14 Dec 2016

Syrian government retakes eastern Aleppo

Bill Van Auken

An agreement brokered by the governments of Russia and Turkey to evacuate remaining Islamist militia members and a relatively small number of civilians from the last remaining neighborhood of eastern Aleppo under “rebel” control appeared on Tuesday to have ended four years of fighting in what was previously Syria’s largest city and its commercial capital.
The fall of eastern Aleppo to Syrian government forces, backed by Russian airpower and Shia militias aligned with Iran, marks a turning point in the more than five-year-old war for regime change that was orchestrated by Washington and its regional allies. The enclave within the northern Syrian city represented the last significant population center under “rebel” control.
It also represents a debacle for the US and the other Western powers, along with Saudi Arabia and the other reactionary Sunni oil monarchies, which poured in billions of dollars of arms and funding for the Islamist militias, while funneling in tens of thousands of jihadist fighters from across the Middle East, Europe and beyond to ravage Syria.
This strategic setback for the US imperialist intervention in Syria has exacerbated the bitter internecine conflicts within the US ruling establishment over US foreign policy and particularly Washington’s war drive against Russia in the run-up to Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president next month. Trump had insisted during his presidential campaign that the US should ally itself more closely with Moscow in combating “terrorism” in Syria, a policy strongly opposed by top echelons within the Pentagon and CIA.
The bitter frustration of Washington and its allies was evident Tuesday at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council in which the US, Britain and France denounced the Syrian government and Russia for alleged atrocities in Aleppo. Unconfirmed reports from the city have cited incidents in which pro-government militias have summarily executed prisoners, including civilians, while the death toll from aerial and artillery bombardment has continued to mount.
Both the Syrian government and Russia have denied the reports of massacres, charging that the Western-backed “rebels” had fired on civilians attempting to flee their zones of control and had attempted to use the population as “human shields.”
When the jihadist militias overran the same areas of eastern Aleppo in 2012 and carried out their own summary executions, it should be recalled, these same Western governments remained silent, while the Western media justified these killings by referring to the victims as supporters of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
The US ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, gave the most inflammatory speech to the Council, demanding of Russia whether it was “literally incapable of shame.” She went on to declare that the siege of eastern Aleppo would join “those events in world history that define modern evil, that stain our conscience decades later--Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica and now Aleppo.” Predictably, she left out war crimes carried out by US imperialism and its allies in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Gaza and elsewhere.
Even as Power and her British and French counterparts were railing against Moscow and the Assad government, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin reported that over the previous hour “military activities in east Aleppo have stopped,” and that the Syrian government had consolidated its control over all of Aleppo. He added that an agreement had been reached to evacuate the remaining “rebels” from the city to the western province of Idlib.
This agreement was confirmed by both the Turkish government and by representatives of the Nour al-Din al-Zenki militia. This Islamist outfit was one of the main so-called “moderate” factions backed by the US, backing that included the provision of TOW anti-tank missiles. It gained international notoriety last July when its members posted a video of themselves beheading a wounded 12-year-old Palestinian boy.
At least half of the so-called rebels in Aleppo were made up of the Al Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s main affiliate in Syria, and the Ahrar al-Sham, another Al Qaeda-linked militia which has been designated by the United Nations as a terrorist organization. This latter group also confirmed the ceasefire.
The evacuation agreement was reportedly brokered between the Russian military and Turkish intelligence, with Washington apparently playing no role in the resolution of the crisis in Aleppo. The US had repeatedly blown up previous negotiations with Russia on reaching a cease-fire in the city because of its determination to rescue the Al Qaeda-linked forces upon which its efforts toward regime change have rested. The State Department was compelled to acknowledge Tuesday that it had received no advance notice of the Russian-Turkish agreement, underscoring the crisis gripping US policy in the region.
The speed with which the Islamist forces have collapsed appears to have taken Washington and their other Western and regional state patrons by surprise. In part this was due to ferocity of the Syrian government assault on eastern Aleppo, but it is also attributable to divisions among the various factions that make up the “rebels,” which as recently as last month erupted into armed clashes between them over control and influence.
While the Western governments and media routinely accuse the Assad government of “massacring its own people” and blame it for all of the hundreds of thousands who have died since the war for regime change began in 2011, a report issued by the anti-government Syrian Observatory for Human Rights Tuesday presents a different story.
According to its documented count, 312,000 people have died since the war began. Of these, Syrian government troops and pro-regime militias accounted for 110,000 of the dead. The toll also includes 53,000 members of Syrian anti-government militias and over 54,000 foreign jihadis. The number of civilians killed, according to the group’s report, is 90,000. These figures paint a very different picture than the propaganda narrative advanced by Washington and the various supporters of “human rights” imperialism. It is of a country that has been decimated by imperialist intervention.
This rape of Syria is not about to end. “Even if it is the end of the of the siege in Aleppo, it is not the end of the war in Syria. It will go on,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters in Washington.
Similarly, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, the foreign minister of Qatar, a principal backer of the “rebels,” told Al Jazeera: “If Aleppo falls into the government, into the regime’s hands, this will be the end of the war? I don't think so. We believe that the Syrian people and the Syrian opposition are willing to resist, and to continue their efforts. This will not end the war.”
For its part, the Obama administration, barely one month before it leaves office, has ordered another 200 US special operations troops into Syria, joining 300 on the ground there, ostensibly to prepare Kurdish and allied militias to retake Raqqa, the so-called capital of the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria.
And last week, Obama ordered a waiver of the US Arms Export Control Act with relation to “foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing US military operations to counter terrorism in Syria.” The presidential directive sets the stage for a major escalation of the US arms flow into Syria.
While the initial beneficiaries are the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurdish-dominated militias that serves as the main proxy force in the US-backed offensive against Raqqa, the same ruling can be used to turn on the CIA spigot once again of US arms to Al Qaeda-linked forces fighting the Syrian government.
The fall of Aleppo raises the prospect of the Syrian government, backed by Russia, turning its own attention to Raqqa, even as Turkey’s intervention into Syria, ostensibly to combat ISIS, but largely in opposition to Washington’s Kurdish proxies, has already severely complicated the US offensive. A Russian-backed Syrian drive against the city would raise the real threat of a clash between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

Should India be concerned about the China's Belt and Road Initiative?

Anand Kumar



The Belt and Road Initiative, also known as the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) project, launched by the Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013 is one of the most ambitious projects of recent times. This project, which has both overland and maritime components, intends to link Asia with Europe and Africa. While China claims that this project will further its development goals, India believes that it has a strong political and strategic objective. 

In South Asia, the OBOR has two components. The first one is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that passes through Pakistan, connecting Kashgar in western China with the Gwadar Port in the Balochistan province. China considers this section as the first chapter of the OBOR. Recently, this section has been made operational with the inauguration of Gwadar port. 

The second part of this initiative in South Asia is the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) economic corridor that intends to connect Bangladesh and Myanmar with India. The BCIM also has a maritime component, which includes port infrastructure in Sri Lanka, among other places. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives have extended their support to the Belt and Road Initiative. 

This part of the OBOR is only partly functional. Ports in Sri Lanka are operational, but there is no similar progress in the BCIM corridor. To give momentum to this section Chinese President Xi Jinping recently visited Bangladesh, during which China reportedly gave Bangladesh a credit line worth US$24 billion. This is the highest credit line Bangladesh has received from any foreign country. Bangladesh and Chinese firms also signed trade and investment deals worth US$13.6 billion.

China has done well to link the objectives of the OBOR with the developmental plans of the participating countries. It has managed to dovetail the infrastructure deficit in these countries with the objective of OBOR to create infrastructure that can boost trade and connectivity. This also enables the use of the surplus capacities of the Chinese companies. 

The growing economic relationship between China and Bangladesh has caused concern in India. This development, however, may not necessarily be bad for India. A reduction of poverty in Bangladesh through greater Chinese engagement would be in India’s interest. It will have a two pronged impact. First, it will reduce the influx of illegal Bangladeshi migrants into India. This has been a major problem for India and latest Indian government estimates claim that nearly twenty million Bangladeshis are living illegally in India. Second, the growing economic prosperity of the Bangladeshis might reduce the increasing fundamentalism in the country. OBOR’s intended positive impact on Bangladesh would consequently enhance India’s security as well. 

At present, both India and China are important for Bangladesh. It draws important political and diplomatic support from India when it comes under pressure from the West over its democracy and human rights records, and look to China to boost its economic growth. 

However, the same conclusion cannot be drawn about the CPEC. This concern is for two reasons. First, CPEC passes through Gilgit-Baltistan, a disputed region that India continues to claim as part of its territory. Second, India is also concerned because of the hostile nature of the Pakistani state. While China might suggest that Gwadar is a commercial project, in the past Pakistanis have shown their willingness to convert it into a naval base and use it for activities that are inimical to India. 

The OBOR is actually designed to meet the requirements of the growing Chinese economy, the second largest in the world. In the process, it somewhat strategically constrains not only India but many other countries as well. The Chinese economic engagement in Bangladesh does not arouse much concern in India because Bangladesh has an India-friendly government. It requires both India and China to push forward the country’s interests. It is CPEC that is viewed as a much bigger challenge by Indian policymakers. This has not allowed any amicable solution to be reached on the Gilgit-Baltistan area. In fact, to draw maximum benefit from any Chinese economic initiative Pakistan too needs peace and stability in South Asia. This can only happen if economic development and not hostility towards India comes on the agenda of the Pakistani state. 

13 Dec 2016

Belgium: Ghent University Full-fee Doctoral Scholarships for Developing Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 7th March 2017
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): Belgium
About the Award: These grants take the form of a so called “sandwich” scholarship: the candidate obtains a scholarship for maximum 24 months to work within a span of 48 months on an alternating basis on the PhD at Ghent University (‘North’) and at the university or research centre in a developing country (‘South’). Only for the periods the scholarship holder works at Ghent University the scholarship holder will receive a monthly income. The rest of the PhD research is done in the partner university, for which no funding is provided through this scholarship. For this part of the PhD research students must prove that they will be financed at their home university (e.g. fulltime PhD scholarship or salary).
Eligible Fields of Research: No restrictions are imposed on the field of research, nevertheless  preference will be given to topics that are relevant for development. Relevance for development measures the degree in which the action of development corresponds with the expectations of the beneficiaries, the needs of the country, global priorities and the policies of partners and donors.
The proposals must be submitted by a candidate, a promoter at Ghent University and a supervisor at the local institution.
Type: Doctoral
Eligibility:To be admissible for this call, all of the following requirements must be met:
  • Candidates need to come from – and have the nationality of – a developing country (see country list in link below);
  • There must be a guarantee that the candidate will be able to work on the PhD project at the partner university in a selected developing country (South). This implies that there must be a local PhD supervisor at the partner university or research center.
  • A written  statement is requested from the university authorities stating that the candidate is either a fulltime PhD student or a staff member of this university and will be sufficiently exempted from teaching or other assignments as to be able to fully concentrate on the PhD research in the South.
  • This statement should also mention that the candidate receives a local PhD scholarship or salary when working on the PhD at the partner university in the South.
  • CSC scholarship holders are not eligible to apply for a Doctoral grants for researchers from developing countries. CSC students are referred to the call Cofunding for Chinese candidates PhD candidates holding a CSC scholarship (deadline October 2017).
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship:
  • The value of the scholarship at Ghent University depends on, a.o., the researcher’s family situation and is approximately € 1.958 per month.
  • The Ghent University promoter also receives a bench fee of €15.440 to cover (part of) the operational costs, as well as the travelling costs of the student and both the Ghent University and the local promoter.
Duration of Scholarship: 
  • The candidate obtains a scholarship for maximum 24 months which must be divided into several periods within a span of 4 years.
  • Students are obliged to divide the scholarship into minimum 2 different research stays in Ghent (North) and need to return at least once to their home university (South)  in between (=‘sandwich- schedule’)
  • The candidate must propose at least 12 months of locally funded research stay in the South after the first BOF funded stay in Ghent (North).
  • Due to all practical arrangements (visa, housing, contract, …) students are advised to stay for long periods in Ghent (e.g. 1 year).
  • This scholarship call does not intend to support students who plan only 1 research stay in Ghent.
How to Apply:
The candidate applies to Ghent University jointly with a promoter of Ghent University and a supervisor at the local institution.
The promoter at Ghent University has to fill in a separate document (‘promoter’s advice’) with advice on the candidate, stating the promoter’s opinion on the potential of the candidate as a future researcher.
The Research Council makes a selection of the applications based in part on the recommendations obtained from members of the Council for Development Cooperation. The recommendation is based on:
  • the qualifications of the applicant;
  • the doctoral project;
  • the relevance of the research topic for development;
  • the scientific/scholarly potential of the promoter’s research group(s);
  • the partnership between Ghent University and the local institute;
  • the scientific/scholarly potential of the local institute.
Download the Application Form via the Scholarship Webpage link below
Award Provider: The Beacon Equity Trust.

Indian Government (ICCR) Scholarship for 900 African Undergraduate/Postgraduate Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 15th January 2017 | 
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Field sof Study: Scholarship is available for courses offered at Universities in India
About Scholarship: At the inaugural plenary of the India – Africa Forum Summit held in New Delhi in April 2008, the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India announced the Government of India’s initiative to enhance the academic opportunities for students of African countries in India by increasing the number of scholarships for them to pursue undergraduate, postgraduate and higher courses.
The ICCR – Indian Council for Cultural Relations – implements this scheme on behalf of the Ministry of External Affairs.
Type: undergraduate, post-graduate and higher courses Scholarships
Eligibility
  • Students applying for doctoral/ post doctoral courses should include a synopsis of the proposed area of research.
  • Students wishing to study performing arts should, if possible, enclose video/ audio cassettes of their recorded performances.
  • Candidates must have adequate knowledge of English.
  • ICCR will not entertain applications which are sent to ICCR directly by the students or which are sent by local Embassies/High Commissions in New Delhi.
  • Priority will be given to students who have never studied in India before.
  • No application will be accepted for admission to courses in MBBS/MD or Dentistry/Nursing.
  • Candidates may note that Indian universities/educational institution are autonomous and independent and hence have their own eligibility criteria which have to be fulfilled. Please also note that acceptance of application by the University is also not a guarantee of admission. A scholarship is awarded only when admission is confirmed by ICCR.
  • Student must carry a proper visa. Students should ensure that they get the correct visa from the Indian Embassy/High Commission. Government of India guideline stipulate that if a scholar arrives without proper visa and his/her actual admission at the University/Institute does not materialize, he/she will be deported to his/her country.
  • Before departing for India the scholars should seek a full briefing from the Indian Diplomatic Mission in their country about living conditions in India/the details of scholarship/the type and duration of the course to which he/she is admitted. Scholars should inform the Indian Embassy/High Commission of their travel schedule well in advance so that ICCR can make reception and other arrangements for them.
  • Scholars are advised to bring some money with them to meet incidental expenditures on arrival in India.
  • The scholars who are awarded scholarships should bring with them all documents relating to their qualification in original for verification by the respective college/university at the time of admission
Number of Scholarships: 900
Value of Scholarship: (figure is in Indian currency)
  • Living allowance (Stipend) (Per Month)
  • Undergraduate -5,500 , Postgraduate-6,000 M.Phil / Ph.D 7,000, Post-doctoral Fellow-7,500
  • -House Rent Allowance (Per Month)
  • In Grade 1 cities-5,000 and In other cities-4,500
  • -Contingent Grant (per annum)
  • Undergraduate-5,000, Postgraduate-7,000, M/Phil / Ph.D and M.Tech./ME-12,500, Postdoctoral studies-15,500, Tuition Fee/Other Compulsory Fee-As per actual (excluding refundable amount) –Thesis and dissertation Expenses (Once in entire duration of course)
  • D Scholar-10,000 and for BBA/BCA/MBA/MCA/M.Tech and other course required submission of Project-7.000
  • -Medical Benefits
  • Under the scheme scholars are expected to seek treatment only at medical centre or dispensary attached to universities / Institutes where they enrolled or in the nearest Government hospital (Bill are settled as admissible according to AMA/CGHS norms)
Duration of Scholarship: For the period of study
Eligible Countries: Under this Scheme, the Council offers 900 scholarships to the following African countries:
Algeria, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cape Verde, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Comoros, Congo (Republic of), Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea (concurrent from Nairobi), Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Kenya, Libya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, South Sudan (Republic of), Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sao Tame & Principe, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
To be taken at (country): India
How to Apply
Please read the instruction before filling out the application forms. Please also read the financial terms and conditions. The completed and signed application form which should be typed and not hand written along with other attachments must be e-mailed as a pdf document to the Embassy/ High Commission of India in your country. A hard copy along with 5 photographs should also be delivered to the Embassy/ High commission of India.
Provider: Government of India. The ICCR implements this scheme on behalf of the Ministry of External Affairs.

Magnum Foundation Photography and Social Justice Fellowship 2017. Funded to New York

Application Deadline: 24th January, 2017
Eligible Countries: Early-career photographers and journalists from outside the United States and Western Europe can apply for this program in New York.
To be taken at (country):  CUNY’s Graduate School of Journalism, New York City
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • Applicants must be from regions outside of the United States and Western Europe and should not have had previous opportunities to receive formal training in photography at the University level in the United States or Western Europe.
  • Priority will be given to applicants from regions and communities where freedom of expression is limited.
Selection Process: Photography and Social Justice Fellows are selected by Magnum Foundation through a competitive online application process.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: Fellows will attend weekly online meetings in April and May, followed by two workshops in New York – one in the summer and one the following winter – at CUNY’s Graduate School of Journalism.
Duration of Fellowship: six months
How to Apply: Apply here
Award Provider: Magnum Foundation

Commonwealth Shared Scholarship Scheme (CSSS) at Sheffield Hallam University 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadline: 29th March 2017
Eligible Countries: Developing Commonwealth countries
To be taken at (country): UK
Fields of Study: 
  • MSc International Hospitality and Tourism Management
  • MSc Logistics and Supply Chain Management
  • MSc Advanced Mechanical Engineering
  • MSc Urban Planning
  • MSc Nutrition with Public Health Management
  • MSc Healthcare Education
  • MA Design (Product)
  • MSc Environmental Management
Type: Masters
Eligibility: Applicants must
  • be nationals of (or permanently domiciled in) a Commonwealth developing country (see list below), and not be currently living or studying in a developed country
  • hold a first degree at either first or upper second class level
  • have not previously worked for one year or more in a developed country
  • have not undertaken tertiary studies outside their home country
  • be able to confirm in writing that neither they nor their families would otherwise be able to pay for the proposed course of study
  • return to their home country within one month of the end of their course
Number of Awardees: In 2017/18 Sheffield Hallam University will be allocating three CSSS scholarships.
Value of Scholarship: The CSSS covers tuition fees, living and travel costs for the duration of a full-time taught masters course.
How to Apply: 
Please submit your application via the CSSS electronic application system.
Please include the following documents in your online application
  • a copy of your IELTS certificate (or equivalent)
  • copies of your qualifications
If you do not include these supporting documents, then your application could be delayed. You can add the documents as a PDF to your online application.
Award Provider: Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

The Deep Economic Roots of Italy’s Political Troubles

Mark Weisbrot

Much of the media, and the analysts on which it relies, have provided a misleading narrative on the current political problems in Italy, following Sunday’s “no” vote on a referendum on constitutional changes. It has been lumped together with Trump, Brexit, the upsurge of extreme right-wing, anti-European or racist political parties and “populism,” ― which in much of the media seems to be code for demagogic politicians persuading ignorant masses to vote for stupid things. “Stupid things” here is defined as whatever the establishment media doesn’t like.
Of course we do not have a detailed map of why various Italian voters rejected the proposed constitutional changes. The most obvious explanation is that Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, who has been in power since February 2014, had promised to resign if the people voted no. This mobilized all of his political opponents, including those within his own party.
Those who wanted to defend Renzi had a hard sell. He was not offering a future for the country, and especially for the young people who most overwhelmingly voted “no.”  Unemployment is at 11.6 percent, and youth unemployment is more than 36 percent. Of the unemployed, most are long-term unemployed, having been out of work for more than a year. And there are big regional disparities, with parts of the generally less-well-off South having been harder hit since the world recession.
The IMF projects that the Italian economy will not return to its 2007 level of GDP ― what the country produced nine years ago ― until the mid-2020s. In other words, nearly two “lost decades,” as the Fund itself noted. This is really bad, by any modern historical comparison.
In these circumstances, it is not surprising that voters across the political spectrum rejected sweeping constitutional changes that would have given much more power to the executive. The split in the electorate did not fit the standard media narrative, distilled from Brexit, Trump, etc., of the young, educated, and pro-European on one side (“yes”) versus xenophobic, populist, uneducated and anti-European on the other (“no”).  Young people in particular had a reason to vote overwhelmingly “no”: they face a dismal future under the current regime.
In one important sense there are similarities between the rise of Trump and the fall of Renzi. Both are the result of the long-term failure of neoliberal policies implemented by the major political actors. In both cases, the center-left lost a big part of its working and middle-class base because it was jointly responsible for this failure.
In the US, the neoliberal era was launched “big league” by Ronald Reagan, but Bill Clinton became a co-owner by bringing us NAFTA, the WTO, financial deregulation, and other neoliberal structural reforms that have done permanent damage.
In Italy there have also been neoliberal reforms since the 1980s, but the most devastating was adopting the euro in 1999. Now you might think that nothing could be worse than having to say the words “President Trump,” but adopting the euro put Italians in an even worse jam. They lost control over their most important macroeconomic policies (monetary, fiscal, and exchange rate), and gave it to some really wrong people in the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Eurogroup of Finance Ministers, and the IMF.
There have been some positive changes in the eurozone since 2012, when the European Central Bank finally decided to act like a normal central bank and effectively guarantee the bonds of the largest member countries (unlike for Greece, where it insisted, together with the rest of the European authorities, on inflicting further brutal punishment). And the ECB’s quantitative easing, begun in March of 2015, was a major step forward. It has played a significant role in the recovery ― however weak ― of the eurozone, including Italy, which finally emerged from a three-year recession in 2015.
But the European authorities are still committed to a program that promises another lost decade of mass unemployment, possibly undermining the eurozone and European Union, as inevitably angry voters look for solutions or scapegoats. The elite consensus is that the keys to recovery are in “structural reforms” ― deregulation of various markets, especially labor; reduced real wages; and “internal devaluation.” The theory is that such reforms increase efficiency and competitiveness and will allow for economic recovery even as the government cuts pensions, health care, and other social spending in order to pay down debt and please the “confidence fairies.”
Unfortunately, Renzi is part of this consensus, voluntarily or otherwise.  His Jobs Act, which took effect nearly two years ago, is typical of these structural reforms. It has gutted employee protections and made it easier to fire and lay off workers, while promising to increase long-term employment relative to temporary contracts. But the opposite has happened so far.
To recreate an economy that would give young Italians a future without having to leave the country, the country would have to leave the euro. Or, alternatively, elect a government that had a credible threat of leaving and was tough enough ― presumably with allied governments in other eurozone countries ―to force the eurozone authorities to change course.  But the options currently on the table for whatever government emerges from the current crisis are looking pretty grim.

Entrenching Capitalist Agriculture in India Under the Guise of Development

Colin Todhunter

Washington’s long-term plan has been to restructure indigenous agriculture across the world and tie it to an international system of trade based on export-oriented mono-cropping, commodity production for the international market and indebtedness to international financial institutions (IMF/World Bank).
This result has been the creation of food surplus and food deficit areas, of which the latter have become dependent on agricultural imports and strings-attached aid. Food deficits in the Global South mirror food surpluses in the North. Whether through IMF-World Bank structural adjustment programmes, as occurred in Africa, trade agreements like NAFTA and its impact on Mexico or, more generally, deregulated global trade rules, the outcome has been similar: the devastation of traditional, indigenous agriculture for the benefit of transnational agribusiness and the undermining of both regional and global food security.
In the 1990s, the IMF and World Bank wanted India to shift hundreds of millions out of agriculture. India was advised to dismantle its state-owned seed supply system, reduce subsidies and run down public agriculture institutions and offer incentives for the growing of cash crops. As the largest recipient of loans from the World Bank in the history of that institution, India has been quite obliging and has been opening up its agriculture to foreign corporations.
Food and trade policy analyst Devinder Sharma describes the situation:
“India is on fast track to bring agriculture under corporate control… Amending the existing laws on land acquisition, water resources, seed, fertilizer, pesticides and food processing, the government is in overdrive to usher in contract farming and encourage organized retail. This is exactly as per the advice of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as well as the international financial institutes.”
Hundreds of thousands of farmers have taken their lives since 1997 with many more experiencing economic distress or leaving farming as a result of debt, a shift to (GM) cash crops and overall economic ‘liberalisation’. This is a result of the plan to make agriculture financially non-viable for India’s small farms and enable the World Bank model.
The aim is to replace current structures with a system of chemical-intensive, industrial-scale agriculture suited to the needs of Western agribusiness, food processing and retail concerns. This is to be facilitated by the World Bank’s ‘Enabling the Business of Agriculture’ strategy, which entails opening up markets to Western agribusiness and their fertilisers, pesticides, weedicides and patented seeds. What we are seeing is the further commercialisation of rural India designed to entrench the forces of capitalist agriculture under U.S. leadership and its transnational agribusiness corporations.
We need look no further than the impact of chemical-intensive farming in Punjab to see some of the impacts. The application of synthetic pesticides have turned the state into a ‘cancer epicentre‘. In Maharashtra, the growing of cash crops is heavily water intensive and is placing a massive stain on water resources. As a whole, according to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, India is losing 5.3 million tonnes of soil every year because of the indiscreet and excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides. Soil is becoming degraded and lacking in minerals, which in turn contributes to malnutrition. Across the world, the corporate-led, chemical-laden Green Revolution has entailed massive social, health and environmental costs. In an open letter written in 2006 to policy makers in India, farmer and campaigner Bhaskar Save summarised some of the impacts of this model of agriculture in India.
As a mirror image of what has happened in other countries (as described by Michel Chossudovsky in ‘The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order‘), the Indian economy is being opened-up through the concurrent displacement of a pre-existing (very) productive system for the benefit of foreign corporations. Despite the rhetoric, jobs are not being created in any substantial number but hundreds of thousands of livelihoods are being destroyed to enable these companies to gain a financially lucrative foothold (see this and this).
It begs the question: are we to see a system of food and agriculture based on the U.S. model taking hold in India? The fact that U.S. agriculture now employs a tiny fraction of the population serves as a stark reminder for what is in store for Indian farmers. Giant agribusiness companies (whose business model in the US is based on overproduction and huge taxpayer subsidies) rake in huge profits, while depressed farmer incomes, poverty and higher retail prices become the norm.
The long-term plan is for an overwhelmingly urbanised India with a fraction of the population left in farming working on contracts for large suppliers and Wal-Mart-type supermarkets that offer a largely monoculture diet of highly processed, denutrified, genetically altered food based on crops soaked with toxic chemicals and grown in increasingly degraded soils based on an unsustainable model of agriculture that is less climate/drought resistant, less diverse and which was never designed to achieve food security. The bottom line was always geopolitical interest and commercial gain.
This model of agriculture produces bad foodcreates food deficit regions, destroys healthimpoverishes small farms, leads to less diverse diets and less nutritious food, is less productive than small farms, creates water scarcitydestroys soil and fuels/benefits from World Bank/WTO policies that create dependency and debt.
The number of jobs created in India between 2005 and 2010 was 2.7 million (the years of high GDP growth). According to International Business Times, 15 million enter the workforce every year. And data released by the Labour Bureau shows that in 2015, the trend towards jobless ‘growth’ had finally arrived in India. A speech this week by the governor of the Bank of England sets out a scenario where 15 million jobs in the U.K. could eventually be lost due to automation.
So where are the jobs going to come from in India to cater for hundreds of millions of agricultural and rural-based workers who are to be displaced from the land or those whose livelihoods will be destroyed as transnational corporations move in and seek to capitalise small-scale village-level industries that currently employ tens of millions?
If we really want to feed the world, assist poor farmers in low income countries and contribute to effective and inclusive social and economic development at the same time, we should address the political, economic and structural issues laid out here which fuel poverty and hunger. Policy makers should also follow the recommendations of various reports that conclude agro-ecological approaches and/or low input farming strategies are more suitable for these countries.
Any genuinely inclusive programme of social and economic development must start in the countryside where most people reside. Instead of trying to empty rural India of most of its population and eradicate small farms, development should be centred on small farms that currently form the backbone of food production in the country, despite the adverse policy framework they are forced to cope with.
An alternative model to the current one would involve protecting indigenous agriculture from rigged global trade and corrupt markets and a shift to sustainable, localised agriculture which grows a diverse range of crops and offers a healthy diet to the public (alongside appropriate price and/or income support and infrastructure).
It is vital to invest in and prioritise small farms. They are after all, despite the commonly-held perception, more productive per unit land area than large-scale industrial farms. Moreover, again contrary to the popular belief, smallholder farms feed most of the world, not industrial-scale farming. Whatever measures are used, small farms tend to outperform large industrial farms, despite the latter’s access to various expensive technologies.
Let us turn to what food and agriculture researcher and analyst Peter Rosset said in 2000 to fully appreciate the vital importance of the contribution that small farms make to food security:
“In monocultures, you have rows of one crop with bare dirt between them… It’s going to be invaded and taken advantage of by… weeds. So, if that bare dirt is invaded, the farmer has to invest labor or spray herbicides or pull a tractor through to deal with those weeds. Large farmers generally have monocultures because they are easier to fully mechanize.”
He explains that smaller farms tend to have crop mixtures. Between the rows of one crop there will be another crop, or several other crops. The smaller farm with the more complex farming system therefore gets more total production per unit area, because they’re using more of the available niche space.
Rosset adds:
“It might look like the large farm is more productive because you’re getting more, say, soybeans per acre. But you’re not getting the other five, six, ten or twelve products that the smaller farmer is getting. And when you add all of those together, they come to a much greater total agricultural output per unit area than the larger farms are getting.”
Also, with small farms, there’s recycling of nutrients and biomass within the system, which helps makes it more efficient and productive.
The smaller the size of the farms, the easier it is to have more complex systems of crop production:
“As farms get very large, labour costs and logistics become prohibitive, so farmers switch to machinery, and machinery requires simpler systems. With machines, you can’t achieve the same level of complexity and therefore the level of productivity that you can with a smaller size.”
India’s wrong-headed development model is to eradicate small farms in a country dominated by small farms. Under World Bank instructions, it involves displacing the rural population and moving them to cities to do non-existent jobs. What should be happening is investing in and prioritising small farms (and associated local food production activities) that sustain livelihoods and which keep food and money in local economies. Corporate imperialism, often under the guise of ‘foreign direct investment’, sucks money from India and merely swells the profit margins of foreign capital, which captures and dominates markets for narrow self-interest, with often devastating effects. We have seen this happen with Monsanto, its monopolisation of cotton and is exorbitant ‘royalty fees’ placed on its GM seeds and the mass suicide of farmers resulting from the debt entailed.
In finishing, let us return to Peter Rosset who notes that the post-war economic ‘miracles’ of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan were each fuelled initially by internal markets centred in rural areas. He argues that this was real triumph for ‘bubble-up’ economics, in which re-distribution of productive assets to the poorest strata of society created the economic basis for rapid development.
It stands in stark contrast to the failure of ‘trickle down’ neoliberalism to achieve much of anything: in India’s case, debt, dispossession and suffering.
So, we might ask, why isn’t such a model of development being pursued? The glaringly obvious answer is that low input, sustainable models of food production and notions of local or regional self-reliance do not provide opportunities to global agribusiness to sell their products and cash in on the vision of a trillion-dollar corporate hijack of India.