Yemen’s second front: examining the division between Yemen’s government and separatists in the south of Yemen.
July 9, 2020 in Uncategorized
On the 19th of June clashes erupted between Yemen’s internationally recognised government, backed by Saudi Arabia, and the Southern Transitional Council, separatists in Yemen’s south backed by the United Arab Emirates, in the Island of Socotra for a second time this year as both sides battled for control over Hadibu, the islands provincial capital. The fighting occurred after the STC’s forces dispatched large military reinforcements to Hadibu in an attempt to wrest control of the Island from the government. According to reports the STC took control of the Socotra security directorate in the western area of the provincial capital. Figures regarding casualties have not been reported. The last clash between the STC and Yemeni government in the Island of Socotra took place on the 1st of May as an armed unit loyal to the STC fought for control of Hadibu. On the 14th of June, the STC seized a convoy carrying 64 billion Yemeni riyals or hundreds of millions of dollars. The large sum of money came from Russia, where the bank notes were printed, and was on its way to the central bank of the Yemeni government in Aden, the government’s interim capital. The STC commandeered the vehicle as it was leaving the port of Aden. Fighting also took place on the 11th may in the southern Abyan province and lasted for roughly a week as government troops launched an offensive to expel the STC from southern provinces. More than a dozen people were reportedly killed in the fighting. The division between the two sides is considered another front in Yemen’s multifaceted war. Both sides are members of the Saudi led coalition fighting the Iran-Backed Houthis rebels to the north of the country making them nominal allies. However, since 2017 their division has created tensions causing fighting between the two sides as each party seeks to dominate southern Yemeni provinces hindering coalition efforts to defeat the Houthis rebels.
The Southern Transitional Council (STC) is a successionist organization in Yemen’s south backed by the United Arab Emirates. It was formed by a faction within the Southern Movement which works towards the succession of the south from the rest of Yemen. The twenty-six-member council include governors of several provinces in the south of the country in addition to two government ministers. The STC was formed as a response to a presidential decree in 2017 given by the president of the internationally recognised government of Yemen Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi dismissing Aidarus al-Zoubaidi from his post as governor of Aden due to his close ties with the UAE. With the backing of the UAE, the STC was formed and al-Zoubaidi became its president. On the 28th of January 2018 forces loyal to the STC seized control of several government headquarters in Aden in a coup against the government announcing that the STC was starting the process of overthrowing Hadi’s rule in the south. At least ten people were killed and thirty wounded in the fighting. In August 2019, accusing the government of mismanagement and corruption, the STC took full control of Aden and Abyan provinces. On the 22nd of August the southern separatists clashed with government forces in the southern, oil-producing, province of Shabwa. By the 27th of August 2019 tensions continued to escalate in southern Yemen after the UAE backed Security Belt Forces (SBF) lost territories to Hadi’s forces. Government troops advanced on Aden but took positions outside of the city instead of engaging in street fighting to avoid civilian casualties. On the 29th of august 2019 the UAE carried out airstrikes targeting those Yemeni government positions to halt the advance of government forces. The UAE, a coalition member in the fight against the Iran backed Houthis, fell out with the Hadi government accusing Hadi of being aligned with the Islah party, a powerful party considered to be ideologically close to the Muslim Brotherhood.
In September 2019, Saudi Arabia brokered an agreement between the government and the STC in Riyadh which was signed on the 5th of November 2019. As per the agreement, the STC’s forces in Abyan, Shabwa and Aden were to return to their original positions prior to their advances into these provinces. Their places would be taken up by local security forces within 15 days. Military and security forces in Aden would be redeployed outside of the city of Aden. Most importantly, the STC’s forces in the south were to be unified and placed under the defence ministry’s control before being redeployed to fight Houthi rebels. The president would then appoint a prime minister who would form a cabinet that included STC members. Essentially, this agreement was supposed to place the STC’s forces under the government’s control. But by late 2019, it was clear that the agreement was not being implemented on the ground. On January 1st 2020 Yemen’s southern separatists pulled out of the committees meant to implement the Riyadh agreement. According to a member of the STC’s presidential council Salim al Awlaqi, in an announcement on Twitter, that the withdrawal from the committees was in response to the violence in Shabwa province which the STC blamed on the Islah party whose forces are, according to Reuters, the backbone of the internationally recognised government’s forces. On the 26th of April 2020 the STC announced that a self-rule administration in regions under their control would be established. The group, in a statement, declared a state of emergency and said it would “self-govern” the key port city of Aden as well as other southern provinces accusing the Yemeni government once again of corruption and mismanagement. The government claimed that the move would have catastrophic consequences and that it amounted to a withdrawal from the 2019 Riyadh agreement. On the 18th of June 2020 Saudi Arabia proposed a framework to end the latest standoff between the nominal allies in the war against the Houthi rebels as violence surged between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis who currently control Yemen’s official capital Sanaa. The proposal is similar to the 2019 RIaydh agreement in that it calls for a ceasefire, particularly in Abyan province, and for a unity government to be formed by a prime minister appointed by Hadi which includes STC members. Saudi efforts yielded fruit. By the 22nd of June 2020 the Yemeni government and the STC agreed to a ceasefire and to begin talks to implement not the new Saudi framework but the 2019 Riyadh agreement.
The security implications resulting from fighting between the Yemeni government and the STC are significant particularly with regard to the Saudi-led efforts to defeat the Houthis in Yemen. Houthi cross border attacks via drones and missiles launched toward Saudi Arabia have only increased since the division between the government and the separatists started and are becoming more advanced. On the 23rd of June 2020 Houthis rebels claimed to have carried out their largest military operation ever against Saudi Arabia targeting the Saudi defence ministry and a military base in Riyadh. Houthi claims are corroborated by reports that the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen shot down a large number of missiles and booby-trapped drones fired from Houthi-held Sanaa. Furthermore, despite the Saudi-led coalition’s efforts, the Houthi group have only increased their territory since the start of 2020. On the 1st of March, already in control of Sanaa, Houthi rebels seized the city of Hazm, capital of the Jawf province after weeks of intense fighting in a major blow to the coalition. The fall of Hazm means that the group is drawing nearer to the central province of Marib approaching the south where the Saudi backed government and the UAE backed STC have been fighting for dominance. Houthis then captured strategic areas within Marib including SIrwah and Tabab al-Bara allowing a tighter control over the strategic Tala Hamra hills. Prior to this, on January 28th 2020, the rebels seized a key supply line linking Marib with Jawf located along the border with Saudi Arabia. Infighting within the coalition has only helped such strategic gains by the Houthis. Furthermore, the division between the Yemeni government and the STC have highlighted strategic differences and clashing interests between Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Abu Dhabi withdrew the bulk of its forces from the conflict in Yemen in late 2019 after it ensured its local allies including the STC, are practically in control of most of the south allowing Abu Dhabi access to the area’s naval facilities essential for its strategic plans to control bases from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea. Saudi Arabia is not only concerned about the withdrawal of a key partner in the conflict but also has to deal with the southern threat to the Yemeni government the UAE leaves behind and continues to support creating tensions between the two Gulf states which are not only allies in Yemen but on various fronts to contain Iranian influence in the Gulf and the wider Middle East. Yemen’s second front prolongs the continuing five-year multifaceted war in Yemen. The country has been embroiled in civil war since the capture of Sanaa by the Houthis in 2014. Over 100,000 people have been killed in the war and millions suffer from medical and food shortages creating the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
The Emerging Fight Against Racism in Western Europe
July 3, 2020 in UncategorizedThe Emerging Fight Against Racism in Western Europe
The death of George Floyd, a black man killed after being choked under the knee of a white police officer in the US, has sparked an anti-racism movement across the world including in Western Europe. In Belgium, more than 10,000 people rallied in front of Brussel’s Palais de Justice under the slogan of “Black Lives Matter”, calling out the country’s history of racism and demanded investigations of recent cases regarding police violence towards the people of colour. In France, protests organized by families of police brutality victims have spread within several cities and have been attended by thousands of protestors. In other countries across Western Europe such as the UK, Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland, thousands of people abandoned the coronavirus lockdown to demand justice in regards to police treatment towards the people of colour and systemic racism. There are even several cases of vandalism that targeted statues of people considered to be racists, such as the statue of Edward Colston and Winston Churchill in the UK and King Leopold II in Belgium. Countries in Western Europe considered to be lacking a good track record when it comes to tackling racism or even admitting it exists, even though the political concept of imperialism and colonialism are believed to be pioneered in the region. However, this new wave of anti-racism movement might change the current status-quo in regards to this specific issue and capable of making an impact within the political sphere.
Civil rights movement in Western Europe could be seen as being less advanced compared to the US, mostly resulting from the differences in racial relations throughout the history of these two different locations. In Western Europe, most migration from Africa to Europe is relatively recent, starting in the 1960s. There are even surveys that show big percentages of Western Europeans which think positively towards the past colonialism implemented by their countries in the past. For example, a survey by YouGov showed that 32% of British people perceived the British Empire as something to be proud of and 33% believed that former colonies are better off being colonized. The combination of these historical facts and the present point of view shaped the region’s treatment toward the issue. For instance, there are fewer institutions to support protest movements and anti-racism agenda in Western Europe. There is no European equivalent to the American Civil Liberties Union or the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People. A survey by King Bauduin Foundation revealed that, in Belgium, Afro-Europeans are four times more likely to be unemployed than white Belgians even though they are more highly educated on average and 80% say they have been victims of discrimination and the target of racial slurs. Another survey by the European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights revealed that 30% of black people living in Europe had experienced racist harassment in the previous five years and 5% said they were physically attacked. Racism in Western Europe might be less visible, but no less intense than in the US.
The new wave of anti-racism movement across Western Europe has shown some promising results, which could really improve people’s awareness towards the issue within the region. In Belgium, the statue of King Leopold II in the city of Antwerp has been removed by the government after being defaced and set on fire by protestors. A petition to get rid of all statues of the former king, whose rule over the Belgian Congo generated mass wealth for Belgium and killed up to 10 million people, has gathered more than 80,000 signatures. In the UK, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has promised to increase the representation of people of colour in the public realm such as street names, public squares, and murals. In France, the police force has now been banned from using chokeholds to carry out arrests to reduce the possibility of police brutality. The interior minister also announced that 30 investigations have been launched regarding the allegations of police using racial slurs throughout the year. In the Netherlands, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte promised that in a few years there will be no more “Zwarte Piets”, which is a blackface festival in the Netherlands. In General, this new wave of anti-racism protests has contributed towards the increase of people’s awareness regarding this issue, especially within the political sphere.
India and China act out their rivalry in border skirmish
June 29, 2020 in UncategorizedIndian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has visited Neighbouring China on five occasions since his election in 2014 – the most by any other Indian Prime Minister. Chinese President Xi Jinping has visited his Indian counterpart on two occasions. For the two neighbouring Asian giants, with approximately a quarter of the World’s population, huge economic might and potential, coupled with grand aspirations and ambitions for economic and military dominance, one could be forgiven for interpreting the portrait painted as a backdrop for a benign, and mostly mutually beneficial partnership as they chase the stars.
That Veneer was shattered in the last few weeks, as troops from both countries squared-up on different sites in the amorphous parts of the border between both countries in the Galwan Valley, close to the Mountains of Ladakh. The clashes that occurred without the use of conventional weapons of war, but still resulted in the reported deaths of 20 Indian Soldiers, and unspecified casualty numbers on the Chinese side – was carried out deploying sticks with nails attached, and rocks. This was the first combat related fatalities between both countries in 45 years. Both sides had mobilised thousands of troops and heavy weapons towards disputed parts of the border prior to the latest flashpoint.
News of the deaths of Indian Soldiers ignited Nationalist and Anti-Chinese rhetoric, coupled with protests and incidents of burning the Chinese President’s effigy on Indian streets. “We should bleed China with a thousand cuts,” said Ranjit Singh, a retired army major who is calling for a boycott of Chinese goods. “We need to hit them where it hurts most, and that is economically.” This might well be an acknowledgement by the army major that India might have to adopt asymmetric measures in its response to deliver a more meaningful impact on China. The New York times reports that India had a trade deficit with China last year of nearly $60 billion.
China and India fought a war in 1962 over its disputed Himalayan borders, and over the decades, there have been skirmishes and clashes, but none quite at the scale of the latest episode. So, why? aspiration and ambition sometimes spark, or rekindles rivalries and suspicions – if history offers us a useful guide to these matters.
India has always seen itself as holding sway in the sub Indian continent. But as China has become economically more powerful, it has attempted through the Belt and Road initiative, and other economic co-operation pacts to extend its hegemony into Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and even Nepal. It has been reported that China is building infrastructure projects for Pakistan on territories that India lays claims to – a fall-out of another border dispute – this time involving Pakistan. India probably views China as encroaching on its sphere of geo-political influence. Analysts see it as China’s attempt to counter India’s aspirations. As Constantino Xavier from the Brookings Institute puts it: “India went from having a monopoly of political and military power in the region to dealing with a marketplace of competition where China is increasingly predominant,”
China too has its gripes with India. Probably the sore point being India’s growing closeness with America. As the Chinese Communist Party proxy – Global Times, opines: “What the U.S. would do is just extend a lever to India, which Washington can exploit to worsen India’s ties with China”
Aside from Indian officials making unflattering comments about how China has not shared information sufficiently regarding the coronavirus out-break, China views in askance India’s alignment with countries it deems hostile to its interest: Australia, Japan America – referred to as the Quad. India has signed defence agreements with these countries to share the use of military bases; and Australia has been invited join naval exercises India conducts with Japan and America.
The Chinese State media reports that the Peoples Liberation Army staged a drill involving thousands of paratroopers being whisked from Hubei province, to a Himalayan mountain range “within hours” – to underscore the point that China has the capability for rapid reinforcements if matters escalate.
What happens next is anyone’s guess. The global economic downturn emerging as a consequence of Covid-19 makes the prospects for escalation more financially expensive, and therefore unlikely. Both Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi both understand posturing and maintaining the status quo is a smarter, and more cost-effective calculation than an escalation. But current Sino-Indian relations speaks to the cautionary tale of how aspirations and ambitions lead to rivalries and enmity. Hubris, they say, is the disease of ambition.
South Africa’s wave of gender-based violence in the age of coronavirus
June 23, 2020 in UncategorizedAmidst one of the deadliest pandemics in a generation that has forced the entire world to pause, the nation of South Africa finds itself unable to put a pause on the ongoing shameful phenomenon of gender-based violence. South Africa is steeped in a history of gender-based violence towards women which is rooted in outdated beliefs about women and is also a legacy of apartheid that has left the country with a culture of violence. This legacy from the struggle against apartheid has meant that in some spheres violence was seen as a legitimate means of resolving social, political and even domestic conflicts.
President Ramaphosa acknowledged that South Africa was one of the most unsafe places in the world to be a woman, in where as many as 51% of women in South Africa have experienced violence at the hands of someone they were in a relationship with. In September 2019, Ramaphosa admitted the country was in a national crisis of violence against women, as protestors took to the streets for a third successive day in the wake of a string of brutal attacks against women, including rape and murder. The government has made attempts to change the culture of gender-based violence by focusing on South Africa’s men, in addition to allotting more resources and money to special crimes courts, places of safety, clinics for survivors of sexual assault and training for the police. However, in the face of one of the world’s strictest lockdowns, the safety of women has once again become a central topic for national debate. Some of the rules of lockdown have meant movement from one location to another required a permit, which has meant victims of domestic violence were not able to leave their abusers, further exposing them to danger. Other victims were stopped by the police and ordered to go back home.
The exposure to danger that disproportionately affects women during lockdown in South Africa has once again been brought to the foreground by the recent murders of Tshegofatso Pule, Naledi Phangindawo and Sanele Mfaba. Tshegofatso, who went missing on 4 June 2020 and later found dead four days later, was eight months pregnant when found stabbed and hanging from a tree. Naledi is reported to have been murdered on 6 June 2020 after succumbing to multiple wounds caused by an axe and knife, allegedly at the hands of her partner. Sanele is reported to have been murdered by her boyfriend on 12 June 2020 and thereafter dumped under a tree in Soweto, Johannesburg. Theses heinous crimes prompted president Ramaphosa on 13 June 2020, to acknowledge that South Africa had become more dangerous for women during lockdown, while several protestors took to the streets and social media to demand justice for the victims. In the last year more than 2900 women were murdered in South Africa. Before the lockdown an average of 100 rapes were reported every day and experts say that this is just a fraction of what is going on. The implementation of a blanket lockdown that did not seem to take into account the increased risk to women where more than half of the female population has experienced violence from a partner, is a damaging oversight that highlights the case for why gender-based violence needs to be more of a national priority in line with economic and other social concerns. Ramaphosa’s acknowledgement that women were at increased danger during lockdown in the absence of adequate provisions to counter said danger is little but empty sentiment when lives are being lost.
According to some frontline organisations, the cases of rape under the pandemic have increased although there has not been an equivalent addition of needed resources such as PPE and the continuation of vital programmes. In some cases, the management of the spread of coronavirus has taken so much precedence that some of the programmes aimed at addressing issues related to gender-based violence have had to be put on hold, meaning that violence could go unchecked. The pressures against national resources that the pandemic has caused have been noticeable in almost every activity of social, political and economic life, however what is also emergent is that gender-based violence has not taken a pause while the country and the world fight the coronavirus. The current statistics on gender-based violence during the pandemic concur with Ramaphosa’s own assessment that violent men are taking advantage of the eased restrictions on movement to attack women and children. Further to this, the startling correlation between the lifting of the alcohol-ban on 1 June 2020 certainly does create a need for the South African government to take further steps in addressing the issue of alcohol and substance abuse which have been historically closely linked with violent and criminal activity. During the first two months of the lockdown when alcohol was banned some hospitals reported a 70% reduction in trauma admissions. The damning exposure of violence against women during the age of coronavirus demonstrates that more must be done to enforce accountability. The pledge made by Ramaphosa in September 2019, to provide $75 million to strengthen the criminal justice system and provide better care for victims in one step among many in the right direction. However, the pandemic has exposed the urgency of the national issue is one that is equally as pressing as the pandemic. The recovery package of the country will also have to consider further protections and resources for gender-based violence and clear accountability that leads to deterrence and prevention, because the lack of resources and state provisions to help victims has in part lead to further endangerment. The issue of gender-based violence in South Africa is widespread and deeply entrenched within institutions, cultures and traditions in where the balance of power predominantly lies with men, countering this will require a courageous dismantling of the status-quo from various approaches and wider engagement that incorporates both top-down and bottom-up solutions.
The Safety and Security Implications of Belarus’ Nuclear Power Plant
June 15, 2020 in UncategorizedCountries in Eastern Europe knows very well that nuclear power plants can be both beneficial and harmful. The 1986 explosion of Reactor 4 at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine resulted in clouds spreading deadly radioactive particles across the region. Following the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, Belarus suffered more harm than any other region in the Soviet Union due to its location downwind from the plant. 34 years after this nuclear disaster caused damage to the southern part of Belarus, it now plans to fire up its first nuclear plant in July.
This plan has not gone without criticism. Lithuanian Energy Minister Vaiciunas said the “lessons that were given 30 years ago in Chernobyl have not been learned.” When interviewed by The Independent about this, a local resident said locals were split about the project. The plant gives above-average wages and improves local infrastructure. Still, her generation remains “uneasy”. She said that “[t]he thought of what happened back in 1986 can’t fail to make you anxious about what may happen. You know they may not tell you the whole truth.”
Yury Voronezhtsev, the man who led the official Soviet response to Chernobyl, told The Independent he did not believe “that our Belarusian construction workers are any better than the Soviet ones. We have the same people, and the same systems. Don’t forget that Anatoly Aleksandrov, the physicist who designed Chernobyl, assured us his plant was so safe it could be built on Red Square. His confidence did not age well.” He said it was “sad” that Belarusian authorities pressed on with the plant given the sensitivity around this locally. While a December 2018 poll showed that 71 percent in the Astravets district supported the plant, the accuracy of this is difficult to assess given that Belarus is a tightly controlled country.
Nuclear-reactor design has however improved markedly since Chernobyl. Furthermore, the Belarusian nuclear power plant is not a copy of either Chernobyl or Fukushima, the 2011 incident at the latter being the most severe nuclear accident since the explosion at the former. Astravets run third-generation pressurised-water reactors, distinct from the models used in Ukraine and Japan, and equipped with safety measures intended to prevent the kind of accidents that happened there. It is claimed it includes passive safety systems capable of triggering an automatic shutdown and a device installed in a concrete pit underneath the reactor that traps molten fuel in case of overheating, rendering it nearly impossible for radiation to infiltrate the environment.
Still, the Lithuanian Energy Minister, Vaiciunas, says the plant is “a threat to our national security, public health, and environment.” In late May, Lithuania’s ex-energy minister Arvydas Sekmokas said that Europe could pay a heavy price if Belarus fires up the plant. First, it is claimed that the plant is built in breach of safety standards. “Minsk has disregarded International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recommendations made after the Fukushima disaster that plants should not be built within 100 kilometres of major population centres,” Sekmokas said. Astravets nuclear power plant lies just 45km from Vilnius, Lithuania’s capital. Vilnius’ population of more than half a million people will need to be evacuated if an accident takes place. Lithuania claims that while the power plant has “generally” met the requirements of an EU test designed to prevent another Fukushima disaster, the fact that it is not far from Vilnius was not addressed in this test.
Second, the power plant is built with Russian money and supervision. Vilnius claims the project is a geopolitical scheme headed by Russia to keep Belarus tight. In Lithuania’s 2019 National Threat Assessment, the project was said to enhance Russia’s position in the region. Foreign minister Linas Linkevicius said that in addition to ensuring impeccable safety of the plant, Lithuania and the EU has to work together to maintain the freedom and independence of Belarus. “It imposes a huge economic burden on the country and increases its dependence on Russia,” Linkevicius said. Meanwhile Belarus sees the power plant as a means for reducing its energy dependence on Russian natural gas. The Belarusian Security Council decided to construct it in 2008 after a bilateral energy dispute with Russia. Yet, Rosatom, a Russian state-owned nuclear energy company, got the contract to build the power plant. Coupled with the loan given by Russia to fund it, it appears that Belarus will still be strongly dependent on Russia.
Minsk argues that it has more interest in ensuring the nuclear plant’s safety than most considering how the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown impacted Belarus. A spokesperson for Rosatom told The Independent that “[t]he reactors being used are among the safest in the world and designed to risk the possibility of even the most unlikely event such as a plane strike(…) and the most up to date legally binding set of regulation does not specify any requirements regarding distances between nuclear power plants and cities.” The European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, a body composed of top nuclear policy officials from EU member states, gave the nuclear power station an “overall positive” review. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s assessment was also positive.
Still, Lithuania continues to press on. On June 9 several Lithuanian lawmakers from the opposition conservative Homeland Union staged a picket outside the Latvian Embassy in Vilnius where they urged Latvia not to buy electricity from Astravets nuclear power plant. Meanwhile Mikhadyuk, Belarus’ deputy energy minister, said that “[t]he position that Lithuania has taken towards the project is absolutely unsubstantiated, it is all about politicising.” Lithuania has invested a large amount of money in a liquefied natural gas floating storage and regasification unit. Astravets is a potentially cheaper and cleaner source of power generation that is readily available for neighbouring nations. Lithuania therefore appears to have an economic motivation to get countries to not buy energy generated from the plant. However, the country denies that this is the reason it is against the project.
Despite this economic motivation, it seems that Lithuania is genuinely concerned about transparency regarding accidents and safety. A couple of incidents have revealed that Belarusian authorities are not completely transparent about the plant. There has already been two known health and safety events connected to the reactor vessel. It was dropped from a crane during installation in July 2016, an incident that Belarus did not admit for weeks. Five months later, the replacement reactor vessel collided with a railway pylon during transport. At least five workers have died in construction accidents, and there has been at least one incident involving fire in the control room. Furthermore, it was announced on May 26 that 100 workers from the plant are infected with the COVID-19 coronavirus.
The Astravets NPP has been at the centre of a breakdown in relations between Belarus and Lithuania during the last decade. Due to its location, it is likely that Lithuania will never fully approve of the plant. In October 2019, the Lithuanian government conducted a major emergency preparedness operation imitating a disaster response to a nuclear meltdown and bought 4 million iodine pills for distribution to citizens. These actions have increased concerns in the country about the dangers of Astravets. Yet the latter dialogue and agreements between Lithuania and Belarus could indicate a warming of relations between the two.
Still, it seems that Lithuania will continue to press Belarus on this issue as Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda will raise Astravets’ safety issues at a European Council summit on June 19. Whether or not Lithuania’s motivation is the economics of it or genuine concern about safety, it is clear that Belarus should take this seriously. If Astravets do not comply with safety requirements and Belarus is not transparent about accidents, it can have disastrous consequences.
