The Grain Deal in Istanbul: Hopes and Expectations

Grain fields backdropped by a power plant in Donetsk region, eastern Ukraine, Friday, July 22, 2022. (AP)
Grain fields backdropped by a power plant in Donetsk region, eastern Ukraine, Friday, July 22, 2022. (AP)
TT

The Grain Deal in Istanbul: Hopes and Expectations

Grain fields backdropped by a power plant in Donetsk region, eastern Ukraine, Friday, July 22, 2022. (AP)
Grain fields backdropped by a power plant in Donetsk region, eastern Ukraine, Friday, July 22, 2022. (AP)

A deal has been reached to allow grain from Ukraine to be exported unhindered through what is called a safe corridor in the Black Sea. If this agreement can be implemented, 20-25 million tons of Ukrainian grain will not rot in silos and will be shipped to their destinations.

The signing ceremony took place in Istanbul with United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and President Recep Tayyib Erdogan of Turkey as host and facilitator. Present were, representatives from Ukraine (Minister of Infrastructure), Russia (Minister of Defense) and Turkey (Minister of Defense).

A couple of notes about the signing ceremony: The Russians and Ukrainians signed different texts (with the UN and Turkey) and not with each other. There are two separate, but complementing agreements.

There was no press conference after the signing ceremony. The message was that this is a unique arrangement to overcome a food crisis, which is a humanitarian issue. Apart from that, the two sides do not want to talk to each other and the war continues.

According to this arrangement, which will be valid for an initial period of four months (that will be extended automatically unless there is objection from either side), a “joint coordination center” and a joint committee responsible for implementation will be set up in Istanbul.

Odessa, Chornomorsk and Yuzhne will be the Ukrainian ports where grain will be loaded.

There will be one safe corridor so as not to complicate matters.

Ukraine will be responsible to guide grain ships through mines, which it has laid outside the ports against Russians. There will be no naval mine removal operation.

Russia will refrain from military action in the area while ships are on the move.

There will be an inspection mechanism whereby outbound (from Ukrainian ports) and returning ships will be inspected for any possibility of shipments other than grain as there is a major Russian concern that ships on their way back could be bringing weapons. Russia will be able to export fertilizers.

The implementation of the deal will be effective as soon as possible, hopefully in a couple of weeks. Operational procedures will have to be finalized first.

Technical level delegations from Ukraine, Russia, Turkey and the United Nations have met several times and were able to come up with an arrangement. It must have been a very difficult exercise.

I assume that any remaining problems were dealt with in Tehran three days ago at the highest level when Presidents Erdogan and Vladimir Putin met.

One question that comes to mind is whether the agreement on the safe corridor was a part of a package including maybe Syria-related issues, sanctions against Russia and gas exports.

The Istanbul agreement came at a time when Turkey has been blamed for the shelling and killing of civilians in Zaho in the Duhok province in the administrative boundaries of the boundaries of the Kurdistan region of Iraq on July 20.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement rejecting the accusations and blaming the attack on the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Turkey stated its readiness to take necessary steps to dig for the truth and invited the Iraqi government to conduct a joint investigation. Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al Kadhimi had harsh words for Turkey. Nechirvan Barzani, President of the region, also condemned the attack but stood short of pinning the blame on Turkey.

Back to Istanbul on Friday, even the news that a deal could be signed led to a two percent fall in wheat prices. Governments of developing and underdeveloped countries in need of grain to feed their populations must be much more hopeful for the future, following the signing of the agreement.

It should be noted that despite the signing, all countries involved and affected in one way or another by the war in Ukraine, continue to work on alternatives, such as improvements of certain border crossings, roads, railways and ports in Moldova and Romania.

The other major problem which the war in Ukraine has caused is energy security. Russia has been using its natural gas resources to retaliate against sanctions.

Europe receives around 40 percent of its gas from Russia and the major importer of Russian gas in the continent is Germany. Ten days ago, Russia stopped gas transactions through Nord Stream 1 pipeline due to maintenance work. Now, the pipeline has become operational once again but at a reduced level.

Winter is coming and the EU is trying hard to diversify its sources. European countries have been called upon by EU officials to cut off, by a certain percentage, their use of gas.

Despite the deal in Istanbul, it seems that we are still in for an extended war in Ukraine.

With all sanctions and limitations, Russia is faced with draining of its resources but it still seems able to keep things running for quite some time more.

Against Russia’s aggression, Ukraine is determined to fight on and does not have the intention to give up its territories. Counter offensives are taking place and arms from the West keep coming in.

What about public opinion?

In Russia, objections to government policies usually end up at the tip of a police baton and in jail. On the other hand, even though police batons can also come into play, the western public opinion has a say on matters and can influence the policies of their government.

As an anecdote, a former Turkish diplomat, who knows Russia well, said: “Russians, other than those living in Moscow, St Petersburg and maybe a few more cities, are living their normal lives as if they are under sanctions. Therefore, I am not sure if they are even aware that they are under sanctions because of the invasion of Ukraine”.

The Istanbul agreement is a much-needed diplomatic success for Turkey, which is now in a position to argue that keeping talking terms with Russia has enabled this outcome.

The grain deal is the first agreement where Ukrainian and Russian negotiators sat around the same table since the start of the war. If this agreement could be reached, why not others?

But we need to bear in mind that territorial and other issues would most probably be much more complicated than grain issues.

Signing the grain corridor deal is a major achievement but it is not the end. The two sides distrust each other and dynamics of the war are in play. Ukraine and Russia are both concerned that the other side may use the arrangement to serve military purposes.

What needs to be seen is the implementation of the arrangement. On a last note, what was achieved in Istanbul is important but fragile.



Harris, Trump Offer Starkly Different Visions on Climate Change and Energy

Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., speaks during a debate, Oct. 7, 2020, in Salt Lake City, left, and Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks during a debate, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo)
Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., speaks during a debate, Oct. 7, 2020, in Salt Lake City, left, and Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks during a debate, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo)
TT

Harris, Trump Offer Starkly Different Visions on Climate Change and Energy

Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., speaks during a debate, Oct. 7, 2020, in Salt Lake City, left, and Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks during a debate, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo)
Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., speaks during a debate, Oct. 7, 2020, in Salt Lake City, left, and Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks during a debate, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo)

As the Earth sizzled through a summer with four of the hottest days ever measured, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have starkly different visions on how to address a changing climate while ensuring a reliable energy supply. But neither has provided many details on how they would get there.

During her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Harris briefly mentioned climate change as she outlined “fundamental freedoms” at stake in the election, including “the freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.”

As vice president, Harris cast the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden’s landmark climate law that was approved with only Democratic support. As a senator from California, she was an early sponsor of the Green New Deal, a sweeping series of proposals meant to swiftly move the US to fully green energy that is championed by the Democratic Party’s most progressive wing.

Trump, meanwhile, led chants of “drill, baby, drill” and pledged to dismantle the Biden administration’s “green new scam” in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. He has vowed to boost production of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal and repeal key parts of the 2022 climate law.

“We have more liquid gold under our feet than any other country by far,” Trump said at the RNC, The AP reported. “We are a nation that has the opportunity to make an absolute fortune with its energy.”

‘Climate champion’ or unfair regulations? Environmental groups, who largely back Harris, call her a “proven climate champion” who will take on Big Oil and build on Biden's climate legacy, including policies that boost electric vehicles and limit planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.

"We won’t go back to a climate denier in the Oval Office,'' said Lena Moffitt, executive director of Evergreen Action.

Republicans counter that Biden and Harris have spent four years adopting “punishing regulations” that target American energy while lavishing generous tax credits for electric vehicles and other green priorities that cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

“This onslaught of overreaching and outrageous climate rules will shut down power plants and increase energy costs for families across the country,'' said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. "Republicans will work to stop them and fight for solutions that protect our air and water and allow our economy to grow.”

Democrats have a clear edge on the issue. More than half of US adults say they trust Harris “a lot” or “some” when it comes to addressing climate change, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in July. About 7 in 10 say they have “not much” trust in Trump or “none at all” when it comes to climate. Fewer than half say they lack trust in Harris.

A look at where the two candidates stand on key climate and energy issues:

Fracking and offshore drilling Harris said during her short-lived 2020 presidential campaign that she opposed offshore drilling for oil and hydraulic fracturing, an oil and gas extraction process better known as fracking.

But her campaign has clarified that she no longer supports a ban on fracking, a common drilling practice that is crucial to the economy in Pennsylvania, a key swing state and the nation’s second-largest producer of natural gas.

“As vice president, I did not ban fracking. As president, I will not ban fracking,'' Harris told CNN Thursday in her first major television interview as the Democratic nominee. "We can grow ... a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking.''

Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington research firm, said Harris’ evolving views show she is “trying to balance climate voters and industry supporters,″ even as her campaign takes ”an adversarial stance″ with the oil and gas industry overall.

Harris and Democrats have cited new rules — authorized by the climate law — to increase royalties that oil and gas companies pay to drill or mine on public lands. She also has supported efforts to clean up old drilling sites and cap abandoned wells that often spew methane and other pollutants.

Trump, who pushed to roll back scores of environmental laws as president, says his goal is for the US to have the cheapest energy and electricity in the world. He’d increase oil drilling on public lands, offer tax breaks to oil, gas and coal producers and speed the approval of natural gas pipelines.

Electric vehicles Trump has frequently criticized tough new vehicle emissions rules imposed by Biden, incorrectly calling them an electric vehicle “mandate.″ Environmental Protection Agency rules issued this spring target tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks and encourage — but do not require — sales of new EVs to meet the new standards.

Trump has said EV manufacturing will destroy jobs in the auto industry. In recent months, however, he has softened his rhetoric, saying he’s for “a very small slice” of cars being electric.

The change comes after Tesla CEO Elon Musk “endorsed me very strongly,” Trump said at an August rally in Atlanta. Even so, industry officials expect Trump to roll back Biden’s EV push and attempt to repeal tax incentives that Trump claims benefit China.

Harris has not announced an EV plan but has strongly supported EVs as vice president. At a 2022 event in Seattle, she celebrated roughly $1 billion in federal grants to purchase about 2,500 “clean” school buses. As many as 25 million children ride the familiar yellow buses each school day, and they will have a healthier future with a cleaner fleet, Harris said.

The grants and other federal climate programs not only are aimed at “saving our children, but for them, saving our planet,″ she said.

Climate law, jobs Harris has focused on implementing the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law passed in 2021, as well as climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided nearly $375 billion in financial incentives for electric cars, clean energy projects and manufacturing.

Under Biden and Harris, American manufacturers created more than 250,000 energy jobs last year, the Energy Department said, with clean energy accounting for more than half of those jobs.

Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, deride climate spending as a "money grab'' for environmental groups and say it will ship Americans' jobs to China and other countries while increasing energy prices at home.

“Kamala Harris cares more about climate change than about inflation,” Vance wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

Goodbye Paris? Trump, who has cast climate change as a “hoax," withdrew the US from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. He has vowed to do so again, calling the global plan to reduce carbon emissions unenforceable and a gift to China and other big polluters. Trump vows to end wind subsidies included in the climate law and eliminate regulations imposed and proposed by the Biden administration to increase the energy efficiency of lightbulbs, stoves, dishwashers and shower heads.

Harris has called the Paris Agreement crucial to address climate change and protect “our children’s future.″

The US returned to the Paris Agreement soon after Biden took office in 2021.

LNG pause After approving numerous projects to export liquefied natural gas, or LNG, the Biden administration in January paused consideration of new natural gas export terminals. The delay allows officials to review the economic and climate impacts of natural gas, a fossil fuel that emits methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

The decision aligned the Democratic president with environmentalists who fear the recent increase in LNG exports is locking in potentially catastrophic planet-warming emissions even as Biden has pledged to cut climate pollution in half by 2030.

Trump has said he would approve terminals “on my very first day back” in office.

Harris has not outlined plans for LNG exports, but analysts expect her to impose tough climate standards on export projects as part of her larger stance against large oil and gas companies.