raises

March 26 (UPI) — The flow of humanitarian aid to Cuba has increased in recent days with shipments of food, medicine and fuel from governments, regional allies and an international flotilla of activists amid a crisis marked by widespread blackouts and shortages of basic supplies.

However, alongside the arrival of that assistance, a debate has also grown inside and outside the island over its real impact, distribution and motives of some of those behind it.

Mexico provided the most significant shipments, with more than 1,200 tons of food transported on two Navy vessels in mid-March, followed by new cargo announced days later.

Meanwhile, Caribbean countries are preparing additional packages with powdered milk, infant formula, nonperishable food, medical supplies and energy equipment, such as solar panels and batteries. China sent 60,000 tons of rice.

Fuel shipments confirmed by Russian authorities, in an attempt to ease the energy crisis affecting the island, have not arrived and seem to be in limbo because of the U.S. embargo.

Cuba faces a structural deficit in electricity generation — because of a massive shortage of oil — that has led the system to operate under severe pressure, producing barely half of the electricity needed to cover total demand.

The gap between supply and consumption has forced authorities to implement widespread outages to avoid a total collapse, especially during peak hours, causing prolonged blackouts across the country that affect hospitals, transportation, cold chains and daily life.

Seeking to assist, the international flotilla “Nuestra América” arrived in Havana starting Friday. Organizers said they transported more than 20 tons of essential supplies.

The initiative brought together more than 650 participants from 33 countries, including doctors, activists, political figures, artists and digital content creators. Most participants arrived by air, while a vessel arrived Tuesday in Havana. President Miguel Díaz-Canel personally received those aboard.

Organizers of relief missions say Cuba is on the verge of an “imminent humanitarian collapse” and attribute the situation to United States policy, including sanctions and restrictions linked to oil trade.

But inside the island, some Cubans express doubts about the destination of that aid.

“These people come here to benefit the regime in Cuba,” said Berta Solórzano, a resident of Old Havana, in statements reported by Radio Martí.

Activist Yanaisy Curvelo, mother of a political prisoner, expressed an even more direct view:

“They believe in dictators, that’s why it works like this. …. None of those donations go to the people, everything goes to the stores — in MLC [a digital currency created by the Cuban government] or dollars.”

Near the port of Havana, where the relief ship Granma 2.0 docked, a resident identified as Manuel Soria said, “What they came here for is to support the dictatorship of the Castro regime. If it comes under these conditions, then they should not come anymore because we have not seen any help. We have not benefited, what we are is hungrier every day.”

Opposition figure Manuel Cuesta Morúa questioned the convoy’s approach.

“Instead of talking about the conditions and circumstances and the real situation of the country, they decide and dedicate themselves to reviving their utopia,” he said.

He also used a metaphor to describe the situation: “The most powerful image I have was given by [Cuban American] activist [Manolo De Los Santos] Ramallo is that this is like the Titanic. It is like someone playing music on the deck of the ship while it’s sinking.”

Doubts are not limited to opposition sectors. Cuban researcher Elaine Acosta, affiliated with Florida International University in Miami, described the convoy in statements to El País as a political maneuver more linked to elites than to citizen needs, and she warned about the risk of aid diversion.

Egyptian filmmaker Basel Ramsis Labib, with historical ties to Cuba and experience in flotillas to Gaza, questioned the initiative and described it as “ridiculous.”

“Cuba is not Gaza,” he wrote, adding that anyone who wants to help can send medicine and food directly, without incurring the high logistical costs of a flotilla.

He said those resources could have been allocated more efficiently to the population and criticized what he described as a component of “egocentrism” and a search for political visibility.

He also questioned the symbolic nature of the initiative, including the name “Granma 2.0,” and warned that some attitudes are “insulting” in the face of food shortages, fuel scarcity and the energy crisis.

“The Cuban people need gasoline, medicine, food and serious reform,” he said.

The controversy was amplified by the participation of international figures and scenes that some considered disconnected from the crisis context.

Irish hip hop group Kneecap performed a concert in Cuba during a blackout, which generated criticism on social media over the contrast between the event and the country’s energy situation.

Another focus of criticism was American political commentator Hasan Piker, who participated in the convoy and said he sought to raise awareness about the effects of United States policy on Cuba. During his visit, he described the country as “incredible” and highlighted the resilience of its population.

His statements were criticized and compared to a disconnect between that discourse and his behavior. Piker came under scrutiny for staying at a luxury hotel and wearing expensive clothing and accessories, prompting comparisons with living standards on the island.

Former Spanish Vice President Pablo Iglesias also became part of the controversy after defending the humanitarian mission from Havana in a video recorded from a five-star hotel, according to posts and analysis shared on social media.

In that message, he said the situation is “difficult, but not as it is presented from outside.”

The reaction included direct criticism from Cuba. Journalist Ariel Maceo Téllez questioned the legitimacy of such interventions and said Cubans understand their reality better than foreign observers.

In his message, he denounced the coexistence of widespread shortages and the development of luxury tourism infrastructure, noting that many Cubans cannot access those places.

Humanitarian aid to Cuba has increased in volume and visibility, but its impact is conditioned by internal distribution capacity, state control and the persistent energy crisis.

The Cuban Observatory of Human Rights said in its 2025 report that 89% of the population lives in extreme poverty and that 71% has been forced to skip meals due to food shortages.

The real impact of the aid will depend on its ability to effectively reach the population in a scenario of increasingly widespread needs.

Lebanon fears that Israel’s attack on Qasmiyeh Bridge, a key crossing linking the south to the rest of the country, could be a “prelude to a ground invasion”. The damage caused in the attack could cut off access for civilians, aid and supplies.

March 16 (Asia Today) — This commentary is the Asia Today Editor’s Op-Ed.

International oil prices and South Korea’s currency are rising sharply again as the Middle East conflict intensifies, raising growing concerns that the country could slide into stagflation.

On March 13, global crude prices climbed back above $100 per barrel, while the Korean won weakened beyond 1,500 per U.S. dollar in overnight trading. The simultaneous surge in energy prices and the exchange rate has heightened fears that South Korea could face a worst-case scenario in which economic growth slows while inflation accelerates.

Such developments threaten to derail the government’s economic targets for the year – about 2% growth and inflation in the 2% range – making emergency policy responses increasingly urgent.

Brent crude futures for May delivery closed at $103.14 per barrel, up 2.7% from the previous day. It was the first time Brent crude exceeded $100 since August 2022.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures settled at $98.71 per barrel, approaching the $100 threshold. Meanwhile, Dubai crude, the benchmark most relevant to South Korea’s imports, surged to $123.50 per barrel, up $34.60 from the previous week.

As oil prices surged, investors turned toward the U.S. dollar as a safe-haven asset. The won-dollar exchange rate closed at 1,497.5 won per dollar in overnight trading, up 16.3 won from the regular daytime session. During trading, the rate briefly rose to 1,500.9 won, crossing the psychologically important 1,500 level for the first time in seven trading days.

The twin surge in oil prices and the exchange rate has been driven largely by escalating tensions in the Middle East.

Iran has openly threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which about 20% of the world’s crude oil supply passes. Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, declared a prolonged confrontation in his first official statement on March 12, saying Tehran should continue using the possibility of a Hormuz blockade as leverage against the United States and Israel.

Oil prices, which had briefly stabilized after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested the conflict might end soon, surged again following the statement.

Tensions escalated further after the United States launched airstrikes on Kharg Island, Iran’s largest oil export hub, on March 13. Iran retaliated by attacking the Fujairah port in the United Arab Emirates, a key oil-export route that bypasses the Strait of Hormuz, putting global energy supply chains on alert.

Trump has also urged five countries – including South Korea, China and Japan – to dispatch naval vessels to the Strait of Hormuz, pushing regional military tensions to a new peak.

Economic analysts warn the shock could have serious consequences for South Korea’s economy.

The Korea Development Institute (KDI) warned last week that rising oil prices linked to the Middle East conflict would increase inflationary pressure while weakening economic growth.

The Hyundai Research Institute estimated that if oil prices climb to $150 per barrel, South Korea’s economic growth rate could fall by 0.8 percentage points.

The government is considering a supplementary budget of 10 trillion to 20 trillion won ($7.5 billion to $15 billion) and temporary fuel tax cuts. However, these measures would only offer short-term relief.

A more fundamental solution lies in reducing South Korea’s heavy reliance on Middle Eastern crude oil, which accounted for 69% of total imports last year. Diversifying energy sources by expanding imports from countries such as Brazil and Norway should be pursued urgently.

The government must mobilize every available policy tool – including measures to stimulate domestic demand – to prevent what could become the fourth Middle East-driven oil shock from pushing the economy into stagflation.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260315010004332

March 13 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s Unification Minister Chung Dong-young warned Friday that preparing for war could increase the likelihood of conflict on the Korean Peninsula, emphasizing that “peace itself is the path forward.”

Chung made the remarks during the third meeting of the Korean Peninsula Peace Strategy Advisory Group held at the Inter-Korean Talks Headquarters in Seoul.

“People often speak lightly of war and repeat the phrase that if you want peace, you must prepare for war,” Chung said. “But preparing for war only raises the chances of war.”

Chung also pointed to growing global instability, citing the upcoming U.S.-China summit and tensions related to the Iran crisis.

“The Korean Peninsula sits on unstable ground and tends to sway whenever global events shift,” he said.

Noting the global interconnectedness of security issues, Chung said the distance between Seoul and Tehran is about 6,700 kilometers but developments in the Middle East can still affect the Korean Peninsula.

“A war 6,700 kilometers away is shaking the Korean Peninsula,” he said, adding that the situation underscored the importance of maintaining peace and stability in the region.

Experts attending the meeting suggested that North Korea’s recently proposed “two-state theory” should be reinterpreted in light of current conditions.

They proposed linking it to the inter-Korean confederation stage of South Korea’s long-standing National Community Unification Plan and called for the creation of a new peace roadmap for the Korean Peninsula reflecting changing security dynamics.

Participants also urged the government to shift from a “pace-maker” role to a more proactive “peace-maker” role by expanding diplomatic engagement.

They recommended exploring multilateral approaches involving neighboring countries and international organizations in addition to dialogue between the United States and China.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260313010004062

The surge in oil prices triggered by the war in Iran is increasingly becoming a major concern for global central banks, which are closely monitoring the potential economic and financial consequences of the shock.

More than a week of conflict in the Middle East has disrupted energy supply routes and pushed crude prices sharply higher, raising fresh fears about inflation. For policymakers already grappling with fragile economic conditions, the oil spike presents a complex policy dilemma.

Historically, oil shocks have posed a difficult challenge for central banks. Rising energy prices can drive inflation higher while simultaneously weakening consumer spending and business activity by raising costs. In such circumstances, policymakers face an uncomfortable choice: tighten policy to control inflation or ease financial conditions to support economic growth and employment.

The current situation could potentially produce both outcomes at once, creating a scenario where inflation rises even as economic demand weakens a combination that complicates monetary policy decisions.

Inflation Versus Economic Growth

Central banks traditionally respond to inflationary pressures by raising interest rates or maintaining tighter monetary policy. Some policymakers argue that responding quickly to inflation triggered by an oil shock can prevent inflation expectations from becoming entrenched and reduce longer-term economic damage.

Others, however, advocate “looking through” temporary energy-driven price spikes, arguing that aggressive tightening could unnecessarily damage economic growth. This approach gained prominence after the pandemic, when many central banks initially viewed inflation as temporary a judgment widely criticised in hindsight.

The decision facing policymakers now depends on several uncertainties, including how long the conflict lasts, how severely energy supplies are disrupted, and whether governments intervene with subsidies or price caps to protect consumers.

Given these unknowns, many central banks may prefer to adopt a cautious approach, waiting to see how markets and economic conditions evolve before making significant policy adjustments.

Financial Stability Risks Enter the Picture

Beyond inflation and growth concerns, central banks must also consider a third responsibility that has gained prominence since the global financial crisis: financial stability.

Senior policymakers worry that the oil shock could expose vulnerabilities that have been building in global financial markets for years. A large macroeconomic disturbance involving energy prices, inflation, interest rates and currency volatility could trigger a broader financial stress event.

Much of the concern centres on the growing role of “shadow banking” institutions, financial intermediaries operating outside traditional banking regulation. These entities have become increasingly important providers of credit to companies and governments.

One major area of focus is the rapid expansion of private credit funds, which now manage more than $3 trillion globally. These funds allow asset managers to lend directly to businesses, often outside the scrutiny of public markets or traditional banking standards.

Regulators worry that during a major shock, investors could rapidly withdraw funds from these vehicles, potentially creating liquidity problems for borrowers and spillover risks for banks that help finance or manage the funds.

Pressure in Bond and Repo Markets

Another major source of concern lies in government bond markets, where highly leveraged hedge funds have become increasingly active. Many of these funds use repurchase agreements, or “repo” markets, to borrow money and finance large trades involving government bonds.

These strategies often rely on exploiting small price differences between cash bonds and futures contracts, but they involve substantial leverage. While such activity can help smooth government financing, it can also create systemic vulnerabilities during periods of market stress.

The Financial Stability Board, which monitors risks to the global financial system for the G20, warned earlier this year that sudden deleveraging in repo markets could disrupt sovereign bond markets.

More than $16 trillion in repo transactions backed by government bonds were outstanding last year, with about 60% concentrated in the United States. A sudden withdrawal of leveraged investors could therefore have significant ripple effects across global financial markets.

New Fragilities: Stablecoins and Technology Stocks

Regulators are also monitoring emerging risks linked to digital finance. Stablecoins cryptocurrencies pegged to traditional currencies such as the U.S. dollar have grown rapidly and are increasingly investing reserves in government bonds.

With the stablecoin market now worth roughly $300 billion and expanding, any loss of confidence in these assets could trigger large-scale sales of the bonds that back them. Such an event could add stress to already volatile financial markets.

At the same time, some investors remain concerned about high valuations and heavy market concentration in the rapidly growing artificial intelligence sector, which could amplify market volatility during periods of economic uncertainty.

Analysis: Oil Shock Could Trigger Wider Financial Stress

The Iran war oil shock illustrates how geopolitical crises can interact with financial vulnerabilities to create broader economic risks.

Higher energy prices directly increase inflation and strain household finances. At the same time, they can force central banks to reconsider interest-rate policies, potentially leading to higher borrowing costs and greater volatility in financial markets.

Such conditions could expose weaknesses in highly leveraged sectors of the financial system, particularly in shadow banking, hedge funds and digital financial markets.

Although previous shocks including the economic turmoil following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not ultimately trigger a major financial crisis, policymakers remain cautious. The brief turmoil in the U.S. regional banking sector in 2023 demonstrated how quickly financial stress can emerge when economic conditions shift.

If oil prices remain elevated and central banks are forced to respond aggressively, the resulting tightening of financial conditions could amplify existing vulnerabilities across markets.

For now, the disturbances appear manageable. But the combination of geopolitical conflict, energy market disruption and financial fragility ensures that central banks will continue to watch the situation with increasing concern.

With information from Reuters.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus says children, the elderly at particular risk after damage to Iranian petroleum facilities.

The head of the World Health Organization has warned that recent Israeli attacks on oil facilities in Iran could have negative effects on public health, with Iranian children and the elderly among the most vulnerable.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a statement on Monday that damage to Iranian petroleum facilities “risks contaminating food, water and air”.

Those hazards “can have severe health impacts especially on children, older people, and people with pre existing medical conditions”, Tedros warned in a post on X. “Rain laden with oil has been reported falling in parts of the country.”

The Iranian authorities said oil facilities in the capital, Tehran, and the nearby province of Alborz were targeted on Saturday in the United States-Israeli war against the country, the Fars news agency reported.

Israel said it struck “a number of fuel storage facilities in Tehran” that were used “to operate military infrastructure”.

The strikes sent massive flames and clouds of thick, black smoke into the sky above Tehran, with Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi reporting that black raindrops fell early on Sunday morning.

The attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure came as the US and Israeli governments had vowed to continue to bombard the country despite mounting international concern over the widening conflict.

Iran has retaliated to the US-Israeli strikes by launching missiles and drones at targets across the Middle East, including energy infrastructure in nearby Arab Gulf states.

Human rights groups have condemned both Iran and the US and Israel for targeting civilian infrastructure.

Agnes Callamard, the head of Amnesty International, said on Monday that “Israel should have taken all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize the risks to civilians when targeting oil refineries” in Iran.

“The incidental harm to civilians, including the release of toxic substance, appears to indicate that too little precautions were taken and that the incidental harm to civilians is disproportionate,” she wrote on X.

“The scenes of catastrophe described by Iranians after Tehran’s oil depots were bombed are yet another demonstration that ultimately, whatever they may say, the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran are harming first and foremost civilians, including children.”