An oil spill off the coast of Borneo on Saturday has killed at least four fisherman, with hundreds reporting health issues after the spill. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has further legitimised his stance on Israel by saying that the country has the right to its own land. Meanwhile, China’s constitutional amendment abolishing term limits for Xi Jinping might actually be completely misunderstood.
Oil spill emergency
“Indonesia has declared a state of emergency to help stop a deadly oil spill spreading off the coast of the island of Borneo,” reports the BBC. While it is not clear what caused the spill, the risk of fires is increasing.
“The Balikpapan environmental agency has warned members of the local community to avoid any activities “that could spark fires”. The spill, which threatens to further contaminate the fishing waters along the coast, currently covers an area of 12 sq km.”
Health officials have said that hundreds of people in the area have been having difficulty breathing, and have been experiencing nausea and vomiting since the oil fires began. Four people have died because of the spill.
“Issuing a state of emergency allows for the release of government funds to aid local authorities in their efforts to contain the spill and for any subsequent clean-up operations.”
“Balikpapan, which is in East Kalimantan province, is home to a large oil refinery belonging to the state-owned company Pertamina. As investigations continue into how the oil escaped into the sea, Pertamina says its underwater pipeline has not leaked.”
Pertamina has denied responsibility. An official from the refinery issued a statement saying the spill was marine fuel oil, not crude oil.
Indonesian fisherman will be taking part in a protest Wednesday to hold the government and Pertamina to account for the deadly spill.
A historical change in stance
Mohammed bin Salman has said that Israelis “have the right to have their own land”, and that formal relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel could be beneficial to both.
The tone marks a total shift in Saudi foreign policy: the Arab country used to oppose Israel’s right to exist.
“Saudi Arabia and Israel still have no formal relations, and Saudi leaders have historically criticized the Jewish state for its treatment of the Palestinians and for limiting access to Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. But the kingdom’s stance toward Israel has changed with the rise of Prince Mohammed, who is 32 and is seeking to overhaul Saudi Arabia’s economy and its place in the world,” writes Ben Hubbard in the New York Times.
“Instead of seeing Israel as an enemy, Prince Mohammed has come to view the Jewish state as an attractive regional economic and technological hub as well as a potential partner in the kingdom’s cold war with Iran. And part of that is recognizing Israel’s right to exist, preferably in the context of a peace deal with the Palestinians.”
The thaw in relations was seen last week, when an Air India flight was allowed to fly through Saudi airspace to land in Israel for the first time.
“Prince Mohammed also played down the extent of anti-Semitism in Saudi society, which has historically been reinforced by government clerics and textbooks,” writes Hubbard.
The West is wrong
“In the West, government accountability is closely identified with democratic elections. In China, it is a function of how – and how well – the government responds to and protects the needs and interests of the people,” writes Keyu Jin in Project Syndicate, in reference to media outrage at Xi Jinping’s lifting of term limits.
“Term limits are little more than an arbitrary constraint, which are not needed to ensure competent and responsive government in China. In fact, term limits could do just the opposite, cutting short the tenure of effective leaders, leading to policy disruptions, or even leading to political chaos,” Jin writes.
“To be sure, term limits have their value. Deng Xiaoping added them to the Chinese constitution after the Cultural Revolution, in order to prevent the recurrence of chaotic and brutal one-man rule. But the new generation of Chinese leaders is not just well-educated, but also well aware of international norms and standards. Unlike the ideological diehards of the past, they can be expected to behave rationally, intelligently, and responsibly.
In this context, the removal of term limits will enable Xi to sustain a complex reform process that will take years to complete. It will not make him president for life, nor deliver him unbridled and undivided power,” writes Jin.
A strong leader is not necessarily an autocratic leader, he writes, claiming that Xi is committed to overcoming obstacles to his initiatives.
“This is not the first time that Western media have adopted a perspective on Chinese political developments that runs completely counter to the prevailing view in China itself. Over the last few years, Xi’s anti-corruption drive has raised many eyebrows in the West, where it is often regarded as just a means for Xi to remove would-be political rivals. But the almost two million officials who have been indicted surely weren’t all Xi’s opponents. Among Chinese, the effort to root out corruption has boosted respect and support for Xi.”
“In the West, government accountability is closely identified with democratic elections. In China, it is a function of how – and how well – the government responds to and protects the needs and interests of the people. Given the sheer complexity of modern China – not to mention the paramount need for the government to continue the country’s progress toward high-income status – success may require leaders to stay in place longer than initially expected. But, if recent history is any guide, the recent changes will contribute to making China’s political and economic system increasingly stable – without undermining accountability,” she writes.