English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

France decides to freeze assets of Jaish chief Azhar Masood

Published

on

France decides to freeze assets of Jaish chief Azhar Masood

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Although the move to get Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) founder and leader Azhar Masood designated as ‘global terrorist’ was blocked by China in UN Security Council, France – which had moved the proposal with UK and US – has decided to freeze his assets in its country.

France said it will also raise the issue with its European partners to include Masood on the European Union (EU) list of people suspected of being involved in terrorism. Masood’s JeM had claimed responsibility for the February 14 attack in Kashmir’s Pulwama in which 40 CRPF soldiers were killed.

Expressing its support for India, France said it has always been and always will be by India’s side in the fight against terrorism.

France had first moved the proposal in the UNSC to list Azhar as a designated global terrorist in the wake of the Pulwama attack. The move found as many as 13 co-sponsors: aside from the US and UK among the other permanent members of the Security Council, 10 non-permanent and non-member countries also joined the proposal as co-sponsors.

However, for the fourth time in 10 years, China stalled, at Pakistan’s behest, India’s bid to list  the Jaish chief as a global terrorist at the United Nations Security Council.

Barely an hour before the deadline was to expire at 3 pm New York time — 12.30 am IST — China placed a technical hold.

The proposal will now be in deep freeze for the next six months, and if there is a hold again, for three months. Thereafter, Beijing will have to either lift the hold or block the listing again. In the next nine months, member countries can provide information to the committee for lifting the hold, and Azhar can still be listed.

While the move by China thwarted India’s efforts to get Masood listed as a global terrorist at the UN, it made other diplomatic gains. In any case, few were expecting China to change its stand.

India was able to rally an unprecedented international consensus in favour of blacklisting Masood.

For the first time since 2009, when India first tried to list Masood Azhar as a global terrorist under the UNSC Resolution 1267 sanctions committee, India got 13 co-sponsors for the proposal.

These include seven members of the UN Security Council — the three permanent members US, UK and France; four non-permanent members Germany, Poland, Belgium and Equatorial Guinea and, among UN members who are not in Security Council but who co-sponsored the proposal, were six countries: Japan, Australia, Italy, Bangladesh, Maldives and Bhutan.

What is significant is that the Quad members — US, Japan and Australia — co-sponsored the proposal in a sign of strategic alignment on the issue of terrorism.

This was incremental in nature since it was only in 2017 that India asked P-3 countries, US, UK and France to move the proposal. In 2016 and 2009, it was India which had moved the proposal.

India’s Permanent Representative at the UN Syed Akbaruddin tweeted: “Big, Small & Many…1 big state holds up, again …1 small signal @UN against terror. Grateful to the many states — big & small — who in unprecedented numbers, joined as co-sponsors of the effort.”

The MEA acknowledged this: “We are grateful for the efforts of the Member States who moved the designation proposal and the unprecedented number of all other Security Council members as well as non-members who joined as co-sponsors.”

That’s not all. Last month, a week after the February 14 Pulwama attack, China had signed off on a UNSC statement that “condemned in the strongest terms” the terror attack and, in fact, named Pak-based Jaish-e-Mohammad for the “heinous and cowardly suicide bombing”.

This was significant considering China blocked the listing of JeM chief Masood as a “global terrorist”.

India has also been able to mount pressure on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) which has asked Pakistan to take concrete action against terrorist financing or face a “blacklist”.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Latest world news

Bangladesh rushes to finalise US trade deal after India secures lower tariffs

Bangladesh is accelerating talks with the US to finalise a trade agreement after India secured lower tariffs, raising concerns over export competitiveness and transparency.

Published

on

Bangladesh is moving quickly to finalise a trade agreement with the United States after India concluded a deal with Washington that lowered tariffs on Indian goods to 18 per cent. The development has triggered concern in Dhaka that Bangladesh could lose market share in the US if it fails to secure comparable or better terms.

The US and Bangladesh are expected to sign the agreement on February 9, just three days before the country’s national election scheduled for February 12. The timing and lack of transparency surrounding the deal have drawn criticism from economists, business leaders and political observers.

Bangladesh’s economy is heavily dependent on ready-made garment exports, which account for nearly 90 per cent of its exports to the US. Any tariff disadvantage compared to India could significantly impact export orders and employment in the sector.

Tariff cuts under negotiation

The proposed agreement follows a series of tariff revisions imposed by Washington. In April 2025, the US imposed a steep 37 per cent tariff on Bangladeshi goods. This was reduced to 35 per cent in July and further lowered to 20 per cent in August.

According to reports, the upcoming deal is expected to bring tariffs down further to around 15 per cent. Officials see this as critical to keeping Bangladeshi exports competitive against Indian products in the US market.

Secrecy around negotiations raises concerns

Concerns have intensified due to the confidential nature of the negotiations. In mid-2025, the interim government led by Muhammad Yunus signed a formal non-disclosure agreement with the US, committing to keep tariff and trade discussions confidential.

No draft of the agreement has been shared with the public, parliament or industry stakeholders. A commerce adviser had earlier stated that the deal would not go against national interests and could be made public with US consent.

Policy experts, however, argue that the lack of disclosure prevents meaningful debate on the agreement’s long-term implications.

Conditions reportedly linked to the deal

Media reports suggest that the agreement may include several conditions. These include reducing imports from China, increasing military procurement from the US, and allowing American goods easier access to the Bangladeshi market.

It is also reported that Bangladesh may be required to accept US standards and certifications without additional scrutiny. Inspections on US vehicle imports and parts could reportedly be eased to facilitate smoother entry into the local market.

A senior policy analyst described the process as opaque, noting that signing the agreement just days before elections could bind the hands of the next elected government.

Garment industry left in the dark

Bangladesh exports garments and textiles worth between $7 billion and $8.4 billion annually to the US, accounting for nearly 96 per cent of its total exports to the American market. In comparison, Bangladesh imports around $2 billion worth of goods from the US.

With India and Bangladesh exporting similar apparel products, lower tariffs for India could shift US buyers towards Indian suppliers. Industry leaders warn that this could put millions of jobs at risk in Bangladesh’s garment sector, which employs 4 to 5 million workers, most of them women.

The sector contributes over 80 per cent of Bangladesh’s export earnings and nearly 20 per cent of its GDP.

A senior garment exporters’ association official said the agreement carries major implications and should ideally have been signed after the election to allow broader political and public discussion.

Political timing draws criticism

Economists and analysts have also questioned why an unelected interim administration is finalising a major trade agreement so close to national elections. They argue that responsibility for implementing the deal will fall on the incoming elected government.

A prominent economist criticised the process as lacking transparency and warned that the country could be pushed into long-term commitments without adequate scrutiny or public consent.

Meanwhile, US diplomats have indicated openness to engaging with various political forces in Bangladesh, including Jamaat-e-Islami, which has been banned multiple times in the country’s history.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Pakistan faces domestic backlash after India secures lower tariffs in US trade deal

India’s US trade agreement has sparked criticism in Pakistan after Islamabad ended up with higher tariffs despite sustained outreach to Washington.

Published

on

PM Shehbaz Sharif

India’s recently concluded trade agreement with the United States has triggered strong domestic criticism in Pakistan, where opposition leaders, journalists and commentators are questioning Islamabad’s diplomatic strategy after the country ended up with higher tariffs than India.

Under the agreement announced on February 2, US tariffs on Indian exports have been set at 18 per cent, while Pakistani goods will face a 19 per cent rate. The outcome has drawn sharp reactions in Pakistan, especially given what critics describe as sustained efforts by its leadership to engage Washington in recent months.

New Delhi, by contrast, is widely seen as having resisted pressure from US President Donald Trump and negotiated from a position of economic leverage rather than personal diplomacy.

Social media reactions highlight public anger

Following the announcement, Trump shared images related to India, including India Gate and a magazine cover featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside himself, before confirming the revised tariff rate for Indian goods. The optics did not go unnoticed in Pakistan, where social media users questioned why India secured better terms without overt displays of political deference.

One widely circulated post by Pakistan-based X user Umar Ali used sharp language and imagery to criticise Pakistan’s approach, reflecting growing frustration among sections of the public over what they see as an unequal outcome despite extensive outreach efforts.

Opposition leaders question foreign policy approach

Former Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf minister Hammad Azhar described the outcome as a failure of strategy rather than circumstance. He argued that modern foreign policy depends on economic strength, market access and tariffs, not symbolic gestures or personal relationships, pointing to India’s recent trade agreements with both the US and the European Union as examples.

Other opposition figures echoed similar views, saying India negotiated with “strategic autonomy” while Pakistan relied too heavily on personal engagement with US leadership.

Journalists warn of economic consequences

Journalists in Pakistan also weighed in, warning that the tariff decision could deepen the country’s existing economic challenges. Concerns were raised about declining exports, falling foreign investment and reduced bargaining power on the global stage.

Commentator Imran Riaz Khan criticised what he termed a failed lobbying strategy, arguing that symbolic gestures cannot replace economic leverage in international negotiations. Digital creator Wajahat Khan similarly framed the outcome as a reflection of unequal negotiating positions, stating that India approached the talks as a partner, while Pakistan did not.

India’s trade deals expected to boost exports

India’s back-to-back trade agreements with the European Union and the United States are expected to provide a significant boost to exports. Estimates suggest these deals could add up to $150 billion in exports over the next decade, strengthening India’s economic standing and reinforcing its negotiating position in future global trade talks.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

New Delhi free to buy oil from any source, Russia says amid US deal claims

Russia has said India is free to purchase oil from any country, dismissing claims that New Delhi has agreed to stop buying Russian crude under a US trade deal.

Published

on

New Delhi free to buy oil from any source, Russia says amid US deal claims

Russia has said that India is free to purchase crude oil from any country, responding to claims by US President Donald Trump that New Delhi has agreed to stop buying Russian oil as part of a recent trade deal with Washington.

The Kremlin said Russia is not India’s only energy supplier and noted that India has long sourced crude oil from multiple countries. It added that there is nothing new in India’s efforts to diversify its oil imports.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that energy experts are well aware that India purchases oil and petroleum products from various global suppliers. He added that Moscow does not see any change in India’s approach to sourcing crude.

No official word from India on halting imports

A day earlier, Peskov said Russia has not received any official statement from India regarding the cessation of Russian oil purchases. Russia’s Foreign Ministry echoed the view, saying the hydrocarbon trade between the two countries remains mutually beneficial.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said India’s purchase of Russian hydrocarbons contributes to stability in the global energy market and that Moscow remains ready to continue close cooperation with New Delhi in the energy sector.

Russian media also noted that, unlike the US president, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not made any public statement indicating an agreement to stop Russian oil imports.

India’s oil imports from Russia

India has continued to import Russian crude even after the US imposed tariffs on Indian goods. According to global trade data provider Kpler, India has been importing around 1.5 million barrels of Russian crude per day, making it the second-largest buyer of Russian oil and accounting for more than one-third of India’s total crude imports.

India buys about 88 per cent of its crude oil needs from overseas, with roughly one-third sourced from Russia. At its peak, imports from Russia crossed 2 million barrels per day, before falling to around 1.3 million barrels per day in December. The volume is expected to remain broadly stable in the near term.

However, imports declined further to about 1.1 million barrels per day in the first three weeks of January following higher tariffs imposed by the US, including levies linked to purchases of Russian energy.

Complete switch unlikely, experts say

Energy experts believe Indian refiners cannot fully replace Russian crude with American oil. Igor Yushkov of the National Energy Security Fund said US shale oil is lighter in grade, while Russian Urals crude is heavier and contains more sulphur.

He explained that replacing Russian oil would require blending different grades, increasing costs for refiners. He added that the US is unlikely to be able to supply the volume currently exported by Russia to India.

Yushkov also recalled that when Russia redirected its oil exports from Western markets to India in 2022, it reduced production by about one million barrels per day, contributing to a sharp rise in global oil prices and record fuel prices in the US.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com