Wednesday, October 23, 2024

 

UNCTAD: Maritime Chokepoints Are Trade's Biggest Vulnerability

The tanker Sounion burns in the Red Sea, August 28 (EUNAVFOR)
The tanker Sounion burns in the Red Sea, August 28 (EUNAVFOR)

Published Oct 22, 2024 3:38 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

In its annual review of world maritime commerce for 2024, UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) honed in on the risk of disruption at key maritime chokepoints. Protracted challenges at the Panama Canal and the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb have raised policymakers' awareness of the risk of a shutdown on the world's busiest trade lanes, and the potential knock-on effects for shippers and consumers. 

The Red Sea is the most important example, and has gotten gradually worse since Yemen's Houthi rebels began attacking shipping in the fall of 2023, despite interventions by Western powers. By the end of the year, traffic through the Suez Canal was down by half, and by mid-23024 it was down by 70 percent. As more and more ships took the longer Cape of Good Hope route, global ton-mile demand went up by three percent and container ship demand by 12 percent. 

The shutdown of the Red Sea has been a financial lifeline for ocean carriers, as it absorbed excess vessel capacity and returned freight rates and profit margins to higher levels. For shippers, it has meant delays and higher costs, some of which are passed along to consumers. Just the cost of extra EU ETS emissions charges comes to $400,000 per voyage for a Megamax-24 on the Far East-Europe route, according to UNCTAD. 

Disruption notwithstanding, UNCTAD predicts uninterrupted growth in maritime trade. By tonnage, seaborne commerce increased by 2.4 percent in 2023, and is on track to grow by another two percent this year. On average, UNTAD forecasts 2.4 percent annual growth per year for the next five years, despite an "exceptionally daunting operating landscape" because of geopolitical conflict. 

This will drive continued increases in freight rates, boosting inflation. Container rate increases alone will push consumer prices up by an average of 0.6 percent worldwide by 2025, according to UNCTAD. For small island states and least developed nations, which have less ocean freight connectivity, that number is closer to one percent. 

In response to the risk of disruption and inflation, UNCTAD recommended:

- International cooperation to minimize the impact of geopolitical risk on trade lanes
- Earlier prediction and faster rerouting when disruptions occur
- Regional trade cooperation to reduce dependence on costly long-distance routes
- Streamlining supply chains to reduce ton-mile requirements
- Digitizing port operations to improve efficiency across the board

 

G7 Asks Maritime Service Providers to Comply With Russian Tanker Sanctions

Cash

Published Oct 22, 2024 6:55 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

After a series of news reports on Russian "shadow fleet" oil tanker transactions in the UK, the G7 Price Cap Coalition has issued new guidance on "enhancing due diligence" for tanker brokers and insurers. The guidance lays out well-known risk factors for a potential transaction with a sanctioned counterparty - the kind of transaction that often brings outsize profit margins.

On October 11, the BBC reported that the UK government is investigating 37 businesses and entities for possible breaches of sanctions on Russian oil shipping. Some of these firms are in the insurance sector, according to BBC, and at least one shipbroker was named separately by the Financial Times. 

Companies in the G7 nations are prohibited from assisting Russian oil shipping unless the price per cargo is less than $60 per barrel. The measure was designed to ensure that Russian oil continued to flow to the global market, albeit at lower cost, keeping energy prices stable while suppressing Russia's revenue stream. Since Russian oil now sells for more than $60 on the open market, the International Group has concluded that the cap is effectively unenforceable.

To evade the cap, an estimated 70 percent of Russian oil shipping has shifted to a "shadow fleet" of aging, questionably-insured tankers with obscure ownership. According to the FT, at least one British shipbroker has assisted - if unwittingly - in this fleet's creation by facilitating the sale of older Western tankers to Russian-aligned interests. (The firm named by the FT maintains that it is fully compliant with all legal requirements.)

To push back on the rise of the shadow fleet and to curb Western assistance to its growth, the Price Cap Coalition issued familiar recommendations to maritime stakeholders. In short, the coalition recommended working with tanker owners who have legitimate business practices. These include real P&I insurance, with enough financial strength to cover oil pollution liability; real classification from an IACS member; consistent use of AIS; no signs of questionable STS transfers; and rational transaction costs that are not inflated to hide the true price of the oil cargo. Ships that trigger concerns should be reported to national authorities.  

"Those involved in the sale and brokering of tankers should remain vigilant of potential evasive or illicit purchase structures and enduses, especially for aging tankers, including tankers previously designated for recycling," the coalition advised. "Stakeholders should be aware that owners and operators of sanctioned vessels may attempt to engage in deceptive practices to obfuscate their status, such as renaming, reflagging, obscuring their IMO number, or falsifying documents, increasing sanctions risk for non-sanctioned counterparties."

The coalition advised that maritime service companies should set up internal training programs to warn their employees about shadow fleet risk factors and compliance requirements.  

Ahead of the coalition's new guidance, Panama announced that it would change its regulations to allow deflagging sanctioned vessels on an expedited basis. In the past, the legal process would take months to cancel a single vessel, and a lingering accumulation of sanctioned ships on the Panama registry had attracted attention from Washington. 

The UK has spearheaded a separate drive to query the insurance status of suspicious tankers as they pass through territorial seas. The U.S. has endorsed this safety petition, along with several dozen European countries. 

 

Miami Fire Dept. Evacuates Anchor Handler's Master After a Serious Fall

Atlantic Power (courtesy Atlantic Oceanic)
Atlantic Power (courtesy Atlantic Oceanic)

Published Oct 22, 2024 4:26 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

On Monday, a Miami search and rescue unit medevaced the captain of a Jones Act anchor handler off the coast of Florida after he suffered a fall. 

At about 0920 hours on Monday, the captain of the MPSV conversion Atlantic Power fell down a ladderway a distance of about 12-15 feet and collapsed on deck. He was unable to move, so the vessel called for assistance. Miami Dade Fire Rescue and Coast Guard Station Miami Beach dispatched small response boats to the scene, but decided not to carry out a ship-to-ship transfer because of the risk to the patient. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue sent a helicopter aircrew with a paramedic, and this response team successfully hoisted the master off the vessel at about 1000 hours. 

The master was flown to Jackson Memorial Hospital's trauma center, and he was awake and alert on arrival, according to local media. He is expected to survive, 7News Miami reports.

Atlantic Power (ex name Gerard Jordan) is a converted DP2 anchor handler owned by Atlantic Oceanic, a firm that specializes in Jones Act-compliant vessels for the U.S. offshore wind market. The firm has a fleet of U.S. and British-flagged vessels for a variety of roles in offshore wind development, including site survey, boulder removal and ROV operations. 

 

U.S. Navy Sub Gets Public Award for Top-Secret Mission

USS Washington returns to Portsmouth, Sept. 2024 (USN)
USS Washington returns to Portsmouth, Sept. 2024 (USN)

Published Oct 22, 2024 7:44 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

The Navy has awarded a submarine crew a high-profile public commendation for a mission that it cannot disclose. USS Washington, a Virginia-class fast attack sub based in Norfolk, has been awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for long-endurance secret missions it carried out on a deployment to Europe. It is far from the first time that the Navy has celebrated the covert activities of the submarine force, which has racked up dozens of top honors for unspecified missions that usually - but not always - remain concealed in the depths. 

In a statement, the Navy gave hints about the circumstances and the importance of the intelligence operation, but not the location or the objectives. Vice Adm. Rob Gaucher, commander of Submarine Forces, said that Washington's crew entered high risk environments on "vital national level missions." 

They obtained "sensitive and unique intelligence information" over the course of three unusually long missions and 37,000 nautical miles of transit time. The sub set a new record for days on station for any East Coast sub deployment, thanks to careful husbanding of stores, and the crew stayed on task through "long periods without readily accessible support."

"The crew spent countless hours on training, maintenance, and certification," said Senior Chief Machinist’s Mate Austin Gilbert, Washington’s chief enlisted officer. "While deployed, their resiliency was crucial to their success."

The sub's area of operation was not explicitly disclosed, but it called at Faslane and again at Grotsund, a fjord near Tromso in Norway's Arctic north. USS Washington was also awarded the new Arctic Service Medal for "exceptional service and dedication during operations in the strategic Arctic region."

The "silent service" has racked up many Presidential Unit Citations over the years, and a famous intelligence-gathering sub holds the service-wide record. USS Parche, the most decorated vessel in Navy history, racked up 10 of them over 30 years in service (along with dozens of other awards). Parche was one of several heavily-modified attack subs outfitted to wiretap Soviet subsea cables, a task she famously performed within Russian territorial waters in the Sea of Okhotsk.

 

GAO: Maintenance Issues Have Cut U.S. Army Fleet's Readiness in Half

LSVs
Two Army LSVs and one LCU in the Persian Gulf, 2012. The middle vessel is USAV Major General Robert Smalls (LSV-8), which was laid up and damaged by neglect in 2018-2020 (U.S Army)

Published Oct 22, 2024 10:29 PM by The Maritime Executive

 


The U.S. military's heavy landing craft fleet does not live under the Navy or the Marine Corps, but under the U.S. Army's Watercraft Systems division - and it is in trouble, according to the Government Accountability Office. 

The Army operates a little-known fleet of bow-ramp landing ships and watercraft, from mini-tugs up to the 275-foot Besson-class logistics support ships. With enough deadweight for up to two dozen Abrams battle tanks, and enough range to cross the Pacific, the Besson-class ships are by far the biggest active U.S. military vessels that can land troops directly onto a beach.

The Army began downsizing its watercraft fleet in 2018, when it had more than 130 vessels. The initiative proceeded in fits and starts, but by 2023, the service had reduced the division's size to 70 active vessels. This fleet count includes the Modular Causeway System, the heart of the Joint Logistics Over the Shore (JLOTS) temporary pier capability, which encountered severe operational difficulties off Gaza this year.

According to GAO, the capability of the Army's remaining watercraft force is eroding because of persistent maintenance challenges. The Army watercraft fleet's average fully mission capable availability rate should ideally be 90 percent, and in 2020 it sat at 75 percent. It has dropped every year since, and over the course of 2024, the average availability rate was 35 percent. 

Low availability reduces the fleet's ability to meet mission requirements, even as demand for Army landing craft increases in Indo-Pacific Command. Two-thirds of the Army fleet will be transferred to the Indo-Pacific by 2030, reflecting the new focus on geostrategic competition in this region.  

Part of the problem is the advancing age of the fleet. The most in-demand vessels, the LSV and LCU landing ships, are mostly in their 30s and are showing signs of age. Supply shortages, unexpected repairs and obsolete parts for these 1990s-era vessels are making normal shipyard periods run longer - in some cases, years longer.

GAO found that the Army's newest and largest landing ship, USAV Major General Robert Smalls (LSV-8), was "left unattended" in Baltimore for two years from 2018-2020. The layup period occurred after the Army's decision to deactivate all its Army Reserve watercraft units, and the neglected ship required 2,100 days of shipyard time because of "cumulative effect of unaddressed issues and complex repair contracts," exacerbated by the "absence of a regular crew." The Smalls only returned to service at Fort Eustis, Virginia in May 2024. 

Likewise, USAV El Caney (LCU-2017) entered a yard period for a service life extension in 2018 and was still under repair in mid-2024, more than five years later. Unexpected hull damage and repeated problems in finding parts dragged out the project and forced seven contract modifications. 

GAO also found that the Watercraft Inspection Branch - one of three offices responsible for vessel maintenance - still uses handwritten work orders to track events, not the enterprise data systems that are used by the rest of the service. The paper-based management system means that the office can't readily analyze trends across the fleet - for example, the parts availability issues for the service's aging vessels. 

GAO recommended that the Army should improve the governance of its watercraft program, start tracking maintenance electronically, and work with Indo-Pacific Command to bridge any gaps in landing craft capability in the region where it is needed most. The Army concurred with all recommendations. 

 

Op-Ed: Legacy Pollution in Union Bay is Not Linked to Working Waterfront

Coal Hill
Courtesy DWR

Published Oct 20, 2024 11:05 AM by Mark Jurisich and Andrew Bohn

 

 

Union Bay, Vancouver Island, has long been the site of industrial activity, primarily coal processing, which has left a heavy legacy of pollution. Today, Deep Water Recovery (DWR), a company specializing in the recycling of steel vessels, is facing scrutiny from provincial regulators – but there is well-documented evidence pointing to the area’s long history of contamination. The region’s pollution is clearly tied to past coal and logging activities, not DWR’s ongoing business.

A Historical Legacy of Pollution

A 32-acre coal waste pile adjacent to DWR’s property continues to leach arsenic, copper, mercury, and other toxic metals into Baynes Sound and Hart Creek. This coal pile, remnants of Vancouver Island's coal industry, has been identified through environmental studies as a significant source of contamination extending over 30 yards offshore. Tests have shown that seep water from the coal pile is rife with harmful metals, including cadmium, cobalt, iron, and nickel, all of which have had decades to permeate the local ecosystem. Sediment analyses have found similarly high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals, exacerbating the environmental damage in Union Bay.

These facts paint a clear picture: the primary source of pollution in the area predates DWR’s presence and stems from coal-related activities. In fact, the coal waste pile adjacent to DWR’s site necessitated a multi-million-dollar remediation effort from the government to cap the area and reduce further contamination. This effort, while significant, has not yet addressed the wider environmental impact of Union Bay’s industrial past.

Challenges of Operating in a Historically Contaminated Site

Operating in an area with such a deeply entrenched history of industrial pollution poses significant challenges for DWR, which has to navigate the complex realities of conducting business on a site that is already under heavy environmental regulation. This includes a recurring obligation to prove that its operations - which adhere to the Hong Kong International Convention for Ship Recycling - are not the source of these pollutants. Provincial and federal agencies subject the company to stringent guidelines, requiring constant monitoring and compliance. While this level of oversight is appropriate for any industrial operation, the focus on DWR ignores the far larger historical contamination issues that remain unresolved.

Recycling steel vessels—a critical and environmentally beneficial process—does not introduce contaminants such as arsenic, mercury, or PAHs into the environment. These operations differ significantly from historical coal mining, which is responsible for the heavy metal contamination still plaguing the region today.

Difficulties of Operating in a "Green" Zone

Public sentiment around industrial operations often tends to skew negatively, particularly in areas where environmentalism is a strong local value. Recycling vessels prevents them from becoming environmental hazards in other areas of the world, particularly in countries with less stringent environmental regulations.

DWR’s presence in Union Bay should not be viewed as a detriment to the environment but rather as a positive step towards addressing waste in a sustainable, responsible manner – steps that contrast with the legacy pollution that continues to seep into the water from coal and forestry activities.

Robert Bohn is the owner of Deep Water Recovery. 

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executi

 

Mediation Proposal Rejected to End Overtime Strike by Montreal Dockworkers

Port of Montreal
Dockworkers are rejecting overtime in an effort to pressure the MEA into a new cotnract (Port of Montreal file photo)

Published Oct 22, 2024 4:36 PM by The Maritime Executive

 


Mediation Proposal Rejected to End Overtime Strike by Montreal Dockworkers 

A proposal by Canada’s Minister of Labor to restart the mediation process to end the standoff in the labor dispute at the Port of Montreal was rejected with no clear path apparent in the ongoing dispute. For nearly two weeks, the Montreal Longshoremen’s union CUPE Local 375 has been rejecting all overtime assignments in a pressure tactic for the long-running dispute with the Maritime Employers Association.

Minister of Labor Steven MacKinnon met with both sides on October 15 five days after the overtime strike began and proposed appointing a special mediator to oversee a 90-day period of negotiations. He said it would permit the sides to resume negotiations without further pressure tactics.

“The parties have since been unable to reach an agreement. They must find a path forward towards a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible,” wrote MacKinnon Monday night saying his proposal had failed. “Federal mediators and I remain available to assist them, and I will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

The longshoremen’s union announced starting on October 10 it would stop all overtime work as the latest step in the prolonged negotiations. The employers represented by MEA warned it would not pay employees assigned to shifts with incomplete crews while calling for the union to withdraw the pressure tactic and return to the negotiations.

Montreal is Canada’s second-largest port and the largest on the East Coast. The Port Authority warned the overtime strike could result in processing delays and a backlog of containers waiting to be handled. The Port of Montreal said as of October 10 around ten ships expected at the port could be affected by these pressure tactics. The overtime strike is not impacting liquid bulk, grain, and operations to the Atlantic provinces.

“The current overtime strike may slow down or disrupt the handling of around 50 percent of goods transiting through the Port of Montreal, both imports and exports,” the port said in a written statement. “These goods include food, medical and pharmaceutical products, raw materials for industry, consumer goods for retail, as well as a variety of other goods crucial to the operations of thousands of businesses.”

The MEA has said, “Clearly, the current mediation process is no longer producing results.” They said after the minister’s statement that the “time has come to determine the next steps with the support of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.”

The sides met on September 26 and after that, the union filed notice of the 3-day strike impacting two of the port’s container terminals. After the partial strike, they met again on October 4 but three days later the union filed the notice of the overtime strike. The next meeting was on October 15 with the Minister of Labor.

The dockworkers have been without a contract for all of 2024 with the union demanding a 20 percent pay increase over four years and improvements in scheduling of shifts. Negotiations have been ongoing for more than a year but the union contends many of the issues are holdovers from its 2020 and 2021 disputes. The Canadian federal government intervened in the prior strike ordering the longshoremen back to work.

The Port of Montreal asserts that the ongoing dispute is hurting its reputation with shippers and carriers and causing cargo to be rerouted. They contend that cargo handled by Montreal longshore workers is down 24 percent since 2022. Recently, the port has been handling more than 120,000 TEU a month but volume was down nearly five percent year-over-year in September as the labor dispute persisted.

The global arms trade has never been more lawless, more deadly, more corrupt – or more profitable


OCTOBER 23, 2024

Mike Phipps reviews Monstrous Anger of the Guns: How the Global Arms Trade is Ruining the World and What We Can Do About It, edited by Rhona Michie, Andrew Feinstein and Paul Rogers, with Jeremy Corbyn, published by Pluto.

Sponsored by the Peace & Justice Project, this book is especially timely: once again the world’s largest weapons makers are enabling belligerent states to commit systematic and repeated violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes with impunity. Over the last decade, it was the trade with Saudi Arabia that ignored international treaties and arms export control laws. Today Israel is in the spotlight.

“With over $2.2 trillion spent on defence in 2022, the global arms trade has never been more lawless, more deadly, more corrupt – or more profitable,” argue Rhona Mitchie, Andrew Feinstein and Paul Rogers in their Introduction. The weapons business accounts for half a million deaths every year and is responsible for about 40% of corruption in all world trade. Additionally, the world’s military is one of the biggest contributors to climate change, although as Stuart Parkinson points out, its impact is largely concealed from official statistics – the 2015 Paris Agreement made the reporting of military emissions voluntary. The pervasive influence of the military-industrial complex also distorts the political process, gearing it towards military confrontation as opposed to conflict resolution.

Of the world’s over $2 trillion a year expenditure on armaments, explains Anna Stavrianakis, one-third is accounted for by the US, dwarfing the expenditure of other countries. It also exports arms to over 100 different countries.

Some of the companies involved are outright law-breakers. The author contends that BAE systems established a global money-laundering network, and while its close ties to the UK government may have helped it avoid accountability here, in the US in 2010 it pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud and was fined $400 million. “Court documents indicated there had been substantial payments to shell companies and intermediaries, false statements had knowingly been made, and there had been a failure to ensure compliance with anti-bribery laws.”

In principle, Western democracies place more restrictions than other countries on the activities of their arms companies  – including some observance of international law. Yet this has not stopped the steady flow of Western arms to the Saudi-UAE coalition which has credibly been accused of war crimes in Yemen, including attacks on schools, hospitals, markets and other civilian targets. Loopholes abound: Germany, for example, suspended arms export to Saudi Arabia but continued to export components to the UK which were incorporated into arms for the same country. Direct action protests have been more effective at stopping the trade.

A chapter by the independent Yemeni organisation Mwatana for Human Rights details the full impact of the war on Yemen, where half the population are reliant on humanitarian assistance and only half of the country’s health facilities are operational. The cost of the conflict to Yemen’s economy is estimated at $126 billion and 377,000 people have been killed. Almost 90% of the population has no access to publicly supplied electricity. Two-thirds of the country’s teachers have not been paid in years. The organisation holds the international arms trade responsible for prolonging the conflict.

Vijay Prashad demonstrates how the arms trade distorts international relations, with US embassies abroad becoming lobbyists for the private arms industry, throwing the full weight of American power behind commercial negotiations. He highlights Nigeria, nearly two-thirds of whose citizens live in poverty, despite its immense oil wealth. In 2021, Nigeria increased its military budget by 56% to $4.5 billion – money, like the oil wealth, leached by foreign companies.

Last year, the majority of African governments reduced their investment in agriculture and increased their spending on arms. As Tabitha Agaba and Ian Katusiime explain, this means less food is produced, exacerbating hunger and social and economic tensions. At the same time, the increase in military bases on the continent has fuelled a surge in the trade of illegal arms.

India too has seen a huge proliferation in small arms, as Binalakshmi Nepram details in a chapter on the country, now the world’s biggest arms importer. Women in particular suffer from armed violence and play a significant role in peace and disarmament initiatives.

A similar problem is gripping Latin America. In Brazil, which has the highest homicide rate in the world, there are nearly six times as many privately owned weapons as those under the control of state-wide security forces, as Ana Penido notes. In 2020, Brazilians spent $27 million importing firearms, 34 times more than in 2016.

Last year Antony Loewenstein published The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation around the WorldIt looked at how Israel developed  “a world-class weapons industry with equipment conveniently tested on occupied Palestinians.”

That process has continued in the current, genocidal stage of the conflict, with the IDF experimenting with a variety of robots, drones and shoulder-fired missiles in its onslaught on Gaza. In his chapter in this new book, Loewenstein concludes: “ The use of Palestine as a vital testing ground has become even more brazen since 7th October 2023.”

The devastating human cost of the arms trade in Gaza is explored in a chapter by Ahmed Alnaouq. He lost his great-grandfather when an Israeli bomb killed 150 people at a market in 1948. During the 1967 Six-Day War, his grandparents saw Israeli soldiers indiscriminately shooting people in the streets. Even after the War, “my parents witnessed Israeli soldiers digging holes through school walls to shoot Palestinian students for sport.”

Ahmed grew up in Gaza during the Second Intifada and periodic Israeli incursions and bombardments. It was during the 2008 assault on Gaza that its residents became familiar with the deadly F-16 fighter jet, now produced by Lockheed Martin, responsible for deadly air strikes in the region. His own uncle’s house was repeatedly targeted with internationally prohibited white phosphorus bombs. In 2014, his brother was targeted with an F-16 plane and killed. In the latest onslaught, last October, an Israeli fighter jet dropped a bomb on his home, killing 21 members of his family – his father, two brothers, three sisters, a cousin and 14 nieces and nephews, all under the age of 13.  

Part Three of the book looks at global campaigns against the arms trade. Stop the War convenor Lindsey German looks at the role of that organisation, but unfortunately it’s a flawed account that attempts to portray Russian imperialism’s unprovoked war on Ukraine as “a conflict between major powers possessing nuclear weapons”, because of the supply of Western arms to Ukraine. As Michael Calderbank argued on this site a year ago, “Simply calling the conflict ‘NATOs proxy war’ strips Ukrainians of any agency. It erases from the picture Putin’s military aggression and its brutal treatment of Ukrainian civilians.”

One wonders if Russia would have dared invade if Ukraine had the latter not willingly given up its nuclear weapons in the interests of peaceful relations with its colonial neighbour in 1994. In fact, Ukraine did not just give up these weapons – it transferred them to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders – assurances that later proved worthless.

There are also contributions from direct action group Palestine Action, which has targeted Elbit Systems, which supplies 85% of Israel’s military drone fleet; and Carmen Wilson, Director of Operations at Demilitarise Education, which has succeeded in getting some universities to stop investing in armaments.

Investigative journalist Lorenzo Buzzoni reports on efforts by workers to oppose the arms trade, such as the refusal of Belgian transport workers in late October 2023 to handle military equipment being sent to Israel, followed by similar steps in Barcelona and Italy.

Despite these important efforts, world military expenditure is rising significantly, as new wars create new markets. Arms companies are a spearhead of neoliberal fundamentalism, working hard to avoid regulation, and lobbying states to promote their interests.

The wars they profit from solve nothing: Israel’s decades-long militarized response to the Palestinians will never suppress their desire for self-determination any more than Russia’s onslaught on Ukraine will crush the latter’s commitment to an independent state. Ultimately the power of the arms trade will be reduced only as part of a wider struggle for a fairer world order and more truly democratic, equal societies.

Mike Phipps’ book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY

REVEALED: The only demographic in Britain that wants Trump to win the US election
Yesterday
LEFT FOOT FORWARD

A new poll shows who in the UK is backing Trump




The US Presidential election is now just weeks away. Opinion polls in the USA indicate a divide country. They suggest the contest is neck and neck between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, particularly in the key swing states that will decide the outcome.

By contrast, the British public aren’t split. They’re clear who they want to win. A new poll from YouGov has found that a whopping 64 per cent of Brits want the Democrats’ Kamala Harris to become the next US President. Only 18 per cent say they want Trump to win, with 66 per cent saying they have a ‘very unfavourable’ opinion of him.

Below the headline figures, the poll also indicates a number of interesting things about British attitudes towards the former President. Men are twice as likely (24 per cent) to say they want Trump to win than women (12 per cent). Under 25s are by far the most likely to say they want Harris to win (70 per cent).

The most revealing figures from YouGov’s polling come from breaking down the numbers by supporters of different UK political parties. An overwhelming majority of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters say they want Harris to win – 83 per cent and 86 per cent respectively. Meanwhile, Tory voters back Harris over Trump by a margin of 57 per cent to 25 per cent.

There is only one group of people who are more likely to back Trump than they are Harris. That’s supporters of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK Party. Over half (54 per cent) of Reform voters told YouGov they want Trump to win the US election, compared to just 26 per cent who prefer Harris.

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward


Labour plays down US ‘election interference’ claim after Trump hits out


Donald Trump’s campaign has accused Labour of interference in the US presidential election, as volunteers from the party have travelled to America to campaign for his opponent Kamala Harris.

A LinkedIn post from Labour’s head of operations encouraged activists to head stateside to campaign for the Democratic nominee for president, adding that nearly 100 volunteers had already signed up.

However, Trump, the Republican nominee, has accused Labour of “foreign assistance” and “anti-American election interference”.

READ MORE: Five problems Starmer will face if Trump wins the White House

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has sought to downplay the row, highlighting that volunteers from the party have travelled to the US to campaign in previous presidential elections.

In an interview on BBC Breakfast, environment secretary Steve Reed said that the volunteer work of activists was not organised or funded by the Labour Party itself.

He said: “It is up to private citizens how they use their time and money – and it’s not unusual for supporters of a party in one country to go and campaign for a sister party in another.”

Polls suggest an extremely close race between Trump and Harris in several crucial swing states, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Voters in the United States go to the polls on November 5.




Canada should be opening more doors to gifted Afghan students, not closing them

Our protectionist dragnet keeps out highly qualified students in a bid to prevent potential asylum claimants from entering Canada. It makes no sense.


Afghan women wait to receive food rations distributed by a humanitarian aid group in Kabul, Afghanistan, May 2023. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)


by Lisa Ruth Brunner 
October 23, 2024


As the Taliban government in Afghanistan continues to tighten the vice on women’s rights – most recently by outlawing the sound of a woman’s voice outside her home – Canada is denying Afghan women the opportunity to pursue their academic dreams.

Recent examples include several women admitted to top Canadian universities yet refused study permits by the federal government.

Despite exceptional academic and leadership qualifications, prestigious scholarships and the support of local communities and legal immigration professionals, these decisions put post-secondary education out of reach for talented youth with few other options.

Of all the international students admitted to Canada, the small number of fully funded Afghan women should be among those prioritized. However, they face an uphill battle.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act stipulates that study permit applicants must prove they “will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.” This is extremely difficult for Afghan women who likely qualify for asylum because they fear persecution in their home country.

In addition, their Afghan passport limits their ability to obtain legal entry into some other countries. Thus, no matter how exceptional the student or how generous the scholarship, proving not just their intention but even their ability to leave Canada once their studies are complete is easier said than done.

As a result, the study-permit approval rate for Afghans is extremely low. Yet other pathways to Canada are closed or exceptionally challenging.

In Kabul, Afghanistan, girls attend school on the first day of the new school year in March 2023. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi, File)


Systemic double-standard

The irony is that Canada explicitly positions and uses its international student program to retain a significant proportion of graduates as workers and economic immigrants.

The federal government recognizes dual intent as legitimate, meaning study-permit applicants can intend to eventually apply for permanent residence. In certain cases, it is explicitly encouraged – as the recent francophone minority-communities student pilot demonstrates.

Even with the study-permit application cap recently introduced, Canada will continue to rely on international students as “a pool of talent for workers and/or permanent immigrants.”

If these Afghan students were granted permits to study in Canada, they would likely qualify for at least one economic provincial or federal government permanent residency pathway. For those admitted to highly ranked academic programs, particularly at the master’s and doctoral level, the odds are in their favour.

Yet in most cases, the barrier isn’t academic performance, funds or dual intent. The main hurdle these students face is simply obtaining the visa required to board a plane to Canada in the first place.
Border protection gone astray

Like many countries, Canada attempts to externalize its borders and as much as possible prevent the mere possibility that migrants will make asylum claims or attempt to stay beyond the validity of their permits.

As public attitudes toward the Liberal government’s immigration policies continue to sour, the government has been highlighting “bogus” asylum claims as a tactic to justify various immigration restrictions.

However, as a consequence many international students from countries with high levels of people trying to escape repressive conditions get caught in the same protectionist dragnet.

The result – the prevention of potential asylum claimants from stepping foot in Canada, no matter how valuable their contributions – is at odds with Canada’s humanitarian, economic and geopolitical goals.

It does not have to be this way.

The House of Commons special committee on Afghanistan drew a sharp contrast between Canada’s response to Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis and the “swift and generous response to the displacement crisis generated by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.”

The incoherence of Canada’s refugee policy

Afghanistan, “graveyard of empires,” was once beautiful, vibrant and safe

The Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel used temporary residence as a flexible pathway toward more long-term protection. While this measure was not without its challenges, it demonstrated the potential for accommodation when Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada assesses a temporary resident’s intent to leave Canada.

In response to the committee’s suggestion to allow “Afghans to access study permits, including individuals who have obtained full scholarships or are continuing their studies…without assessing the intention of returning to their country of origin,” the government committed to actively explore the recommendation and consider options to enable Afghans to study in Canada.

That was in 2022. Nearly three years later, the refusals continue.
Opening doors

One option is to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to better reflect the realities of multi-step immigration today.

Another is to build upon lessons learned from what are known as “complementary education pathways.” For example, the World University Service of Canada student refugee program successfully uses Canada’s private sponsorship of refugees to resettle displaced post-secondary students through a youth-to-youth model.

Since 1978, a small number of highly qualified displaced students have made long-term economic contributions to Canada and played leadership roles in their home countries’ future development.

Higher education is a key area of disparity among displaced populations. Only seven per cent of refugees access higher education compared to a global average of 42 per cent. Young women and girls are especially excluded.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees now encourages the development of more complementary education pathways to help students seeking protection in third countries.

The Global Task Force on Third Country Education Pathways is working to expand such measures and the United States recently launched its welcome corps on campus program.

Complementary education pathways can come in many forms and are an obvious win. They not only provide opportunities for education and skills training, but also offer safe haven.

Canada should honour its stated commitments and live up to its international brand. This can be achieved by developing study-permit approval structures for displaced international students during future urgent crises.

More importantly, as Canada rethinks the structure and purpose of both its international student program and international education strategy, it should explore new, sustainable and innovative complementary education pathways that enable international students who are facing injustices unimaginable to most of us to build a brighter future.



Lisa Ruth Brunner
Lisa Ruth Brunner is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of British Columbia Centre for Migration Studies; a public-policy consultant with the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of BC; and a regulated Canadian immigration consultant.View all by this author

You are welcome to republish this Policy Options article online or in print periodicals, under a Creative Commons/No Derivatives licence.