President Ilham Aliyev receives credentials of incoming Italian ambassador to Azerbaijan [PHOTOS/VIDEO] AzerNews.Az
Day: June 2, 2024
Categories
NPR News: 06-02-2024 8PM EDT
Chinese Minister of National Defense Dong Jun launched an acerbic attack on what he called the “hegemonic powers” behind tension in the Asia-Pacific, a clear swipe at the United States and its allies.
In an address to the annual Shangri-La Dialogue security forum in Singapore, Adm. Dong said that people in the Asia-Pacific are “independent and self-reliant,” and were “against any attempt to turn our countries into vassal states or draw us into bloc confrontations.”
“Our people have firmly rejected infiltration, sabotage and coercion by outside forces,” the minister said, adding that regional countries “despise those who attempt to bolster themselves by taking orders from hegemonic powers.”
Dong also said China had exercised great restraint in the face of what he called “infringements and provocations” but warned “there is a limit to our restraint.”
Beijing has repeatedly accused Washington of assisting Taipei and Manila to stand up to its assertive actions in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.
The Pentagon last month deployed an intermediate range missile system in the Philippines during the annual Balikatan military drills, which Beijing condemned as bringing “huge risks of war into the region.”
The U.S. House of Representatives has recently passed an $8-billion package to help Taiwan boost its defense capabilities against China.
Dong said that “some external interfering forces keep hollowing out the One China principle with the salami slicing strategy.”
“They have cooked up Taiwan-related legislations and continued to sell arms to Taiwan and have illegal official contacts with it.”
The minister, who took office five months ago after his predecessor was removed over suspected corruption, went on a lengthy tirade against Taiwanese leaders who he called “Taiwan independence separatists.”
China considers the democratic island one of its provinces and Dong said that China “will take resolute actions to curb Taiwan independence and make sure such a plot never succeeds.”
He accused Taiwan’s leaders of “betrayal of the Chinese nation and their ancestors,” and said they would be “nailed to the pillar of shame in history.”
“The Taiwan question is at the core of China’s core interests,” the minister said. “Anyone who supports Taiwan independence will only end in self-destruction.”
Defense analyst Malcolm Davis from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, or ASPI, said that Dong “made clear a willingness for China to use force to prevent independence and respond to any external forces involved in supporting Taiwan.”
“It was a fairly predictable speech and very much the ‘party line’ with little in the way of new comments. In effect this was a propaganda speech and not an accurate statement of Chinese policy,” Davis said.
‘Wolf warriors’
But Dong’s tone did seem more combative than that of his predecessor, Li Shangfu, he added.
“On the South China Sea, he issued a warning that China won’t rule out the use of force specifically in relation to the Philippines and the support of the United States,” the Canberra-based analyst said, “That suggests to me that China does intend to escalate the crisis, and has singled out the Philippines as their focus with the goal being to coerce Manila to capitulate to Chinese interests.”
Unlike Li and his predecessors, Dong is not a member of the Central Military Commission of the Chinese communist party – the highest national defense organization.
“That may be the reason behind Dong’s tough statements to show his clout and get a promotion,” said an Asian analyst who didn’t want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.
A Chinese academic praised Dong’s speech and said his attendance at the conference helped bring “China’s real voice” to the world.
“The Shangri-La Dialogue as a major security forum bears a great relevance to China,” said Gao Zhikai, vice president of the Center for China and Globalization and chair professor at China’s Soochow University. “It is important that China’s voice, which is increasingly in sharp contrast to that of the U.S., be heard.”
Several other Chinese delegates also promoted Beijing’s views at the forum, in a forthright manner known as “wolf warrior” diplomacy.
The term, adopted from the title of a Chinese movie, describes an assertive, even aggressive, approach to international relations.
Maj. Gen. Xu Hui, president of the International College of Defense Studies at China’s National Defense University, confronted Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. after the latter’s keynote speech on Friday, saying that Manila was risking ruining the “long-earned, long-lasting peace” within ASEAN by responding to Chinese vessels’ activities in the disputed South China Sea.
On Saturday, another Chinese delegate, Senior Col. Cao Yanzhong, a researcher at China’s Institute of War Studies, questioned U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin about the U.S. alliance system in the region which Beijing compares to “an Asian version of NATO.”
During a session on ‘Maritime Law Enforcement and Confidence Building’ on Saturday, another Chinese delegate, Senior Col. Ge Hanwen, associate professor at the College of International Studies at China’s National University of Defense Technology, blamed the Philippines for “dramatically” raising tensions in the region and Japan for using water cannons first in a confrontation at sea.
Austin and Dong met for about an hour at the conference on Friday for talks aimed at improving their communications, a U.S. official said.
New regional order
A Western observer at the forum, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Radio Free Asia that the Chinese delegates are “on a mission to spread Beijing’s messages and their statements are pre-scripted and pre-approved by the [communist] party.”
Beijing-based Gao denied that.
“It is only normal that people from all walks of life, including military officers, talk about the topics of their interest,” Gao said.
“China attends a lot of international forums because we believe in having our voice heard by as many people as possible.”
Dong acknowledged that different countries had different security interests and goals but he implied that China had a leadership role, said the ASPI’s Davis.
“He kept pushing the implication that China speaks for the region in terms of shaping the future of Asia-Pacific security order,” Davis said.
“China is clearly setting the basis for trying to assert its dominance over ASEAN, and if it can get [the] Philippines to submit to Chinese power through military coercion, then Beijing will expect other ASEAN states to also accept China’s interests,” said the Australian analyst.
“By default, China would then dominate the region.”
Over the past decade, the Chinese military has become more powerful, with its rapid growth bringing a new confidence, especially in relation with the United States.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies said in a recent report that China is the world’s largest shipbuilder with a capacity some 230 times larger than the U.S.
“One of China’s large shipyards, such as Jiangnan Shipyard, has more capacity than all U.S. shipyards combined,” the center said in its report.
“China is way ahead of the U.S. in many aspects and the Chinese economy is soon to be larger, too,” Gao, who served as a translator for Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping during the 1980s, told RFA.
“The Americans are worried about a rising China, that Beijing will impose its ideological and political system on the U.S.,” he said, while adding that in his opinion, that fear was unfounded.
“No one can really decouple from China and the best Washington can do is to deal with China on an equal footing.”
Lyle Goldstein from the U.S. think tank Defense Priorities said that Beijing was “not reckless or aggressive,” and despite the threats, it had not used force since the 1980s.
Despite a downward spiral in U.S.-China relations, Goldstein suggested that the two countries and their militaries, “should meet halfway and resolve disputes through diplomatic compromise.”
By Dr. Amal Mudallali
Last month’s Memorial Day holiday set a record for travel by car in the US, with about 38 million Americans hitting the road for the holiday weekend. I was one of those 38 million Americans traveling and getting stuck in traffic for hours, which meant that, in addition to fraying the nerves, a lot of gas was used over that weekend.
With the perception in this country that high gas prices affect presidents and doom election campaigns, the stakes are high and the Biden administration is feeling the heat of gas prices as President Joe Biden seeks reelection. A February Moody’s Analytics study found that a surge in gas prices could cost President Biden the election in November. The report explained that “forecasting oil prices is especially difficult, and if prices move up much more than anticipated, the damage to Biden’s reelection bid will quickly mount.” The agency predicted that, “if prices surge close to $4 per gallon, former President (Donald) Trump will win the election.”
As the presidential election is still months away, the White House was prompted to act fast to lower the price of gas for Americans and avoid a potential backlash against the president that could doom his reelection chances. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announced two days before the holiday that, “with Memorial Day weekend and the start of the summer driving season around the corner, the Biden-Harris Administration is taking action to lower gas prices with the sale of 1 million barrels of gasoline from the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve.” She explained that this action was in addition to the “historic releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the largest-ever investment in clean energy.”
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm explained that, “by strategically releasing this reserve in between Memorial Day and July 4th, we are ensuring sufficient supply flows … at a time hardworking Americans need it the most.”
But the Republicans were not having it. While they were attacking the president for the high gas prices, they also attacked him for releasing the reserves to lower the prices. The Republicans believe that the president is doing this only for his reelection campaign. Rep. August Pfluger accused Biden of “pulling another political move out of his dirty hat.” He said that the president is “frantically trying to lower gas prices to increase his poll ratings.”
Gas prices inched up this spring, with a gallon of gas costing an average of $3.60, according to AAA, and it is higher in the Northeast and on the West Coast than in the rest of the country. Analysts also believe that, although the release of 1 million barrels of gasoline from the reserves will “move the needle,” it will not lower gas prices by enough.
The perception that oil prices determine the results of elections and doom presidents is supported by some research, but oil and gas experts caution that there are other factors to take into account. A 2016 study by Political Psychology found that, when gas prices go up, a president’s approval rating goes down. And ClearView Energy Partners said that its “models show a meaningful … inverse correlation over more than four decades between presidential approval ratings and real gasoline prices.”
Axios discussed the effect of the rise in the price of crude oil on the markets and gasoline prices because of the Middle East crisis. It referred to RBC Capital Markets’ note that “the run up in prices has sparked discussions about a revived White House energy diplomacy effort aimed at securing an easing of OPEC cuts this June.”
The Biden administration tried, after the start of the Ukraine war and before the 2022 midterm elections, to rein in gas prices to avoid voters’ wrath. It released more than 180 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in March 2022. Analysts say the reserve is now at its lowest level in about four decades. The US is trying to replenish its reserves amid complaints from Republicans that the Democrats are draining the supplies that are meant for emergencies only. Presidential adviser Amos Hochstein said in early May that the US has “sufficient supply of oil” in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “to address any kind of concern in the economy if we need it.”
But despite the efforts of the administration, experts believe that the current inflation and the public’s negative perception of the economy, combined with the rise in gas prices, will definitely impact November’s elections. Randa Fahmy, a former associate deputy secretary of energy in the Bush administration, told Arab News that the “rise in gas prices will affect the election results and most certainly favor Trump.” She explained that “most Americans are viewing the American economy with a negative lens and part of that is the cost of consumer goods, including gas and groceries. The Americans are blaming the president for the sluggish economy and they are hoping that Trump will come back and fix it.”
Another analyst, Roger Diwan, vice president of commodity insights for S&P Global, believes that “gasoline prices are rarely a determinant of a presidential vote, despite the legend.” He added that the price of oil’s “supposed importance for Biden’s election prospects is more myth than reality.” However, he also pointed out that “the administration is very wary of inflation in general and the impact it is having on purchasing power, and more importantly on interest rates and Fed policy. This is a real concern, and gasoline prices play in that context.”
It is true that many factors will play a role in Biden’s reelection campaign and will affect the president’s chances, from his handling of the economy to how he is responding to the crisis in the Middle East and the Ukraine war, as well as his age. The Biden campaign is aware of all these factors, but it does not want the price of gas to add to his woes in November. Six months is a long time in politics and, as Diwan said, “of course any shock between now and the election, including the oil prices, would be detrimental for a sitting president.”
Last week’s guilty verdict by a New York court against Trump raised the hopes of Democrats and the president’s campaign that the election might now flip in favor of the president, regardless of how high gas prices soar. This might be a very optimistic outlook for the Democrats, but in volatile election campaigns like the one that is currently underway, anything can happen.
- Dr. Amal Mudallali is a consultant on global issues. She is a former Lebanese ambassador to the UN.
Over two years into the Ukraine conflict, the long-term outlook appears to be shifting towards Moscow’s favor. Despite Ukraine’s counteroffensive efforts, they have fallen short of their primary objectives. The Russian military, recovering from early setbacks, has made incremental advances along the front lines, bolstered by strategic recalibrations. Moscow’s capabilities in manpower and arms production seem to be on the rise, with no evident signs of political instability within Putin’s administration.
Moreover, the impact of international sanctions on Russia’s economic growth appears to be minimal. In contrast, Kyiv faces significant challenges, including shortages of personnel, munitions, and internal discord, compounded by a perceived reduction in Western support. Consequently, the narrative of a war mired in stalemate, as portrayed by many analysts, may overlook the evolving realities of the conflict. As the war transitions into a war of attrition, the scales seem to be tipping increasingly in Russia’s favor.
From a military standpoint, the flow of Western armaments to Ukraine has seen a downturn, attributed to a waning motivation for support and practicality, as well as inadvertent factors like limited production capabilities and dwindling stockpiles. Even with a robust commitment to aid, Western nations are struggling to meet Ukraine’s urgent demand for weaponry and ammunition at the current rates of production. Taking the United States as an example, which boasts the world’s most extensive military manufacturing infrastructure, it can only produce 28,000 units of 155 mm artillery shells per month when operating round-the-clock—a figure that falls short by 10% of Ukraine’s operational requirements on the front lines. The intensifying crisis in the Middle East, particularly the imperative to bolster Israel, a principal ally, exacerbates the predicament, potentially leading to even more acute challenges for Kyiv.
Beyond the challenges in the supply of arms and ammunition, there is an emerging concern over the potential waning of Western support for Ukraine. The Biden administration has encountered significant hurdles in securing Republican approval for financial assistance to Ukraine. There is a noticeable shift in the consensus regarding support for Ukraine, with diminishing enthusiasm observed among both the American public and political elites. Within the European Union, figures such as Hungary’s Orban and Slovakia’s Fico present formidable resistance to the continuation of aid to Ukraine. The anticipated rise of right-wing and far-right parties across Europe could lead to an increase in both the number and fervor of Ukraine’s detractors.
The escalating challenges on the battlefield have been paralleled by a surge in internal discord among Ukraine’s leadership. The removal of several high-ranking military officials by President Zelensky, including the well-regarded commander-in-chief, has laid bare the rifts within the military hierarchy over war strategy. This tension is further compounded by the defection of Zelensky’s one-time adviser to the ranks of his most vocal detractors. The roster of dissenters also includes prominent political figures such as the mayor of Kyiv and a former prime minister, both influential in the Orange Revolution, signaling a deepening of political fissures.
Conversely, Russia appears to be navigating the current geopolitical landscape with increasing adeptness. Since the onset of the conflict, there has been a marked escalation in the production of Russian armaments, with output in certain sectors surging to manyfold their prior levels. In defiance of imposed sanctions, Russia has adeptly forged new alliances, establishing robust supply chains with non-Western allies. These strategic partnerships have been instrumental in securing essential components for its defense sector. Notably, China has emerged as a pivotal ally, providing approximately 90% of the electronic components and semiconductors required. Additionally, Iran has contributed significantly with the provision of Shahid-136 drones and associated technological expertise. North Korea has also played a critical role, supplying a diverse array of armaments, with artillery shells being a key component of their contributions.
Despite the considerable losses sustained by Russian forces in Ukraine, the nation’s substantial population provides a buffer to absorb such impacts. With Russia’s population standing at 143 million, in stark contrast to Ukraine’s 28.5 million, the demographic advantage is clear. The Russian military has bolstered its ranks by an additional 400,000 personnel, augmenting the existing 300,000-strong combat forces, a portion of which remains uncommitted in Ukraine. Current recruitment rates are estimated at about 30,000 individuals monthly, a figure that is deemed sufficient to replenish forces and offset battlefield attrition.
Economically, Russia’s position remains robust despite the imposition of comprehensive sanctions, presenting a stark contrast to the challenges faced by Kyiv. The outbreak of hostilities precipitated a 30% contraction in Ukraine’s economy. Although there was a rebound in economic growth in 2023, Kyiv’s financial system continues to rely heavily on international support. This dependency extends across the board, from funding its military operations to sustaining basic state functions such as pensions, public services, and government wages. Conversely, Russia has demonstrated economic resilience with an approximate 4% growth in 2023, countering expectations of regime destabilization due to internal dissent from figures like Prigozhin and factions such as the Wagner Group. On the political front, President Putin’s standing appears stable, with the Levada Center reporting his approval ratings in the high 80s as the nation approaches electoral events. Moreover, public backing for the conflict hovers at a substantial 76%.
On the global stage, Moscow has adeptly framed the conflict in Ukraine as a challenge to Western hegemony, persuading many nations, particularly those in the Global South, to adopt a stance of neutrality or tacit support. Despite a majority of United Nations member states officially denouncing Russia’s actions in Ukraine, there has been a notable reluctance to fully engage with the Western-led sanctions. Recent assessments by the Economist Intelligence Unit indicate a shift in sentiment; the number of countries censuring Russia has diminished from 131 to 122, while those displaying a tendency towards Russian alignment have risen from 29 to 35.
The perception of a stalemate in Ukraine is gaining traction, driven by the apparent absence of significant strategic gains and the escalating financial toll on the nation and its Western allies. Yet, this perspective may be overly simplistic, hinging on the static nature of territorial control as depicted on military maps. Observers subscribing to this view may be overlooking the dynamic and multifaceted nature of the conflict, which cannot be fully captured by the movement of the front lines alone. The lack of substantial shifts in territory over the past year does not necessarily equate to a deadlock, as it fails to account for the underlying tactical, political, and economic factors at play.
When considering the broader aspects of the conflict, a divergent narrative emerges. A comprehensive analysis suggests that the trajectory of the conflict is not heading towards a stalemate but rather towards a deteriorating situation for Ukraine. The portrayal of the war as a deadlock or a frozen conflict marks a significant shift from the West’s initial optimistic outlook. However, this characterization does not accurately capture the evolving dynamics on the ground. Without meaningful diplomatic efforts and resolutions, the current momentum could potentially culminate in dire and regrettable consequences for Ukraine and its supporters.
If Hamas agrees to the Israeli proposed truce on Gaza, the United States expects that Israel will accept the plan, said White House national security spokesperson John Kirby on Sunday.
“This was an Israeli proposal. We have every expectation that if Hamas agrees to the proposal — as was transmitted to them, an Israeli proposal — then Israel would say yes,” Kirby said in an interview on ABC News’ “This Week” program.
Peace mediators from Egypt, Qatar and the U.S. have called on both sides to agree to a cease-fire and hostage release deal outlined by U.S. President Joe Biden Friday.
Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, said on Sunday that Israel would not accept Hamas continuing to rule Gaza at any stage during the peace process and that it was examining alternatives to the Islamist group.
“While we conduct our important military actions, the defense establishment is simultaneously assessing a governing alternative to Hamas,” Gallant said in a statement.
“We will isolate areas [in Gaza], remove Hamas operatives from these areas and introduce forces that will enable an alternative government to form — an alternative that threatens Hamas,” Gallant said.
Gallant did not elaborate on possible alternatives.
Israel’s war Cabinet, of which Gallant is a member, was expected to meet later in the day, Israeli media reported, after President Biden presented a framework deal for winding down the war in Gaza.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Saturday that “Israel’s conditions for ending the war have not changed: the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel.”
Domestic divisions
Netanyahu faces a fractured right-wing coalition government and intense domestic pressure from opposing sides in his country on Israel’s plan for Gaza and Hamas.
Two right-wing members of his Cabinet, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, threatened Saturday to bring down Netanyahu’s government if he agreed to Biden’s proposal.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid urged Netanyahu to take the deal and offered to support the prime minister if Ben Gvir and Smotrich bolted.
“I remind Netanyahu that he has our safety net for a hostage deal,” Lapid said on the X platform, the former Twitter.
The families of the hostages pressed Israel and Hamas to agree to the deal. Tens of thousands of protesters rallied again on Saturday in Tel Aviv for the return of the hostages.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog said on Sunday he had told Netanyahu, “… I will give him and the government my full support for a deal which will see the release of the hostages.”
“It is our inherent obligation to bring them home within the framework of a deal that preserves the security interests of the State of Israel,” Herzog said in an address at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Palestinian militant group Hamas, meanwhile, said it “views positively” what Biden on Friday described as the Israeli plan.
However, senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi said Saturday in a Qatari television interview, “No agreement can be reached before the demand for the withdrawal of the occupation army and a cease-fire is met,” calling for an end to the war and Israel’s full troop withdrawal from Gaza.
‘Time for the war to end’
President Biden said Friday the peace deal would involve an initial six-week cease-fire with a partial Israeli military withdrawal, and the release of some hostages, while “a permanent end to hostilities” is negotiated through mediators.
“It’s time for this war to end, for the day after to begin,” he said.
Netanyahu has insisted that according to the “exact outline proposed by Israel,” the transition from one phase to the next was “conditional” and drafted to allow it to maintain its war aims.
Fierce fighting
Across Gaza, the military said Sunday it struck “30 terror targets, including military infrastructure, weapons storage facilities and armed terrorist cells that posed a threat to IDF [army] ground troops.”
In Gaza’s southern border city of Rafah, fierce fighting continues despite concerns for displaced civilians sheltering in the city.
Before the Rafah offensive began on May 7, the United Nations said up to 1.4 million people were sheltering there. Since then, one million have fled the area, according to the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.
Israeli Apache attack helicopters targeted areas of central Rafah Sunday; a jet fired a missile at a house in the western Tel al-Sultan district and artillery shelling targeted the southern Brazil neighborhood, witnesses said.
Elsewhere in Gaza, Israeli helicopters fired at targets in Gaza City’s Zeitun and Sabra areas, and an airstrike hit a house in the city’s east, AFP reporters said.
Three people were killed, including a woman and a child, when an airstrike hit a family apartment in Gaza City’s Daraj neighborhood, a hospital medic said.
Artillery shelling also targeted areas of Deir al-Balah and the Bureij and Nuseirat camps, witnesses said.
The Israeli seizure of the Rafah crossing has further slowed sporadic aid deliveries for Gaza’s 2.4 million people and effectively shuttered the territory’s main exit point.
Cairo hosted a meeting with Israeli and U.S. officials on Sunday to discuss reopening the Rafah crossing, according to Egypt’s Al Qahera TV. Israel seized the Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossings in early May. Both are along the Gaza-Egypt border. Kerem has been reopened, Israel says, but the U.N. says little to no humanitarian aid has gotten through. The two crossings are important ports of entry to food, fuel, medicine and other supplies.
Israel’s defense ministry body overseeing civilian affairs in the Palestinian territories, COGAT, also said that 764 Egyptian trucks had crossed into Gaza over the past week through the Kerem Shalom crossing.
Hamas launched a terror attack October 7 on Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking roughly 250 hostages, 121 of whom remain in Gaza, including 37 the army says are dead.
Israel’s retaliatory bombardments and ground offensive have killed at least 36,379 people in Gaza, mostly civilians, according to the Hamas-run territory’s health ministry. The health ministry does not estimate how many of the dead were combatants.
Michael Ratney, the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, has said that a “historic” security deal currently under negotiation between the two countries has the potential to fundamentally change the landscape of the Middle East for the better.
Appearing on the Arab News current-affairs show “Frankly Speaking,” Ratney was optimistic the deal would both clarify and cement the decades-old relationship — based at present on verbal agreements — between Saudi Arabia and the US.
“We overuse that word ‘historic’ but it would be a historic agreement and it could fundamentally change the landscape in the Middle East for the better,” he said.
“Political cooperation, security cooperation, economic integration.”
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently said the deal, which would see Saudi Arabia agreeing to normalize ties with Israel in exchange for closer US integration and recognition of a Palestinian state, could be just weeks away.
Despite the mutual enthusiasm for the deal, Ratney would not be drawn on the exact timeline for its conclusion, warning there were many moving parts, in particular the willingness of Israel to hold up its end of the bargain.
“I don’t think there’s anybody involved in these negotiations that wouldn’t like to have it finished tomorrow,” Ratney told Katie Jensen, the host of “Frankly Speaking.”
“But since all of that is a part of this agreement and these are extraordinarily complex and detailed discussions, I don’t think I could put a timeline for it.
“There ar also other elements of it including a US Senate role and obviously the situation in Israel weighs on this as well.
“So as much as we would like to get this done tomorrow, we are going to proceed as quickly as we can, as seriously as we can. And we’re going to get this done as soon as all of the pieces fall into place.”
What makes the deal so significant is that it clearly sets out the parameters of the Saudi-US relationship and safeguards them against the political whims and particularities of future US administrations, lending the partnership a degree of certainty.
“That’s why it’s an agreement that would involve US Senate ratification,” said Ratney. “US Senate ratification means it is a formal agreement that doesn’t depend on a particular administration.
“It would be an enduring agreement not between an administration or a government but between two countries. And in that, that brings certainty. It brings certainty to us. It would bring certainty to the Saudis as well.”
Commentators have drawn parallels between the proposed Saudi-US deal and the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the US and Japan, signed in 1960. Asked whether these assessments were accurate, Ratney said he could not go into specifics.
“I’m really reluctant to get into those sorts of details,” he said. “Those are exactly the kinds of things that are subject to negotiations at the highest level of our government and the highest level of the Saudi government.”
He did, however, say the deal would include upgrades to the security partnership and economic relations, while also taking steps toward meeting Saudi Arabia’s demand for an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.
“Let’s just say this would be a historic agreement that would upgrade the security partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia. It would upgrade the economic relationship. It would bring Israel and Saudi Arabia essentially into the same region. And it would bring benefits and a path to statehood for the Palestinians.
“So, that’s a lot. It’s a complex set of discussions. And I’m really reluctant to get into the details of things, some of which are still yet to be negotiated.”
The success of the deal hinges to a significant degree on Israel’s cooperation. However, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, which has two powerful far-right ministers, has been reluctant to give way on Palestinian statehood and end the war in Gaza.
Ratney, who previously served as a diplomat in Israel, said there was much to be gained for the region.
“I would say all the elements that we have discussed are of extraordinary value. The real value is taking it all together,” he said.
“All of those elements that have been under discussion, all of the US-Saudi pieces and the Israel and the Palestinian pieces taken together could fundamentally change the landscape of this Middle East.
“And that is the lens through which we see it and it’s certainly the lens through which the US Senate sees it and they ultimately would have a vote to ratify it.”
However, US lawmakers have been reluctant to pressure Israel to accept a ceasefire in Gaza. Asked whether Washington’s decisions could radicalize a generation of Arab and Muslim youth and create a Hamas 2.0, Ratney said careful diplomacy was required to achieve a lasting peace.
“It’s impossible for anyone who watches these scenes on a daily basis, and it’s certainly impossible for anyone that knows friends and family who have been engulfed in this conflict, not to be moved by it, and not to be motivated to find a solution as soon as possible, to find an end to the violence in Gaza, to find an end to the threats to Israeli security, to find a path to statehood, so that this sort of, for Palestinians, to ensure that this sort of conflict doesn’t resume,” he said.
“The diplomacy involved with that is extraordinarily complex, and there’s areas that we pursue, and there’s positions that we take that sometimes aren’t popular, but they’re based on our sense of the most expeditious, the most effective way of pursuing it.”
Ratney was further challenged by Jensen, who asked him whether the whole world could be wrong on Israel and why the US appears reluctant to listen to its closest allies and apply firmer pressure on its ally.
In response he said: “I think it’s safe to say that both President Biden, Secretary Blinken, all of our senior officials, have been heavily involved. This has been a major preoccupation of theirs since the outbreak of violence on Oct. 7.
“They have been in the region steadily. Secretary Blinken has been here six times since October 7, our national security adviser as well. In almost every case, that involves visits to Israel as well, where they have, sometimes, very difficult and very direct conversations.
“We have an important relationship with Israel, we have an important partnership with Israel, and we utilize that relationship and partnership to find a decent end to this conflict.”
Saudi Arabia and the US had differences of opinion on regional issues after the Biden administration took office in 2020. However, after President Biden visited the Kingdom in 2022, the differences have made way for greater convergence of opinions.
Ratney, who has been ambassador to Saudi Arabia for a year, said the bilateral relationship was already better when he took up his posting, and that there was potential for even stronger ties.
“When I got here a little over a year ago, the relationship felt like it was in a good place. And I do think that’s the case. And I think over the last year, it has gotten better and better as our partnership has diversified, as we’ve delved into negotiations over a potential historical agreement between our countries.
“So, if I look ahead a year, two years, three years, what I’d like is that trajectory and the speed of that diversification and partnership to continue.”
Ratney said he has been impressed by the pace and scale of change in the Kingdom in recent years, particularly the empowerment of women — least of all the lifting of the ban on women driving.
“Women driving is really the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “The big change, the big innovation — and it has fundamentally changed the face of this country — is the fact that women are involved in every aspect of the economy, in every aspect of society.
“And that’s as simple as me going into meetings with senior government officials and seeing women are full participants in these discussions.
“And they’re not there as symbols. They’re highly educated, in many cases, as well-educated or better educated than their male counterparts, often at US universities. And it’s an extraordinary thing to see.”
Turning to areas of cooperation and opportunities between the US and Saudi Arabia, Ratney said there was now scope for trade and exchange in high technology and the creative industries.
“We work heavily with US companies that become intrigued by this market, to export to this market, to partner with Saudis here and invest here, and we see it in areas like not just healthcare, but infrastructure,” he said.
“Obviously, this country is making huge investments in infrastructure and US companies bring real value there. In high tech, Saudi Arabia has ambitions to become a hub for innovation and technological development.
“That in many ways is a US brand, and so US companies, whether Amazon or Google or others, are here, are interested, are involved, and are becoming partners with Saudis in those efforts.
“In the past, there was never much of a film industry here. Now we see US film and television companies interested in partnering with Saudi’s nascent film industry. That’s just extraordinary as well. So across the whole economy, we see opportunities for the US.”
Some commentators have suggested that the US has lost business to China in the scramble for contracts in the Kingdom, particularly in relation to technology and communications.
“Are there competitors: Europeans, Chinese? Sure,” Ratney said. “But I have to say, where China might bring low price to the table, what the US brings is value and it brings innovation and it brings partnership, in a way that very few competitors can match.”
Another area of future cooperation is the space sector.
“To listen to the Saudi leadership talk about it, I think, quite rightly, a space sector, a commercial space sector, is becoming increasingly a normal part of any big healthy economy,” Ratney said.
“It was Axiom Space, a US company, that put two Saudi astronauts last year to the International Space Station — an air force pilot and a microbiologist. The Saudis clearly have further ambitions there as well, and we want to be a part of that.”
He added: “Space, commercial space in particular, is the future, and it is an extraordinarily lucrative and extraordinarily ambitious future.”
Although he is only a year into his posting as US ambassador to the Kingdom, Ratney is already looking ahead to the legacy he wants to leave.
“As Saudi’s ambitions expand, whether it’s expanding and reforming their educational sector, building a larger media sector, the space exploration that we talked about, building a high-tech industry, a whole range of areas where the US and Saudi are natural partners, I would like to see a few years from that for everybody to know about that and for Saudi to be succeeding in its ambitions and for the US to be seen as its number one partner as it does so.”