Connect with us

News

Ships shun Red Sea and Suez Canal despite reduced Houthi menace

Published

on

Ships shun Red Sea and Suez Canal despite reduced Houthi menace

US and UK air strikes have reduced the risk to vessels from attacks by Yemen’s Houthis in the Red Sea but there is little prospect of many shipping companies making a swift return to the Suez Canal, security experts and a senior executive have said.

They made the assessment during a slowdown in successful missile launches by the Houthis, who claim to be targeting commercial ships in solidarity with Gaza’s Palestinians.

The militant group has launched only four notable attacks on vessels since January 26 — one on January 31, two on February 6 and one on February 12. In all but the most recent attack, the missiles failed even to hit the vessel.

The frequency of Houthi attacks has fallen significantly since US and UK forces began nearly daily strikes on the group’s missile launch sites and aerial and sea drone capabilities on January 11.

The Houthis, who have backing from Iran, launched numerous attacks in November, December and January, including seizing the Galaxy Leader on November 19 and taking the car carrier and its crew to a Yemeni port. On January 26, they started a serious fire on the Marlin Luanda, a fuel tanker operating on behalf of commodities trader Trafigura.

Advertisement

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

The recent lull prompted UK defence secretary Grant Shapps to tell the House of Commons last week that attacks on vessels had become “less sophisticated and more sporadic” following the bombing campaign.

However, the continued reluctance of many shipping companies to sail through waters off Yemen has raised questions about what change in conditions might prompt shipping companies to start braving the area, which is the gateway to the strategically vital Suez Canal.

They have instead been using the much longer and more expensive route between Europe and Asia via the Cape of Good Hope.

Jon Gahagan, president of maritime security company Sedna Global, said the campaign of air strikes seemed to have “degraded” the Houthis’ ability to launch frequent attacks.

Advertisement

But he added: “While the tempo of attacks has fallen, the threat to shipping remains.”

Jakob Larsen, head of maritime safety and security for Bimco, an international shipowners’ association, said he doubted it was “realistic” the US-UK coalition would entirely remove the Houthi threat.

“We’re concerned that it’s still possible for the Houthis to attack and hit ships,” Larsen said. “Although their capability to do so has been reduced, most shipping lines recognise that the threat has not been removed or neutralised.”

Houthi conflict threatens ocean trade through crucial shipping canal. Map showing shipping route from Shanghai to Rotterdam via the Suez Canal and Cape of Good Hope. A typical shipping journey from Shanghai to Rotterdam via the Cape of Good Hope takes up to two weeks longer than using the Suez Canal

According to figures from Clarksons, the London-based maritime business, in the week to February 5, arrivals by container ships in the Gulf of Aden were 92 per cent down on the average for the first half of December.

Car carrier arrivals were down 91 per cent, while traffic overall through the region was down 73 per cent. The figures show no drift back towards the Red Sea.

Even the relatively modest recent attacks have prompted new diversions. France’s CMA CGM, the world’s third-largest container shipping line, announced on February 5 that it was suspending transits of the region after missiles were launched at a ship operating one of its services. The line had been one of the few big international container lines still sailing through the area.

Advertisement

The missiles landed harmlessly in the sea, as did those launched on February 6 at the Star Nasia, a carrier for dry bulk commodities. A missile launched on February 6 at the Morning Tide, a general cargo ship, flew over the ship’s deck but caused only minor damage. Reports on February 12 said missiles were fired at a Greek-owned bulk carrier in two separate incidents and that one hit.

Jan Rindbo, chief executive of Norden, a Copenhagen-based operator of nearly 500 dry bulk carriers and tankers for oil products, said only a long pause in attacks would prompt shipowners to re-examine Red Sea options.

“It would take a prolonged period of stability with no attacks in the region and then we’ll start to make those assessments again.”

Larsen pointed out that certain shipping companies were continuing to use the Suez route. Among the companies that have stuck to the traditional routes are some Chinese container lines, which appear to be confident the close links between China and the Houthis’ backers in Iran make them immune from attack.

“If the Houthis say they would no longer attack shipping, I think a lot of shipping lines will resume the transit through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea,” Larsen said.

Advertisement

Another possibility, he added, was that the attacks might cease, without a clear signal from the Houthis. “You’ll see more and ships transiting through, but a little later only,” Larsen said of such a scenario. “It will be a gradual increase.”

Gahagan, however, said the Houthis still wanted to strike international shipping, attributing the decline in attacks partly to a reduction in vessels with links to Israel, the UK and the US in waters off Yemen.

The risk remained that coalition forces would miss a Houthi missile fired at a ship and it would cause serious damage, he added.

“Unfortunately, as with all incidents of terrorism, the Houthis only have to be successful once, while the coalition naval force and other navies in the region have to be vigilant all the time,” Gahagan said.

Additional reporting by John Paul Rathbone

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Published

on

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A moderately strong, 5.1-magnitude earthquake struck in the North Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 5:45 a.m. Pacific time about 40 miles west of Petrolia, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Advertisement

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 6:03 a.m. Pacific time. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 8:01 a.m. Pacific time.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

News

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Published

on

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Xavier Becerra, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, and Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, shake hands while arriving for a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco in April.

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America

SAN FRANCISCO — The primary election for California governor is too close to call, with vote counting continuing Wednesday. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican business executive Steve Hilton lead the field with Democrat Tom Steyer in third place.

In California’s unusual primary system, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The top two candidates then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party. This year, voters had 60 names for governor to choose from.

Advertisement

The winner will lead the country’s most populous state, where leaders often take on national political prominence. Incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom is at his two-term limit and could be a Democratic contender for president.

Becerra, former Health and Human Services secretary under President Joe Biden, pitched himself to voters as an experienced political leader who isn’t afraid of President Trump, but his lead caps one of the most surprising and dramatic comebacks in recent state political history. As recently as April, polls were showing Becerra — also a former member of Congress and California attorney general — languishing in single digits in a crowded field.

In his remarks at his watch party in Los Angeles, Becerra noted his underdog status.

“Here in Hollywood’s hometown, we love a good underdog success story,” he said, drawing parallels between his campaign and his immigrant parents’ success story in California. “Guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up. Never stopped putting one foot in front of the other. Never stopped believing in the beacon-like goodness of California. And thankfully, neither did you.”

Hilton is a former Fox News commentator who also served as a political adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron. He was endorsed by President Trump in April, helping him to pull ahead of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major Republican in the race. Hilton has campaigned on the idea that California needs change after 16 years under total Democratic control.

Advertisement

The race is narrowing down after a tumultuous campaign

At his watch party in Huntington Beach, the British-born candidate — who became an American citizen five years ago — said it was the “honor of his lifetime” to receive over 1 million votes so far.

“Change is coming to California and it’s long overdue,” Hilton said. “We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good. It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction.”

Democratic billionaire activist Steyer spent more than $213 million of his own money to boost his candidacy and push a progressive, populist message. While he was trailing Becerra and Hilton on Tuesday night, he said at his watch party in San Francisco that he remains confident he can close the gap in the days ahead.

“Together, we’ve scared the hell out of the corporate interests used to getting their way,” Steyer said. “It might take some time to figure out where this is going. We’re going to wait until every ballot is counted. We’re gonna give democracy a time to work. And we know we finished really strong.”

The early results are not certain to hold, in part because of unusual voting patterns in this primary election: Ballot-tracking data heading into Tuesday evening showed that Republicans were more likely to vote early by mail, while Democratic voters in this deep-blue state held onto their mail-in ballots or chose to vote in person. That’s the reverse of recent elections, which saw more Democrats voting by mail and Republicans tending to vote in person on Election Day.

Advertisement

The uncertainty on election night capped a race that remained crowded and unsettled to the end. To some extent, the race was defined by who wasn’t running.

Some of the state’s most high-profile Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and California Attorney General Rob Bonta — all passed on a potential bid to succeed Newsom.

The race was disrupted in April when then-U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor imploded amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Swalwell resigned from Congress shortly after the accusations surfaced and has denied assault allegations.

Swalwell had been gaining in polls and racking up high-profile endorsements, and his exit seemed to primarily benefit Becerra, who had been stuck in single digits in many polls. Ultimately, it quieted fears among Democrats who worried that the messy Democratic field could result in Bianco and Hilton winning the top spots in the June primary.

Marisa Lagos covers California politics at KQED and co-hosts the Political Breakdown show and podcast.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending