unity

The withdrawal of the United Arab Emirates to abandon OPEC is far more than just a change in policy, but represents a change in the paradigm of worldwide energy governance. In a region that, already, has been influenced in oil market operations by geopolitical frictions, climate changes, and alliances, the UAE action begs an immediate question: is the era of shared oil control becoming one of autonomy of choice?

OPEC had been a mainstay of oil prices globally. Through the coordination of production quotas, the member states were trying to control supply and manipulate prices. Nevertheless, the emergence of non OPEC producers, especially the United States of America with its own shale revolution and the increasing influence of Russia could have calories undermined the power of OPEC. Responding, the organization became OPEC+, a more wide-ranging alliance that tried to reassert itself by coordinating more.

But with this change, new fault lines were also presented. OPEC+ is not a close bloc, but an adaptable arrangement anchored on overlapping, and indeed competing, interests. Its success largely relies on the collaboration of key actors such as the Saudi Arabia and Russia countries having different geopolitical interests. Such delicate equilibrium has rendered the sustainability of cohesion even more of a challenge.

It is here that the withdrawal of the UAE is noteworthy. Abu Dhabi has been rethinking its economic and strategic priorities. Although oil is still significant, UAE has been spending on renewable energy, international financial and logistics as well as technology. It has a long term vision of diversification and global competitiveness rather than oil dependency.

These goals might not have been consistent with staying within OPEC quota system. Designed to stabilize the prices, production limits may limit the capacity of a country to operate at capacity or flexibly respond to market opportunities. Like any exit, the UAE will have more flexibility in its output policy, which will enable it to harmonize the national economic objectives with energy policy.

This is indicative of a larger conflict over collective discipline and national sovereignty. The success of OPEC has been pegged on compliance with quotas by its members. But when the economic priorities move apart, they are more difficult to maintain. The UAE motion indicates that in some cases the advantages of independence can now surpass the benefits of action.

This is reflected in this concept of OPEC 2.0. The basic model is also more fluid and pragmatic compared to its predecessor, which was more or less a cohesive cartel. It is based on momentary agreements, but not the institutional unity. Although this flexibility maybe handy when dealing with a crisis in the short term, it also casts an element of stability in the long term.

Should other producers start to emulate the UAE, the effects may be far reaching. A disintegrated system can have difficulties in controlling supply even more resulting into a greater price volatility. The global markets would, in that case, not be fueled by coordinated policy but rather competition among the producers.

Simultaneously, the move that the UAE made should not be construed as a total denial of collaboration. Energy diplomacy is not going away but changing. Nations can move towards selective and form partnerships depending on similar interests as opposed to unbreakable unions. This would result in a more energetic yet unpredictable energy environment.

The decision is also representative of a larger trend in the Middle East geopolitically. States in the Gulf are claiming to be more independent economically and in the foreign policy. They havebbeen diversifying collaborations, looking into new spheres, and establishing themselves as international centres of commerce and innovation. Energy policy is evolving merely as a part of a broader strategic approach.

To people worldwide, the ramification is ambivalent. In the short run, on the one hand, a decrease in coordination among the producers may result in instability in the market and price variations. Conversely, over competition can lead to efficiency and speed up investment in alternative power sources. This might promote the movement of the world towards non fossil fuels in the long run.

Finally, the UAE withdrawal is a turning point. It highlights a transition into the flexible interestdriven strategies including strict institutional structures. There is a growing challenge of a more complicated and multipolar reality to the classical structure of oil governance with its emphasis on unity and joint control. The future of the global energy could probably not be characterized by one powerful protagonist, but a system of changing alliances and strategic choices. The adaptability in this new order can become important than unity. The UAE has decided to take that direction and their move might potentially determine the next chapter of energy politics across the world.

BELGRADE, Yugoslavia — Secretary of State James A. Baker III admitted Friday that he was unable to dissuade Yugoslavia’s independence-minded republics from breaking up the 73-year-old federation.

“What I heard here today has not allayed my concerns, nor will it allay the concerns of others” in the U.S. Administration and the international community, Baker said after spending almost 10 hours in meetings with federal officials and the presidents of all six constituent republics.

Slovenia has announced that it will declare independence next Wednesday and Croatia has indicated that it will follow suit.

“We think the situation is very serious,” Baker said. “We worry about history repeating itself.”

Baker was clearly alluding to the 1914 assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo that touched off World War I, as well as a bloody civil war between Serbs and Croats that raged during World War II.

Speaking to reporters after talks with Prime Minister Ante Markovic, Baker called on all Yugoslavs to settle their differences peacefully without “violence or bloodshed or force.”

Although clearly directed at all contending parties, Baker’s words seemed to be especially intended as a warning against the use of military force by the federal government to prevent any of the republics from breaking away.

Markovic issued a veiled warning in a speech to the federal Parliament earlier in the day that his government might call in the army to block either Slovenia or Croatia from withdrawing from the federation.

He warned that if any republic declares unilateral independence, his government would “take measures which will secure the necessary conditions for settlement of problems democratically, through negotiations.”

The federal government has conceded that the complex Balkan nation must be restructured, but it objects to any of the republics withdrawing without the approval of the others. A fruitless series of negotiations among republic leaders broke down last month after the federal presidency collapsed when Serbian delegates refused to permit the Croatian representative to take his turn as president under the country’s unique rotation procedure.

Baker called for a resumption of the dialogue and for prompt action to fill the presidency. The presidential crisis aggravates a leadership vacuum at the federal level. Although generally supported by the international community, Markovic was not elected by the public and his economic policies have been widely ignored by the republics.

“We believe that everyone is interested in finding a way, through dialogue and negotiations, to craft a new basis of unity for Yugoslavia,” Baker said.

U.S. officials said that Washington will not take sides in the debate over restructuring the federation but will oppose strongly its breakup.

Baker said flatly that the United States would not recognize Slovenian independence if the republic goes through with its plans next week.

Slovenian President Milan Kucan yielded no ground in his meeting with Baker. He later told reporters that the republic has no intention of changing its independence timetable.

A federal government official from Slovenia, Ivo Vajgl, said that Slovenia’s Wednesday independence day is “not negotiable.”

Although the other republics might be willing to permit Slovenia to leave the federation, Serbia is adamantly opposed to Croatian independence because of the 600,000-member Serbian minority in Croatia. Moreover, relations between Serbia and Croatia have been strained for centuries, reaching their low point during World War II when more than half of the 1.7 million Yugoslavs who died were killed by other Yugoslavs.

Serbia has vowed to resist with all of its force any attempt by Croatia to leave the federation.

At least 24 people have died in ethnic violence in the last two months.

Yugoslav Foreign Minister Budimir Loncar, standing at Baker’s side, said that Yugoslavia is in “a very deep crisis, of very much concern to our old friends abroad.”

Earlier, Loncar was asked if Slovenia’s withdrawal would mark the end of Yugoslavia. He said Slovenia’s action will produce important changes “but the end of Yugoslavia, it will definitely not be.”

At the same time they are trying to head off independence movements, federal officials have sought to minimize the impact of the action.

Baker visited Belgrade immediately after a meeting of foreign ministers of the 35-nation Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which adopted a statement warning Yugoslavia that it risks losing international economic and political support if it breaks up.

In his talks in Yugoslavia, Baker emphasized that European leaders would ostracize independent republics. The Europeans are concerned that civil war in Yugoslavia would produce devastating consequences for its neighbors, including a probable wave of millions of refugees.

Secession of any Yugoslav republic also could rekindle ethnic animosities in other Eastern European countries such as the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Romania.

Baker said that he would confer with European leaders before deciding on his next step.

Britain’s King Charles III has used a speech in front of the United States Congress to pledge NATO unity and call for support for Ukraine amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

The address on Tuesday came during the royal’s four-day visit to the US, with the US-Israel war with Iran, US President Donald Trump’s criticism of NATO, and trade tensions between the longtime allies looming large.

But Charles avoided any reference to specific frictions during his speech at the US Capitol, instead striking a light tone in his joke-heavy opening.

He praised what he called the shared history and values of the two countries, quipping at one point that Washington, DC was “a tale of two Georges”, the first US President George Washington and his ancestor, the UK’s King George.

He assured lawmakers, to laughs, he was not in the US “as part of some cunning rearguard action” in a delayed continuation of the Revolutionary War.

“I am here on this great occasion in the life of our nations to express the highest regard and friendship of the British people to the people of the United States,” the sovereign said to repeated standing ovations.

But amid broad themes of unity, more pointed messages lurked.

Charles did not directly address the US-Israel war with Iran or Trump’s outspoken criticism of NATO allies who have rejected joining Washington’s war efforts.

Instead, he praised support for NATO and the alliance’s invocation of its Article 5 collective defence treaty in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

“We answered the call together, as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder through two world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan and moments that have defined our shared security,” he said.

He then turned to funding for Ukraine, an increasingly pointed issue in the Republican-controlled US Congress.

“Today, Mr Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people,” he said, referring to House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In one instance, Charles hailed the “$430 billion in annual trade that continues to grow, the $1.7 trillion in mutual investment that fuels that innovation”.

Last week, Trump threatened to impose a “big tariff” on the UK if it did not drop a digital services tax on US tech companies.

At another point, Charles pointed to global environmental concerns.

“We ignore, at our peril, the fact that these natural systems, in other words, nature’s own economy, provide the foundation for our prosperity and our national security,” he said.

Trump has called climate change a “con job” and withdrew from the landmark Paris Agreement climate accords during his first and second terms. His administration has since pursued deregulation of fossil fuels and pivoted away from green energy, an approach embraced by many members of the president’s Republican party.

Other messages appeared to gently reference political trends in the US, where critics have accused Trump of using the Department of Justice for political retribution and of overturning long-standing norms of presidential authority.

Charles described the “common ideals” of the US and UK: “The rule of law, the certainty of stable and accessible rules, an independent judiciary, resolving disputes and delivering impartial justice”.

He also drew a throughline between the Magna Carta, the 13th-century document that established that the British king was subject to law, and constitutional and legal precedent in the US, calling it “the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances”.

The address came shortly before Trump was set to host Charles and his wife, Queen Camilla, for an official state dinner.

The pair were then set to visit New York and Virginia, before an official farewell ceremony at the White House on Thursday.

WASHINGTON — President Trump was preparing to take the stage at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner Saturday night, eager — by his own account — to “let it rip” before a room of Washington’s elite and reporters he has spent years calling the enemy of the people.

Then shots were heard. Secret Service agents rushed him off the stage. And within hours, the president was at the White House calling for unity, offering overtures to a press corps that he had long clashed with.

“I just want to say you did a fantastic job, what a beautiful evening and we are going to reschedule,” Trump told Weijia Jiang, the president of the White House Correspondents’ Assn., at a news briefing after the shooting at the dinner.

His magnanimity did not last long. On Sunday night, sitting down for an interview with Norah O’Donnell of CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Trump reacted with fury to her reading of the suspected shooter’s manifesto, calling her a “disgrace.”

The manifesto characterized his targets as rapists and pedophiles.

“You’re horrible people. Horrible people,” Trump said. “He did write that. I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody.

“I’m not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person? I got associated with all — stuff that has nothing to do with me,” he added. “You should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I’m not any of those things.”

It marked a return to the familiar dynamic between the president and the press after a night of shared crisis and purpose — raising doubts about how long the goodwill would last.

Just hours before, at the briefing, Trump expressed dismay at the violent outburst at the Washington Hilton, where the black-tie event has been held for more than 50 years.

“I will tell you, I fought like hell to stay, but it was protocol,” the president said. On Sunday he repeated his desire to reschedule the event, telling Fox News that he is committed to attending it in the near future, even proposing to do it within 30 days.

Trump appeared to be enjoying himself moments before Cole Tomas Allen, a 31-year-old tutor from Torrance, allegedly ran past a security checkpoint at the hotel and fired off two shots. Oz Pearlman, a mentalist and the entertainer for the night, seemed to be doing a trick for the president and the first lady when the shots were fired, videos show.

Trump was preparing to deliver remarks at the end of the night. His team was excited about it, and the president had been making tweaks to his speech on Air Force One up until Saturday morning.

“It will be funny. It will be entertaining,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a red carpet event ahead of the dinner.

The speech was going to mark Trump’s first at the White House correspondents’ dinner. He told Fox News on Sunday that he was “really going to let it rip,” and that he had considered the moment an “important event” until it came to a halt.

Trump said he would like to reschedule the event within the next month, adding that he will make an “entirely different speech” — one that he said will be focused on “love.”

It is unclear how long Trump’s media-friendly tone will last, but some Republicans continued to blame reporters for the violent act. Kari Lake, the senior advisor to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, said some reporters attending the event “have spent a decade spreading absolute lies” about Trump.

Trump, for his part, used the security breach at the event to make the case for his White House ballroom project, claiming that the Washington Hilton is “not a particularly secure building” and is a prime example of why legal challenges holding up its construction need to be dismissed.

“We need the ballroom,” Trump told reporters. “Today, we need levels of security that probably nobody’s ever seen before.”

However, the annual dinner’s venue is picked not by the White House, but by the White House Correspondents’ Assn., an independent organization of journalists who cover the president.

Trump has vowed to return to the event in the near future, and has called for it to take place within the next month to show that “bad people” cannot “change the course of the country.” But the ballroom project could not be ready that quickly.

It remains under construction and “ahead of schedule,” Trump has said. Earlier this month, a federal appeals court allowed construction on the project to continue through early June, as legal challenges remain ongoing.

The construction of the $400-million ballroom on the White House grounds has come under searing scrutiny. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which sued last year to stop the project, has argued that Trump lacked authority to make architectural changes to the White House grounds.

Carol Quillen, president and chief executive of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, has argued the White House is “the most evocative building in our country” and any changes should go through a review process, including a public comment period. Trump on Sunday described the lawsuit as one brought by a “woman walking a dog.”

The attempted attack, which marks the third time in less than two years that Trump has faced the threat of a gunman, has reignited questions about the tense political environment besetting the United States.

Trump, for his part, called his job a “dangerous profession” and said he believed he has become the target of attacks because of his presidency’s own consequence.

“The people that do the most, the people that make the biggest impact, they are the people that they go after,” Trump told reporters at the White House after being rushed out of the hotel.

In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, he added: “If you’re a consequential president, you’re in much more danger than if you’re not a consequential president.”

As an example, Trump pointed to his war in Iran, a conflict that recent polling shows has contributed to his approval rating falling to around 40%. The president said the war “should’ve been done by previous presidents … but nobody did anything about it.”

At Saturday night’s dinner, people infiltrated the hotel to protest the Iran war and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Two demonstrators, wearing suits, crashed a red carpet photo shoot in the hotel lobby and called for Hegseth to be arrested for war crimes, underscoring how the foreign conflict is fueling the political rhetoric at home.

In the hours after the shooting, Trump remained defiant. In an interview, he said he was determined to show a unified front and not let “one nut” derail his agenda or events.

“I hate it when a sick, bad person,” he told Fox News on Sunday. “I hate someone like that changing the course of our country.”

Balendra Shah, 35, and his three-year-old Rastriya Swatantra Party won a landslide after Gen-Z protests toppled the former government.

Balendra Shah, Nepal’s youngest prime minister, has been sworn in after his party’s landslide election victory following protests led by young people that toppled the government in September.

A rapper-turned politician, Shah was appointed prime minister by President Ram Chandra Paudel on Friday, after his three-year-old Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) won 182 seats in the 275-member parliament in the March 5 vote, the first election since anticorruption Gen Z-led protests in which 76 people were killed.

The 35-year-old wore black trousers, a matching jacket, his signature black Nepali cloth cap and sunglasses as he was sworn in at the President House, in the presence of diplomats and senior government officials.

A day earlier, the new premier, better known as Balen, released his first public statement since the historic vote with a rap song shared on social media.

“Nepal is not scared this time, the heart is full of red blood … Laughter and happiness will reach every household this time,” Shah raps in the song titled Jay Mahakaali (Victory to Goddess Mahakali).

His music video, which features visuals of large crowds cheering him during his election campaign, has racked up nearly three million views.

“The strength of unity is my national power,” his lyrics continue.

A former mayor of the capital, Kathmandu, Shah is Nepal’s first Madhesi premier – people of the southern plains bordering India – to lead the Himalayan nation.

China extended its congratulations to Nepal on the swearing-in of Shah, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Friday, adding it will support its Himalayan neighbour in safeguarding its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Protests had raged over a lack of jobs and endemic corruption in the country of 30 million, where a fifth of the population lives in poverty and an estimated 1,500 people leave the country daily for work abroad.

Although he did not directly participate in the protests, Shah publicly expressed support for the largely Generation Z demonstrators who led the movement.

Political instability has been an uphill challenge for Nepal, with 32 governments taking office since 1990 and none of them completing a five-year term.

The Nepali Congress party, the country’s oldest party, became a distant second group in parliament with just 38 seats. The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) of KP Sharma Oli, who was forced to resign after the Gen Z unrest, controls 25 members.

Former Chief Justice Sushila Karki led the nation through the interim period up to the parliamentary election.

During a cabinet meeting, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani called for strengthening the country’s ability to withstand “hardship” as the US-Israel war on Iran rages.