The Case for Declaring a National Climate Emergency

Biden’s move to ban Russian oil imports shows he can act boldly when he wants to.

By Jean Su and Maya Golden-Krasner

President Joe Biden announces a ban on Russian oil imports in retaliation for its invasion of Ukraine. (Andrew Harnik / AP Photo)

Earlier this week, President Biden banned all oil and energy imports from Russia, punishing Vladimir Putin for his brutal war against Ukraine and building upon an earlier package of historic economic sanctions.

Biden’s actions are a steely acknowledgment that our reliance on Russian fossil fuels threatens both national and global security. They are also tangible evidence that Biden can act quickly and boldly to confront national emergencies when he chooses to.

One emergency that Biden must now act on with similar urgency is climate change. In fact, there is no greater emergency. As UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres put it, the climate crisis is drawing an “atlas of human suffering” around the world. Defusing this crisis will require major changes in how we get our energy—both in the United States and around the world. Global emissions of heat-trapping gases must be cut in half by 2030—and even faster in the US, as the largest historic climate polluter pays its fair share of climate debt—if humanity is to keep temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, which most experts agree will be essential to stave off the most catastrophic effects of climate change. And making those cuts will require phasing out oil, gas, and other fossil fuels as rapidly as possible.

The confluence of the climate emergency and Russia’s war in Ukraine make this moment an ideal opportunity for Biden to declare a national climate emergency. In fact, during a Tuesday morning speech announcing the import ban, Biden seemed to acknowledge that the two issues are intertwined. Russia’s disruptions, he said, “should motivate us to accelerate the transition to clean energy.”

Since the 1970s, Congress has granted the president various national defense powers that can be deployed during times of genuine emergency. A new legal report from our organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, details how Biden can use these powers to fight climate change—and, in the process, avoid the geopolitical vulnerabilities that come with an overreliance on fossil fuels.

The Defense Production Act, or DPA, is a wartime statute that permits a president to marshal domestic industries to manufacture critical materials needed for the national defense. Historically, it has been used to manufacture weapons for war, but Biden has also invoked the DPA for peaceful means of self-defense: to produce the vaccines and medical supplies needed to battle the coronavirus pandemic.

Now he has an important opportunity to use the act to combat climate change—by stimulating the production and deployment of renewable energy and storage, energy-efficiency technologies, and clean transportation and infrastructure.
CURRENT ISSUE

View our current issue


Subscribe today and Save up to $129.


Specifically, the DPA empowers the president to command private industry to manufacture what the country needs for the national defense. It unlocks funds specific to the DPA but can also leverage the $650 billion annual federal procurement budget to give manufacturers the investment security they need, including government contracts, loans, and grants. All of this could be used to jumpstart the nation’s green manufacturing base and create high quality, green jobs, rejuvenating a Covid-ailing economy.

The DPA also permits the president to allocate these technologies domestically where they’re needed most: in partnership with environmental justice communities that have borne the brunt of climate harms and a racist energy system, helping actualize the president’s environmental justice priorities.

The US could also export green technologies overseas to help other countries transition away from fossil fuels. Doing so would accomplish two things: diluting the geopolitical power of Russia and other petrostates and helping the US meet its legal obligations under the Paris Agreement to provide aid to vulnerable nations in the global South.

Beyond the DPA, Biden could also exercise additional executive powers provided by the National Emergencies Act, the International Emergency Economics Powers Act, and the US Trade Act, to limit not only the import of fossil fuels from countries like Russia, but also the export of those produced here in the United States. If Biden were, for instance, to ban just crude oil exports, he could cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 165 million metric tons each year—the equivalent of shuttering 42 coal plants.

Prevailing political interests are sure to push him in the opposite direction. Biden must resist the inevitable pressure he will face to expand domestic oil production as a means of offsetting the energy disruptions caused by Russia’s invasion. Exploiting crises to push for more oil production has long been a favorite trick of the fossil fuel lobby, dating back to the time of the OPEC oil embargoes in the 1970s. But more drilling will neither deliver the energy security that fossil fuel companies claim it will nor allow for the rapid phaseout of fossil fuels needed to preserve a livable planet.

Instead of falling for this trap, Biden should direct federal agencies to stop approving new fossil fuel infrastructure projects, which are incompatible with maintaining a safe climate. And he should ratchet down oil and gas production by suspending the offshore drilling leases that the federal government provides to fossil fuel companies and halting extraction.

If Biden were to embrace such a plan and put the nation on a wartime footing to both resist Putin’s aggression and address the climate emergency, he would enjoy strong support from his own party. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, Senators Jeff Merkley and Bernie Sanders, and Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are among the congressional leaders pushing the president to use powers provided by the National Emergencies Act to combat climate change. And more than 1,100 public interest organizations from all 50 states and territories have urged Biden to do the same.

These emergency powers are a tremendous opportunity for Biden to overcome the geopolitical threats, price volatility, and climate chaos that fossil fuels generate. The question isn’t whether Biden can take bold climate action—but whether he will.


Jean Su is the Energy Justice Program director and senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, based in Washington, D.C. With Maya Golden-Krasner, she is co-author of The Climate President’s Emergency Powers.

Maya Golden-Krasner

 is the deputy director and senior attorney of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, based in Los Angeles, Calif. With Jean Su, she is co-author of The Climate President’s Emergency Powers.

A Special Tribunal for Putin

For many years, the international rule of law has been undermined not just by rogue dictators but also by the leading global powers. Against this ominous backdrop, Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine represents a new low – one that cannot be tolerated if there is to be peace in the twenty-first century.

Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images


Long Read

Mar 11, 2022 MURRAY HUNT

OXFORD – The international rule of law – the simple idea that relations between states should be governed by enforceable constraints – has come under increasing strain in recent years. Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, a clear violation of both the United Nations Charter and customary international law, is perhaps the clearest example of just how precarious the situation has become.

FREE TO READ
The Monetary Consequences of Vladimir Putin
BARRY EICHENGREEN anticipates changes in how and where some central banks hold their foreign-exchange reserves

But Russian President Vladimir Putin and his authoritarian peers are hardly the only ones who have been systematically undermining the international rule of law. The resurgence of populist nationalism around the world – espoused most prominently by former US President Donald Trump and his latter-day “America First” movement – also has steadily eroded the rules-based international order that emerged after World War II. But even before Trump, many countries were asserting the primacy of their laws and policies over international rules and multilateral cooperation.

As a result, a pandemic of parochialism has infected many mature democracies to varying degrees. Nor has it been confined to instances of states refusing to implement the judgments of international courts – as China did when it dismissed the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling against its claims in the South China Sea; and as the United Kingdom did when it refused to comply with the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion ordering it to return the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. Rather, these are symptoms of a new “variant of concern.”

Around the world, states are increasingly committing flagrant violations of international rules while still claiming to comply with them. And neither the United States nor the UK can claim fidelity to the post-war rules-based international order they played such a large role in constructing.

Last October, for example, when US President Joe Biden’s Senior Legal Adviser to the State Department, the highly respected international lawyer Harold Koh, left his post, he wrote a detailed objection to Biden’s continuation of Trump’s border policy. The Biden administration’s approach, Koh wrote, “continues to violate our legal obligation not to expel or return … individuals who fear persecution, death, or torture, especially migrants fleeing from Haiti.” He concluded that the policy was in breach of both the Convention against Torture and the Refugee Protocol.

Similarly, the UK House of Lords recently had to strike clauses from a Nationality and Borders Bill because they were manifestly in breach of the UN Refugee Convention, contrary to what Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government had claimed. A similar confrontation also looms over an attempt to reform the UK Human Rights Act. The Johnson government claims that its proposed changes would be compatible with the UK remaining a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, even though the proposals flagrantly authorize “push back” against rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

This Humpty Dumpty approach to international law undermines the very rules-based system that both post-Brexit “Global Britain” and the Biden administration purport to promote abroad. If international law means whatever nation-states want it to mean, it is on the verge of becoming a dead letter.

RUSSIA’S WAR OF AGGRESSION

Russia’s shocking and barbaric war against Ukraine marks a new low in this dangerous global trend toward international law doublespeak. Claiming that the invasion is justified in international law, Putin has offered a series of mendacious rationales, ranging from the right to pre-emptive self-defense to the responsibility to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine from “genocide” (a brazen falsehood that echoes Hitler’s own justification for invading Czechoslovakia in 1939).

In fact, as an overwhelming majority of UN General Assembly members recognized last week, the invasion lacks any legal justification and constitutes an act of “aggression” in violation of the UN Charter. Aggression, otherwise known as a crime against peace, is one of the most serious crimes in international criminal law, along with genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.


Our newest magazine, The Year Ahead 2022: Reckonings, is here. To receive your print copy, delivered wherever you are in the world, subscribe to PS for less than $9 a month.

As a PS subscriber, you’ll also enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of premium long-form content, Say More contributor interviews, The Big Picture topical collections, and the full PS archive.

In addition to unleashing terrible suffering – with thousands already dead and more than two million Ukrainian refugees having fled – Russia’s aggression highlights the world’s dependence on the international rule of law for peace, security, and prosperity. It is a wake-up call for states everywhere: neglect the erosion of the international rule of law at your peril.

When states commit such grave breaches, our commitment to the international rule of law – memorably described by former UK Senior Law Lord Tom Bingham as “the domestic rule of law writ large” – requires that there be effective institutional machinery to hold accountable those responsible, and to provide justice for those who have suffered.

This machinery is much more developed now than it was during World War II, thanks in part to the UK’s influence in constructing the post-war rules-based international order. States or individuals can now bring Russia before the ECHR in Strasbourg, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague can investigate, prosecute, and punish actions amounting to genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. In fact, both processes have already begun.

MIND THE LEGAL GAP

These institutions represent major improvements to the rule-of-law machinery that existed in the first half of the twentieth century. But there is still a significant gap, because no entity currently can investigate, prosecute, and punish the international crime of aggression against Ukraine. The recent expansion of the ICC’s jurisdiction to cover the crime of aggression does not extend to Russia’s actions on Ukrainian territory, because neither country is a party to the ICC statute.

The very existence of this gap could be seen as proof of the current system’s dysfunction. What kind of legal system recognizes certain wrongs as serious crimes but does not provide the institutional means for investigating, prosecuting, or punishing them?

Some might argue that this gap is irrelevant, because existing institutions could still hold Putin and his generals accountable for other offenses, such as violations of human rights, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. But it does matter, because the machinery to punish the crime of aggression would be more effective than those other channels in holding Putin’s inner circle accountable.

Aggression is a crime committed by leaders who plan, initiate, or have the power to influence or shape an overall policy of aggression. It applies to the top ranks, rather than to middle- or lower-ranking officials, and it is generally easier to prove than individual responsibility for specific acts amounting to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Moreover, it also would allow for those who have been complicit in aggression – for example, by providing material support to facilitate it – to be held responsible.

As such, the process of ensuring legal accountability is correspondingly swifter. In the short run, the threat of being brought to justice might encourage those who are systemically sustaining the war of aggression to begin to distance themselves from the regime. And in the long run, knowledge of this risk will act as a deterrent to future enablers of aggression.

THE CASE FOR A SPECIAL TRIBUNAL

Given these potential outcomes, there is a growing chorus calling for the gap in the international rule-of-law machinery to be filled with a special tribunal to punish the crime of aggression against Ukraine. This body would complement, rather than compete with, the ICC, because it would have authority to act only where the ICC lacks prosecutorial power.

One such proposal, which has the Ukrainian government’s support, encourages states to form a coalition of the willing with Ukraine to create a special tribunal. Another proposal envisions a tribunal being established under the UN’s auspices, on the recommendation of the General Assembly. Notably, The Elders – a private organization of prominent former government and international leaders – has endorsed calls for a criminal tribunal to be established, though they have not specified how it should come into being.

Any of these proposals would fill the current institutional gap by enabling the victim state to ensure that aggression on its territory does not go unpunished. The modalities by which a special criminal tribunal is established are of secondary importance. What matters is that there is now a powerful movement to uphold the international rule of law by ensuring that there is no impunity for aggression. Russia’s aggression has thus created the conditions for reversing the disturbing trend of recent years.

What will it take to ensure that this historic opportunity is not missed? Rebuilding the international rule of law will require more than merely reasserting the supremacy of international rules over national laws and policies. For a restored system to endure, its reconstruction must account for the reasons why it was eroded in the first place.

One of those reasons is reflected in criticism of the proposals for a special tribunal. Some legal scholars argue that a special tribunal is a bad idea because it sends the message that international criminal justice is ultimately selective. According to this critique, the international rule of law would be subverted, rather than strengthened, by the hypocrisy and double standards involved in singling out Russian aggression when other states’ equally grave acts of aggression have gone unpunished.

This is a powerful critique that proponents of a special tribunal cannot simply dismiss. Nationalist attacks on international norms, institutions, and court rulings have found ready audiences among some electorates partly because there is a growing perception that the international rule of law is a Western imperial construct. Powerful states invoke international law when it suits their interests and conveniently overlook it when it does not.

As I have recently argued elsewhere, rebuilding the international rule of law requires that this critique be fully acknowledged. It is important that proposals invoking the rule of law be seen as manifestations of an inclusive and equitable multilateral system, not as mechanisms imposed solely by the Western powers that designed the post-war international order. But it is one thing to recognize the problem of selectivity; it is quite another thing to argue against the creation of a special tribunal on these grounds. That path leads to a counsel of despair, turning the perfect into the enemy of the good.

A CHANCE TO REBUILD

A special tribunal to punish Russia’s crime of aggression against Ukraine would be a pragmatic way to start rebuilding our global institutions, in keeping with what former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown advocates in his recent book, Seven Ways to Change the World. Brown’s proposed strategy is grounded in universal values, but it would build the case for international cooperation issue by issue. Support for reform must be won, not demanded. States must show leadership and build coalitions of the responsible, persuading both governments and electorates that there are advantages in pooling national sovereignty.

Today’s proposals for a special tribunal are not about creating and imposing new international norms on the rest of the world. Aggression is a long-recognized international crime. The case that must be made now is for developing the institutional machinery to enable punishment of that crime. Russia’s aggression has summoned into being an extraordinary global consensus that there can be no impunity for such grave acts of aggression in the twenty-first century.

The ball is now in the court of those who aspire to global leadership on this issue, not least the UK, the US, and many European countries. The international rule of law faces existential threats around the world. But by developing the institutional machinery needed to uphold this powerful ideal, governments can demonstrate that their commitment to it is more than merely rhetorical. They have an opportunity to step back from rule-of-law doublespeak, to renew their commitments to abide by obligations they have voluntarily adopted, and to uphold the universally recognized norms of customary international law.

It is in everyone’s interest that international rules be consistently enforced. Rebuilding the international rule of law will take intelligent leadership and patient work, and that work must begin now.



MURRAY HUNT
Murray Hunt, Director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, is Visiting Professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Oxford and a co-editor of Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit (Bloomsbury, 2015).

Reality star Kim Kardashian's work ethic 'advice' triggers the fury of former Kardashian employees

PUBLISHED ABOUT 10 HOURS AGO
IMAGES STAFF
DESK REPORT


They complained about poor work conditions right after Kim spoke about people's poor work ethic in a recent interview.

Photo: Kim Kardashian/Instagram

Reality TV star Kim Kardashian was on the receiving end of major backlash on Twitter after her 'advice' on work ethic was widely criticised about on the internet.

In an interview to Variety released on March 9, Kim, alongside sisters Khloé Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian and mother Kris Jenner, talked about "their career in the entertainment business, advice for young women in the working world, and how their new show on Hulu, The Kardashians, will be different from Keeping Up with the Kardashians" — the E! Network reality TV show which helped launched their careers in the fashion and beauty business. The show aired its last season in 2021 after after 14 years.

In the interview Kim said, "I have the best advice for women in business. Get your f******g a** up and work. It seems like nobody wants to work these days. You have to surround yourself with people that want to work."

Kim's comments triggered an onslaught of angry posts on Twitter and amongst them were former employees of the Kardashian family who shared how they experienced poor work conditions while working for the family or the businesses they owned.

"I was an editor on the Kardashian apps in 2015 in Los Angeles," read a tweet. "[I] worked days, nights and weekends. [I] could only afford groceries from the 99 Cents Only Store and was called 'sick' more than once because I couldn’t put gas in my car to get to the office. [I was also] reprimanded for freelancing on the side."

"Remembering when I was a miserable unpaid intern travelling on my own dime across London to fetch Kylie Jenner a specific kind of manuka honey for her tea on a luxury fashion shoot," read another tweet.

Other users were quick to highlight not everyone has the same access to resources as the Kardashians. "She really swears we have the same access, resources and just overall privilege she does," shared one user. "I'm giggling cause ma'am you were born rich. [D]on't tell regular people what to do."

"People literally have to start working at the age of fourteen and a half to support their future on minimum wage and you were raised in a society were working was an option not a necessity," a user shared, directing her tweet towards Kim.

English actor and activist Jameela Jamil also criticised Kim for her comments. "I think if you grew up in Beverly Hills with super successful parents in what was simply a smaller mansion… nobody needs to hear your thoughts on success/work ethic. This same 24 hours in the day s**t is a nightmare. Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the world grew up with a VERY different 24 hours," she posted on Twitter.

OBITUARY: Remembering Farhad Zaidi

Jaffer Bilgrami
DAWN.COM
Published March 12, 2022 -

Farhad Zaidi


DISTINGUISHED print and broadcast journalist Farhad Zaidi, who passed away in Karachi on Friday, had only recently celebrated turning nonagenarian.

An icon of the old school of journalism, Zaidi sahab (as he was called by his juniors) was widely known for his grace, warmth of personality and natural gentility. As a professional, he was truthful, selfless and courageous. Those who ever had the privilege of working with him or even being acquainted with him will support my assessment.

Born in a reputed Syed family in the Indian town of Jaunpur, he had spent his early years in Aurangabad, where his father was posted. The Zaidi clan later made Lahore home, and it was from there that Farhad Zaidi started his long and illustrious career in Pakistani media.


My first two meetings with Zaidi sb were introductory and mostly perfunctory, as he did not know me well at the time; yet, they remain etched in my memory. The first was sometime in the mid-1970s, when fellow journalist and friend Zafar Qureshi, who had worked with him in a newspaper, took me to Zaidi sb’s residence in PECHS, Karachi.

This was followed by another, when I escorted my late boss, Muslehuddin sb of PTV, to Shezan in Karachi. The now-shuttered restaurant became a rendezvous for two displaced Laborites.

Zaidi sb started his career in journalism during the 1950s with Urdu dailies like Imroz, Nawa-e-Waqt and Mashriq. However, it was the editorship of the daily Hurriyat, an Urdu publication of the Dawn Media Group, which truly pushed him to prominence.

He edited the newspaper with professional distinction and shaped it into one of the most popular sources of information at the time. As a prolific writer, Farhad Zaidi gave the publication a new identity: he introduced features based on human interest stories and highlighted civic issues. He also brought in op-ed pieces which, though they were mostly political in nature, were literary gems in their own right.

This was an uncommon style in contemporary journalism and these editorials greatly influenced society at large. He later joined the daily Muslim — an English-language daily based in Islamabad — as part of its management. During this period, he was twice elected as President of All Pakistan Newspapers Society.

It would be unfair to compare Zaidi sb with his contemporaries in print media, as he was equally accomplished in the world of broadcast journalism. Appearing as compere in current affairs talk shows on the state television network, he was the perfect television personality: polite, well-informed and a professional who knew what he was doing.

He would be the preferred choice whenever PTV wished to interview politicians as part of its pre-election exercises.

His television background was perhaps instrumental in his eventual appointment to spearhead the network in the 1990s. Heading PTV came with near-daily pressures from the sitting government. Besides, handling its administration was no mean task as rampant intrigue and petty wrangling were quite common.

Yet, Farhad Zaidi navigated the network with good governance and completed his stint with an unblemished reputation. Very few know that he was also instrumental in opening the doors to the private sector to produce commercial news for state television.

Earlier in 1978, along with longtime friend and journalism colleague Ghazi Salahuddin, he was one of the most senior journalists who courted arrest to protest curbs imposed on the press by the military dictatorship of Gen Ziaul Haq and the flogging of journalists.

He was sentenced to six months in Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat jail, but was eventually freed after a few weeks. His prison diaries were later published in the weekly Mayar.

It is regretful that Zaidi sb’s literary side was eclipsed due to his high-profile involvement in journalism. His epic poem Sharif Aadmi (Noble Man), written at the time of the hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, brought him much acclaim in later years.

With his passing, the world has lost a gentleman who represented the finest breed of journalists this country has produced.

His Namaz-i-Janaza was offered at Yasrab Imambargah in the evening and he was laid to rest at the DHA phase-8 graveyard.

He is survived by his wife of 53 years, Mussarat Jabeen, the former editor of Akhbar-i-Khawateen, Nusrat and Millat, and sons Hasan Zaidi (Editor magazines at Dawn) and Ali Faisal Zaidi (Producer at BBC).

Published in Dawn, March 12th, 2022

WORD OF THE DAY

nonagenarian

NOUN

1. a person who is from 90 to 99 years old.

Pakistan teen sensation Ahsan claims IBSF World Snooker crown

Anwar Zuberi   

Published March 12, 2022 - 

DOHA: Pakistan’s Ahsan Ramzan poses with the trophy after winning the IBSF World Snooker Championship final against Amir Sarkhosh of Iran on Friday.—courtesy IBSF

KARACHI: Riding on the crest of a wave, teenage sensation Ahsan Ramzan elevated his stature when he outpaced former runner-up Iranian Amir Sarkhosh 6-5 in an epic final to lay his hands on the International Billiards and Snooker Federation World Snooker Championship in Doha on Friday.

Fresh from his semi-final triumph over defending champion and compatriot Mohammad Asif, the 16-year-old Ahsan reached the zenith as he came back from 4-2 down at one stage to win a nerve-jangling final 63-60, 91-0, 19-65, 1-102, 28-68, 27-66, 86-18, 1-70, 69-0, 63-17, 67-25 and enter his name into the annals of the game.

Pakistan ended the event with a gold and two bronze after Sarkhosh had beaten Mohammad Sajjad in the other semi-final.

Ahsan became the second-youngest cueist to clinch the world title after China’s Yan Bingtao, who did it at the age of 14 defeating Sajjad in the title clash at Bangalore in 2014.

Ahsan also became the third Pakistani to win the world snooker championship since its inception in 1963 after veterans Mohammad Yousuf (1994 at Johannesburg) and Asif (2012 and 2019 at Sofia and Antalya).

The Lahore-based prodigy had a brilliant start as he surged into a 2-0 lead after winning the first two frames that also included a solid break of 70 in the second.

Sarkhosh, who took time to settle, came into the game by winning the next four frames on the trot, including a century break (102) in the fourth.

Ahsan, however, recovered to reduce the lead to 3-4 by taking the seventh frame but again fell prey as his opponent won the next to lead by 5-3 in the best of 11 frames encounter needing a frame to wrap up the match.

But Ahsan kept his cool and cue control to turn the tide in his favour by winning the remaining three frames in a row.

Ahsan had halted the winning streak of Asif in a gruelling semi-final that was stretched to the limit and saw the former claim a 5-4 victory on the penultimate day.

Ahsan came back thrice from the deficit, first to draw level at 4-4 and then won the decisive frame by a whisker. He won the battle 63-71, 21-60, 76-50, 75-51, 64-65, 63-46, 39-68, 69-62, 62-60.

This was Ahsan’s second victory over two-time world champion, the last being in quarter-final of the 46th National Snooker Cham­pionship held in Karachi six months ago.

In the other semi-final, Sarkhosh had also edged Sajjad 5-4 to book his place in the final.

Sajjad had a dismal start as he trailed 1-4 in the best of nine match. It was from there that he roared back into the match to tie at 4-4. But Amir scored a brilliant break of 64 in the decisive frame that enabled him to cruise into the final.

Amir won the duel 64-32, 59-47, 77-25, 18-62, 103-14, 30-59, 9-75, 24-58, 66-1. He made a century break of 102 in the fifth frame while Sajjad replied with 62 in the seventh.

Both the semi-finals lasted little over five hours.

Former President of Pakistan Billiards and Snooker Federation (PBSF) Ali Asghar Valika has hailed Ahsan’s victory in the world event.

“It’s like a dream come true as the cueist did his country proud,” he told Dawn after the final.

The Asian 6-Reds and Team Event will commence from Saturday.

Published in Dawn, March 12th, 2022

Ukraine diplomacy

A.G. Noorani

Published March 12, 2022 

THE US owes a heavy responsibility to save Ukraine from destruction at the hands of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. He is reckless but the West had led Ukraine up the garden path. Would it really have intervened if Ukraine was a member of Nato? For long, Americans and Europeans have discussed the efficacy of Nato’s guarantee. Would the US indeed risk nuclear annihilation to save Italy? And now the expanded Nato?

The legendary PM, Jim Hacker, had to confront this agonising dilemma in the BBC’s Yes Prime Minister serial when he met the government’s chief scientific adviser Isaac Rosenblum. He was merciless in questioning the PM on the futility of the nuclear deterrent and on defining the “last resort” when the nuclear button had to be pressed. He asked, “So what is the last resort? Piccadilly? … The Reform Club?” America’s nuclear strategists have long wrestled with this question — risk America’s annihilation while saving Italy? Or Ukraine?

This misses an important point. The Nato guarantee itself is of questionable worth and Nato’s expansion was a dangerous folly. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 says: “The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that … each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

The Nato guarantee is of questionable worth.

Explaining Article 5 to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee, secretary of state Dean Acheson said: “This … does not mean that the [US] would be automatically at war if one of the other signatory nations were the victim of an armed attack. … The obligation of this government under Article V would … be to take promptly the action it deemed necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. That decision would, of course, be taken in accordance with our constitutional procedures. The factors which would have to be considered would be the gravity of the attack and the nature of the action which this government considered necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

In other words, there is no guarantee of automatic help under the treaty. Each party has a discretion on how to perform its obligation.

Acheson was asked by committee chairman: “Is there or is there not anything in the treaty that pledges us to an automatic declaration of war in any event?” He replied in the negative. Asked again, “Those are matters still residing in the discretion and judgement of the Government and the Senate?”, Acheson replied, “That is true”. The chairman asked: “Even after the occurrence of events, we would still have that freedom, would we not?” “That is true,” emphasised Acheson.

Far weaker were subsequent treaties like the ones with Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and in SEATO. Pakistan needs no edification on the worth of US pledges. The only case of an unqualified pledge was the Pact of Steel between Hitler and Mussolini on May 22, 1939. But neither under the UN Charter nor under international law does a victim of aggression need a treaty to solicit or obtain military aid for its defence. America’s refusal to supply planes to Ukraine is indefensible. Would it have intervened if Ukraine was a Nato member?

A few days ago, the Kremlin spokesperson published Russia’s surrender terms: Ukraine to lay down arms, alter its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Cri­mea as Russian territory and Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states.

President Joe Biden assisted by Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky must meet President Vladmir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva to hammer out a compromise. Force unrelated to achievable political ends is sterile diplomacy. Khrushchev said in March 1959: “History teaches us that conferences reflect in their decisions an established balance of forces resulting from victory or capitulations in war or similar circumstances.”

The foreign ministers of Russia and Ukraine have met. On March 8, Ukraine said it was no longer pressing for Nato membership and was open to ‘compromise’ on the status of the two breakaway territories. On March 9, the Russian foreign ministry spokesperson said “some progress” had been made in the talks. Russia did not seek regime change in Ukraine.

The progress is significant. The agenda must also cover Russian reparations for the damage it has inflicted on that hapless country. Matters have gone too far. They can be resolved only by a Biden-Putin summit. There is need for an immediate ceasefire.

The writer is an author and lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, March 12th, 2022