ICELAND IS DOING THIS
U of A researcher pitches mineral carbonation as solution to climate change to U.S. policy makers

CBC/Radio-Canada 

© John Ulan/University of Alberta Sasha Wilson, a University of Alberta biogeochemist, urged U.S. policy-makers in December to look at removing mass amounts of carbon from the atmosphere by turning it into rock.

In December, Sasha Wilson sat in front of U.S. policy-makers to lend her expertise in the battle against climate change by suggesting it's possible to remove gigatonnes of carbon from the atmosphere and turning it into rock.

Scientists have warned that all countries must reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. The Canadian government pledged to do so as part of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Wilson, a biogeochemist and an associate professor in the Faculty of Science, is studying how mineral carbonation can suck carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas, from the atmosphere.

Wilson and her colleagues with the American non-profit Energy Futures Initiative recommended the United States scale up research and development of mineral carbonation by setting up a large network of test sites.

"In the U.S. there's been a lot of movement in the last year or so toward implementing mechanisms for carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere," she told CBC's Edmonton AM on Tuesday. "There's been a lot of investment so far."

Mineral carbonation is a natural process where carbon dioxide reacts with minerals to form harmless carbonates.

As carbon dioxide dissolves in rain water, the water becomes acidic and dissolves rock on the earth's surface releasing magnesium and calcium into lakes, rivers and oceans.

Those minerals react with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and create carbonates. Calcium carbonate is the chief constituent of limestone, while calcium-magnesium carbonate is dolomite and potassium carbonate is potash.

While scientists have understood the process for a long time, they are now looking at using it to pull out large quantities of carbon from the atmosphere, Wilson said.

"It's something we know works and serves as a permanent store of carbon dioxide," she said.

There are two methods of pulling carbon from the atmosphere, one is above ground where pulverized rock, mining waste, captures atmospheric carbon dioxide. The second involves injecting carbon gathered from the air or industrial waste beneath the earth's surface.

Underground injection is mentioned in Episode 1 of Netflix docuseries Down to Earth which Zac Efron filmed at the Hellisheidi Geothermal Plant in Iceland. The episode shows how excess carbon is diluted in water and then piped deep into the ground where it fuses with the volcanic rock and solidifies.

Wilson says there is potential to scale up mineral carbonation to a billion tonnes a year by the end of the century, but it would require all of the waste streams of carbon dioxide and mineral wastes that Canada produces.

"There are benefits to doing it, for instance improved soil fertilization, and we can use some of the products we make, but we need to make sure we make balanced decisions about land use," she said.

Bangladesh TV hires country's 1st transgender news anchor

DHAKA, Bangladesh — A Bangladeshi satellite television station has hired the country’s first transgender news anchor, saying it hopes the appointment will help change society.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Tashnuva Anan Shishir, who previously worked as a rights activist and actress, debuted on Dhaka-based Boishakhi TV on Monday, International Women’s Day. She read a three-minute news bulletin, and after finishing cried as her colleagues applauded and cheered.

“I was very nervous, I was feeling so much emotional, but I had in my mind that I must overcome this ordeal, this final test,” Shishir, 29, said in an interview Tuesday.

Born Kamal Hossain Shishir, she said she found in her early teens that she was stuck in a man’s body and behaved like a woman. She said family members, relatives and neighbours started teasing her and she was bullied and sexually exploited.

She started feeling that it was impossible to continue living and attempted suicide, she said.

The worst thing that happened was that her father stopped talking to her, saying she was the reason that her family was losing face, Shishir said.

“I left home,” she said.

She moved from her family's house in a southern coastal district to live a solitary life in the capital, where she underwent hormone therapy, worked for charities and acted with a local theatre group. In January, she began studying public health at a Dhaka university, which she is continuing alongside her job at the TV station.

Bangladesh officially has more than 10,000 transgender people, but activists say the actual number is much higher in the nation of more than 160 million people. The LGBT community faces social isolation, sexual abuse and other forms of harassment. Finding employment is very difficult, and many live by begging or selling sex.

Since 2013, the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has allowed transgender people to identify themselves as a separate gender. They were given voting rights in 2018.

Some changes are already visible.

In November, a charity group opened Bangladesh’s first Islamic school for the transgender community.

Boishakhi TV said it wanted to be part of the changes and has hired a second transgender person in its drama department.

“Our prime minister has taken many steps for the transgender people. Encouraged by such steps, we have appointed two transgender people, We want the attitude of society to change through these appointments,” said Tipu Alam Milon, the station's deputy managing director.

Julhas Alam, The Associated Press

STOP KILLING PREDATORS THEY ARE CANADIANS

Montana considering legislation to kill at-risk wildlife

Li Cohen

Gray wolves were removed from the endangered species list less than four months ago. But now, activists say their populations, as well as other endangered wildlife in Montana, may be at risk as the state considers a series of legislative bills that set out to expand trapping and hunting regulations.

 

© Dawn Villella / AP Killing Wolves

Several bills are currently being weighed by legislators that would impact wolves and grizzly bears, both of which have historically struggled to maintain populations in the area.

HORRIFIC TORTURE 

Impacting the wolves, the state's House has passed two bills, HB 224 and HB 225, which would allow wolf snaring and lengthen wolf trapping season for an additional 30 days.

The state's Senate has passed two bills that have a more direct goal of reducing the wolf population.

SB 314 would establish hunting and trapping regulations that would allow all but 15 breeding pairs of wolves to be killed. Under this bill, any individual with a single wolf hunting or wolf trapping license would be allowed to "harvest" an unlimited number of wolves, and would permit individuals to use artificial light and night vision to hunt wolves on private land at night.

SB 267 would establish what the Humane Society equates to a "bounty system," in which people with hunting licenses can be reimbursed for the money they spent on hunting or trapping wolves.

Wolf populations in Montana have long suffered from trapping and hunting. In the late 1930s, settlers had poisoned and killed all of the wolves in the state, and by the mid-1900s, wolves had almost completely been erased in 48 states. It wasn't until the 1980s that wolves were able to start establishing populations again in northwestern Montana, according to the National Park Service.

THEY WERE IMPORTED FROM ALBERTA!!!

It is estimated that there are only 850 wolves throughout the state, according to The Associated Press.

© Provided by CBS News The most endangered species on Earth 57 photos


YOU CAN REPLACE CATTLE YOU CAN'T REPLACE GRIZZLIES, WHO ROAM THE ROCKIES AN AREA MONTANA SHARES WITH ALBERTA 

Grizzly bears, which are protected and considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act, are also at risk of being impacted by the bills under consideration. While it is illegal to kill a grizzly bear in Montana unless it is in the act of killing livestock, SB 98 — which the state Senate has already passed — would allow grizzlies to be killed if they are believed to be "threatening" a person or livestock. The bill also insists that the grizzly population in the state has recovered and "should be removed from the federal endangered species list."

Another bill that is set to be heard in Montana's House Judiciary Committee on Friday seeks to take a more overarching approach to controlling wildlife in the state. The bill, HB 367, would amend the state constitution so that citizens would have primary control of managing wildlife populations through hunting, fishing and trapping.

CBS News has reached out to the primary sponsors of the bills for comment.

The Humane Society of the United States has argued that the bills are an "unprecedented attack" on the state's animals and that if passed, Montana will be joining "an outright war against wildlife."


Amanda Wight, program manager for wildlife protection for the Humane Society, said in a statement that the "sheer number and extent" of the bills are an attempt to "usurp biologists ... and declare war on wolves, bears and sound science."

"If these come to fruition, we are talking about a mass slaughter of wildlife, jeopardy to ecosystems, and a steep loss to the massive tourism economy and local jobs," Wight said. "This attack serves as a stark reminder of the horrors wolves in the rest of the country could face now that their federal protection under the Endangered Species Act has been removed."

Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society, said in a February 19 blog post that these bills "are cruel and completely unnecessary, and they benefit no one but a handful of trophy hunters and trappers."

"Wolves, bears and other wildlife these bills target are far more valuable to Montana alive than dead because they bring valuable tourist revenue," Block said. "They are beloved by many Montanans and by the majority of Americans who flock to Montana to see these animals in the wild."

MONTANA SHARES THE ROCKIES WITH ALBERTA

PREDATORS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE CANADIAN THAN AMERICAN

Just Energy files to restructure in Canada after Texas freeze hit

(Reuters) - Electricity and gas provider Just Energy Group Inc said it was restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in Canada and plans to file for Chapter 15 bankruptcy in the United States after a hit from the Texas deep freeze last month.

The company said it also reached an agreement with one of its lenders for a $125 million debtor-in-possession financing to meet its regulatory obligations in North America, including payments required by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.

All services to customers across the Ontario-based company's North American operations will continue without interruption and there will be no impact on customers' bills or daily operations, Just Energy said on Tuesday.

Last month, it raised doubts about its ability to continue as a going concern and forecast a $250 million hit from the winter storms sweeping across Texas.

It had warned that increased demand for electricity and rolling blackouts forced it to balance power supply at very high clearing prices.

Electricity prices in Texas soared last week as utilities scrambled to meet a surge in heating demand during the historic winter storm and prompted regulators to cap prices.

Just Energy, which counts Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO) as its biggest shareholder, is the latest firm to suffer from the unusually U.S. cold weather.

Brazos Electric Power Cooperative Inc, the largest and oldest electric power cooperative in Texas, filed for bankruptcy protection in Houston last week, citing a disputed $1.8 billion debt to the state's grid operator.

Meanwhile, Canada's Innergex Renewable Energy and Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp, operating in the area, said they expected losses related to wind farms.

Trading was halted in Just Energy's Canadian and U.S-listed stocks earlier on Tuesday.

(Reporting by Arathy S Nair in Bengaluru; Editing by Shinjini Ganguli)

WE OWN IT WE WANT TRANSPARENCY

Energy regulator invites comment on Trans Mountain pipeline's insurer secrecy request

CALGARY — The Canada Energy Regulator is inviting public comment on a request by the operator of the Trans Mountain pipeline to protect the identity of its insurers, with the comment period extending beyond the requested deadline.


© Provided by The Canadian Press

In an online post, the federal regulator says it will accept comments on the proposal from the public until March 22 and Trans Mountain will be able to file reply comments until March 25.
 

In its initial filing in February, the federal government-owned pipeline company said it needed a response from the CER by March 15 so it would have time to complete its annual financial resources plan update, including the certificate of insurance which normally names its insurers, before April 30.

 

It argued there is evidence that "certain parties'' are using filings in the regulator's database to identify insurers and pressure them to drop their policies for the pipeline.

The CER says it received comments from B.C. environmentalist Robyn Allan and the Stand.earth organization opposing the request and decided to open a comment period. It didn't say when a decision would be made.

Trans Mountain said it experienced a significant reduction in available insurance capacity in 2020 and, when it found partial replacement policies, it had to pay a significantly higher cost.

 

Its filing came as Indigenous youth in Vancouver blocked the entrances of buildings housing insurance companies to demand they stop insuring the pipeline.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 9, 2021.

The Canadian Press

LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE

Lessons from the farming revolution:

 Why oil and gas productivity matters

Special to Financial Post 3/10/2021

By Mark Milke and Lennie Kaplan

© Provided by Financial Post The Harvesters (July–August) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder.

In life we often take a lot for granted. Exhibit A: the technological revolution that gave us modern farming. Being a farmer centuries ago was best illustrated by Flemish artist Pieter Bruegel the Elder. His The Harvesters , painted in 1565, shows labourers gathering wheat and tying up the stacks by hand.

That was then. But over the past 100-plus years, farming across most of the world moved from backbreaking labour for men, women, children and animals alike to increased mechanization. Fields formerly worked by hand or by hoof have more recently been tilled and harvested with mechanized vehicles such as tractors and combines. That change, and many others, brought greater yield per hectare, more food to sustain growing populations worldwide and, usually, more income for farmers.

Farmers producing much more food with much less effort is an example of how capital investment — in this case in machinery — can boost labour productivity and lead to a much better life for all. For, as the Business Council of British Columbia puts it, “a country’s standard of living ultimately depends on its labour productivity, that is, its ability to generate the highest possible level of income or output per unit of labour input …”

SEE

The Brenner debate : agrarian class structure and economic development in pre-industrial Europe : Aston, T. H. (Trevor Henry) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Canada’s most productive industry is the oil and gas sector. Despite energy price gyrations over the past two decades, oil and gas has continued to be an important contributor to Canada’s labour productivity and therefore higher living standards for Canadians.

Why labour productivity is high in oil and gas is no mystery. What drives productivity are a skilled work force, innovation and capital investment. Oil and gas has all three in abundance but, in particular, workers in the sector use prodigious amounts of capital. Think of Bruegel’s farmers: 20 people cutting and bundling wheat by hand produce much less per hour than 20 people driving combines. Even one person driving a combine can massively out-produce 20 people working by hand.

It’s the same in the oil and gas sector. All the capital investment, including in machinery and technology, to extract much more oil and gas from deep underground with less labour is what leads to high per-hour outputs. The dollar value of oil and gas sector output does fluctuate depending on both the price of petroleum and how close the industry is operating to its capacity. But despite these ups and downs labour productivity in the sector is consistently high. It was $936 per hour in 2000, dropped to $402 per hour in 2012 but rose again to nearly $700 per hour as of 2019, the most recent year for which this statistic is available.


THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE
To be clear, workers in the industry, though they do well, don’t make that much money per hour. A large chunk of what they produce goes to paying for the capital and innovation that make their output so high. But they can’t be paid high wages on a sustained basis unless their productivity is high, which is why in the long run labour productivity is key to living standards. 

Some sub-sectors in oil and gas extraction have lower productivity than that nearly $700 per hour, some higher. For example, labour productivity in pipeline transportation was “just” $414 per hour in 2019, while in conventional oil and gas extraction it was $514 per hour and in non-conventional extraction, i.e., the oilsands, it was fully $1,090.

EVEN IF AN OIL OR GAS PLANT WORKER WAS EARNING $100 AN HOUR (ONLY WITH OVERTIME ACTUALLY)THAT MEANS THE EMPLOYER STEALS THE REAL VALUE, SURPLUS VALUE OVER AN ABOVE WAGES AND BENEFITS,A WORKER CREATES, THIS IS LIVING CAPITAL. IT PRODUCES WEALTH.

DEAD CAPITAL, MONEY, BUILDINGS, TECHNOLOGY ALL BECOME DEVALUED IN COMPARISSO TO LIVING CAPITAL (AS LABOUR)

BOTH ADAM SMITH AND KARL MARX USED THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE

In comparison, the average labour productivity for all Canadian industries taken together was only $60 per hour in 2019. Again, that’s an average so some industries did better: labour productivity per hour was $196 in mining, $169 in telecommunications, $149 in real estate, $77 in finance and insurance, $75 in motor vehicles and $68 in aerospace products and parts. On the other hand, some industries did worse, including agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting at $54 per hour, transportation and warehousing at $51, construction at $49, retail sales at $33, arts, entertainment and recreation at $28 and food services at just $23 per hour.

To put things in relative terms, labour productivity in oil and gas extraction, at $700 per hour in 2019, was nearly 12 times the all-industry average of just $60 per hour. That kind of productivity, like the revolution in farming over centuries, can also easily be taken for granted. But that would be a mistake. While labour productivity isn’t the easiest concept to grasp, it matters — a lot.

Higher labour productivity in oil and gas extraction has led to Canadians doing much more with less — their homes are a lot easier to heat with natural gas than chopped wood — but also to significantly higher wages, higher investment by industry, more taxes and royalty revenues for governments, and much, much else that contributes to our high standard of living.

Mark Milke and Lennie Kaplan are with the Canadian Energy Centre, an Alberta government corporation funded in part by carbon taxes. Their recent report is $60 vs. $700 per Hour: Labour Productivity in Oil and Gas Extraction Compared with Other Industries.

MARK MILKE WAS A RESEARCH WRITER FOR THE FRASER INSTITUTE 

WORKING OUT OF CALGARY NOW HE WORKS SHILLING FOR BIG OIL 

AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE STILL IN CALGARY

UN SHILLS FOR TEPCO

U.N. says no adverse health effects linked to 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster


The U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation said the incidence of cancers in workers at the Fukushima power plant is unlikely to be discernible. WITHOUT EVIDENCE

Photo by Keizo Mori/UPI | License Photo  

March 10 (UPI) -- Fukushima residents suffered no adverse health effects from radiation caused by the nuclear meltdown a decade ago at the prefecture's power plant, a new report from the United Nation's said.

Published Tuesday, the 243-page report by the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation examines all scientific data available concerning the 2011 meltdown, finding that in the intervening years no negative health issues could be directly tied to radiation from the incident.

"No adverse health effects among Fukushima Prefecture residents have been documented that are attributable to radiation exposure from the FDNPS accident," the report said, referring to the plant by the initials of its full name, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

It also said future health issues directly related to the incident would also likely be indiscernible.

The UNSCEAR determined the large increase in thyroid cancer among children exposed to radiation from the accident can be attributed to improved screening procedures SAME EXCUSE TRUMP GAVE DURING COVID INCREASES IN USA"that have revealed the prevalence of thyroid abnormalities in the population not previously detected." 

 

"An increase in the incidence of cancers is unlikely to be discernible in workers for leukaemia, total solid cancers or thyroid cancer," it said, adding that there was insufficient information for the committee to reach an informed judgement on the risk of cataracts linked to the meltdown.

Evidence of stillbirths, preterm deliveries, low birthweight or congenital anomalies connected to radiation from the plant remains absent, according to the report. WHICH MAY MEAN IT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR

 

It also said while it continues to consider radiation impacts on wildlife populations in Fukushima, it doesn't expect to find a clear causal link though "detrimental effects on individual organisms might have been possible, and some effects have been observed in plants and animals in the absence of any wide-scale group impacts."

Studies that have found wildlife population impacts remain "subject to some doubt," it said, adding that current assessment methods may not be adequate and further study would be valuable.

The United Nations said in a statement that the report broadly confirms its initial findings from its 2013 report on the accident.

Some 20,000 people were killed and more than 160,000 residents in Fukushima fled their homes after an earthquake-induced tsunami on March 11, 2011, flooded hundreds of miles and severely damaged three nuclear reactors at the power plant, causing it to release massive quantities of radiation. It is the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.


upi.com/7080925

France's love affair with nuclear power will continue, but change is afoot

Anmar Frangoul

© Provided by CNBC The Belleville Nuclear Power

 Plant in Belleville-sur-Loire, France.

Last December, French President Emmanuel Macron signaled that nuclear would continue to play an important role in his country's energy mix.
CNBC takes a look at the role nuclear could play in the energy future of both France and the wider world.

France is recognized for being a hotbed of culture, gastronomy and style. The country is also something of a world leader in another field: nuclear power.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, France is home to 56 operational nuclear power reactors, second only to the U.S., which has 94.

Together, these French facilities have a combined capacity of 61,370 megawatts (MW). And when it comes to nuclear's share in French electricity production, the IAEA says it was 70.6% in 2019, the highest in the world.

Below, CNBC's "Sustainable Energy" takes a look at the role nuclear could play in the energy future of both France and the wider world.
A major player

Peter Osbaldstone, a research director at research group Wood Mackenzie, told CNBC via email that France was "by far the largest nuclear power generator in Europe."

"The emissions intensity of French power is lower than its major neighbours, the market having a relatively small part of overall supply met by fossil fuels," he went on to explain.

"With low-marginal cost nuclear being so prominent in the mix, French wholesale power prices tend to be lower than in neighbouring markets as well," he added, going on to note that this factor also influenced end-user prices, which were also comparatively low.

Andrew Lever, a director at the Carbon Trust, an advisory firm, told CNBC that France had "enjoyed a low reliance on fossil-based power generation."

"Therefore, from a carbon reduction perspective, it is starting from a lower base point relative to other economies who are more reliant on fossil fuel-based generation," he added.
Macron's mission

Last December, French President Emmanuel Macron signaled that nuclear would continue to play an important role in the country's energy mix.

According to a translation of his remarks published by Reuters, Macron said the French nuclear industry would "remain the cornerstone of our strategic autonomy."

Macron's comments suggest France will continue its relationship with nuclear power long into the future, but change is nevertheless afoot. Indeed, by 2035 the government wants to cut nuclear power's share in its electricity mix to 50%. A mixed picture, then.

For his part, Wood Mackenzie's Osbaldstone said the 50% target did not mean the technology had fallen entirely out of favor, noting that in 2019 the French government had "instructed EDF to explore the possibility of constructing six new reactors across three sites." The utility, he added, was "due to respond by mid-2021."

The challenges of decarbonization

The International Energy Agency states that "nuclear power has historically been one of the largest contributors of carbon-free electricity globally" and adds that it also has "significant potential to contribute to power sector decarbonisation."

It should be noted, however, that while the IEA says it produces carbon-free electricity, many regard nuclear as a non-renewable source. This is because they argue uranium, the metal crucial to nuclear power generation, will eventually run out.

The Carbon Trust's Lever told CNBC that for any economy, the level of investment needed to decarbonize energy supply was "massive."

And while the cost of renewable technologies like solar photovoltaic and onshore and offshore wind had enjoyed "a substantial reduction," the same could not be said for "new nuclear" where there had "been a lack of consistent cost reduction."

"From a new build perspective, there are risks of delays in construction and cost management, which in turn present risks to the cost of transition and ultimately energy costs for consumers," Lever said.

"In addition, potentially high decommissioning and waste disposal costs mean a key risk in the future is that nuclear becomes a relatively expensive and unsustainable technology relative to renewable based alternatives."

France looks set to maintain a close relationship with nuclear power going forward, but its neighbor Germany is taking a different route.

In response to the Fukushima disaster of 2011, when a powerful earthquake and tsunami resulted in a meltdown at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Chancellor Angela Merkel's government developed plans to shut down the country's nuclear plants by the end of 2022.

Just last week, Reuters reported that Germany had agreed to pay four firms — Vattenfall, RWE, E.ON and EnBW — total compensation of almost 2.6 billion euros (around $3.09 billion) for the early closure of their nuclear plants.

Critiques and concerns

While Macron appears to be backing nuclear, it goes without saying the technology is not favored by all.

Critics include Greenpeace. "Nuclear power is touted as a solution to our energy problems, but in reality it's complex and hugely expensive to build," the environmental organization's website states.

"It also creates huge amounts of hazardous waste," it adds. "Renewable energy is cheaper and can be installed quickly. Together with battery storage, it can generate the power we need and slash our emissions."
The global picture

As governments around the world look to move away from fossil fuels and toward renewable sources of energy, the debate surrounding nuclear power's role in the planet's energy mix will continue.

Just last month Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder and billionaire, told CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin that nuclear power would "absolutely" be politically acceptable again. Gates is also the founder and chairman of TerraPower, a company focused on nuclear innovation.

Is then, the transition away from fossil fuels to renewables possible without nuclear?

"Any low-emissions source, like nuclear, can of course play a role in the energy transition," Wood Mackenzie's Osbaldstone said, before going on to outline some of the challenges ahead.

"However nuclear new-build costs are high, the technology requires strong political support and regulatory frameworks in host countries," he added, explaining that generators were "typically large and relatively inflexible in operation — these features reduce the number of possible applications for nuclear."

New tech including small modular reactors, or SMRs, "could go some way to addressing these shortcomings, potentially opening up a larger role for the source. But SMRs remain very much on the drawing board at the moment."

 

US Senate panel chief queries viability of peace process

Pajhwok Monitor

10 Mar 2021 - 11:58

KABUL (Pajhwok): An influential American lawmaker has urged the Biden administration to rethink the May 1 deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

Bob Menendez, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, also accused the Taliban of failing to honour their commitments under the peace deal they signed with the US in Doha last year.

Reuters quoted Menendez as telling journalists on Tuesday” “I’m very concerned about the viability of the peace process in Afghanistan.”

With intelligence reports indicating the militant movement’s failure to meet its promises, the deadline for troop withdrawal would have to be reconsidered, he argued.

“If the Taliban are confirmed as not meeting their commitments, which I personally believe they’re not, then we may have to reconsider the May 1 deadline,” the Senate panel chief remarked.

About 2,500 US soldiers are currently stationed in Afghanistan. Under the US-Taliban pact, all troops will have to be pulled out by May 1.

PAN Monitor/mud

Foreign troop exit: Berlin averse to May deadline

Pajhwok Monitor

3 Feb 2021 - 11:10

KABUL (Pajhwok): Germany believes the exit of international forces from Afghanistan should be linked to the success of ongoing peace talks in Doha.

Foreign Minister Heiko Maas suggested on Tuesday the pullout of foreign troops from the war-devastated country should not be based the May deadline.

Under the US-Taliban peace pact of February 29, 2020, all foreign troops are supposed to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of April this year.

However, the Biden administration, hinting at a review of the agreement, says the militant movement has failed to honour its commitment to reducing violence.

Speaking at an event organised by German media outlets, the minister argued the intra-Afghan peace talks would not conclude at the end of April.

The Associated Press quoted Maas as saying: “Our fear is that the Taliban could use this as a reason to leave the peace talks and seek a military solution.”

The foreign minister maintained: “We must couple both processes, the withdrawal of foreign forces with the peace negotiations. We don’t have to hang on slavishly to the date of the end of April…”

Behind the US, Germany is the second-biggest troop contributor to NATO’s Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan.

Maas called for an agreement with the United States, the Afghan government and the Taliban on the issue of troop pullout.

PAN Monitor/mud

How will US-India ties impact Pakistan?: Dawn contributor

The paper says that America lacks both the will and the capacity to influence India's position on the Kashmir dispute.

Chinese trucks parked at Gwadar port, Pakistan,

as part of the trade convoy on 13 Nov 2016.PHOTO: DAWN

Javid Husain

PUBLISHED MAR 2, 2021, 

ISLAMABAD (DAWN/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) -The inauguration of the Biden administration has predictably generated a heated debate on America's likely policy concerning Pakistan.

Any analysis of the emerging scenario must be firmly grounded in strategic realities rather than in wishful thinking.

The end of the Cold War had already reduced Pakistan's importance in America's strategic calculations.

On top of that, there is now growing strategic divergence between Pakistan and the US because of the development of the Indo-US partnership as an essential element of the US policy of containment of China, on the one hand, and the deepening cooperation between Pakistan and China on the other.

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a prime example of growing Pakistan-China cooperation.

Additional factors which will influence US policy on Pakistan are India's economic weight with a GDP of US$2.6 trillion (S$3.46 trillion), its increasing global political influence as evidenced by its current membership of the UN Security Council and G20, and its position as the world's largest democracy despite the setbacks caused by the rise of Hindutva under Narendra Modi.

By way of comparison, Pakistan's economy is in dire straits with a GDP of only US$285 billion, there is political instability and its journey as a functioning democracy has been interrupted several times in the past.

Still, as a nuclear power with considerable military strength, Pakistan's importance in strengthening regional peace and stability cannot be ignored.

The Biden administration's initial policy statements clearly show that it is determined to continue the policy of developing a strategic partnership with India in pursuit of the policy of containment of China.

It is worth underscoring that the US policy of developing strategic cooperation with India had been supported by the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump administrations.

Unsurprisingly, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at his confirmation hearing stated that America's relations with India were "a bipartisan success story".

Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin at his confirmation hearing assured Congress that the Biden administration would "operationalise India's Major Defence Partner status".

The increased presence of Americans of Indian origin in powerful positions in the Biden administration may reinforce the trend of deepening cooperation between the two countries, especially in military, nuclear and high-tech areas thereby upsetting further the strategic balance in South Asia to Pakistan's disadvantage.

In short, India is likely to be given the central role in the US Indo-Pacific strategy which will also involve the strengthening of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad involving India, Japan, US and Australia as affirmed by President Joe Biden in his recent telephone conversation with Prime Minister Modi.

Consequently, it would be unrealistic to expect that under Mr Biden, the US would resume large-scale economic and military assistance to Pakistan or would be helpful in the search for a just settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people.

The harsh reality is that America lacks both the will and the capacity to influence India's position on the Kashmir dispute.

It will, therefore, continue paying lip service to the need for a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute while being supportive of Indian hegemonic designs in South Asia.

However, there are several areas in which the two countries can engage in mutually beneficial cooperation.

Currently, the Biden administration is reviewing the deal signed by the US and the Afghan Taliban in February last year aimed at American military withdrawal from Afghanistan, an end to terrorism originating from Afghanistan, and a peace settlement between the Taliban and the Kabul regime.

It is in the mutual interest of Pakistan and the US to promote the ongoing intra-Afghan dialogue for achieving these goals.

The same can be said about Pakistan-US cooperation for combating terrorism from which both countries have suffered grievously.

Pakistan would be well advised to remove ambiguities in its policies concerning this issue.

Other areas in which Pakistan and the US can engage in mutually beneficial cooperation are the prevention of nuclear proliferation, promotion of peace and stability in South Asia, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean regions, climate change, promotion of human rights and strengthening of bilateral cooperation in economic, commercial, technical and cultural fields.

The test of Pakistan's diplomacy would lie in its ability to reconcile the elements of divergence and cooperation into a coherent whole mindful of both the potential and limitations of the Pakistan-US relationship.

The writer is a retired ambassador and author. He is president of the Lahore Council for World Affairs. The paper is a member of The Straits Times media partner Asia News Network, an alliance of 23 news media organisations.