NYT TELLS JOURNALISTS TO AVOID WORDS “GENOCIDE,” “ETHNIC CLEANSING,” AND “OCCUPIED TERRITORY''

LEAKED NYT GAZA MEMO TELLS JOURNALISTS TO AVOID WORDS “GENOCIDE,” “ETHNIC CLEANSING,” AND “OCCUPIED TERRITORY”

Amid the internal battle over the New York Times’s coverage of Israel’s war, top editors handed down a set of directives.

THE NEW YORK TIMES instructed journalists covering Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept.

The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to steer clear of the term “refugee camps” to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by displaced Palestinians expelled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli–Arab wars. The areas are recognized by the United Nations as refugee camps and house hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.

The memo — written by Times standards editor Susan Wessling, international editor Philip Pan, and their deputies — “offers guidance about some terms and other issues we have grappled with since the start of the conflict in October.”

While the document is presented as an outline for maintaining objective journalistic principles in reporting on the Gaza war, several Times staffers told The Intercept that some of its contents show evidence of the paper’s deference to Israeli narratives.

“It’s the kind of thing that looks professional and logical if you have no knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”

“I think it’s the kind of thing that looks professional and logical if you have no knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” said a Times newsroom source, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal, of the Gaza memo. “But if you do know, it will be clear how apologetic it is to Israel.”

First distributed to Times journalists in November, the guidance — which collected and expanded on past style directives about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict — has been regularly updated over the ensuing months. It presents an internal window into the thinking of Times international editors as they have faced upheaval within the newsroom surrounding the paper’s Gaza war coverage.

“Issuing guidance like this to ensure accuracy, consistency and nuance in how we cover the news is standard practice,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a Times spokesperson. “Across all our reporting, including complex events like this, we take care to ensure our language choices are sensitive, current and clear to our audiences.”

Issues over style guidance have been among a bevy of internal rifts at the Times over its Gaza coverage. In January, The Intercept reported on disputes in the Times newsroom over issues with an investigative story on systematic sexual violence on October 7. The leak gave rise to a highly unusual internal probe. The company faced harsh criticism for allegedly targeting Times workers of Middle East and North African descent, which Times brass denied. On Monday, executive editor Joe Kahn told staff that the leak investigation had been concluded unsuccessfully.

WhatsApp Debates

Almost immediately after the October 7 attacks and the launch of Israel’s scorched-earth war against Gaza, tensions began to boil within the newsroom over the Times coverage. Some staffers said they believed the paper was going out of its way to defer to Israel’s narrative on the events and was not applying even standards in its coverage. Arguments began fomenting on internal Slack and other chat groups.

The debates between reporters on the Jerusalem bureau-led WhatsApp group, which at one point included 90 reporters and editors, became so intense that Pan, the international editor, interceded.

“We need to do a better job communicating with each other as we report the news, so our discussions are more productive and our disagreements less distracting,” Pan wrote in a November 28 WhatsApp message viewed by The Intercept and first reported by the Wall Street Journal. “At its best, this channel has been a quick, transparent and productive space to collaborate on a complex, fast-moving story. At its worst, it’s a tense forum where the questions and comments can feel accusatory and personal.”

Pan bluntly stated: “Do not use this channel for raising concerns about coverage.”

Among the topics of debate in the Jerusalem bureau WhatsApp group and exchanges on Slack, reviewed by The Intercept and verified with multiple newsroom sources, were Israeli attacks on Al-Shifa Hospital, statistics on Palestinian civilian deaths, the allegations of genocidal conduct by Israel, and President Joe Biden’s pattern of promoting unverified allegations from the Israeli government as fact. (Pan did not respond to a request for comment.)

Many of the same debates were addressed in the Times’s Gaza-specific style guidance and have been the subject of intense public scrutiny.

“It’s not unusual for news companies to set style guidelines,” said another Times newsroom source, who also asked for anonymity. “But there are unique standards applied to violence perpetrated by Israel. Readers have noticed and I understand their frustration.”

“Words Like ‘Slaughter’”

The Times memo outlines guidance on a range of phrases and terms. “The nature of the conflict has led to inflammatory language and incendiary accusations on all sides. We should be very cautious about using such language, even in quotations. Our goal is to provide clear, accurate information, and heated language can often obscure rather than clarify the fact,” the memo says.

“Words like ‘slaughter,’ ‘massacre’ and ‘carnage’ often convey more emotion than information. Think hard before using them in our own voice,” according to the memo. “Can we articulate why we are applying those words to one particular situation and not another? As always, we should focus on clarity and precision — describe what happened rather than using a label.”

Despite the memo’s framing as an effort to not employ incendiary language to describe killings “on all sides,” in the Times reporting on the Gaza war, such language has been used repeatedly to describe attacks against Israelis by Palestinians and almost never in the case of Israel’s large-scale killing of Palestinians.

In January, The Intercept published an analysis of New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times coverage of the war from October 7 through November 24 — a period mostly before the new Times guidance was issued. The Intercept analysis showed that the major newspapers reserved terms like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” almost exclusively for Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians, rather than for Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli attacks.

The analysis found that, as of November 24, the New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a “massacre” on 53 occasions and those of Palestinians just once. The ratio for the use of “slaughter” was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed climbed to around 15,000.

The latest Palestinian death toll estimate stands at more than 33,000, including at least 15,000 children — likely undercounts due to Gaza’s collapsed health infrastructure and missing persons, many of whom are believed to have died in the rubble left by Israel’s attacks over the past six months.

Touchy Debates

The Times memo touches on some of the most highly charged — and disputed — language around the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The guidance spells out, for instance, usage of the word “terrorist,” which The Intercept previously reported was at the center of a spirited newsroom debate.

“It is accurate to use ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ in describing the attacks of Oct. 7, which included the deliberate targeting of civilians in killings and kidnappings,” according to the leaked Times memo. “We should not shy away from that description of the events or the attackers, particularly when we provide context and explanation.”

The guidance also instructs journalists to “Avoid ‘fighters’ when referring to the Oct. 7 attack; the term suggests a conventional war rather than a deliberate attack on civilians. And be cautious in using ‘militants,’ which is interpreted in different ways and may be confusing to readers.”

In the memo, the editors tell Times journalists: “We do not need to assign a single label or to refer to the Oct. 7 assault as a ‘terrorist attack’ in every reference; the word is best used when specifically describing attacks on civilians. We should exercise restraint and can vary the language with other accurate terms and descriptions: an attack, an assault, an incursion, the deadliest attack on Israel in decades, etc. Similarly, in addition to ‘terrorists,’ we can vary the terms used to describe the Hamas members who carried out the assault: attackers, assailants, gunmen.”

The Times does not characterize Israel’s repeated attacks on Palestinian civilians as “terrorism,” even when civilians have been targeted. This is also true of Israel’s assaults on protected civilian sites, including hospitals.

In a section with the headline “‘Genocide’ and Other Incendiary Language,” the guidance says, “‘Genocide’ has a specific definition in international law. In our own voice, we should generally use it only in the context of those legal parameters. We should also set a high bar for allowing others to use it as an accusation, whether in quotations or not, unless they are making a substantive argument based on the legal definition.”

Regarding “ethnic cleansing,” the document calls it “another historically charged term,” instructing reporters: “If someone is making such an accusation, we should press for specifics or supply proper context.”

Bucking International Norms

In the cases of describing “occupied territory” and the status of refugees in Gaza, the Times style guidelines run counter to norms established by the United Nations and international humanitarian law.

On the term “Palestine” — a widely used name for both the territory and the U.N.-recognized state — the Times memo contains blunt instructions: “Do not use in datelines, routine text or headlines, except in very rare cases such as when the United Nations General Assembly elevated Palestine to a nonmember observer state, or references to historic Palestine.” The Times guidance resembles that of the Associated Press Stylebook.

The memo directs journalists not to use the phrase “refugee camps” to describe long-standing refugee settlements in Gaza. “While termed refugee camps, the refugee centers in Gaza are developed and densely populated neighborhoods dating to the 1948 war. Refer to them as neighborhoods, or areas, and if further context is necessary, explain how they have historically been called refugee camps.”

The United Nations recognizes eight refugee camps in the Gaza Strip. As of last year, before the war started, the areas were home to more than 600,000 registered refugees. Many are descendants of those who fled to Gaza after being forcibly expelled from their homes in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which marked the founding of the Jewish state and mass dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

The Israeli government has long been hostile to the historical fact that Palestinians maintain refugee status, because it signifies that they were displaced from lands they have a right to return to.

Since October 7, Israel has repeatedly bombed refugee camps in Gaza, including Jabaliya, Al Shati, Al Maghazi, and Nuseirat.

The memo’s instructions on the use of “occupied territories” says, “When possible, avoid the term and be specific (e.g. Gaza, the West Bank, etc.) as each has a slightly different status.” The United Nations, along with much of the world, considers Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territories, seized by Israel in the 1967 Arab–Israeli war.

The admonition against the use of the term “occupied territories,” said a Times staffer, obscures the reality of the conflict, feeding into the U.S. and Israeli insistence that the conflict began on October 7.

“You are basically taking the occupation out of the coverage, which is the actual core of the conflict,” said the newsroom source. “It’s like, ‘Oh let’s not say occupation because it might make it look like we’re justifying a terrorist attack.’”⍐

உல்லாச புரியாகும் மைய மலையகமும், Spain இல் உல்லாசத் துறை எதிர்ப்பும்.

Thousands protest in Spain's Canary Islands over mass tourism

By Borja Suarez  April 21, 2024 

SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE, Spain, April 20 (Reuters) - Thousands of people protested in Tenerife on Saturday, calling for the Spanish island to temporarily limit tourist arrivals to stem a boom in short-term holiday rentals and hotel construction that is driving up housing costs for locals.

Holding placards reading "People live here" and "We don't want to see our island die", demonstrators said changes must be made to the tourism industry that accounts for 35% of gross domestic product (GDP) in the Canary Islands archipelago.

A woman uses a megaphone during a demonstration for a change in the tourism model in the Canary Islands, in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, April 20, 2024. REUTERS/Borja Suarez

"It's not a message against the tourist, but against a tourism model that doesn't benefit this land and needs to be changed," one of the protesters told Reuters during the march in Tenerife's capital, Santa Cruz de Tenerife.

Smaller marches were held elsewhere in the island group and other Spanish cities, all of them organised by about two dozen environmental organisations ahead of the peak summer holiday season.

A man plays instruments as he displays a sign during a demonstration for a change in the tourism model in the Canary Islands, in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, April 20, 2024. REUTERS/Borja

The organisations say local authorities should temporarily limit visitor numbers to alleviate pressure on the islands' environment, infrastructure and housing stock, and put curbs on property purchases by foreigners.

"The authorities must immediately stop this corrupt and destructive model that depletes the resources and makes the economy more precarious. The Canary Islands have limits and people's patience too," Antonio Bullon, one of the protest leaders, told Reuters.

A man plays a conch in a traditional way during a demonstration for a change in the tourism model in the Canary Islands, in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, April 20, 2024. REUTERS/Borja Suarez

The archipelago of 2.2 million people was visited by nearly 14 million foreign tourists in 2023, up 13% from the previous year, according to official data.

Authorities in the islands are concerned about the impact on locals. A draft law expected to pass this year toughening the rules on short lets follows complaints from residents priced out of the housing market.

 A woman shouts next to a banner with the word "tourism" during a demonstration for a change in the tourism model in the Canary Islands, in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, April 20, 2024. REUTERS/Borja Suarez

Israel assassinate 18 IRGC members since December!

Israel strikes Iran consulate in Syria’s capital Damascus: 

What we know

Iran has promised a response after an alleged Israeli attack on its consulate killed seven including two top commanders.

Iran has promised a response after its consulate in the Syrian capital Damascus was destroyed in a suspected Israeli missile attack, killing seven people including a top commander and his deputy.

Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior commander in the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and his deputy General Mohammad Hadi Hajriahimi were killed in Monday’s attack, the IRGC said in a statement.

Israel has long targeted Iran’s military installations in Syria and those of its proxies but Monday’s attack was the first time it had targeted the embassy compound itself.

Here’s what we know:

What happened?

The consulate, which is next to the main embassy building in Damascus’s Mezzeh district, was struck at about 5pm (14:00 GMT) on Monday.

Photos from the scene showed piles of rubble and twisted steel with an Iranian flag still hanging from a pole nearby.

Who was there?

Several IRGC military advisers were in the building at the time of the attack and seven were killed, according to the IRGC statement.

The statement said Zahedi and Hajriahimi were among the dead.

Zahedi was the leader of the Quds Force in Lebanon and Syria until 2016, it said.

The United Kingdom-based war monitor, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said as many as 11 people had been killed, including eight Iranians, two Syrians and one Lebanese, all of them fighters.

How has Iran reacted?

Iran’s Ambassador to Syria, Hossein Akbari, who was not injured in the attack, said Tehran’s response would be “decisive”.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian described the attack “as a violation of all international obligations and conventions” and blamed Israel.

In a separate statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanani said that Iran “reserves the right to carry out a reaction and will decide on the type of response and the punishment of the aggressor”.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations said the strike was a “flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the foundational principle of the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises”.

Saying the strike was “a significant threat to regional peace and security”, the Iranian mission urged the UN Security Council to condemn the attack and said Tehran reserved the right “to take a decisive response”.

Protesters took to the streets of Tehran to condemn Israel over the attack.

How have others reacted?

Syria said “innocents” had been killed in the strike.

“We strongly condemn this atrocious terrorist attack that targeted the Iranian consulate building in Damascus and killed a number of innocents,” said Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad who visited the scene of the attack along with Syria’s interior minister.

Russia, an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, also joined the condemnation.

“We strongly condemn this unacceptable attack against the Iranian consular mission in Syria,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Lebanon’s Iran-backed Hezbollah group warned that Israel would pay for the attack.

Hezbollah has exchanged near-daily cross-border fire with Israel in support of its ally Hamas since the Gaza war erupted in October.

“Certainly, this crime will not pass without the enemy receiving punishment and revenge,” Hezbollah said in a statement on Tuesday. It added that Zahedi was “one of the first to support, sacrifice, and persevere for many years to develop and advance the work of the resistance [Hezbollah] in Lebanon”.

Muslim countries including Iraq, Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also condemned the attack.

In the United States, meanwhile, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told reporters that Washington remained “concerned about anything that would be escalatory or cause an increase in conflict in the region”.

When asked about the attack, an Israeli military spokesperson told journalists: “We do not comment on reports in the foreign media.”

The New York Times cited four unnamed Israeli officials as acknowledging that Israel was responsible for the attack.

What could the consequences be?

The attack appeared to signify an escalation of Israel’s targeting of military officials from Iran, which provides money and weapons to hardline groups fighting Israel in Gaza and along its border with Lebanon.

But analysts appear divided over whether the action would bring about a regional war.

Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, said Israel probably saw the strike more as a deterrent.

“The Israelis are convinced that if they seek to hang back, the threat will grow and not diminish,” he said. “They are persuaded that as long as they do something like this periodically, their adversaries will be deterred.”

However, Steven Cook, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, said there was a danger of escalation.

“The IRGC can loosen restraints on proxies in Iraq and Syria, placing American forces in jeopardy again,” he said. “The Iranians could also direct Hezbollah to escalate its attacks on Israel, which have been growing bolder and more numerous.”

The chief spokesman for Israel’s army, Daniel Hagari, said a drone attack on a naval base in southern Israel later on Monday was “directed by Iran” and caused no injuries.

Early on Tuesday, the Israeli military said some kind of weapon fired from Syria towards Israel crashed before reaching its intended target.

Ali Vaez, the director of the International Crisis Group’s Iran Project, agreed there was a risk of expanded conflict but that it might not be of too much concern to Israel.

“[This] puts Israel in a win-win situation because Israel knows Iran doesn’t want to get dragged into a regional war, so if it escalates its attacks against Iranian assets and personnel in Syria, it probably will be cost-free and if Iran does respond and retaliate, then it becomes a justified pretext for expanding the war.”⍐

Oil Prices Start the Week Lower Despite Iran Attack on Israel

 

Crude oil prices began trade today with a decline following Iran’s retaliatory strike on Israel that the latter said had only done limited damage.

https://oilprice.com/ By Irina Slav - Apr 15, 2024

"An attack was largely priced in the days leading up to it. Also, the limited damage and the fact that there was no loss of life means that maybe Israel's response will be more measured," ING’s Warren Patterson said, as quoted by Reuters.

"But clearly, there is still plenty of uncertainty and it all depends on how Israel now responds," the Dutch bank’s head of commodity strategy also said.

Indeed, the degree of geopolitical uncertainty rose

significantly despite the fact that Iran’s retaliation was a non-surprise, as the West seeks a diplomatic way out of a further escalation while both Iran and Israel vow to respond to each other’s next moves reciprocally.

ING’s Patterson and commodity strategist Ewa Manthey said in a note from earlier today that Iran had signaled the drone strike “concluded” the whole affair for it but it was not certain whether Israel saw things the same way.

Naturally, this has heightened risks around oil supply from the Middle East, and especially Iran, which despite sanctions has boosted its output to some 3 million barrels daily and is currently the fourth-largest producer within OPEC.

In this context, according to the Dutch bank, there were two risks inherent to oil supply in the situation. First, the U.S. could tighten the sanction noose because of the strike on Israel and prompt cuts in output. Second, Israel could retaliate by targeting Iranian energy infrastructure, again affecting supply.

Sanctions could take some Iranian output off the market, per ING, but an Israeli attack on infrastructure could cause more significant supply losses. Should this happen, oil prices will have much higher to go, even though the ING analysts pointed to a possible new release of oil from the U.S. SPR and OPEC’s spare capacity.⍐

US ‘doesn’t believe’ that Iran attack ‘needs’ to escalate into wider war.

 

NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” April 14, 2024, By Alexandra Marquez

National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby on Sunday said President Joe Biden doesn’t “believe” that Iran’s overnight attacks against Israel need to escalate into a wider war in the Middle East.

“The President doesn’t believe that it needs to move in that direction whatsoever,” Kirby said in an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”

His remarks came hours after Iran launched an attack on Israel with more than 300 missiles and drones. The U.S. helped Israel defend against the attack, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement late Saturday, and just a “few” of the ballistic missiles fired from Iran landed inside Israel, an Israeli Defense Forces spokesman said.

Most of the cruise missiles launched by Iran were intercepted by Israeli fighter jets, the spokesperson said. It was the first time Iran had launched a direct military attack against Israel.

Kirby also declined to “get into hypotheticals” about whether the U.S. would back an Israeli counterattack against Iran.

“Israel hasn’t made any decisions that I’m aware of about what the next step is,” Kirby told moderator Kristen Welker.

Asked about whether the Biden administration has a “red line” for getting directly involved in a conflict against Iran, Kirby declined to identify one, saying, “I mean ... we could sit here all day talking about what is and what isn’t a red line. I’m not going to do that.”

House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner, R-Ohio, criticized Kirby’s comments by saying, “There should be a red line.”

He called on the Biden administration to “take seriously that this attack has happened. It’s unprecedented and certainly, it needs to be viewed as an escalation.”

Still, Turner agreed, “I don’t think at this point that the United States should be engaged in a military action directly at Iran.”

Both Turner and Kirby hailed the joint effort between Israel and the U.S. to use missile defense systems to guard against almost all of the incoming Iranian attacks.Kirby said that the effort was, “an incredible military achievement by Israel” and “quite frankly the United States and other partners that helped Israel defend itself against more than 300 drones and missiles. I mean, it’s just an extraordinary example of military superiority.”

Turner added, “The United States and Israel jointly developed missile defense technology that went to work last night and it was proven to be successful.”⍐

IRGC launches ‘extensive’ retaliatory missile, drone strikes on occupied territories

 "Operation True Promise."

Picture shows an Iranian missile or drone flying across Tel Aviv's skies.

IRGC launches ‘extensive’ retaliatory missile, drone strikes on occupied territories

Press TV Saturday, 13 April 2024 

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has launched “extensive” retaliatory missile and drone strikes against the occupied territories in response to the Israeli regime’s terrorist attack of April 1 against the Islamic Republic’s diplomatic premises in the Syrian capital Damascus.

The Corps announced launching the strikes in a statement on Saturday night, defining the mission as "Operation True Promise."

“In response to the Zionist regime’s numerous crimes, including the attack on the consular section of Iran’s Embassy in Damascus and the martyrdom of a number of our country’s commanders and military advisors in Syria, the IRGC’s Aerospace Division launched tens of missiles and drones against certain targets inside the occupied territories,” the statement read.

Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Ashtiani, meanwhile, warned that “Whatever country that could open its soil or airspace to Israel for a [potential] attack on Iran, will receive our decisive response.”

The Israeli attack had resulted in the martyrdom of Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a commander of the IRGC's Quds Force, his deputy, General Mohammad Hadi Haji Rahimi, and five of their accompanying officers.

The terrorist attack drew sharp condemnation from senior Iranian political and military leaders, who vowed "definitive revenge."

During a speech in Tehran on Wednesday after leading the Eid al-Fitr prayers, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said the Israeli regime “must be punished and will be punished” for the deadly strike on the Iranian diplomatic premises.

The Leader added, “The evil Zionist regime committed another mistake ...  and that was the attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria. The consulate and diplomatic missions in any country are considered to be the territory of that country. When they attack our consulate, it means they have attacked our soil."

(This item will be updated-Press TV).

Read More:

US ‘doesn’t believe’ that Iran attack ‘needs’ to escalate into wider war

⍐

Indian Ocean islands evolving into thresholds of power for influential countries

 

CT By Sulochana ramiah mohan -April 11, 2024

The Indian Ocean is home to numerous islands, both inhabited and uninhabited, which have recently garnered attention due to their geopolitical significance amid escalating power dynamics involving nations like India, China and their allies.

The Indian Ocean has historically been a vital trade route, with islands acting as strategic points for control and influence. These islands provided access to resources and wealth for those who controlled them, justifying the effort to overcome vast distances.

The US and its Quad partners have shifted their focus to the Indian Ocean region, due to the pivotal role in connecting to the broader Indo-Pacific region where China asserts that its nine-dash line, covering nearly 90 per cent of the three million square kilometres in the South China Sea, constitutes as its sovereign territory. It claims indisputable sovereignty over this area that is triggering tension in the 21st century. Consequently, islands such as Sri Lanka, the Maldives and those under French and British colonisation have heightened their vigilance in safeguarding their interests, particularly amidst China’s expanding presence in the region. 

China justifies its presence in the South China Sea, that is creating a major stir, but it has cited the necessity of its presence there as well as in the Indian ocean, as its cargo vessels are traversing the east-west route passing by countries like Sri Lanka.

The Maldives, acknowledging its strategic positioning, similar to Sri Lanka, has initiated assertive measures to capitalise on its location, aiming to attract demand-driven infrastructure projects rather than relying solely on external aid. This internal shift has also sparked geopolitical tensions.

Sri Lanka has emerged as a critical geopolitical focal point over the past two decades, primarily due to its tilt towards China over other global powers, while China justifies its presence by emphasising the heavy reliance on trade routes passing through the Indian Ocean. 

Security concerns, including the rise of piracy and the potential for military conflicts, further complicate the situation in the Indian ocean region where India has secured rights to nab pirates even at mid-sea and try them in Indian Courts.

The Indian Ocean holds significant economic potential in terms of resources, tourism, and trade. Balancing economic development with environmental protection is crucial for island nations. The future of the Indian Ocean hinges on effectively managing these competing interests. Cooperation and peaceful resolution of disputes are imperative for maintaining regional stability and fostering prosperity.

Muizzu’s growing relations with China raise eyebrows

The Maldives archipelago has recently attracted attention, especially with President Mohammed Muizzu’s vocal stance against India. While his strategic manoeuvring may have bolstered his electoral success, the broader implications of his actions have led India to adopt a silent stance. Muizzu’s indirect call for India to leave the Maldives extends to US allies, including France and EU nations, yet this doesn’t seem to concern him.

Realistically, such a scenario is improbable given the Maldives’ heavy reliance on countries like India, its immediate neighbour. The country’s dependence on India is shown by the fact that a disruption in onion imports from India could potentially lead to unrest. President Muizzu’s rhetoric of “India Out” becomes further complicated by the substantial debt owed to India, amounting to approximately USD 1.5 billionm obtained through Indian credit lines.

Despite the apparent confrontation, Muizzu’s ultimatum demanding the immediate withdrawal of Indian military presence from the Maldives resulted in a diplomatic debacle. However, India, understanding the Maldives’ reliance on its assistance, swiftly responded to subsequent requests for aid. Muizzu recently urged India to consider implementing debt relief measures for the Maldives in light of the substantial loans accumulated over successive governments. India has moved its base to Lakshadweep, another island that is strategically important.

The presence of approximately 89 Indian troops, which had been deployed to support the Maldivian Government during various crises, became a focal point and Muizzu wanted them out. Indian security personnel were deployed in the Maldives to patrol its vast maritime borders. It assisted during water shortage as well as during the tsunami and as well as during the coup. India’s dissatisfaction with the regime change is compounded by its recent efforts to assist Sri Lanka in extricating itself from China’s influence, including substantial financial aid during its economic downturn.

The trilateral maritime security agreement between India, Maldives and Sri Lanka, crucial for ensuring the safety of sea routes to the Malacca Straits, faces jeopardy amidst these developments. Sri Lanka and the Maldives share close relations and are intertwined geopolitically. While Beijing refrained from direct involvement in Sri Lanka’s economic recovery, its separate efforts to resolve Sri Lanka’s debts lack transparency. 

Nevertheless, while India has assumed a leading role in aiding Sri Lanka, the US has heightened its presence in Colombo, primarily in response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Notably, the US has financed Adani to develop the western container terminal of the port of Colombo, aiming to maintain its influence on the maritime front lately.

In the Maldives affair, after negotiations with New Delhi, 89 Indian soldiers and their support staff from the nation, comprising 1,192 tiny coral islands, withdrew.

During his visit to Beijing in January 2024, Muizzu finalised a series of agreements with China covering infrastructure, energy, marine and agricultural sectors. Additionally, he requested India to remove two helicopters and a Dornier aircraft, essential for marine surveillance, search and rescue missions and medical evacuations, which are currently operated by Indian troops.

New reclaimed islands for Male

However, one of the most notable aspects of Muizzu’s agreements lies in the creation of new islands. Muizzu has authorised the reclamation of land for airport development on three islands in the Maldives. Intriguingly, Sri Lanka’s Capital Marine and Civil Construction Company (CMCCC) has been tasked with this endeavour.

The project agreement was formalised between the Planning Ministry’s Director-General, Fathimath Shana Farooq, and CMCCC’s Managing Director, Sevaraja Manivannan, who hails from Sri Lanka but resides in the UK. Under the USD 42.4 million project, CMCCC is mandated to reclaim land in B. Thulhaadhoo, Th. Vilufushi, and Sh. Bilehfahi. Specifically, the company is assigned to reclaim 44.70 hectares in Thulhaadhoo, while both Vilufushi and Bilehfahi will require the reclamation of 56.34 hectares each.

During Yameen Abdul Gayoom’s administration, the projects to build airports in Thulhaadhoo and Vilufushi were initially conceived. However, it was under President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih’s administration that these projects gained momentum. Additionally, the Malé administration launched the ambitious Ras Malé project on December 18. Under this initiative, Fushi Dhiggaru Falhu will be transformed into a modern mega city.

CMCCC will undertake dredging activities encompassing a total of 1150 hectares of land. In return, they will be granted a long-term lease of 70 hectares of land from Hulhumale Phase II and Rasmale’, with 10 hectares from Hulhumale and 60 from Rasmale’. Importantly, this project will be executed without reliance on the State budget, marking a significant leap towards self-sufficiency in infrastructure development.

Underwater tunnel in the Maldives 

One significant announcement made during the current administration is the plan to connect Malé and Ras Malé via an underwater tunnel. This project would comprise a railway system allowing tourists to marvel at the underwater beauty, thereby enhancing the tourism industry. The feasibility studies for the tunnel project have already commenced and the administration is actively seeking potential developers with the necessary technical expertise.

Surveillance drones from Turkey for the Maldives

In a recent development, Muizzu has acquired surveillance drones from Turkey. Although the exact number is undisclosed, it is reported that he ordered TB2 drones during his inaugural foreign trip to Turkey, breaking the tradition of visiting India first. These drones would be stationed on the island called Mafaru. It is speculated that the Maldives seeks to monitor its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which spans nearly one million square kilometres. Traditionally, India and Malé jointly conducted surveillance in the region. However, Muizzu’s Government has diversified its defence strategy by signing a weapons deal with Turkey to safeguard the Maldives’ land, sea and air territories. Furthermore, military agreements were inked with China during his visit, leading to the entry of a Chinese surveillance ship, the Xiang Yang Hong 3, into Maldivian waters. While India protested similar Chinese vessels in Sri Lanka, Muizzu’s administration welcomed Hong 3 unhindered.

In his efforts to diversify the Maldives’ foreign relations and reduce dependence on a single country, Muizzu seeks to procure commodities from China, unlike the past reliance on India alone. China has assured the Maldives of three military aids free of cost, weapons transfers, and enhanced ties with Malé. Additionally, Chinese delegations have visited not only the Maldives but also Sri Lanka and Nepal, signifying a broader diplomatic outreach by Beijing in the region.

India, Sri Lanka, and Kachchatheevu

This ongoing political issue revolves around the Tamil Nadu Government’s persistent demand for the retrieval of the Kachchatheevu island. While this demand has long been emphasised by the Tamil Nadu Government, due to clashes between Tamil Nadu fishermen and their Sri Lankan counterparts, the dispute has escalated recently. The Tamil Nadu Government claims ownership of the island, leading to continuous tensions in TN.

However, the dispute took a new turn when the Indian Prime Minister intervened, highlighting the historical context of the island’s transfer and pointing fingers at the Congress party for initially ceding control to Sri Lanka. While the primary concern revolves around the fishermen’s issues, India views the island’s strategic location with apprehension, fearing that Sri Lanka might exploit its territorial waters for oil and gas exploration and the former Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla also accused Congress of giving away the island of strategic importance.   

France worried about its territorial islands in the Indian Ocean region

Amidst escalating regional tensions and subtle power struggles with China solidifying its influence in the Indian Ocean and Indo Pacific regions, France has heightened its vigilance over its territories in the area. Notably, the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean jointly cover 90% of France’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).  

Mayotte is an island under French sovereignty. It is claimed by the Comoros since 1975. Long-standing tensions between the two recently escalated over a Police operation aimed at expelling citizens of the Comoros residing illegally in Mayotte. This has precipitated a geopolitical crisis in Mayotte with significant implications for the French Indo-Pacific strategy.

Since 2018, France’s President Emmanuel Macron has formalised a French Indo-Pacific strategy to enhance French assets in the region. The exercise of sovereignty in the overseas collective of the Indo-Pacific (Reunion Island, Mayotte, The French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Wallis-et-Futuna, New Caledonia and French Polynesia) is a major component of the new narrative implemented by the French State.

Mayotte, located 300 km northwest of Madagascar, is a key element of this new narrative as it is strategically located in the Indian Ocean, a major sea route of the globalised economy conveying 30 per cent of global trade and 40 per cent of France’s exports outside the EU. Furthermore, several scientific studies have identified large natural gas reserves around the island. The exclusive economic zone of Mayotte therefore attracts the interest of foreign powers. China, for example, has already carried out seismic studies in this area, while Russia supports the claims of the Comoros over Mayotte.

Considering France’s extensive overseas territories like La Réunion island and its sizable EEZ, it’s evident that French foreign policy towards these island States holds paramount importance in balancing major powers in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). In the forthcoming years, France and the five Indian Ocean islands are poised to strengthen their diplomatic relationship, enhancing collaboration and exchanging mutual diplomatic interests. Seychelles, comprising a group of 115 islands in the Western Indian Ocean, established diplomatic ties with France in 1976, fostering excellent bilateral relations.

As Sri Lanka emerges as a pivotal player in the strategic dynamics of the Indian Ocean Region, several nations are striving to consolidate their presence in the area. Despite France’s significant presence in the Indian Ocean, it formally joined the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) framework only three years ago. With the expansion of Chinese influence on one side and escalating rivalry between China and the US on the other, Sri Lanka’s geopolitical significance has become paramount.

Against this backdrop, Marc Abensour, the French Ambassador for the Indo-Pacific, recently visited Colombo and engaged with a select group of media representatives, reaffirming France’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific region. He underscored the strategic importance of Sri Lanka within this framework, which aligns with regional Indian Ocean interests.

According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, France has maintained a longstanding presence in the Indian Ocean dating back to the 17th century. Notably, Mayotte, situated between Madagascar and Mozambique, remains a French overseas department alongside La Réunion. Among the established actors in the region, France possesses the most extensive diplomatic network, with missions and embassies in Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles, and Sri Lanka.

Furthermore, the French Armed Forces maintain military bases in Réunion and Mayotte to safeguard French territories and provide regional humanitarian aid. 

Dr. Paco MILHIET says the ‘ranco-Indian roadmap for the Indo-Pacific’, signed in 2023, outlines 12 points as pillars of collaboration in the broader region. The roadmap encompasses issues such as seabed exploration, space cooperation, maritime collaboration, solar alliance, the Franco-Indian campus and the Pacific Ocean region. New avenues of cooperation have emerged, including those related to the Indo-Pacific, strategic technologies like artificial intelligence, and climate change.

The French territory La Réunion is gradually evolving into a strategic platform for Franco-Indian military collaboration in the region. The two countries signed a logistics cooperation agreement in 2018 for Indian Naval Forces to access the Réunion base. Joint patrols involving an Indian P8I aircraft are regularly conducted. With a range of 2200 km, this aircraft can monitor the entire eastern coast of Africa from Réunion.

Mauritius and the Chagos Archipelago

Mauritius asserts its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, which presently stands as a British Overseas Territory housing a US military base. This ongoing dispute underscores the competition for strategic positions and potential resource wealth in the region. Viewed as a vestige of colonialism, the issue also prompts inquiries into regional power dynamics. The presence of the US military base on Diego Garcia raises strategic concerns for several countries in the vicinity, with broader implications for territorial disputes across the Indian Ocean.

Mauritius persists in its pursuit of sovereignty, garnering both regional and international support. The responses of Britain and the US will play a pivotal role in shaping the resolution of this dispute. British Foreign Secretary David Cameron emphasised the significance of Diego Garcia in the broader context of national security, emphasising the importance of maintaining security, safety, and usability of the base during negotiations with Mauritius. He further stated that the resettlement of Chagossians, including on Diego Garcia, was deemed “not possible” due to security concerns.

Islands of Indian Ocean needed for big powers

Islands may hold valuable resources or strategic locations, leading to competition between nations and Countries might use these islands for military bases, potentially raising tensions in the region. Control of islands can influence trade routes and regional power dynamics.

The Indian Ocean is a rich fishing ground, and islands can control access to exclusive economic zones (EEZs) with abundant fish stocks. This can lead to disputes over illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing by other nations.

Some islands may hold valuable mineral deposits like oil, gas, cobalt or rare earth elements. This can attract interest from countries seeking to secure their own supply or limit access to rivals. Also, freshwater scarcity is a growing concern globally and some islands may possess limited freshwater resources that become strategically important. Islands can be ideal locations for military bases due to their central position in shipping lanes or proximity to crucial choke points. This allows for control of maritime traffic and projection of military power

Islands often function as crucial communication hubs due to their strategic positioning along undersea cables or their suitability for satellite relay stations. This grants control over information flow and communication infrastructure, holding significant geopolitical importance. Moreover, certain islands feature pristine beaches and unique ecosystems, attracting tourists and generating substantial revenue. Consequently, there arises competition for control over tourism infrastructure and the potential exploitation of natural resources for tourism development.

Sri Lanka stands out as one such island grappling with these challenges. For Sri Lanka, navigating geopolitical challenges remains pivotal, especially considering the emerging global power dynamics along with India. As major players vie for dominance in the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka must carefully consider its actions to maintain its strategic position and safeguard its interests as well as partner countries’ interests.

(aimesulo@gmail.com)⍐