Ukraine-Russia War: Russia Threatens To Attack Any Country That Arrests Putin

 Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ha threatened military action against any country that arrests President Putin on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the international criminal court.

For his alleged involvement in the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children, mostly from orphanages and care homes, the ICC declared Putin a war criminal last week. Days after the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposed striking the ICC in The Hague with one of Russia’s hypersonic missiles.

The United States has declared war on the Russian Federation. According to the warrant, Putin may be arrested in more than 100 nations that recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute, which set up the ICC, says that Russia and the US are not among the 123 countries that are part of the court.

After previous presidents of Sudan and Libya, Omar al-Bashir and Muammar Gaddafi, Putin is the third sitting president to be targeted by an ICC warrant.

Putin is going to South Africa later this year to meet with leaders from five other countries to talk about their economies. The South African government has said it will ask for more information before Putin arrives.

Source: Tru News Report

…………………………………………………………

Kamala Harris to discuss China influence, debt distress in Africa

 The US has unleashed a charm offensive in Africa under President Biden as it seeks to rival Russia and China.

This weekend, Vice President Kamala Harris begins a three-country tour of Africa as the United States seeks to pitch itself as a better partner than China, which has invested heavily in the continent over several decades.

Harris will be in Ghana from March 26 to 29, and then in Tanzania from March 29 to 31. Her final stop is Zambia, where she will be from March 31 to April 1. She will meet the three countries’ presidents and plans to announce public and private sector investments.

Harris will discuss China’s engagement in technology and economic issues in Africa that concern the US, as well as China’s involvement in debt restructuring, senior US officials said.

Zambia, the first African country to default on its sovereign debt during the COVID-19 pandemic, is working with its creditors, including China, to reach an agreement.

“We’re not asking our partners in Africa to choose,” an official told Reuters news agency, describing the competition with China, although he added that the US has “real concerns about some of China’s behaviour in Africa” and its “opaque” business dealings.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Harris would discuss the best ways for the international community to address debt challenges faced by Ghana and Zambia.

The White House hosted an Africa Leaders Summit in December, and President Joe Biden is expected to travel to the continent later this year.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in Ethiopia and Niger this March, less than a year after visiting South Africa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Morocco, Algeria and Rwanda.

The slew of recent engagements is a deviation from Washington’s stance under Biden’s predecessor, Republican President Donald Trump, who largely ignored the continent, and it comes as Russia deepens military engagements across Francophone Africa.

Harris, who visited her maternal grandfather as a little girl while he worked there, is “looking forward to returning to Lusaka, which is a part of her family’s story and a source of pride”, one of the officials said.

On her tour, Harris will also meet young leaders and business representatives and discuss topics such as climate change and food insecurity.

SOURCE: REUTERS

………………………………………………………

U.S. proposes ‘huge’ fee increase for most green card applications

 Application fees for citizens, permanent residents hoping to sponsor family for permanent residency — known as a green card — would increase by 33% to $710.

Nearly 7,000 comments were submitted in response to a proposed increase in U.S. visa fees, with the majority voicing fierce opposition and concerns.

Last week, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ended public comment for a proposed fee increase unveiled by the Biden administration in January. The deadline for public comment was initially set for March 6, but was extended another week until March 13 due to a technical issue.

Under the proposal, application fees for most categories of immigration to the United States would increase. Some fees, like those for employment-based visas and family-based immigrant applications, will face dramatic increases.

Application fees for U.S. citizens and permanent residents hoping to sponsor family members for permanent residency — known as a green card — would increase by 33% to $710, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Fees for marriage-based green card applications could double from $1,760 to over $3,640, USCIS citing the higher cost of proving a valid family relationship exists. Requests from U.S. citizens seeking to bring their fiancés to the U.S. would increase by 35%, from $535 to $720.

Immigration officials say fee increases are necessary to hire staff, reduce pending cases backlog

Federal immigration officials say the fee increases for certain petitions are necessary to recover operational costs, speed up application reviews, hire more staff, and reduce the agency’s backlog of pending cases. In 2020, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a dramatic reduction in new applications, resulting in a temporary drop in revenue by 40%, according to USCIS.

About 96% of USCIS funding comes from filing fees, rather than congressional funds, to administer the nation’s legal immigration system.

The proposed changes will not take effect until a final rule is published. It remains to be seen whether the agency will move forward with the fee increases it proposed in January, or if it will enact a modified version based on feedback from the public.

Families stuck in the visa process, however, criticized the government for proposing additional costly fees to recoup costs before addressing cases languishing in red tape.

Families must wait years while immigration issues resolve

Felesia Wade, a Clark County School District special education teachers assistant in Nevada, booked an appointment for an immigration clinic hosted by Democrat Rep. Steven Horsford on Friday to resolve an issue with her husband’s green card application. He has had to remain in Kenya for nearly two years while his case is resolved.

“How are you going to raise fees for a service that you’re not even providing?” Wade said.

Wade said she’s thankful she has already paid her husband’s application fees, adding that any additional cost would be a struggle to pay. The immigration process itself is costly, said Wade, but being separated from family incurs other costs as well.

“I teach all day and when school gets out, I turn on my app so I can do Uber so I can pay for a flight to go over there. But right now, it doesn’t even look like I’ll be able to see him this year,” Wade said through tears.

“When I inquired on the internet, you know, you get the automated message saying that they’re behind due to COVID, but we’re in 2023 now,” Wade said. “We’re still just waiting in limbo.”

In public comments filed with the USCIS, immigration advocates heavily criticized increasing fees for standard filings, especially fees affecting children.

Under the proposal, anyone applying for a change of immigration status from within the U.S. would have to pay more than double the cost, a potentially devastating financial impact on low-income applicants who lack the ability to pay the new fees.

Filing fees for children under 14 years old who are adjusting their status with a parent are currently reduced, but under the new proposal, that fee would also increase by $790, mirroring the cost of an adult application.

For an immigrant family of four, the costs of adjusting their status to become permanent residents could exceed $10,000 when adding up the total cost of the new fees proposal, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Horsford said his clinic Friday was an opportunity to expedite existing immigration cases, but also a chance to meet with Nevadans about new cases before fee increases are implemented.

“The fees create additional burdens and barriers for many of the working-class families that are already struggling to make ends meet, so while I strongly support the work of USCIS to help move these cases along in a positive manner, I don’t believe these huge increases in costs will allow as many families to seek the resolution they require. My office will continue to help as many of my constituents as possible to find that resolution,” Horsford said in a statement.

‘A severe labor shortage’

Democratic U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona also criticized USCIS for employment-based fee increases. The proposal would increase H-2A and H-2B visas from $460 to $1,080 and $1,090, respectively.

Last week, Manchin and a bipartisan coalition of U.S. senators sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security urging the agency to hold off on increasing visa fees for foreign workers.

“As you know, we are at a time when many in our country are suffering from a severe labor shortage and persistent inflation. It is irresponsible to so drastically increase the price to access these essential guest worker programs while doing nothing to increase their availability,” reads the letter.

In the letter, the senators also disparaged a proposal to charge employers seeking to sponsor immigrants for permanent U.S. residency or temporary work visas an additional $600 fee to fund the USCIS asylum program, which is responsible for screening asylum seekers along the southern border.

Nevada U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen, who are not signed onto the letter,  did not respond to requests for comment on whether they disapprove or support any of the proposed visa fee hikes for families and employers.

Federal immigration officials argue the proposal will benefit the agency and the legal immigration system. The USCIS said that while the proposed rule will increase some fees, it will preserve existing fee waiver eligibility for low-income and vulnerable populations.

The proposed rule would also add new fee exemptions for certain humanitarian programs, including the asylum program. If finalized, the proposed rule would decrease or minimally increase fees for more than one million low-income filers each year, according to USCIS.

“In addition to improving customer service operations and managing the incoming workload, USCIS must continue to fulfill our growing humanitarian mission, upholding fairness, integrity, and respect for all we serve,” said USCIS Director Ur M. Jaddou in a statement announcing the proposal in January. “This proposed rule allows USCIS to more fully recover operating costs for the first time in six years and will support the Administration’s effort to rebuild the legal immigration system.”

BY: Jeniffer Solis 

………………………………………………………

Chad says it has nationalised all assets owned by Exxon Mobil

 The nationalisation of Exxon Mobil’s assets in Chad comes after the oil giants divested from them in December 2022.

Chad has nationalised all the assets and rights, including hydrocarbon permits and exploration and production authorisations, that belonged to a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil, the West African nation’s energy and hydrocarbons ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

Exxon Mobil said in December 2022 that it had closed the sale of its operations in Chad and Cameroon to London-listed Savannah Energy in a $407m deal, but the Chadian government contested the agreement, saying the final terms were different from what had been presented to it.

The government warned then that it may ask courts to block Savannah’s purchase of Exxon’s assets in the country and take further steps to protect its interests.

Exxon’s assets included a 40 percent stake in Chad’s Doba oil project, which comprises seven producing oilfields with a combined output of 28,000 barrels per day (bpd).

It also included Exxon’s interest in the more than 1,000km (621-mile) Chad-Cameroon pipeline from the landlocked nation to the Atlantic Gulf of Guinea coast through which its crude is exported.

Exxon Mobil was not immediately available for comment.

But on Friday, Savannah said it plans to pursue all its legal rights to contest Chad’s move a day earlier to nationalise its upstream assets in the African country.

“The actions of the Republic of Chad are in direct breach of the Conventions to which SCI and the Republic of Chad are, amongst others, party,” its statement read.

“The Conventions are subject to the jurisdiction of an ICC tribunal, seated in Paris and the Company intends to pursue all of its legal rights.”

Chad, which has the 10th largest reserves in Africa, exports 90 percent of its oil.

SOURCE: NEWS AGENCIES

…………………………………………………………

China, Russia face sanctions from US states now. That’s dangerous

 US states want to join Washington in imposing sanctions on foreign adversaries. That’s bad for the world — and the US.

Sanctions have become all the rage in international politics. The United States and its allies are imposing them on rivals with increasing frequency and severity. And those rivals are reciprocating where they can.

Now, American states, too, are increasingly getting in on the act. And that’s bad news — for the world, and for US foreign policy. A much-publicised episode of a Chinese balloon entering US airspace seems to have created new energy for such restrictions and has led to legislation being proposed in at least 11 states.

On Wednesday, the South Carolina State Senate passed a bill barring ownership of land in the state by citizens of US geopolitical adversaries Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Cuba. The bill’s top sponsor even compared a planned purchase of South Carolina land by a Chinese biomedical firm with the Trojan Horse plot of Greek mythology.

Meanwhile, Texas State Senator Lois Kolkhorst has proposed a similar law that has drawn strong condemnation on human rights grounds but has been defended by Greg Abbott, the state’s Republican governor. A simple reading of the original version of this bill would lead one to conclude that any individual who holds citizenship from any of the mentioned countries, or any firms which they own, would be barred from owning property. This would have included American citizens who hold dual citizenship. Since then, the language has been softened to protect dual citizens and permanent residents but not citizens of those countries residing in Texas on a visa.

Implementation of such language would impose new and unusual due diligence requirements on common land transactions. Meanwhile, creating special restrictions on various immigrant communities to own property poses human rights concerns.

Existing sanctions laws and Treasury Department designations already block leaders from those American adversaries from transferring money into the US or owning property in the country. Meanwhile, recently introduced federal legislation aims to ban US adversaries from purchasing large swaths of farmland in the US.

So why would a state engage in what is essentially a foreign policy and national security matter?

On the one hand, some scholars see sanctions as often being a product of domestic politics, aimed at portraying muscle to the electorate, at times influenced by pressure groups such as “ethnic lobbies”. Those in this camp of scholars are more inclined to believe that sanctions are not particularly effective. If sanctions are for the satisfaction of domestic onlookers, they will not be designed and implemented with an eye towards efficacy and the security context.

Other scholars, however, argue that sanctions are indeed imposed due to a meaningful effort to address national security concerns.

Like many in the national security decision-making scholarship community, I feel both of these binary constructions frequently fail when confronted with the history of economic sanctions. The truth is that foreign policy choices are a product of complex national security matrices that accommodate both foreign policy and domestic political considerations.

Yet irrespective of one’s overall view on the efficacy of sanctions more broadly, it is hard for anyone to deny that policies against foreign nationals adopted by state governments can have little explanation other than domestic and even local politics.

In the US, the executive branch has always been best suited to make foreign policy decisions due to its clear mandate and wherewithal in this field. Congress has a constitutional role in foreign policy matters but it’s far more likely to be influenced by domestic political pressures and national anxieties.

The executive branch largely controlled sanctions policy throughout the Cold War era. But after the fall of the Soviet Union, as major threats to the homeland faded, Congressional and sub-federal forces became increasingly involved in this field.

While Congress has largely ceded its war power authority in the modern era, it has become more active in sanctioning due to an impulse of members to be seen as projecting power against American adversaries even when it interferes with the president’s efforts to engage in strategic policy.

What about state legislators and governors? They have no real national security staff nor the relevant mandate, as their elections almost always lack any meaningful foreign policy discussion and are decided based on provincial issues, whether taxes or abortion rights.

Yet their meddling in foreign policy isn’t superfluous — it can actually be reckless, for global diplomacy and for US foreign policy. Here’s how.

As written, the mentioned measures are unlikely to meaningfully interfere with the federal government’s ability to carry out its foreign policy. But one can imagine a scenario in which sanctions imposed by states do just that.

New York state and California preside over major nodes of the global banking community and the international technology supply chain. Texas itself is a major player in global energy markets. Other states can wield a more narrow version of such powers as well.

There are already examples of when New York State has targeted European firms for their perceived violation of sanctions, ignoring objections at the federal level. States can, as the federal government has often done, impose restrictions on firms operating in their jurisdiction in a way that has extraterritorial consequences.

This in turn sets up a precarious dynamic. The federal government might have to mollify or negotiate with state governments led by ambitious politicians responding to special interests or catering to local constituencies.

Equally, state governments of the party in opposition can actively undercut diplomatic efforts of the federal government using such sanctions. For example, a federal effort to ease sanctions on Cuba could create political momentum for state sanctions in Florida, where families of those who fled communist rule are a powerful lobby.

Ultimately, sanctions are a tool of foreign policy and the capacity to modulate or even repeal them is critical to accomplishing the political goals behind sanctions campaigns. For the president or Congress to have to lobby with state governments, each representing a fraction of the overall population, to alter America’s sanctions against a country would represent a bizarre new obstacle to the federal government’s ability to carry out its foreign policy obligations.

The proposed Texas and South Carolina laws are textbook examples of sanctions as political grandstanding meant for domestic consumption. They are also a reminder of the jingoistic zeal that can be nurtured and exploited by foreign policy amateurs at the state level.

As we embark upon what scholar Peter A G van Bergeijk calls the “second wave” of global sanctions, states will likely look further to getting in on the act with human rights and global affairs.

Washington’s basic ability to carry out a coherent foreign policy hangs in the balance.

By: Ahmadi Ali

………………………………………………………

US Vice President Kamala Harris in Africa to boost ties

 Week-long tour of the continent comes at a time when the US is seeking to counter the influence of Russia and China.

Vice President Kamala Harris has said that the United States will increase investment in Africa and help spur economic growth as she began a week-long tour of the continent aimed at countering the influence of rivals Russia and China.

China has invested heavily in Africa in recent decades, including in infrastructure and resource development, while Russian influence has also grown, including through the deployment of troops from the private military contractor Wagner Group in several countries.

“On this trip, I intend to do work that is focused on increasing investments here on the continent and facilitating economic growth and opportunity,” Harris said on Sunday shortly after touching down in Ghana, the first destination in a trip that will include visits to Tanzania and Zambia.

“We are looking forward to this trip as a further statement of the long and enduring very important relationship and friendship between the people of the United States and those who live on this continent,” Harris said.

The administration of President Joe Biden has sought to strengthen ties with Africa, in part to offer an alternative to rival powers, amid global competition over the continent’s future.

African nations are aware that there are ulterior motives for this push for a closer alliance, observers say.

“African nations are not naive … The US has a long history of meddling in African affairs, supporting dictators versus liberation movements, pushing hard for US multinationals’ access to African markets and resources, while leaving countries with nothing,” said Al Jazeera’s Shihab Rattansi, reporting from Washington, DC.

“So the US is saying, ‘That’s all in the past now, we are partners, we can all be successful’, whereas what we’re hearing from Africa is, ‘We don’t want to choose between China, Russia and the US, but we will do what we feel is in our best interest.’”

In December, ahead of the US-Africa Leaders Summit, Washington committed $55bn to the continent over the next three years.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced $150m in new humanitarian aid for Africa’s Sahel region during a visit to Niger this month, which came less than a year after he visited South Africa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Morocco, Algeria and Rwanda.

This flurry of diplomacy is “about the geopolitical struggles that are going on, and the fear in Washington that it’s losing ground, specifically now in Africa where there is a scramble for resources, where there are rarer minerals to power the Green Revolution, and so on”, Rattansi said.

Harris will meet Ghana President Nana Akufo-Addo this week and will visit a castle from which people were forcibly sent to the US during the slave trade era.

Harris will be in Ghana from March 26-29, then in Tanzania from March 29-31. Her final stop is Zambia, on March 31 and April 1. She will meet with the three countries’ presidents and plans to announce public- and private-sector investments.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

…………………………………………………………

Heavy police presence amid Kenya protests

 Kenya’s riot police are on the streets of the capital, Nairobi, in a bid to prevent protests called by the opposition over the high cost of living and alleged election malpractices.

There is also heavy police presence in Kibera and Mathare – the largest informal settlements in the city – where protesters are being blocked from moving into the city centre.

A car carrying local journalists in Kibera was attacked by a crowd and its occupants robbed at knife point, according to reports.

Shops have been closed in downtown Nairobi as business owners fear looting.

In the western city of Kisumu, an opposition stronghold, tear gas has been fired to disperse crowds of protesters who were being led by their local governor.

Police have said they will take pictures of protesters and file charges against them for participating in illegal protests.

Source: BBC

……………………………………………………