05 January 23
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
While he has been outright rejected by Western leaders since it started in February, more interesting is how Russia's longtime allies have responded.
Though more subtly, many have shown they are not happy with the war. It has left Russia with only a handful of still-close allies that include the world's pariah states.
Here are the ways Putin has been snubbed since the war began:
Tajikistan's president appeared to berate Putin and demanded respect for his country.
The president of Tajikistan, a close ally of Russia, seemed to berate Putin during a meeting of central Asian leaders in October.
Emomali Rahmon said he wanted more respect from Putin despite his country's size.
His remarks followed a theme seen with other post-Soviet nations which felt confident enough to assert themselves in the face of Russia's failures to quickly subdue Ukraine.
"Yes, we are small nations, we are not 100-200 million, but we have history, culture, we love, we want to be respected," Rahmon said, according to Mail Online.
He also complained that smaller nations were "never being treated like strategic partners!"
"No offense," he said, "but we want to be respected!"
Rahmon also told Putin not to treat central Asian countries as if they were still part of the former Soviet Union, the New Voice of Ukraine reported.
However, this stopped short of actually condemning the invasion of Ukraine.
Tajikistan, which is economically dependent on Russia, has largely stayed quiet about the war but has taken in Russians fleeing the call to fight in Ukraine.
Kazakhstan distanced itself from Russia, sent help to Ukraine, and sought to increase ties with the West.
Kazakhstan isn't looking to completely enrage its huge neighbor, traditional ally, and big economic partner, but it has still repeatedly taken a stance against the war.
The country's official position is to call for a ceasefire and a diplomatic end to the fighting, its UK ambassador told Insider's Alia Shoaib.
And zero officials in the country have expressed support for Putin's war, Foreign Policy noted.
Kazakhstan denied Russia's request to send troops to fight at the start of the war, and it has sent planeloads of humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
It has not recognized the Russia-backed, self-proclaimed republicans in Ukraine, with the country's president even refusing to do so in front of Putin.
It also says it took in around 200,000 Russians who were fleeing Putin's draft.
The EU and Kazakhstan pledged to forge "ever closer" relations at a meeting in Luxembourg in June.
Armenia's prime minister repeatedly snubbed Putin at a meeting of Putin's friends.
Vladimir Putin met with other leaders at the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a Russian-dominated alliance of post-Soviet nations, in November.
It did not go as he planned.
Although the nations are supposed to be close allies, with Russia unquestionably the dominant power, Armenia's prime minister used the meeting to repeatedly slight Putin.
Nikol Pashinyan first criticized the effectiveness of the alliance in his speech at the start of the summit.
He later refused to sign a draft declaration from the summit, and he was seen physically distancing himself from Putin in a photo of all the alliance's leaders together.
Pashinyan's complaints were not about Ukraine, and instead center on the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in which he accused Putin of doing too little to help.
But the brazenness with which he called out Putin showed that smaller countries do not feel cowed by Russia, which is struggling to maintain its reputation as a military superpower.
Uzbekistan says it supports Ukraine's right to its territory.
Uzbekistan, a former Soviet country with close ties to Russia, has rejected Russia's claims over Ukrainian land.
Its foreign minister said in March that the country "recognizes Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity" and did not recognize the regions that Russia-backed separatists declared as Republics and Russia then recognized.
He said Uzbekistan wants peace, and that the country sent humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
Uzbekistan told its citizens that they could not join either side of the war.
It also said it would not deport Russians fleeing the draft who arrived in the country.
Given the important economic role that Russia plays in Uzbekistan, however, the war is overall mentioned little in the country, Politico noted in October.
Citizens who work in Russia and send money home play a large role in Uzbekistan's economy, it noted.
Uzbekistan also abstained from UN votes condemning Russia's invasion, in which Russia has found very few countries willing to openly support it.
India has put its name to a criticism of Russia's war, and is calling for peace while maintaining a delicate balancing act.
India joined a G20 summit statement that condemned the war in Ukraine, saying it was "causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy."
The statement noted that "most members" of the group condemned the war, leaving wriggle room for countries like India who are unwilling to fully condemn Russia.
(Russia itself is also a G20 member, making the prospect of the whole body condemning the war impossible.)
This kind of ambiguity shows the fine balancing act facing nations like India.
It has sent Ukraine humanitarian aid, and its prime minister Narendra Modi told Putin at a September summit that "I know that today's era is not the era for war."
But India is still buying large amounts of Russian oil, declining to join efforts to boycott Russian energy, and enjoying lower prices as a result.
The country is typically both an ally to Russia and the West, and it appears to now be trying to exist in that middle ground and position itself a potential peacemaking force.
India helped in efforts to get Russia-blocked grain out of Ukraine, and told Ukraine in October that it was ready to help with peace efforts.
China forced Putin to acknowledge its concerns about the war, and frowned on Putin's nuclear threats. But it is quietly strengthening economic ties.
Putin conceded in September that China had concerns about the Ukraine war, telling Chinese President Xi Jinping "We understand your questions and concerns in this regard."
He did not go into any detail, leaving observers to wonder what exactly China had said about the war.
Xi also criticized Russia's nuclear rhetoric in November and said that the humanitarian situation should be improved.
But China hasn't gone away as a key economic backer of Russia either, and hasn't condemned the invasion in general.
Like India, China has kept buying cut-price Russian oil.
Going further, Xi ordered Chinese officials to create closer economic ties with Russia, The Wall Street Journal reported, countering Western efforts to isolate the Russia financially.
As Benjamin Netanyahu and other members of the Israeli government 'clamp down and become more strict,' Raja Shehadeh says, 'they’re not going to be as successful.' (photo: Ariel Schalit/AFP)
Critics fear that Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard-line coalition will damage the country’s democracy and inflame tensions in the West Bank and Gaza.
To talk about what the new government will mean for Palestinians, I recently spoke by phone with Raja Shehadeh, a Palestinian lawyer and activist who co-founded the human-rights organization Al-Haq. His latest book, out next month, is called “We Could Have Been Friends, My Father and I: A Palestinian Memoir.” During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed what will and will not change for Palestinians in the West Bank, the increased discrimination that Palestinian citizens of Israel are likely to face, and how to think about the Netanyahu government in the context of other far-right movements around the world.
What are your concerns specifically about relations with the Palestinians under this new government?
I think the new government is going to more strongly affect—and have a deleterious effect on—Israel than it will the West Bank and the Palestinians. But, first of all, let’s not speak about the Palestinians in general, because there are Palestinians in Gaza, there are Palestinians in Israel, and there are Palestinians in the West Bank. The effect on each is different. To start with Gaza, the worst thing is that this government may make war—or is very likely to make a war. And that of course will affect Gaza.
For Palestinians in Israel, the effect will be strong because they are going to be subject to more racist attitudes. The government is already planning to have more Jewish settlers and Israeli Jews in the Galilee, and fewer Palestinians. Palestinians can also be affected by the budgetary allocations of their local councils. They can be affected by the allocations for placements in jobs, in medical schools, and so on. The discrimination against Palestinians in Israel is very likely to happen, and already there is fear that the situation will be worse than it is now.
As to the West Bank, the situation is, I think, less structural and more a question of degree, because we have had already, since 1979, changes in the structures of the government of the area, whereby the settlers have been separated from the Palestinians and placed under a different regime and annexed to Israel, effectively. And so all the discrimination affects the Palestinians and not the Israeli settlers.
These structures are already there, and this new government is not going to create new ones but will use its powers of civil administration to increase the difficulties for the Palestinians. Under the existing rules, planning in Area C, which is about sixty per cent of the West Bank, is under the Israeli civilian administration. Smotrich will take power over this administration, and will apply stricter rules as to what is allowed and what is not allowed and how many more settlements and outposts will be legalized, and so on. And, of course, allocation of funds is in his hands, and so he would give more funds to build more settlements.
There is also the fear that Palestinians will be thrown out of the West Bank and Gaza. Members of the right-wing coalition have been very outspoken about the need to throw “extremist” Palestinians out of the land. They will use any opportunity to do that. One of the biggest opportunities would be war, of course, but short of a war they can make changes in the regulations whereby Palestinians who are unwanted can be thrown out to Jordan or from the West Bank to Gaza.
Just to take the West Bank first, you seem to be saying that this new government will use the existing structures to exacerbate policies that are already in effect. But short of a war or something like that, you think it’ll be a change in degree rather than a change in kind, because the status quo is already so bad. Is that accurate?
Yeah, this is what I think, and this is what I believe. Already the existing structures are so biased and so discriminatory and give Israel great powers—they don’t really need to change them. They’re already there, and they will just use the powers more extensively and more liberally in favor of the settlers and against the Palestinians.
When you think about the last forty-plus years, do you feel that the change in governments in Israel has had a big effect one way or the other on the lives of Palestinians? Or is it that Israel nominates a new Prime Minister, it forms a new government, and it might have a Labor-led government or a Likud-led government, but fundamentally things don’t change?
Well, let’s start with 1967, when the Israeli cabinet decided in secret meetings, the minutes of which have now been revealed, to erase the Green Line from Israel’s official map. The Green Line was the demarcation line drawn as a result of the armistice agreements after the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 that essentially functioned as the border between the West Bank and Israel. By deleting it, and by making all the official maps include Greater Israel, this indicated that they had in mind to expand Israel into the West Bank.
Now, this didn’t go through directly because there were times when they thought that maybe they could make some sort of arrangement for the Palestinians. There were different phases in the relationships between Palestinians and Israelis and Israel and the neighboring countries, so it’s not consistent. The only consistent thing is that it has moved increasingly toward annexation. But the extent of the pressure on the Palestinians has varied over the years. With some governments it has been less strong. With others it has been worse.
The people in the civil administration have made a difference. I have dealt with a lot of these people. Ephraim Sneh, for example, was an early civil administrator in the West Bank, and he was a person who you could argue with, who sometimes thought that it’s best to give Palestinians more leeway and more privileges and more possibilities to expand their areas, and so on. He was reasonable. And then he was replaced by somebody less reasonable. And now there’s no reasonable people at all. Now Smotrich is the one who will appoint the head of the civil administration, and he is likely to appoint the most extreme kind of person who would not give any concessions to the Palestinians. This will make a difference in the lives of the Palestinians, of course.
The last government, which was a coalition of some far-right and not far-right parties, brought Arab parties into the government. I don’t know whether that engendered a lot of hope, but it was something new in modern Israeli history, and I’m curious how you think that experiment went. Are there any lessons that you feel were learned from it?
I was reviewing the record of that government in terms of the violence in the West Bank—the treatment of civilians and the killings and the house demolitions and so on. And the record is terrible, terrible, terrible. Really worse than any other government, I think. The minister of defense was brutal toward the Palestinians. Now, whether in Israel itself Palestinians were able to do a little better under the government, I can’t really say. Maybe the presence of Palestinians within the government gave them some leeway to pressure for concessions at certain times. That’s how politics works: you are able to exert some pressure and get some concessions.
But those concessions would’ve manifested within Israel, within Israel proper, rather than in the West Bank?
Oh, yeah, absolutely. And the sad thing, Isaac, is that there’s never been a government in Israel which has been for coexistence and for peaceful resolution of the conflict. And this is manifest in the [educational] curriculum. If you want to make peace with the neighbor, with the enemy, with the adversary, you start by teaching the children in school about that nationality, that group. You tell children about them and you try to improve their image and you try to teach the language. Very little of that happened. Most of the people in Israeli schools who took Arabic, as far as I know, were those who were interested in going into the security services. The previous government was not a government that was leaning toward peace and peaceful relations with the Palestinians.
It’s interesting to hear you say that, because one critique of the Palestinians is “Oh, if you want to know why they don’t want peace, look in their textbooks. They teach their children to hate Jews.”
The Palestinians don’t have to teach their children to hate Israelis. They hate Israelis because of the way they see Israelis treat them. It’s much more powerful than teaching in the textbooks, unfortunately. And the fact is that by now there is a whole generation, if not two generations, who have only experienced Israelis as soldiers or settlers—and in both cases in violence.
To have relations, human being to human being, the chances are almost nil now, which wasn’t the case before. In the sixties, seventies, and eighties, there was much more interaction. People knew each other on a personal level much more. Now it’s only settlers and soldiers, and they only see violence from the other side.
To go back a bit, how exactly do you think that the lives of Palestinians within Israel are likely to change under this new government?
There are plans, as I mentioned, to increase the number of Israeli Jews in the Galilee, because now in some areas there’s a majority of Palestinians. To do that, they’re going to make it more difficult for the Palestinians to expand in these areas and increase incentives for the Israeli Jewish population to move there. It’s not as though, side by side with these new policies, there is an attempt to make good neighborly relations. It’s adversarial, unfortunately, and it’s so sad to see it like that. And then, of course, the Palestinians are totally dependent on the Israeli system and Israeli government for their livelihood, for their well-being, for their advancement. The Israeli government can stop that advancement on many levels and in many areas.
This current Israeli government has been compared to other right-wing movements across the world that we’ve seen sprout up in the last ten years. Is that a helpful way of thinking about what’s going on in Israel and the Palestinian territories now?
I think so, but I think the stakes are much higher in Israel and for the Palestinians. In America or in Europe, in the places where there have been right-wing governments, the danger to democracy is strong, of course. And that’s something to worry about—and the same thing is true in Israel. But in Israel there’s always the danger that the right-wing government, through its lack of concern for the other side, might create violence and violent reactions. Smotrich said that the Palestinians are here by mistake, that Ben-Gurion wanted to get rid of them and he didn’t, and that was a mistake in 1948. When Palestinians hear something like this, it makes one’s blood boil. More of these statements by officials in the government and more restrictive policies by the government will create a reaction. And the reaction could mean flareups. We are in a place where we should be working toward peace and coexistence, and right-wing governments do exactly the opposite.
On one level you’re saying that the situation with Israel and the Palestinians is so bad that having a far-right government creates higher stakes than it does in the U.S. or elsewhere. At the same time, you were saying at the beginning of our conversation that things are already so bad that nothing may change, fundamentally. Is there any tension there?
Yeah, I see, I see. I mean, there isn’t any fundamental structural change. But structural change is not the only thing. There’s going to be more policies that are more restrictive and will create tensions. The most likely flash point with Ben-Gvir responsible for security is Al-Aqsa. Any reneging on Arab and Palestinian rights over that important religious site would very likely cause a tremendous reaction. [On Tuesday, after our interview, Ben-Gvir visited the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, which both Muslims and Jews, who call it the Temple Mount, view as holy. The visit was condemned by Palestinians—and by Yair Lapid, the Israeli opposition leader—as a provocation.]
I am also worried about more cases of illegal outposts getting legalized, settlers taking back outposts and settlements evacuated by decision of the Israeli Supreme Court, changing the Army’s rules of engagement to the further detriment of the safety of Palestinians, increasing government subsidies for Jewish settlement in the occupied territories, an increase in the orders for transfer of entire Palestinian communities, completion of the normalization of settlements—as in the case of Ariel University and its closer cultural relations to Israel—and massive land expropriation and incorporation into Israel of the Jordan Valley.
There is also the fact that the minister of defense is no longer set to be in control, exactly, over the border police that operate in the occupied West Bank. [According to a deal struck between Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir, those officers will be moved to the jurisdiction of the ministry of national security.] The minister of defense will always make sure that things do not get beyond a certain point, beyond the red line. Even when the human-rights violations are endemic, there is usually a calculation by the chief of staff of the Israeli Army responsible to the minister of defense as to how far the Army can go before an eruption by the Palestinians would take place. Because if such an eruption takes place, the military is ultimately the one responsible for handling it. Without this leverage, we are bound to see more extreme forms of suicidal reactions by Palestinians who feel that their backs are to the wall. The pace and the temperature and so on are going to be hotter and worse. And that’s not to be underestimated.
What political changes do you expect from Palestinians, in the West Bank especially, if this government starts to do the types of things that you’re concerned about?
Well, there could be another intifada. People are tolerant, and tolerant, and tolerant, unless they see all avenues closed and no way out. If there’s no way out and it can’t be worse, then they just become suicidal. We can get all kinds of suicidal violence and extremist resistance. Right now, even though it’s been bad, the political powers in Israel keep control over how bad it can be.
The government is worried about eruptions. At certain points, they don’t want war. They don’t want bad relations with America and the West based on how they see things here. And so they temper things. But this government doesn’t seem to be concerned about that, and so, in a way, there’s little to deter them. They don’t seem to care about what the West thinks. They announce their racist policies openly.
Neighboring countries’ concern for the Palestinians has been spotty over the past decades, but it seems especially spotty now that Israel has made economic and security partnerships, essentially, with these countries, such as the United Arab Emirates. It seems less likely that these governments will put up much of a fuss about mistreatment of Palestinians than ever before in the post-1948, certainly the post-1967, era. Does that seem accurate to you?
Yes, absolutely. They think of human-rights organizations as the enemy, as Smotrich also said. Israel is trying to restrict the funding of these groups and put pressure on them and so on. That also will make a difference because human-rights organizations are very important in at least informing people in the world about what is happening here. And if they’re clamped down on, there’s nobody to tell what is happening.
The current government seems to have very particular, strict ideas about Judaism and what Judaism should be, and has ambitions to make Israel into an even more religious state. Even if that doesn’t cause an immediate structural change, what do you think it might mean over the long term for the coexistence of Israelis and Palestinians?
I don’t think it has a great influence on us, really, because Israel, as far as we are concerned, is biased and discriminatory toward non-Jews in principle and in structures. But I think that with Israel becoming more geared in that direction, they’re going to lose out, because the power of Israel and what made it succeed so far was the democracy that it had for the Israelis, the power to make people feel happier in their surroundings and more tolerant and so on. And now, as they clamp down and become more strict—more like Iran, really—they’re not going to be as successful. It’s not going to be good for Israel. But a long time can be a long time.
Raja, thank you for talking.
There is one more thing. I was speaking today to somebody I trust, an Israeli journalist, and I said, “What is the chance of there being a reaction in Israel against these things and resistance to them?” And she said, “Very little.” I was very disappointed. I was asking whether she thought there would be real civil resistance. Resistance among Israelis would be helpful to us, of course. But she thought there was very little chance. This distressed me.
READ MORE 
Pedestrians walk around a tree that fell during a storm in downtown Sacramento, California. (photo: Fred Greaves/Reuters)
Incoming bomb cyclone system threatens to wreak havoc in the drought-stricken state while doing little to alleviate its water woes
Powerful winds from the incoming “bomb cyclone” whipped across northern California ahead of the storm’s arrival, toppling trees and blocking roads as crews rushed to clear storm drains and people fortified their homes. Further south, officials began ordering evacuations in high-risk coastal areas of Santa Barbara county, including the tony town of Montecito – home to many celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey and Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle.
California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, declared a state of emergency in response to the extreme weather, authorizing California’s national guard to support with the anticipated damage.
“We anticipate that this may be one of the most challenging and impactful series of storms to touch down in California in the last five years,” said Nancy Ward, the new director of the California governor’s office of emergency services.
Rain and winds began lashing the San Francisco Bay Area and the surrounding region on Wednesday, and are expected to intensify throughout the day before sweeping south. Forecasts warned that up to 10in of rain is possible in coastal mountain regions. The heavy downpours are expected to be accompanied by winds with gusts of up to 60mph (96km/h).
The National Weather Service (NWS) issued a warning for the risk of excessive rainfall impacting roughly 5 million people across northern and central California, as agency meteorologists cautioned all who are in the path of the “truly brutal system” to be prepared. In southern California, the storm was due to peak in intensity overnight, with Santa Barbara and Ventura counties likely to see the most rain, forecasters said.
The incoming system is threatening to wreak more havoc as the state reels from major storms that have arrived almost back-to-back throughout the end of December and early January. The storm is one of three so-called atmospheric river storms in the last week to reach the state. A New Year’s Eve downpour gave San Francisco its second wettest day on record, and caused widespread flooding and damage.
Forecasters anticipate this week’s storm will also bring dangerous flooding and the threat of more destruction. In the San Francisco Bay Area, dozens of flights have been cancelled, more than 8,000 sandbags distributed and school districts closed.
Tink Troy, who lives in south San Francisco, picked up some sandbags from the city’s public works department on Tuesday.
“They said [Saturday’s storm] was going to be bad, and it was really bad. Now they’re saying this one’s going to be worse. So I want to make sure I’m prepared and not having to do this when it’s pouring rain tomorrow,” she said.
Officials asked drivers to stay off the roads unless absolutely necessary – and to stay informed by signing up for updates from emergency officials about downed trees and power lines, and flooding. In northern California, a 25-mile (40km) stretch of Highway 101 was closed between the towns of Trinidad and Orick due to several downed trees.
Before the storm arrived late on Wednesday, the Santa Barbara county sheriff, Bill Brown, said people should evacuate the areas impacted by the Alisal Fire last year, the Cave Fire in 2019 and the devastating Thomas Fire in 2017, one of the largest in California history.
On 9 January 2018, massive torrents carrying huge boulders, mud and debris roared down coastal mountains, and through the town of Montecito to the shoreline, killing 23 people and destroying more than 100 homes.
The Montecito fire department chief, Kevin Taylor, said on Wednesday that homes near waterways are at the greatest risk.
“What we’re talking about here is a lot of water coming off the top of the hills, coming down into the creeks and streams and as it comes down, it gains momentum and that’s what the initial danger is,” he said.
Storms in the last 30 days have produced between eight to 13in of rain, soaking coastal hills in Santa Barbara county. The current storm is projected to drop up to 10in of rain in the area, Taylor said.
“This cumulative rain … is what causes our risk,” he said.
The storm comes on the heels of a wet New Year’s weekend. The historic storm broke levees in Sacramento county, submerging thousands of acres and stranding dozens of drivers who were caught in the deluge. Evacuations were ordered for two affected communities and the Cosumnes River reportedly reached its highest level in history.
San Francisco saw widespread flooding after more than 5in of rain hit the city. To the south, two separate sinkholes swallowed cars. By Tuesday morning, roughly 23,000 people were still without power across the state as officials raced to get impacted systems back up and running during a day of dry reprieve.
Officials confirmed on Sunday that one person was discovered dead in a submerged car in Sacramento county. Another, to the south in Santa Cruz, was killed by a fallen tree. The NWS cautioned that, with conditions expected to escalate through the week, more life-threatening dangers loom.
While destructive, the storms have also been welcome news for the drought-stricken state. The snowpack covering California’s mountains is off to one of its best starts in 40 years, officials announced on Tuesday, raising hopes for the spring when melting snow will help recharge parched reservoirs.
But experts caution it won’t be enough to combat long-term dryness, as bursts of strong precipitation are far less helpful than lighter rains over longer periods.
“The significant Sierra snowpack is good news but unfortunately these same storms are bringing flooding to parts of California,” the director of the department of water resources, Karla Nemeth, said in a written statement issued with an update on the latest snow survey, which found levels were 177% of average before the big incoming storm. “This is a prime example of the threat of extreme flooding during a prolonged drought as California experiences more swings between wet and dry periods brought on by our changing climate.”
Last year showed a similar pattern, with a promising start that led into a long stretch of dry days. Weather whiplash, when strong rains inundate parched systems, does less to aid in recovery, especially when storms are severe and destructive.
“We don’t want to get all the rainfall to eliminate the drought all at once,” said Richard Bann, a meteorologist with the NWS Storm Prediction Center. “The fact we have multiple days of this and heavy snow in the mountains will help alleviate some of these concerns – but we have a long way to go.”
READ MORE 
An oil tanker is docked at the terminal of PDVSA's Jose Antonio Anzoategui industrial complex in the state of Anzoategui April 15, 2015. (photo: Reuters)
On Friday, a Chevron-chartered vessel approached the South American country's waters to pick up a cargo of Venezuelan crude. A second tanker carrying a cargo of diluents to a Chevron oil joint venture is due to arrive in Venezuela early next month, the person said.
The U.S. last month issued a six-month license to Chevron authorizing it to take an expanded role at four Venezuelan oil joint ventures that produce, process and export oil, and to bring their oil to the United States.
The U.S. license will reopen oil flows that were shut by U.S. sanctions nearly four years ago. The license was one of Washington's first steps to ease sanctions as an incentive for Venezuela to work with opposition leaders on a presidential election in late 2023.
A Chevron spokesman declined to comment, citing a policy of not discussing commercial matters.
Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
MORE FLEXIBLE TERMS
Analysts said the new oil flows could set the stage for additional concessions by the administrations of Venezuela's Socialist President Nicolas Maduro and U.S. President Joe Biden. No. 2 U.S. oil producer Chevron could return to a historical role in Venezuela's oil production and processing over time, they said.
"The main scenario is to expect the license will become more flexible as political talks progress," said Francisco Monaldi, a Latin American energy expert at Rice University's Baker Institute. "The United States seems to be following a strategy of carrots in a row: Maduro will have to comply with steps in the negotiation."
"There might be new licenses, not out of promises but out of verifiable changes," added Fernando Fernandez, a Venezuelan lawyer and expert in sanctions.
Washington officials have said further easing of Venezuelan oil sanctions could come with a reinstatement of excluded political candidates and election observers.
FIRST U.S. LOADING
The Bahamas-flagged tanker Caribbean Voyager is set to load Venezuelan oil for exports to the United States in the coming days, while the Marshall Islands-flagged UACC Eagle is sailing to Venezuela's Jose oil port to discharge naphtha for the joint venture Petropiar, according to the person and Refinitiv Eikon vessel monitoring data.
The cargoes are the first under the U.S. Treasury Department's November license allowing Chevron to expand its operations in Venezuela.
The Biden administration previously had authorized European oil companies to receive Venezuelan crude to recoup pending debt, removed individual sanctions on some Venezuelans, and released relatives of Venezuela's first lady who were convicted of drug trafficking charges.
Chevron earlier this year had requested a broader license that would allow it to take operational control of its joint ventures in Venezuela, but Washington opted for a limited authorization set to be scalable as political talks progress.
"What Chevron was granted is a bit far from what it requested, but it could be modified," said Jose Ignacio Hernandez, Venezuela's former attorney general. Chevron also faces "enormous compliance demands" by Washington in its financial dealings with PDVSA, he said.
READ MORE 
The Wall Street Journal is demanding the Phoenix PD conduct an internal review and take action to ensure journalists’ rights are protected after one of its reporters was handcuffed and detained. (photo: ABC 15)
The demand came from Journal Editor-in-Chief Matt Murray to Phoenix Police Chief Michael Sullivan in a letter following a November 23, 2022 incident involving an officer and reporter Dion Rabouin.
“I am appalled and concerned that officers at your department would attempt to interfere with Mr. Rabouin’s constitutional right to engage in journalism and purport to limit anyone's presence in a public location,” Murray wrote.
The incident raises new allegations about Phoenix violating First Amendment rights.
The city is under a Department of Justice investigation for falsely charging protesters as gang members.
Rabouin, who’s based in New York and covers markets for the Journal, was in Phoenix to visit family during the Thanksgiving holiday.
He told ABC15 that he went to a Chase Bank branch in north Phoenix to conduct some man-on-the-street interviews for an ongoing story about savings accounts. He was in street clothes because he didn’t want people to think he was selling them something.
As he was standing on a sidewalk outside the building, Rabouin said a pair of employees asked him what he was doing and then walked back inside.
Rabouin said he didn’t know the sidewalk was private property, and at no time, did the bank ask him to leave.
“I saw a police car pull up. And the officer came out, walked into the branch, after about five minutes came out, and talked to me,” Raboin said. “He asked me what I was doing. I identified myself. I said, ‘I’m Dion Rabouin. I’m a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. I’m working on a story. I told the people in the branch what was going on.’ And he said, ‘Well you can’t do that.’”
ABC15 requested records and body camera video related to what happened. So far, the department released an incident report but has not yet provided any video footage.
In his report, Officer Caleb Zimmerman wrote that bank employees claimed Rabouin refused to leave and that the reporter initially refused to identify himself.
After watching the situation unfold, a bystander began recording on her cell phone.
Katelyn Parady’s footage does not begin until several minutes after the interaction between Rabouin and Zimmerman begins. But the first comments recorded in the video show her disputing the officer’s claims.
“I heard him say he was going to leave. This is ridiculous. He’s a reporter,” the video captures Parady saying as she holds the phone.
Rabouin told ABC15 that the officer didn’t want to look at his credentials or let him walk away.
“’If this isn’t public property and I don’t have a legal right to be here, if you’re telling me that’s not what this is, fine, I’ll move.’ And he literally, kind of, shifted his body to keep me from moving or going anywhere,” Rabouin said. “And after we talked a little more, he said, ‘I’m done with this.’ And he started grabbing me. Grabbing at my arms. And I was kind of flustered and drew back. And he was like, ‘This could get bad for you if you don’t comply and don’t do what I say.’ So he grabs my arms and really wrenches them behind my back and proceeds to put me in handcuffs.”
Parady’s cell video begins as the officer is placing Rabouin in handcuffs.
Zimmerman walks Rabouin over to his police car and attempts to place him in the back. That’s where Rabouin pauses and tells him he didn’t want to get in.
“I didn’t trust what was going to happen, he told ABC15. “While the woman was recording, I thought the odds of him not doing anything to me whether physically or anything else are a lot higher. Once he closes that door, he could take off, He could take me somewhere. I could be placed under arrest.”
In his incident report, Zimmerman wrote he had probable cause to arrest Rabouin for trespassing.
About eight minutes into the cell phone video, backup officers arrive. After another two minutes, with other officers now as witnesses, Zimmerman takes the handcuffs off Rabouin, and he’s released.
The Phoenix Police Department did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
In addition to the letter sent by the Journal, Rabouin filed an internal complaint. He said he got a call from a Phoenix official weeks later saying that they reviewed the incident and found nothing wrong.
“As journalists, we don’t really want to be the story. We want to report the story,” Rabouin said. “I think it’s important to talk about. This is a department that’s under DOJ investigation for excessive force, under investigation for the way they operate and handle business, and despite that, they continue to operate this way.”
A Wall Street Journal spokesperson issued the following statement:
“We’re deeply concerned that Wall Street Journal reporter Dion Rabouin was detained, handcuffed and placed in the back of a police vehicle while reporting. We have asked the Phoenix Police Department to pursue a thorough investigation into the incident and explain why their officers needlessly escalated the situation and took these aggressive steps. We await their response. No journalist should ever be detained simply for exercising their First Amendment rights."
Contact ABC15 Chief Investigator Dave Biscobing at Dave@ABC15.com.
READ MORE 
Twitter previously banned political ads starting in 2019. (photo: LightRocket)
Twitter previously banned political ads starting in 2019.
Promising to share more details soon, the @TwitterSafety account tweeted Tuesday that from now on, Twitter’s goal is to align its advertising policy “with that of TV and other media outlets.” It’s unclear what exactly that means on a platform like Twitter, but the Federal Communications Commission specifies that it works to restrict censorship and ensure equal opportunity for political advertisers. This aligns somewhat with Twitter CEO Elon Musk’s stated "free speech absolutist" position. Twitter could also be looking to emulate the FCC to diminish the company's responsibility to review or ensure the accuracy of all political ad content.
Twitter’s recent policy change reverses a decision the platform made in 2019 to ban political ads to limit misinformation spread. That 2019 ban included exceptions for some cause-based advertising, where advertisers were permitted to conduct some microtargeting of Twitter users based on limited geographic location information, keywords, and interests. Notably, advertisers were not allowed to target audiences based on political affiliation like “conservative” or “liberal.” Under these prior rules, Twitter-certified cause-based advertisers approved to promote content created to “educate, raise awareness, and/or call for people to take action in connection with civic engagement, economic growth, environmental stewardship, or social equity.”
In 2019, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said that Twitter limiting cause-based advertising wasn’t a good policy because the microtargeting exception applies to “an almost impossibly broad range of advertisements adjacent to the banned campaign content.” The EFF said this policy had “the potential to worsen the problem it is trying to solve,” suggesting that smaller social media platforms that “let users choose the moderation approaches that work for them” do more to empower their users to “protect themselves from manipulative advertising.”
The coming weeks will show if Musk will provide more tools to empower Twitter users to protect themselves or whether his company will simply leave it up to the users to distinguish between valid causes and manipulative ads. It could be that Twitter’s priority to expand public conversation depends on users relying on their own judgment. In November 2022, Twitter said its mission has always been to be the town square of the Internet, insisting that was only possible if everyone has “the power to create and share ideas and information, instantly without barriers.”
Ars could not immediately reach Twitter or the EFF for comment. [Update: EFF civil liberties director David Greene told Ars that "it’s hard to assess whether the new policy is better than the old one without knowing the specifics of the new policy." Greene said that Twitter isn't the first social platform to say that "they will follow the rules that 'TV and other media outlets follow'"—he criticized a similar move that Parler made in 2020— and that description alone "isn’t really helpful, since those policies can vary greatly."
Greene said that Twitter's new policy "can and should be criticized" for being a US-only policy that overlooks the fact that "the majority of Twitter’s users are not US users." Those international users rely just as much on Twitter during key elections. The new policy can also be criticized for being too vague. "To properly respect human rights, content policies should be clear and precise, and readily understandable to users," Greene said. "It is not sufficient for Twitter to vaguely roll out an important new policy."
Without more detail, Greene told Ars that Musk's Twitter "lifting the ban is potentially good" in at least one way. "We thought the old policy was bad and especially harmful for less well-resourced cause organizations for which social media advertising remains an important way to raise awareness and funds," Greene told Ars. "And social media bans on political advertisers tends to entrench better-funded candidates who can afford the more expensive advertising platforms."]
Bloomberg reported that political advertising before the 2019 ban was a “minor source of income” for Twitter, generating less than $3 million during the 2018 midterm elections. That’s a pittance compared to Twitter’s overall ad revenue today, which S…P Global Market Intelligence reported in 2021 was $4.5 billion. And although Musk was penny-pinching in 2022—even failing to pay $136,000 in rent for Twitter headquarters—he seems focused on bigger-picture moneymaking strategies for Twitter than bringing back a couple of million dollars in ad revenue. In an investor pitch deck reviewed by The New York Times, Musk said he planned to grow Twitter revenue to $26 billion by 2028, with an influx of $10 billion expected to come from Twitter Blue subscriptions.
Whatever Musk’s intentions are for relaxing Twitter’s political ad policies—whether it’s about profits, stirring up more Twitter engagement, or some other motivation—the policy update carries some potential for increasing misinformation spread on the platform. That’s alarming to some users, especially considering that Twitter’s recent decision to relax its COVID-19 misinformation policy has already caused drama. This week, The Washington Post reported that “baseless” tweets from anti-vaxxers and right-wing provocateurs spread throughout Twitter, claiming without evidence that NFL player Damar Hamlin collapsed on the field during a Monday game because he had been vaccinated against COVID-19.
Until more details are officially announced about its political ad policy change, Twitter has sought to reassure users that their safety won't be impacted by the decision.
“As with all policy changes, we will first ensure that our approach to reviewing and approving content protects people on Twitter,” the @TwitterSafety account tweeted.
READ MORE 
Advocacy organizations believe the solution is less about lettuce—and more about leaders. (photo: Earth Justice)
Advocacy organizations believe the solution is less about lettuce—and more about leaders.
“It's just emblematic of how dire the situation is,” says Rachel Silverstein, the executive director of environmental nonprofit Miami Waterkeeper. “The point where we would need to artificially feed a wild animal because their ecosystem is so destroyed that they cannot find food for themselves is pretty extreme.”
The supplemental feeding program began in early 2022 and restarted this winter, because of the persistence of what marine mammal experts call an “unusual mortality event.” “It probably kept the manatees alive,” says Silverstein of the feeding program, “but it's not a sustainable condition for manatees in the long term to need to rely on an artificial food source.”
A lasting fix will require a long process of environmental restoration, which is partly underway—but it’s a big task, one that has put local environmental advocates at odds with state and federal policymakers. And it’s a complex one, thanks to the peculiarities of the Florida coast and of the sea cows beloved by its human inhabitants.
Like most Floridians, manatees are fussy about water temperature. That’s simply because they don’t have much body fat. “People think it’s a big marine mammal so it has a lot of blubber, like a whale, dolphin, seal, or sea lion,” says Aarin-Conrad Allen, a marine biologist and PhD candidate at Florida International University. Because they’re not well-insulated, when the water dips below about 68 degrees Fahrenheit, they’ll meander over to warmer areas. “That's why they go to these power plants,” he says, and it’s what draws so many to the Indian River Lagoon, which stretches about 160 miles down Florida’s space coast.
But over the past 50 years, the human population of Brevard County, which is home to the Indian River, has nearly tripled. Human activity has simultaneously increased agriculture in the region, led to more boating accidents that injure manatees (96 percent of them have at least one propeller scar), dried out Florida’s historic Everglades, and flooded its waterways with pollutants. Because Florida sits on porous bedrock (“basically the Swiss cheese of rocks,” says Silverstein), water and pollutants move easily into groundwater. “Everything that's happening on the surface is also happening underground,” she says.
That means agricultural discharge and sewage leaks have jacked up the levels of nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen in nearby waters. This extra fertilizer drives microalgae blooms, which block sunlight from reaching seagrass. The dead seagrass can fertilize blooms further. This cascade of pollution has destabilized Florida’s ecosystem for plants and herbivores; scientists estimate that about 95 percent of seagrasses have died off in parts of the Indian River Lagoon. Without them, the manatees are dying, too.
Manatees are instead relying on red algae (which is different from the plentiful algal blooms), but it’s not a good replacement for seagrass because it lacks the fiber of vegetation. One study this year suggests that manatees’ low-fiber diets cause digestive issues and infection. The lettuce being thrown to them as a substitute is better because of its fiber content—it’s what manatees in captivity are fed.
Allen recently led a study that examined the stomach contents of manatees that died for unknown reasons between 2013 and 2015. He compared those samples with some from between 1977 and 1989, when the lagoon was healthier. He found that the animals’ diet shifted from 62 percent seagrass to only 34 percent; the share of algae rose from 28 percent to 50 percent. And manatee health is unequivocally worse now than it was in 2015. “So it's like they've gone from seagrass to algae,” Allen says, “to actually being emaciated.”
Scientists hope that restoring Florida’s Everglades will help protect natural habitats. Comprehensive restoration, overseen by federal agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior, plus Florida’s state government, began in 2000. Its associated projects aim to restore the flow of water from the central Lake Okeechobee to South Florida after a century of diversion that parched the wetland. But that project will run through 2050, at least, and environmental advocates believe that more can be done in the meantime at the government level.
In 2013, the US Environmental Protection Agency approved the State of Florida’s annual limits—which are still in place today—on nitrogen and phosphorus in the Indian River Lagoon. “They stated that it would not adversely modify the Indian River Lagoon and affect any listed species,” says Ragan Whitlock, a staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. “That clearly has turned out not to be the case.”
In a bid to get the EPA to lower those limits, and to cut pollution, in August 2021, the US Fish and Wildlife Service sent a letter to the agency recommending that it reinitiate its process for approving this “numeric nutrient criteria,” or NNC. The EPA declined, saying that the limits were not the problem.
In May 2022, the nonprofits Save the Manatee Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for Biological Diversity sued, arguing that the EPA’s inaction is neglecting the environment during a period of “catastrophic mortality” for manatees. “If they choose to be a productive player in this space, they can help,” says Whitlock.
An EPA representative declined an interview but provided WIRED a statement via email. “The EPA recognizes that manatees are a keystone species for the coastal ecosystem, and their health and behavior are alerting us to water quality changes,” the spokesperson wrote. “The EPA is concerned about this environmental crisis and is working to find solutions with our partner agencies that will improve water quality, which contributes to the long-term survival of the manatee population.”
However, the statement argued that the problem isn’t the need to recalibrate the numeric criteria—it’s that the nutrient levels in the waters are’t meeting the existing regulations. Therefore, the agency has no plans to reevaluate those criteria.
Meanwhile, a group of environmental advocates is petitioning the US Fish and Wildlife Service to reverse a 2017 decision to delist manatees as an “endangered” species, a designation that increases their priority for government funding and attention. That agency also declined an interview but provided an email to WIRED stating: “The US Fish and Wildlife Service is aware of the petition. Service staff will review the petition through our normal petition processes.”
Because restoration efforts, petitions, and lawsuits are slow going, in the meantime members of the public have stepped up to help their state’s unofficial mascot. (“You think of Florida, you think of manatees,” says Allen. “It’s kind of synonymous.”) For example, that supplemental feeding program relies on tons of donated lettuce. People also call the state wildlife agency’s hotline to rescue sick and injured manatees. In places like Alachua County, residents report sightings to the Save the Manatee Club to help gather data about the species. People avoid using fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides on their lawn. And a big one, says Silverstein, is simply being willing to accept infrastructure upgrades, like septic-to-sewer conversions or sewage upgrades, “even though they can be inconvenient because there's construction going on.”
There are some signs of hope for manatees. In 2008, nonprofits petitioned the USFWS to revise manatees’ critical habitat designations, which identify the areas essential to their survival and recovery. Those areas had originally been identified in 1976—in July, the agency agreed to an update based on decades of study. And in November, Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission voted to amend its boater safety course with information about protecting manatees, like slow zones. “It’s a huge step,” Whitlock says. “This information does resonate.”
Allen, who has been monitoring seagrass throughout the year, says the Indian River Lagoon is seeing a minor rebound. He thinks the work people have done to curb the release of fertilizers and sewage into the water system “could definitely be having an impact.” And most important to the manatees’ supporters, as of December, rescue efforts throughout Florida had saved 103 sick and injured manatees.
“I think we can bring the seagrass back. We can remove these pollution pressures,” agrees Silverstein. But there’s a long road ahead, she says. “It's very difficult and expensive to put nature back together once it’s been broken.”
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.