika Arwa bint Ahmad al-Sulayhiyya, who both held power in Yemen in the eleventh century; Sitt al-Mulk, a Fatimid queen of Egypt in the eleventh century; the Berber queen Zaynab al-Nafzawiyah (r. 1061 – 1107 ); two thirteenth-century Mamluk queens, Shajar al-Durr in Cairo and Radiyyah in Delhi; six Mongol queens, including Kutlugh Khatun (thirteenth century) and her daughter Padishah Khatun of the Kutlugh-Khanid dynasty; the fifteenth-century Andalusian queen Aishah al-Hurra, known by the Spaniards as Sultana Madre de Boabdil; Sayyida al-Hurra, governor of Tetouán in Morocco (r. 1510 – 1542 ); and four seventeenth-century Indonesian queens.

Nevertheless, the status of women in premodern Islam all in all adjusted not to Quranic beliefs however to prevailing patriarchal cultural norms. Thus, improvement of the status of ladies turned into a significant issue in the present day, reformist Islam.

The rights to education and employment plus women’s activism make a big difference in women’s rights.

In “Myths About Women’s Rights: How, Where and Why Rights Advance,” Feryal Cherif, analyses two hypotheses for why cultures advance gender equality. 

The first is the thing that we call “centre rights”: that women’s rights to education and employment are the structure hinders with which to begin political organizing for equality, developing a group sense of fairness (or the lack thereof), and building public support for women’s equal socioeconomic standing. This gives government officials, and other residential elites motivations to help ladies’ privileges. 

The subsequent hypothesis is that ladies’ privileges backing cultivates change as local and worldwide activists advance new standards of uniformity by publicizing countries’ practices — both those that treat ladies similarly and those that slack — and constraining governments to adjust to worldwide norms. Research shows that these hypotheses are steady with the ongoing advances in gender equality in Saudi Arabia and the region at large. Looking at ladies’ property rights in 41 Muslim-larger part nations, I believe that women are probably going to appreciate safer property rights in nations where, first, women have more prominent admittance to education and second, where there are thick systems of women rights activists. Where ladies are more mindful of their privileges, better situated to challenge male family, and have the socioeconomic power to hold politicians accountable, their property rights are stronger. That is valid also for the Saudi Arabian development of women’s rights, including the right to drive. It is presumably not a happenstance that, throughout the long term, the hole between Saudi Arabian boys’ and girls’ education has considerably limited. Furthermore, it’s actually in numerous other Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) nations, where young ladies beat young men in school and enrol in universities at higher rates than boys. Besides, an expanding number of Arab ladies have joined the work power — though not yet at levels as high as worldwide midpoints. Indeed, even in Saudi Arabia, with its extraordinary forms of gender segregation, ladies are working in an ever-increasing number of fields. Also, with the right to drive, more women will be able to seek employment. 

In addition to core rights, women rights activism has additionally considerably expanded in the Middle East and North Africa in the previous decades. During 1980 and 2015, the number of women rights groups operating in the region nearly tripled. Some scholars and reporters have argued that advocacy campaigns and global pressure have helped push MENA nations toward gender equality. 

Indeed, even in conservative states like Saudi Arabia, the government may think that it’s hard to contain women’s expectations once they’ve been educated and entered the work power — even while more traditionalist pieces of their country push back.

Political Participation

Political revolutions and instability in the Middle East have mobilized women in new ways. Despite political turmoil and express dangers to their privileges, numerous ladies are expanding their activism to make their voices heard. Because of this flood of political commitment from ladies, however, fundamentalist and traditionalist pioneers and governments are pushing back, increasing their assaults on women’s human rights with an end goal to keep up their power. 

Even though, when women do win rights, they aren’t able to execute them since they are sabotaged by solid accepted practices and conventions. For instance, although women in Egypt have cast ballot rights, the Egyptian Association for Community Participation Enhancement (which conducts customary political race checking) has discovered that in provincial towns, spouses, fathers, or siblings will advise women how to cast a ballot—or even just take a women’s polling form from her and round it out however they see fit. 

Laws in the area, including both old laws and ongoing ones, confine ladies’ common freedoms and fill in as unequivocal proof that people with significant influence don’t consider women equals. For instance, in 2014 the Iraqi parliament introduced a draft law that endeavoured to make it lawful to wed a young girl as young as nine years of age, granting conjugal assault, and allowing polygamy. A long-standing law in Lebanon doesn’t permit women to pass on their citizenship, implying that if a Lebanese lady weds a non-Lebanese man, her children wouldn’t have Lebanese citizenship. Also, fundamentalist gatherings are a ground-breaking and developing danger, with systems that straightforwardly target women, including the abduction and forced sexual slavery of Yazidi ladies in Iraq by the alleged Islamic State gathering (ISIS). With so many powerful forces opposing women’s human rights in the Middle East, many in the region feel that international support has been far too weak. Leaders of women’s groups across the region stress the need for international support and solidarity. Past budgetary help, women likewise call for worldwide solidarity and expressions of help, referring to the two sorts of help as basic to opposing fundamentalism. Women’s gatherings keep up that while fundamentalist dangers against women’s rights are at the moment most powerful in the Middle East, the issue is, in fact, a global problem. 

The post WOMEN’S RIGHTS IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD appeared first on WISER WORLD.

War-torn Palestine

It is important in this regard to trace the genesis of the Israel- Palestine conflict and how it has had repercussions in the geopolitics of the changing contours of the Arab- Israel conflict. The terminology of Palestine was endowed by the Roman Empire, Hadrian in 135 CE after the defeat in the Battle of Bar Khhoba Revolt as he desired to erase Judea as it implied a long drawn connection with the Jews. Jews have continued to be victims of persecution, the emergence of which began at the dawn of Crusades. However, the Arabs had been under the authority of the Byzantine, Romans and later on the Ottoman Empire, the majority of Palestine was composed of its Muslim majority (Tessler, 1994, p: 42-44).

It was under Hitler’s autocratic rule during the Holocaust that complete annihilation of Jews was witnessed, whereby they were targeted to be the enemy of the Germans (Arendt, 1963, p: 36- 56). Yet, it cannot be denied that Jews have always felt that Palestine has been their homeland which the Arabs have laid a claim over, which Israeli historiography has espoused (Tessler, 1994, p: 74-128). The establishment of a State for the Jews would bring an end to years of persecution. Rather, the Zionist movement experienced an evolution as there was a demand to cleanse this holy land from Arabs or ‘Eretz Israel’ as known in Hebrew. It was in 1917 that Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, endorsed the idea of a Jewish State that soon turned into a violent response by the Palestinians, a colony under the British sphere of influence ceded by Ottoman Turkey after World War I. By 1937, the British Peel Commission agreed to partition Palestine which accentuated into the Arab-Israeli War (Pappe, 2007, p: 10- 17). In 1948, the United Nations played a pivotal role that altered the history of Palestine underlined by Resolution 181 of 29 September 1947 and the official recognition of the Jewish State by the U.S.A and the USSR.

Violation of Human Rights in Palestine

Leaflets were distributed in villages to warn of the disastrous consequences of collaborating with the Arab Liberation Army. The village of Deir Yassin was occupied by the Jewish military forces where the inhabitants were killed by gun spray (Pappe, 2007, p: 40-70). The IEZL or Irgun Zvai Leumi under the Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin was known to have headed these forces and perpetrated the massacre of Palestinian Arabs. One of the testimonies published by the NGO Zochort that works towards Transitional Justice of the Israeli-Palestine Conflict states that he along with other men were ordered to evacuate the villages where Palestinian Arabs resided as deportation would be taking place. The massacre has been bestowed with the horrifying nomenclature of Nakba or catastrophe to designate the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1948. Possession of Palestinian property violates the International Law (Human Rights Council, 2017). Women were victims of rape, firstly because of their sex and secondly because of their Palestinian-Arab identity. Women have been epitomized as embedding honour of the family. By the Israeli Citizenship Law, the Palestinians citizens were construed as Israeli citizens as passed on 1st April 1952. The same trajectory has been drawn in the History of India as the Partition of 1947 must be perceived from the lens of a watershed that gave birth to two nation-states, India and Pakistan, the latter which has been believed to be a product of a failed democracy as post-colonial historians would argue. The commonality in the history of India and Palestine is that both countries experienced the discourse of Partition violence. Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was targeted against the Palestine Liberation Army and Syria as the surface to air missiles were deployed by the latter in Lebanon, whereas the PLO employed Israel with artillery shells (Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, 2012, Volume: 3). President Roland Regan introduced the Regan Plan and affirmed USA’s decision of not supporting Israel’s dominance over the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The United Nation Resolution 242 was implemented by the Regan Plan which stated that a solution must be reached of the existing refugee crisis as well as the Security Council to position a Special Representative in the Middle East. The aim of the Oslo Accords was to elect a Palestine Interim Government as well as a Council to govern the Palestinian people with authority been transferred from the Israeli Military Government. Therefore, Abraham Accords has been perceived in terms of a harbinger of peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict (United Nations Security Council:1993). The Oslo Accords signed in 1995 signed between the Palestine Liberation Army and the State of Israel had failed as Israel’s decision was to annex West Bank.

Perception of Turkey and Bahrain on UAE-Israel Deal

On the other hand, it is significant to evaluate the response of Turkey and Bahrain on the perception of Abraham Accords. Prince Recep Tayyip Erodgan, the President of Turkey stated that the normalization of ties between UAE and IS was rather the latter’s betrayal of trust and undermining the cause for Palestine. The Arab Peace Plan of 2002 was established by the Crown Prince, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the Beirut Summit which underlined the recognition of the State of Israel as and stated that she must withdraw from the Golan Heights as well as the creation of Lebanon since 1967. The plan clearly espoused the creation of a sovereign independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as the capital as highlighted in the Council of the Arab States at the Summit Level which has been forgone as Erodgan argued. The Kingdom of Bahrain has equally welcomed Abraham Accords and perceived this as the path that would pave peace building.

The post UAE-ISRAEL DEAL: HARBINGER FOR PEACE? appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Background of the Problem

The first warning signs of trouble were visible on the horizon when the banks decided to reduce the amount permitted per withdrawal, and the country experienced anti-government protests. Delving slightly deeper into the root cause of the trouble and studying the previous economic trends, we can trace back the problem to the government’s decision to make up for Lebanon’s lack of dollars due to the complete absence of export production, by accepting investments and deposits from wealthy investors. To attract greater investments, the government offered higher rates, whose yields could only be met with newer deposits. The following policy was dubbed as a  ‘State-Sponsored Ponzi- Scheme’. Seeing the unsustainable nature of the same, many investors started pulling out. This essentially plunged the nation into not only a severe shortage of dollars but also severely affected millions of citizens. The World Bank predicted the poverty increase from 30% to 50%, and at the same time, the Human Rights Watch advised the government to act swiftly, or else millions of Lebanese and the excess of one million Syrian and Palestinian refugees would face severe hunger at the time of the lockdown initiated to avoid the spread of the deadly virus.

How has the Economy Survived for so long?

While analyzing the reason for Lebanon’s economy surviving for so long, one happens to notice an economic tendency of depending mainly on foreign remittances. Lebanon’s economic policy can be seen as an amalgamation of migration and geopolitics. These sums of remittances coming into the country from Lebanon’s large immigrant population, provided the backbone for the country’s banks to lend to the government. As mentioned earlier, due to the unsustainable nature of these policies and an array of other reasons, the current inflows of funds have dried up drastically. These reductions have mainly been due to the declining oil prices and the Syrian War that has made Lebanon less attractive for investment purposes.

Internal Factors

We cannot turn Nelson’s eye towards internal factors when it comes to analyzing the current economic crisis. The country has some of the worst economic fundamentals in place. It is one of the most indebted nations, so much so that the total debt amounts to 155% of the Gross Domestic Product. Since the country lacks a strong export sector, it invariably imports more goods and services, as a result of which the budget deficit is set to reach 10% of the Gross Domestic Product. The banks rely on wealthy Lebanese to deposit their money in Beirut. However, the enormous interest rates earned by these depositors flow into very few pockets. It is estimated that around 1% of all accounts are said to hold roughly half of the total deposits. At the center of Lebanon’s unproductive economy are the banking and real estate sectors, which have led to a great amount of income inequality. Top 10% of Lebanese income earners captured 57% of the total incomes earlier in 2014, while the bottom 50% accounted for a mere 11% of the income.

Protests over the Economic Crises

The country and in particular the capital city of Beirut, experienced major protests regarding the surging cost of living, as a result of the worst economic crisis the country has faced since 1975-1990. The recent clashes that began with young men blocking trucks carrying produce to Syria, saw more than a hundred people getting injured as a result of the police’s decision to fire tear gas on the protesters. This action forced the crowd to retaliate by throwing stones and using firecrackers at the law enforcers. In Martyrs’ Square in Beirut, demonstrators dressed in black, with their faces whitened, carried a coffin draped with the Lebanese flag in a symbolic funeral of their country. The government has condemned the protests and the ensuing violence, terming the efforts as a ‘coup’. Protests spread to other corners of the country as well, with protestors coming together in cities such as Saida and Kfar Roummane, in the South.

Conclusion

In the absence of clear leadership for the protests and the large number of demands they encapsulate, it has become all the more difficult to respond to them. There seems to be no sign of a breakthrough in the ongoing difficulties the country is facing. Recent suggestions included the formation of a technocratic cabinet. The idea, however, did not gain momentum, as the suggestion failed to gain support both of the political elite and the common citizens. Financial support from countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar may be extremely instrumental in pulling Lebanon out of the crisis. With no alternative political leadership or real opposition to the ruling party, protests are said to continue at the current pace and the country may be in for a prolonged period of unrest. 

The post LEBANON ECONOMIC CRISIS – EXPLAINED! appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Political Conditions

Lebanon is a country that divides its political power along with religious and sectarian rights. Power-sharing is a whole different thing in Lebanon, with the stated intention to give every group an equal say in the political affairs of the country, the system has tried to maintain a fragile peace. This unique decayed and mismanaged sectarian political system is one of the most important reasons for the protests. This system was formed under the Taif agreement in 1989 and is perceived as exploited by the current Lebanese politicians.                                                                                                                                                  

Due to this faulty system, the government has failed to provide even the basic rights to the citizens. Since 1975, there has been no stable 24- hour electricity in the country. The people have no access to drinking water except through purchasing bottled water through private companies. The country even suffers from deficient sanitation and sewage infrastructure, which led to the 2015-16 protests as against the “garbage crisis”. Thus the political conditions in the country were in a dire state with the lack of basic rights and no plan of action for solving the problems

Economic Conditions

From 1997, the Lebanon government has tried to maintain a pegged exchange rate between the USA dollars and Lebanese pounds.  Yet its economic fundamentals are among the worst in the world. It is one of the most indebted nations; its government debt is estimated at 155 per cent of gross domestic product. The country imports vastly more goods and services than it exports and the government budget deficit was around 10 per cent of the GDP in 2019. The excessive borrowings of the government had inflated the politically well-connected banking sector that lends to the state at high-interest rates.                                                 

Also since the country depends on imports, currency devaluation raised prices for imported goods and eroded the living standards. Lebanon’s unproductive economy which revolves around banking and real estate even created great income inequality. The burden on financial institutions was light, while indirect taxes paid by everyone, such as value-added tax (VAT), were continuously increasing. While the wealthy and politically connected earn state-induced banking profits, the state was drained of the resources to tackle social and environmental crises. Thus the economy was in a stagnant state, unemployment had reached 46% in 2018, and endemic corruption was prevailing in the public sector. All these factors further escalated the protests of 2019-20. 

Protests Against the Government 

Due to the prevailing political and economic crisis in the country, protests against the government authorities began in October 2019. The initial reason for these protests was to fight against the new tax policies introduced by the government and though the tax reform plan was quickly scrapped yet the protests continued. They expanded it for a much significant cause and long-standing grievances such as increasing level of corruption, dire level of the economy, high unemployment rate, and lack of basic rights. As violence continued, the prime minister tried to defend him and blamed the rival groups and his government for blocking reforms. Prime minister blamed his coalition government for obstructing reforms to unlock 11 billion dollar aid pledged by international donors. To tackle the ongoing situation, the cabinet of ministers introduced a lot of economic and political reforms and even formed an anti-corruption panel. Yet still, the people weren’t satisfied and they demanded the resignation of the government.                                                          

Finally on 21 January 2020, the prime minister announced the formation of a new cabinet of 20 ministers, bringing an end to several months of riots that have left the country in a deepening economic crisis. On 27 January, the Lebanon Parliament passed a 2020 budget, amid the debilitating financial crisis. The budget was highly criticized by the citizens and though the government claimed that the newly formed ministers were experts and academics, protesters still accused the political groups of participating in forming the new cabinet.                                                                                      

With these ongoing crises in the country, came the coronavirus pandemic which worsened the situation. Due to lack of resources and health care workers, the county’s health care system turned out to be a failure. The lockdown situation led to further weakening of the economy. The people continued these protests but with more precautions and fewer in numbers. But on 4^th august 2020, the capital of the country Beirut was hit by a massive explosion.

Beirut Explosion and Government Resignation

On the afternoon of 4th august 2020, two explosions occurred in Beirut, causing at least 220 deaths and 6000 injuries. About 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate, which had been confiscated by the Lebanese government from the abandoned ship MV Rhosus and then stored in the port without proper safety measures for six years has led to the massive explosion.  As a result of this disaster, the Lebanese government declared a two-week state of emergency.                           

On 6^th August 2020, as an aftermath of this event, protests erupted in various parts of the counties against the government for their failure to impede the explosions. As violence increased and more and more people started protesting against the government, Prime Minister Hassan Diab and his cabinet resigned on 10^th august 2020. In his last speech as the prime minister, he blamed the country’s ruling class for hindering the reform plans and worsening the economic crises. Then he proceeded to the presidential palace where President Michel Aoun approved the resignation of his cabinet. Despite the fact that Diab’s government has resigned, protests in Lebanese are still going on against the economic crisis that the country is currently facing.

Conclusion

The protest which initially began as a rebel against the tax reform policies of the government later became a fight against a high level of corruption, lack of basic rights and economic crisis ultimately led to the resignation of the government. People might consider this as a victory for the Lebanese people but in reality, the economic and healthcare situation in the country is still in a very detrimental state. People lack even the basic necessities like water, sanitation, and electricity. The coronavirus pandemic has made the situation in the country even worse and has led to the death of thousands of people. Adding further to this, the country was hit by the Beirut explosion which wrecked the entire state. The country is in a very poor condition with a lack of healthcare workers and increasing economic crisis. Various countries are trying to help the country deal with such a crisis but yet recovery in the near future seems quite impossible for the Lebanese people.

The post LEBANON POLITICAL CRISIS – EXPLAINED! appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Existing Turmoil in Lebanon

“It’s an economic crisis, a financial crisis, a political crisis, a health crisis, and now this horrible explosion,” said Tamara Alrifai, the spokesperson for UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

The Beirut explosion is another nail in the coffin of Lebanon which is currently in the depths of several ongoing crises since 2019.

Lebanon experienced the biggest blow to its stability in October 2019 when the Lebanese pound severely depreciated by 75% of its official value on the black market and is now trading at nearly 9,000 to the dollar in comparison to the official peg of 1,507.5 to the dollar.

The currency devaluation poses a serious problem in an import-dependent country like Lebanon because imports have become extremely costly and people have to sell their personal belongings to be able to afford even the necessities like milk and bread. It has also led to the shutting down of several businesses. Lebanon’s public debt-to-gross domestic product has been the third highest in the world. About one-third of the country’s population is below the poverty line and the economy experiences an unemployment rate of  25% (source).

There had been massive protests all across the country since October on account of the people not receiving basic amenities promised by the government. There have been a series of blackouts, some lasting more than 22 hours, due to shortage of oil and diesel. The political elite of the country had been pushing the country towards its doom while benefitting from the country’s reserves by their corrupt practices. The Lebanese economy has been hit by hyperinflation on account of economic mismanagement by the government. The financing of huge fiscal deficits of the government by the Central Bank due to the inability of taxes and other techniques to generate sufficient revenue to meet the government expenditure has contributed a great deal to the ongoing hyperinflation.

This, along with Lebanon defaulting on its foreign debt, for the first time, in March goes a long way to show the incompetence of the government and its policies. The International Monetary Fund, on being asked for a financial rescue package and restoration of confidence by Prime Minister Hassan Diab, has refused any help unless the government provides a proper plan to revive the economy and shows initiative to combat existing corruption.

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva has said that there is no near scope for a breakthrough in negotiations and there is uncertainty regarding the capability of the government to implement reforms and bring the economy back to its growth path the country despite having a strong entrepreneurial culture in the past and taking the initiative to host Palestinian and Syrian refugees, thus, easing a humanitarian crisis.
The COVID-19 breakout and synchronized worldwide lockdowns have further contributed to the sharp economic decline of Lebanon and have “exposed the inadequacies of Lebanon’s social-welfare system”

Impact of the Explosion

The double-blast of 4th August will have grave consequences on the already falling economy of Lebanon. Beirut, the largest port in Lebanon was completely destroyed and will remain dysfunctional unless urgent repairs are made which could take up to several weeks or months. Domestic production in Lebanon accounts for only 10% of the country’s consumption. For a nation which is highly dependent on imports for most of its vital consumer goods, the destruction of the Beirut port, which was an entry point for imports to “feed a nation of more than 6 million people”, will lead to an epic downfall of the Lebanese economy and cause adversities in the supply chain. The nearest port of Lebanon, Tripoli, will not prove to be of much use, being one-third of Beirut’s size. Thus, even if the imports were shifted to arrive at Tripoli, they will not be able to accommodate the additional cargo volumes and there will be congestion. 

Beirut’s main grand silo at the port which was the largest grain storage facility in all of Lebanon was completely destroyed by the blast, leaving the country with barely less than a month’s grain reserves. Although the economy minister of Lebanon has said that the inventory of bread and flour is sufficient to avoid a crisis, one can never fully give up on the possibility of a supply chain shock, especially in an economy like Lebanon’s. Hani Bohsali, head of the importers’ syndicate, said, “We fear there will be a huge supply chain problem unless there is an international consensus to save us.” The silo stored around 85% of the country’s cereal, thus, experts are predicting an upcoming food shortage despite the assurance by the government.

Beirut’s main grand silo at the port which was the largest grain storage facility in all of Lebanon was completely destroyed by the blast, leaving the country with barely less than a month’s grain reserves. Although the economy minister of Lebanon has said that the inventory of bread and flour is sufficient to avoid a crisis, one can never fully give up on the possibility of a supply chain shock, especially in an economy like Lebanon’s. Hani Bohsali, head of the importers’ syndicate, said, “We fear there will be a huge supply chain problem unless there is an international consensus to save us.” The silo stored around 85% of the country’s cereal, thus, experts are predicting an upcoming food shortage despite the assurance by the government.

The blast has left nearly 300,000 people homeless. It has led to massive infrastructural damage which would take ages to fix. More importantly, even if the time required to rebuild the city is not taken into consideration for the moment, the repairs would cost the government several billions of dollars, gathering which is an impossible task considering the worldwide reputation and negative credit-worthiness of the nation owing to the prevailing corruption.

Owing to the explosion, several primary healthcare centres and hospitals have been so damaged that they cannot admit patients anymore. However, the number of people requiring immediate physical aid has increased, both, due to the blast and due to a hike in COVID-19 cases owing to the chaos amidst the emergency. The World Health Organization has reported that the explosion led to the destruction of 17 containers filled with hundreds of thousands of medical supplies and protective instruments to combat the deadly virus leading to an urgent need for supplies in that region. There is also the social cost of the explosion which has released harmful fumes in the environment, polluting it and bringing about the danger of genetic breathing disorders for years to come.

The explosion further shows the inadequacy of the government as it did not deal with such a large shipment of explosives, despite repeated warnings, and chose to ignore the matter since 2013. This incident will reignite the civil protests, which had been at bay due to the coronavirus spread, thus causing additional turmoil in the country.

The impact of the explosion can lead to further depreciation of the Lebanese pound, thus, rendering imports costlier than before and putting the economy in a recessionary spiral that could take ages to recover from unless a massive boost is given to the economy via international consensus and support.

Conclusion

The ongoing consequences of the economic crisis will hinder the economy’s ability to bounce back from the 2020 blast.^[14] Despite immediate recovery measures being taken by several international agencies and governments to deal with the emergency at hand and to help provide relief to and boost the well-being of the people in need, the future of Lebanon does not seem to be very promising. Unless the Lebanese politicians realise the severity of the situation, acknowledge their mistakes and present a united front to help the people, the future of Lebanon looks bleak. The resilience of the public will not be enough to come out of this disaster unless backed by government policies. The explosion has led to the complete loss of faith of the people in their administrative bodies and long-term situations will not improve unless fundamental reforms are brought about in the policies of the nation and implemented for the betterment of the people. 

The post SITUATION IN LEBANON: THE BLAST AND THE PAST appeared first on WISER WORLD.