Fukushima: a Lurking Global Catastrophe?

Robert Hunziker

Year over year, ever since 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown grows worse and worse, an ugly testimonial to the inherent danger of generating electricity via nuclear fission, which produces isotopes, some of the most deadly poisonous elements on the face of the planet.

Fukushima Diiachi has been, and remains, one of the world’s largest experiments, i.e., what to do when all hell breaks lose aka The China Syndrome. “Scientists still don’t have all the information they need for a cleanup that the government estimates will take four decades and cost ¥8 trillion. It is not yet known if the fuel melted into or through the containment vessel’s concrete floor, and determining the fuel’s radioactivity and location is crucial to inventing the technology to remove the melted fuel,” (Emi Urabe, Fukushima Fuel-Removal Quest Leaves Trail of Dead Robots, The Japan Times, Feb. 17, 2017).

As it happens, “”inventing technology” is experimental stage stuff. Still, there are several knowledgeable sources that believe the corium, or melted core, will never be recovered. Then what?

According to a recent article, “Potential Global Catastrophe of the Reactor No. 2 at Fukushima Daiichi,” d/d Feb. 11, 2017 by Dr. Shuzo Takemoto, professor, Department of Geophysics, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University: The Fukushima nuclear facility is a global threat on level of a major catastrophe.

Meanwhile, the Abe administration dresses up Fukushima Prefecture for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, necessitating a big fat question: Who in their right mind would hold Olympics in the neighborhood of three out-of-control nuclear meltdowns that could get worse, worse, and still worse? After all, that’s the pattern over the past 5 years; it gets worse and worse. Dismally, nobody can possibly know how much worse by 2020. Not knowing is the main concern about holding Olympics in the backyard of a nuclear disaster zone, especially as nobody knows what’s happening. Nevertheless and resolutely, according to PM Abe and the IOC, the games go on.

Along the way, it’s taken Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) nearly six years to finally get an official reading of radiation levels of the meltdown but in only one unit. Analysis of Unit #2 shows radiation levels off-the-charts at 530 Sieverts, or enough to kill within minutes, illustrative of why it is likely impossible to decommission units 1, 2, and 3. No human can withstand that exposure and given enough time, frizzled robots are as dead as a doornail.

“A short-term, whole-body dose of over 10 sieverts would cause immediate illness and subsequent death within a few weeks, according to the World Nuclear Association” (Emi Urabe, Fukushima Fuel-Removal Quest Leaves Trail of Dead Robots, The Japan Times, Feb. 17, 2017).

Although Fukushima’s similar to Chernobyl Exclusion Zone in some respects, where 1,000 square miles has been permanently sealed off, Fukushima’s different, as the Abe administration is already repopulating portions of Fukushima. If they don’t repopulate, how can the Olympics be held with food served from Fukushima and including events like baseball held in Fukushima Prefecture?

Without question, an old saw – what goes around comes around – rings true when it comes to radiation, and it should admonish (but it doesn’t phase ‘em) strident nuclear proponents, claiming Fukushima is an example of how safe nuclear power is “because there are so few, if any, deaths” (not true). As Chernobyl clearly demonstrates: Over time, radiation cumulates in bodily organs. For a real life example of how radiation devastates human bodies, consider this fact: 453,391 children with bodies ravaged, none born at the time of the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, today receive special healthcare because of Chernobyl radiation-related medical problems like cancer, digestive, respiratory, musculoskeletal, eye disease, blood disease, congenital malformation, and genetic abnormalities. Their parents were children in the Chernobyl zone in 1986 (Source: Chernobyl’s Legacy: Kids With Bodies Ravaged by Disaster, USA Today, April 17, 2016).

Making matters worse yet, Fukushima Diiachi sets smack dab in the middle of earthquake country, which defines the boundaries of Japan. In that regard, according to Dr. Shuzo Takemoto, professor, Department of Geophysics, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University: “The problem of Unit 2… If it should encounter a big earth tremor, it will be destroyed and scatter the remaining nuclear fuel and its debris, making the Tokyo metropolitan area uninhabitable. The Tokyo Olympics in 2020 will then be utterly out of the question,” (Shuzo Takemoto, Potential Global Catastrophe of the Reactor No. 2 at Fukushima Daiichi, February 11, 2017).

Accordingly, the greater Tokyo metropolitan area remains threatened for as long as Fukushima Diiachi is out of control, which could be for generations, not years. Not only that, Gee-Whiz, what if the big one hits during the Olympics? After all, earthquakes come unannounced. Regrettably, Japan has had 564 earthquakes the past 365 days. It’s an earthquake-ridden country. Japan sits at the boundary of 4 tectonic plates shot through with faults in zigzag patterns, very lively and of even more concern, the Nankai Trough, the candidate for the big one, sits nearly directly below Tokyo. On a geological time scale, it may be due for action anytime within the next couple of decades. Fukushima Prefecture’s not that far away.

Furthermore, the Fukushima Diiachi nuclear complex is tenuous, at best: “All four buildings were structurally damaged by the original earthquake some five years ago and by the subsequent hydrogen explosions so should there be an earthquake greater than seven on the Richter scale, it is very possible that one or more of these structures could collapse, leading to a massive release of radiation as the building falls on the molten core beneath.” (Helen Caldicott: The Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown Continues Unabated, Independent Australia, February 13, 2017).

Complicating matters further, the nuclear site is located at the base of a mountain range. Almost daily, water flows from the mountain range beneath the nuclear plant, liquefying the ground, a sure-fire setup for cascading buildings when the next big one hits. For over five years now, radioactive water flowing out of the power plant into the Pacific carries isotopes like cesium 134 and cesium 137, strontium 90, tritium, plutonium americium and up to 100 more isotopes, none of which are healthy for marine or human life, quite the opposite in fact as those isotopes slowly cumulate, and similar to the Daleks of Doctor Who fame (BBC science fiction series, 1963-present) “Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!”

Isotopes bio-concentrate up the food chain from algae to crustaceans to small fish to big fish to bigger humans. Resultant cancer cells incubate anytime from two years to old age, leading to death. That’s what cancer does; it kills.

Still, the fact remains nobody really knows for sure how directly Fukushima Diiachi radiation affects marine life, but how could it be anything other than bad? After all, it’s a recognized fact that radiation cumulates over time; it’s tasteless, colorless, and odorless as it cumulates in the body, whether in fish or further up the food chain in humans. It travels!

An example is Cesium 137 one of the most poisonous elements on the planet. One gram of Cesium 137 the size of a dime will poison one square mile of land for hundreds of years. That’s what’s at stake at the world’s most rickety nuclear plant, and nobody can do anything about it. In fact, nobody knows what to do. They really don’t.

When faced with the prospect of not knowing what to do, why not bring on the Olympics? That’s pretty good cover for a messy situation, making it appear to hundreds of thousands of attendees, as well as the world community “all is well.” But, is it? Honestly….

The Fukushima nuclear meltdown presents a special problem for the world community. Who knows what to believe after PM Abe lied to the IOC to get the Olympics; see the following headline from Reuters News: “Abe’s Fukushima ‘Under Control’ Pledge to Secure Olympics Was a Lie: Former PM,” Reuters, Sept. 7, 2016.

“Abe gave the assurances about safety at the Fukushima plant in his September 2013 speech to the International Olympic Committee to allay concerns about awarding the Games to Tokyo. The comment met with considerable criticism at the time… Mr. Abe’s ‘under control remark, that was a lie,’ Koizumi (former PM) now 74 and his unruly mane of hair turned white, told a news conference where he repeated his opposition to nuclear power,” Ibid.

As such, a very big conundrum precedes the 2020 games: How can the world community, as well as Olympians, believe anything the Abe administration says about the safety and integrity of Fukushima?

Still, the world embraces nuclear power more so than ever before as it continues to expand and grow. Sixty reactors are currently under construction in fifteen countries. In all, 160 power reactors are in the planning stage and 300 more have been proposed. Pro-Nuke-Heads claim Fukushima proves how safe nuclear power is because there are so few, if any, deaths, as to be inconsequential. That’s a boldfaced lie.

Here’s one of several independent testimonials on deaths because of Fukushima Diiachi radiation exposure (many, many, many more testimonials are highlighted in prior articles, including USS Ronald Reagan sailors on humanitarian rescue missions at the time): “It’s a real shame that the authorities hide the truth from the whole world, from the UN. We need to admit that actually many people are dying. We are not allowed to say that, but TEPCO employees also are dying. But they keep mum about it,” Katsutaka Idogawa, former mayor of Futaba (Fukushima Prefecture), Fukushima Disaster: Tokyo Hides Truth as Children Die, Become Ill from Radiation – Ex-Mayor, RT News, April 21, 2014.

Western Sahara: An albatross On African Union’s Conscience

Nizar Visram

AT the 28th Summit meeting of the African Union (AU) held in Addis Ababa on 30 January 2017, Morocco’s readmission to the continental body generated heated discussion. At the end of the day the Kingdom of Morocco managed to win over sufficient member states on its side and it was allowed to join the fold unconditionally.Summit meeting of the African Union (AU) held in Addis Ababa on 30 January 2017, Morocco’s readmission to the continental body generated heated discussion. At the end of the day the Kingdom of Morocco managed to win over sufficient member states on its side and it was allowed to join the fold unconditionally.

Morocco left the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), precursor to the AU, in 1984 after the OAU recognised the right to self-determination and independence for the people of the  Western Sahara and admitted the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) that was proclaimed in 1976 by the Sahrawi people’s Polisario Front.and admitted the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) that was proclaimed in 1976 by the Sahrawi people’s Polisario Front.

It was in keeping with the OAU principle not to recognise the occupation of any part of the continent that it admitted the SADR to its membership. While SADR claimed sovereignty over the  Western Sahara territory, Morocco saw it as an integral part of its own territory. Thus, rather than accept SADR’s independence, Morocco left the OAU.territory, Morocco saw it as an integral part of its own territory. Thus, rather than accept SADR’s independence, Morocco left the OAU.

Since then Morocco has refused to join the AU unless the organisation withdraws the membership of SADR.

The area of  Western Sahara has been occupied by Morocco since 1976 when Spain pulled out and relinquished its claim as a colonial power over the territory. This former Spanish colony was then annexed by Morocco. Saharawi people, who fought Spanish colonial oppression, were now forced to fight Moroccan occupation. They conducted resistance struggle under the leadership of Polisario Front until 1991 when the United Nations (UN) brokered a truce.has been occupied by Morocco since 1976 when Spain pulled out and relinquished its claim as a colonial power over the territory. This former Spanish colony was then annexed by Morocco. Saharawi people, who fought Spanish colonial oppression, were now forced to fight Moroccan occupation. They conducted resistance struggle under the leadership of Polisario Front until 1991 when the United Nations (UN) brokered a truce.

A UN-supervised referendum on independence of  Western Sahara was promised in 1992 but it was aborted by Morocco. A UN peacekeeping mission that was to organise the referendum has remained in the territory ever since, while Morocco built a 2,700km-long sand wall, with landmines.was promised in 1992 but it was aborted by Morocco. A UN peacekeeping mission that was to organise the referendum has remained in the territory ever since, while Morocco built a 2,700km-long sand wall, with landmines.

SADR, headed by the Polisario Front, has been recognized by the AU as the legitimate government in exile. For decades Morocco made futile attempts to delegitimize SADR and Polisario. Eventually it applied to rejoin AU without precondition.

AU member states argued that Morocco should not be readmitted unless it accepts the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which states that, “All peoples have the right to self-determination; and by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status”

Morocco was also asked to accept unconditionally the OAU/AU African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which provides that:

“Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another. All peoples shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status.”

Thus, before readmission Morocco should have accepted all the 33 Articles of the Constitutive Act of the AU with  Western Sahara as a founding member. Morocco should also accept the AU Act which recognises African colonial boundaries, thus making its continued occupation of as a founding member. Morocco should also accept the AU Act which recognises African colonial boundaries, thus making its continued occupation of Western Sahara illegal.illegal.

All this was thrust aside and Morocco was readmitted to the AU when 39 out of the 54 African member states voted for Morocco. They tacitly endorsed the longstanding occupation of  Western Sahara, while Morocco refuses to comply with the successive UN resolutions on the holding of a referendum on self-determination

Western Sahara thus remains the continent’s last colonial outpost, occupied by another African state. It is an albatross on the African Union’s conscience, since it was a departure from its founding principles.thus remains the continent’s last colonial outpost, occupied by another African state. It is an albatross on the African Union’s conscience, since it was a departure from its founding principles.

Morocco’s readmission was reportedly influenced by Morocco’s King Mohammad’s affluence. This became evident when he demonstrated his largesse while touring the continent, lobbying for support from African heads.

It is said he will now bankroll the AU in line with what Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi used to do. The two are, of course, poles apart. Gaddafi, arguably, had a pan-Africanist and anti-Imperialist vision, while the king aims at continued annexation of  Western Sahara

That is why prior to the AU vote the King embarked on charm offensive by touring African countries, seeking support for his AU bid. In February 2014 he set off on a tour of Mali, Ivory Coast, Guinea and Gabon. This was his second regional trip in less than five months. He took with him a contingent of advisors and business executive who negotiated a pile of agreements covering practically everything – from religious training to agriculture and mining projects.

In December 2016 the King concluded the second leg of a nearly two-month, six-country Africa tour, resulting in some 50 bilateral agreements. The visits came on the heels of trips to Rwanda, Tanzania, and Senegal in October, when more than 40 bilateral agreements were signed.

This is how the monarch wound up his whirlwind tour of Africa prior to the AU Summit meeting in January 2017. For those who say the royal expeditions to African countries had altruistic motive, suffice it to quote his official who said:

“Aside from west and central Africa we must open up to east Africa and that is what is under way. The context of Morocco’s return to the African Union is there too of course, and these are important countries in the AU.”

The tour of east Africa “is also a way to get closer to countries which historically had positions which were hostile to Morocco’s interests”, said the Moroccan source

In some circles it is argued that Morocco’s readmission was a ‘positive’ step in that, as full member of the AU, it will now have to recognise the independence and sovereignty of SADR.  If that is so then the readmission should have been conditional

In any case, Morocco has no intention to give in on its occupation. Its return to the union is intended to eventually push for the removal of  Western Sahara out of the AU, thus silencing the voice of the Sahrawi people in connivance with ‘friendly’ member statesout of the AU, thus silencing the voice of the Sahrawi people in connivance with ‘friendly’ member states

Yet while the AU fails to stand by such principles, the kingdom of Morocco is under pressure in the international diplomatic arena where Polisario is gaining global support.

In fact on 21 December 2016, few days before the Addis Ababa Summit, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dismissed Moroccos claim to Western Sahara.. The ruling means the European Unions trade deals with Morocco do not apply to the occupied territory of  Western Sahara which is endowed with its fish stocks, mineral deposits, agricultural produce and oil reserves.which is endowed with its fish stocks, mineral deposits, agricultural produce and oil reserves.

The ECJ ruled that  Western Sahara cannot be treated as a part of Morocco, meaning no EU-Morocco trade deals can apply to the territory. The ruling confirms the long-established legal status of cannot be treated as a part of Morocco, meaning no EU-Morocco trade deals can apply to the territory. The ruling confirms the long-established legal status of Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory, and upholds existing international law.as a non-self-governing territory, and upholds existing international law.

The EU member states and institutions have been asked to comply with the ruling and immediately cease all agreements, funding and projects reinforcing Morocco’s illegal occupation of  Western Sahara.

The Court also ruled that a trade deal between the EU and Morocco should be scrapped because it included products from  Western Sahara. Morocco had to accept that any free trade deal would have to exclude  Western Sahara. This includes the fruits and vegetables grown by companies such as Les Domaines Agricoles, which is partly owned by King Mohammed VI.

On top of this there have been more than 100 UN resolutions calling for self-determination for the  Western Sahara. In March 2016, the then UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described the situation in  Western Sahara as an “occupation”as an “occupation”

The UN, however, has to go beyond rhetoric by enforcing its resolutions. It formally recognises the occupation of  Western Sahara as illegal, and has maintained a peacekeeping mission (MINURSO) commissioned to hold a referendum in Sahara since 1991. But it has a skeleton staff, with no mandate to even monitor human rights abuses, thanks to France’s Security Council veto.as illegal, and has maintained a peacekeeping mission (MINURSO) commissioned to hold a referendum in Sahara since 1991. But it has a skeleton staff, with no mandate to even monitor human rights abuses, thanks to France’s Security Council veto.

And so the French oil company Total is active in  Western Sahara, while others have pulled out. Also big investors such as the Norwegian government’s pension fund avoid any deals which involve  Western Sahara. And the EFTA free trade association, a group of non-EU countries including Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein, excludes  Western Sahara goods from its free trade deal with Morocco.goods from its free trade deal with Morocco.

Morocco’s return to the AU is an affront not only to the people of  Western Sahara but to African people, for Morocco is a country that once refused to host the African Cup of Nations on flimsy grounds that Moroccans would be infected by African teams bringing in Ebola virusbut to African people, for Morocco is a country that once refused to host the African Cup of Nations on flimsy grounds that Moroccans would be infected by African teams bringing in Ebola virus

Some African heads claim that the admission of Morocco will now resolve the question of  Western Sahara`s occupation. Such argument is always pushed with some foreign machination. In fact Morocco is now emboldened. That is why those who voted for readmission of Morocco should have demanded an end to the illegal occupation as a precondition.

That did not happen at the AU Summit meeting in Addis Ababa. Instead we see the AU blatantly violating its own Constitutive Act, and the principle for African countries to respect each other`s territorial boundaries

We witness a violation of both the AU and the UN declarations on the inalienable right of the people of  Western Sahara to independence and self-determinationto independence and self-determination

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Sahrawi people are disenfranchised. It is estimated that up to 200,000 have fled to refugee camps in the neighbouring Algeria and Mauritania. They are separated by a 2700 km long wall going through  Western Sahara, surrounded by landmines,

The Number Of Anti-Muslim Hate Groups On The Rise In US

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

The number of anti-Muslim hate groups nearly tripled from 34 in 2015 to 101 in 2016. That’s just one of the dramatic statistics in a new report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

This annual count from the SPLC includes groups like the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other white nationalists, along with anti-government patriot groups and anti-LGBT groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Senior Fellow, Mark Potok, says their numbers have consistently been on the rise since about 2000. The radical right out there is booming. The number of hate groups rose from 892 groups in 2015 to 917 last year.

According to Mark Potok more and more, people on the radical right don’t connect directly with hate groups but instead lurk on the internet until they decide action is needed. A good example, he pointed out, is mass murderer Dylann Roof, who killed nine African-Americans in a South Carolina church in 2015 and apparently did not have direct contact with hate groups or white supremacists.

The Washington Post pointed out that the new arrivals to the 2016 SPLC list included white nationalist groups such as the campus-based Identity Evropa in California and the 29 clubs created by the popular neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website, which changed its masthead from “The World’s Most Visited Alt-Right Web Site” to “America’s #1 Most-Trusted Republican News Source” the day after the election.

The SPLC has seen repeatedly over the years how rhetoric from figures like presidential candidates and others in the public eye can fuel that kind of hatred and violence, says Stephen Piggott of SPLC.  Several years ago, the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding came up with similar findings in a study. It found that spikes in anti-Muslim sentiment typically occur during election cycles — not so much in the aftermath of Islamist terror attacks, as many had assumed.

There’s little doubt that certain politicians and activists like Brigitte Gabriel are feeding the fires of hatred and religious violence. And President-elect Trump’s appointments of anti-Muslim ideologues suggest that that will continue. But the convergence of the Patriot movement, which has been marked by political violence since first emerging in the 1990s, and the anti-Muslim movement that has surged more recently, is creating serious dangers of its own. While Patriots may see a White House ally in Trump — and therefore lose some of their animus toward the federal government — they are finding new enemies in Islam.

Tellingly, on Thursday, five vandalism cases were reported by Howard County in Maryland; in two incidents the name “Trump” was spray-painted on vehicles. One of the families whose vehicle was vandalized identifies as Hispanic, and family members are concerned that they were targeted because of their national origin, even though they are legal residents.

“This is one more disturbing example of the impact that the current administration’s decisions and policies are having on ordinary Americans,” said the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Maryland Outreach Manager Dr. Zainab Chaudry. “We encourage law enforcement authorities to conduct a swift and thorough investigation and bring the perpetrators to justice.”

CAIR, America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization, has noted an unprecedented spike in hate incidents targeting American Muslims and other minority groups since the election of President Donald Trump.

Attempt to crush Muslim civil advocacy organizations

According to AlterNet News, a new initiative advanced by right-wing Republicans in Congress and reportedly backed by the Trump administration puts American Muslim civil society groups in the government’s crosshairs. Without the same outraged protests or condemnatory press conferences inspired by Trump’s travel ban targeting visitors and dual citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, the lesser-known effort is aimed at crushing robust Muslim civil society organizing in the United States, using the framework of the war on terror.

The initiative aims to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, a designation that in practice, is likely to provide a vehicle for a network of anti-Muslim crusaders to hound unaffiliated, mainstream Muslim organizations and potentially criminalize their leadership, the AlterNet said adding:

“The effort emanates from fringe conspiracy theorists who, backed by a well-heeled Islamophobia industry, espouse the unfounded claim that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the far reaches of the U.S. government. These fringe figures charge that prominent political players, from Huma Abedin to Grover Norquist to Keith Ellison, are operating as secret agents of the organization.”

Arjun Singh Sethi, a civil rights lawyer and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told AlterNet that this effort represents “version 2.0 of the Muslim ban and will be used as a vehicle to attack and smear Muslim civic and political organizations in the United States. The $57 million Islamophobia industry will do anything in its power to arbitrarily and erroneously link groups in the United States to the Muslim Brotherhood. These accusations alone can destroy reputations and tarnish organizations forever.”

According to Stephen Piggott of the SLPC, the White House is reportedly weighing options to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, according to several news outlets. Such a move would amount to a powerful policy win for America’s anti-Muslim movement, whose leaders have worked tirelessly to smear American Muslim civil rights organizations, in particular the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), by calling them  “fronts” for the Brotherhood.

Pressure from the anti-Muslim movement for this designation has only increased since the election, Piggott said and added: A new coalition of mostly anti-Muslim religious figures, dubbed “Faith Leaders of America,” descended upon the National Press Club the day before Trump’s inauguration to implore him to take action on the Muslim Brotherhood. Part of the coalition’s “call to prayer” read, “When you label the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, we support you.”

This January, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart and Sen. Ted Cruz introduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act in both congressional chambers.

How Norway Avoided Becoming A Fascist State

George Lakey

Donald Trump’s obvious affection for authoritarians is prompting worried comparisons of our polarized country to the polarized Germany of the 1920s and ’30s. Since I’m known to see in polarization both crisis and opportunity, my friends are asking me these days about Hitler, the worst-case scenario.

I grant the possibility of the United States going fascist, but argue that will not happen if we choose the practical steps taken by progressive Nordic social movements when they faced dangerous polarization. Consider the Norwegians, who experienced extreme polarization at the same time as the Germans did.

The Norwegian economic elite organized against striking laborers and produced a polarized country that included both Nazi Brown Shirts goose-stepping in the streets and Norwegian Communists agitating to overthrow capitalism. Many Norwegians were flattered by the Nazi belief that the tall, blue-eyed blonde was the pinnacle of human development. Others vehemently denounced the racism underlying such beliefs.

The politician Vidkun Quisling, an admirer of Hitler, organized in 1933 a Nazi party, and its uniformed paramilitary wing sought to provoke violent clashes with leftist students. But progressive movements of farmers and workers, joined by middle class allies, launched nonviolent direct action campaigns that made the country increasingly un-governable by the economic elite.

Quisling reportedly held discussions with military officers about a possible coup d’etat. The stage was set for a fascist “solution.”

Instead, Norway broke through to a social democracy. The majority forced the economic elite to take a back seat and invented a new economy with arguably the most equality, individual freedom, and shared abundance the developed world has known.

The key to avoiding fascism? An organized left with a strong vision and broad support.

In some ways Norway and Germany were similar: predominantly Christian, racially homogeneous, and suffering hugely in the Great Depression. But Germany’s workers movement failed to make common cause with family farmers, unlike Norway’s alliance. The German left was also split terribly within itself: Communist vs. Social Democratic.

The split was over vision for the new society. One side demanded abolition of capitalism, and the other side proposed partial accommodation. They were unwilling to compromise, and then, when the Social Democrats took power, armed rebellion and bloody repression followed. The result was the Third Reich.

Meanwhile in Norway, the Norwegian Workers’ Party crafted a vision that seemed both radical and reasonable and won majority support for their view despite the dissent of a very small Communist Party. Grassroots movements built a large infrastructure of co-ops that showed their competency and positivity when the government and political conservatives lacked both. Additionally, activists reached beyond the choir, inviting participation from people who initially feared making large changes.

Norwegians also took a different attitude toward violence. They chose nonviolent direct action campaigns consisting of strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, and occupations—a far less fearsome picture than Nazi Brown Shirts and street fighting. Norway therefore lacked the dangerous chaos that in Germany led the middle classes to accept the elite’s choice of Hitler to bring “law and order.”

The Norwegian set of strategies—vision, co-ops, outreach, and nonviolent direct action campaigns—is within the American skill set.

The Movement for Black Lives recently proposed a new vision for the United States that is attracting attention for the scope of its agenda, its commitment to inclusion, and fresh strategic thinking. The Black Lives movement showed its commitment to coalition-building when it gathered in solidarity at Standing Rock this fall, connecting two massive progressive movements. Standing Rock showed the world march by march how nonviolent direct action campaigns win hearts and minds. And Bernie Sanders’ gift to electoral politics is an inspired, energized, unified movement built around the desire for economic equality and opportunity. He pulled people from the right as well as the left. The election is spurring many more people to be involved in struggle, and infrastructure like co-ops are prospering. Polarization is nothing to despair over. It’s just a signal that it’s time for progressives to start organizing.

Federal reserve report reveals exploding levels of US household debt

Tom Hall 

US household debt surged by $460 billion last year, the sharpest one-year rise in nearly a decade, according to a report released last week by the New York Federal Reserve.

Total US household debt now stands at $12.58 trillion, almost as much in nominal terms as right before the 2008 financial crisis, which was triggered by the failure of the mortgage-backed securities market. The Fed’s report anticipates that this level will be surpassed sometime this year.

Media reports have attempted to downplay the significance of the report by pointing to the fact that delinquencies and the share of personal disposable income swallowed up by debt servicing, as well as the level of household debt relative to GDP, remain well below their pre-recession levels. Fortune magazine, for example, pointed out that the household debt to GDP ratio is roughly 79 percent, the lowest level since 2002.

However, the growth of household debt, as well as the particular kinds of debt Americans are taking on, demonstrate the ongoing economic stagnation for tens of millions of workers and young people. It is highly symptomatic that debt levels skyrocketed last year while US GDP grew at the lowest rate in five years, only 1.6 percent. Growth since the official end of the recession in 2009 has been the lowest for any official economic recovery since the end of World War II.

For the vast majority of the population, the recovery has not brought a return to pre-recession economic conditions. This is because what economic growth has occurred since the recession has been predicated upon the intensified exploitation of the working class, manifested above all in a shift towards a low-wage, casual workforce.

Joblessness among the working-age population remains at high levels, masked by an official unemployment rate which does not count workers who have given up looking for jobs altogether. Those jobs which have been added since the recession are far more likely to be low-wage or part-time than the jobs wiped out by the recession.

Younger workers have been particularly hard hit: 18-34 year olds today make 20 percent less than in 1989, and 1 million young people faced long-term unemployment in the aftermath of the recession, according to a report last month by Young Invincibles.

The recent rise in debt has been driven primarily by student loans and auto loans, which together accounted for roughly $2.5 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2016. This is in sharp contrast to pre-recession debt levels, which were dominated by housing debt. New housing debt has plummeted from a decade ago by more than half, from $700 billion to $300 billion. While mortgages and home equity still make up an absolute majority of total household debt, the share has declined from 79 to 71 percent.

The rise in student loan debt is due, in the first place, to skyrocketing costs of attending American universities. Since the 2001-2002 school year, the average annual cost of attending a public four-year university rose from $12,250 to $20,090, with even higher increases for private universities, according to the College Board. Student loan debt exploded over the same period, increasing sixfold from $200 billion in 2003 to $1.3 trillion last year.

However, this has been compounded by the fact that, since the 2008 recession, millions of young people have chosen to defer entering the job market in favor of going to college due to poor employment opportunities. Upon graduating, however, they are saddled with debt which greatly diminishes the added value of their degrees.

At the same time, young people are taking on less of other kinds of debt, especially mortgages and other forms of housing debt, due to dire financial constraints. A Pew Research Center report last year found that 18-34 year olds were more likely to live with their parents than any other form of living arrangement for the first time since 1880. At the same time, median net wealth among college graduates with student debt has plummeted, from $86,500 in the 1980s to $6,600 in 2014.

While debt delinquency in general remains down from pre-recession highs, due in part to sharp decreases in subprime mortgage lending, delinquencies among auto loans, the other major source of new debt, surged to an eight-year high. Some $23.27 billion worth of car loans were delinquent for a month or more during the fourth quarter of 2016.

These figures come amid mounting signs of a potential slowdown in the global auto industry. GM, the largest American automaker, relied on profits from North America, where new car purchases have been propped up by low interest rates, to offset stagnant or declining profits from China, South America and Europe. Meanwhile, the number of unsold vehicles held by American dealers rose by one-third to 845,000 vehicles by the end of 2016.

There are concerns among economists that a collapse in the auto loan bubble could pose systemic risks to the global economy, similar to the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008.

Proposed Trump state visit provokes crisis in British ruling circles

Robert Stevens

Today Parliament will debate whether US President Donald Trump’s scheduled state visit to Britain, including his meeting with the queen, should be cancelled.

The debate was forced after a petition opposing plans for Trump to meet the queen was signed by more than 1.8 million people (around three percent of the UK population). Only 100,000 signatures are required for a petition to be considered for a debate in parliament.

Earlier in the week 250 legal academics wrote an open letter to May demanding the state visit be cancelled. One of those signing, Dr. Rose Parfitt, a lecturer at Kent Law School, said: “[W]e wanted to call attention to the dangers of UK support for an administration that treats the law as an inconvenient restriction on its power,” adding, “... as people who spend every day thinking about law, we worry not only about what the law is but also about what it does. Many of Trump’s policies are troubling because they violate or undermine the law, but others are troubling because they enforce or expand the law.”

The government responded to the petition by recognising the “strong views” of those who supported it, but insisted Trump would be extended the “full courtesy of a state visit.”

Shortly after dismissing the petition, a Downing Street spokesman confirmed that May had spoken to Trump Wednesday, “as part of their regular engagement.” He added, “They discussed a range of issues, including trade and security and also discussed the President’s upcoming state visit to the UK. The Prime Minister said she looks forward to welcoming him later this year.”

The Guardian reported that government officials “are keen to limit the president’s public exposure more generally during the visit, in order to reduce the opportunities for protests and disorder on a state occasion. Hundreds of thousands of protesters could be expected in any large city, causing major headaches for the emergency and security services.”

Such is the hostility to Trump and May that her government is reportedly considering plans for him to speak in Birmingham, at a ticket-only event, instead of London.

Trump’s visit has become a battle ground for rival factions within ruling circles, especially in the aftermath of last year’s vote to leave the European Union. May’s post-Brexit strategy relies heavily on securing a US trade deal and on US backing to strengthen Britain’s hand in negotiations over continued access to essential European markets. But pro-Remain factions of the ruling class calculate that Trump’s “America First” agenda excludes the possibility of a significant agreement being reached and that his declared support for the break-up of the EU will backfire on the UK by almost guaranteeing its exclusion from the Single Market.

Even as the details of Trump’s visit were being finalised, the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, took the extraordinary step of revealing his agreement with those opposing Trump. Bercow, a former Tory MP, said he was “very strongly” opposed to Trump addressing Parliament on his visit. “Our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons,” he claimed.

The leader of the Commons, David Lidington, another Tory, who is responsible for arranging government business in the House of Commons, is also opposed to Trump addressing Parliament.

Bercow’s intervention, defying the convention of speaker’s neutrality, led to calls from pro-Brexit Tories that Bercow resign. Former foreign minister James Duddridge tabled a no-confidence motion, insisting “it is impossible for him to chair debates as speaker adjudicating on things he has expressed a view on... to be frank, I think there's a very real possibility that once the level of discontent is known and Speaker Bercow sees the writing is on the wall he will go of his own accord.”

The government has pointedly refused to make any statement supportive of Bercow remaining Speaker. The pro-Tory Daily Telegraph, while noting the motion is unlikely to secure a parliamentary majority, claimed that up to 150 Conservative MPs support his ouster. “The result of the vote is not binding, but if enough MPs call on Mr. Bercow to quit he could be pressured into standing down,” it wrote.

It later emerged that three days before his outburst against Trump, Bercow told a group of students at Reading University that he voted for the UK to remain in the EU during last year’s referendum.

Faced with this turmoil, the government is reportedly planning a weekend visit for Trump at the end of August or in early September that will not involve him speaking to the Houses of Parliament or Lords. Parliament will be closed during the annual summer recess.

These events are a devastating blow to May’s notional strategy of “out of Europe and into the world.”

Trump declared his own presidential victory to be “Brexit Plus, Plus, Plus” and built a close relationship with Nigel Farage—the then leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) who spearheaded the “Leave” campaign in the Brexit referendum, promoting anti-immigrant xenophobia. Farage was invited to speak alongside Trump at an election campaign rally in Mississippi last August.

After he won the US presidential election in November, Trump feted Farage—along with the party’s financial backer Aaron Banks—at his Trump Tower penthouse in New York. Trump said he favoured Farage becoming Britain’s ambassador to Washington, an intrusion into British politics without precedent.

Trump’s remarks sparked a crisis in British ruling circles, with the May government issuing a statement that Britain already had an ambassador in Washington. However, with her government totally reliant on a deepening orientation to the US, May swiftly drew up plans for a post-inauguration visit to Washington that was characterised by an extraordinary level of fawning by the prime minister.

May delivered a series of eulogies to the “special relationship” between the US and UK. At a joint press conference in Washington she announced that Trump had accepted Britain’s invitation of a State visit hosted by the queen. The red carpet was truly unfurled. The queen receives just one or two visiting heads of state each year and it is unusual for a US president to be offered one. Since coming to the throne in 1952, she has received just two US presidents. Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama was granted a state visit to meet the queen in 2011—but more than two years after he first took office.

Things are made worse still because, within a month of Trump entering the White House, his administration is mired in scandals that could yet result in his impeachment. These exclusively on Trump’s suggestion that he might reset US foreign policy, with his Democratic Party opponents speaking directly for the military-intelligence apparatus that is opposed to any retreat from a strategy of confronting Russia.

Huge demonstration in Barcelona in defence of refugees and open borders

Alejandro López

Hundreds of thousands of protestors—160,000 according to the police and half a million according to the protest organisers—demonstrated on Saturday in Barcelona, Spain against the right-wing Popular Party (PP) governments’ anti-immigration policies. The march, held under the slogan “No more deaths, open the borders,” was the largest held in Europe so far in defence of refugees and open borders.

Demonstrators condemned the continuing horrific treatment of refugees seeking shelter in Europe, as the European Union (EU) continues to deport thousands of refugees back to the war zones from which they are trying to escape.

The EU’s anti-migrant policies led to the deaths of at least 4,500 people last year, most of whom drowned crossing the Mediterranean in small, overcrowded boats. According to the United Nations, 230 people have died so far this year. Spain bears a special responsibility for this tragedy, having helped to close down the shorter sea-crossing routes from North Africa, thereby forcing migrants to attempt the longer, more hazardous ones from Libya to Malta and Italy.

Many protestors criticised the government for having only taken in 1,100 refugees—a fraction of the paltry 17,000 it had agreed to in September 2015.

The demonstrators flooded onto one of the major avenues in Barcelona, Via Laietana, many holding homemade placards and banners bearing slogans including, “Enough excuses, welcome them now,” “Refugees welcome,” “Legal papers for all,” “Open the borders now,” and “No one is above another, no one is illegal.” The protest ended on Spain’s Mediterranean coast.

A woman who had left Bosnia in the early 1990s during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia told El Periódico, “I see the same heart that opened to me in 1992, even stronger and with more solidarity. The only difference is the current political obstacle, and the lies that they tell us every day [about refugees and migrants.]” Mira, an 18-year-old from Syria, said, “We don’t want pity… There is no refugee crisis, we are victims of war.” Kissima, a 23-year old Gambian, told El País that “if the doors do not open, those people who are only looking for a better future will not be able to do anything.”

The fact that such a large march was organized within a short space of time without any media promotion by a small volunteer-staffed NGO, Casa Nostra Casa Vostra (Our Home is Your Home) shows the huge sympathy that exists within the population for the plight of migrants and refugees.

It exposes the lying claims of governments and political parties across Europe—of all political colourations—that they are responding to the “people,” who are demanding a crackdown on the entry of migrants and stronger borders. Such claims are used to shift the political climate to the right, as the post-World War II order collapses, in order to prepare the ground for more austerity, wars and attacks on democratic rights.

The humane, democratic sentiments of workers and young people attending the demonstration sharply contrasted with the hypocrisy and track records of those figures, which headed the protest. Every political party, except the PP, sent their leading representatives.

Not surprisingly, in a march pressuring the PP government to “open the borders,” Catalan nationalists cynically used the opportunity to promote the independence of their desired Catalan mini-state from Spain, which would lead to—more borders.

Members of the separatist regional Catalan government Junts Pel Sí (Together for Yes), comprising the Catalan European Democratic Party (which until July 2016 was called the Democratic Convergence of Catalonia), the Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC), the pseudo-left Popular Unity Candidacy and the heavily state-funded Catalan nationalist organisation Òmnium Cultural, sought to channel pro-migrant sentiments behind Catalan separatism. They claimed that an independent Catalonia “would be more supportive and welcoming towards refugees and migrants.” Carme Forcadell, the president of the regional parliament, demagogically attacked the “disastrous policies of the European Union” towards people fleeing from conflicts.

This is pure hypocrisy. The Catalan nationalists have devoted all their energies in recent years in trying to persuade the imperialist powers—those responsible for the bloodbath in the Middle East and the current refugee crisis—to support Catalan independence and accept it as a loyal capitalist state within the geostrategic orbit of the EU and NATO alliance.

Some Catalan separatists have welcomed the election of US President Donald Trump, seeing in him an opportunity to achieve their long-desired separatist ambitions. Catalan European Democratic Party leader Víctor Terradellas declared that in the context of a “clash of civilizations, with the West engaged in several simultaneous geostrategic struggles against Islam, Russia and China,” Catalonia could play its cards as a bulwark in the Western Mediterranean, working side by side with Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The Catalan separatists were not the only ones to exploit the demonstration for their own purposes.

Sonia Sierra from the Citizens party demanded “the government comply with the promise to take in 17,000 refugees.” This same party—a right-wing and anti-Catalan secessionist party—is a fervent defender of the EU and NATO and is attempting to become the new “incorrupt” face of the PP. In the past, it has enthusiastically defended the PP’s attempts to prevent undocumented migrants from having any right to access the public health care system.

Also present at the demonstration was Miquel Iceta, the leader of the Catalan Socialist Party (sister party to the Spanish Socialist Party, PSOE). He called for a “change” in EU policies because, “The current crisis is not as innocent as it may seem; it has been caused by the presence of Western countries in the Middle East.”

Anyone hearing such statements from Iceta will be rubbing their eyes in disbelief.

Just 24 hours before Iceta’s remarks, some 400 African migrants managed to force their way into the tiny Spanish North African enclave of Ceuta in search of asylum. The Red Cross said it had to treat 103 of them for injuries they had sustained, which included a brutal assault by the border police. Some 25 people were hospitalised.

It was the PSOE government in 2005 that began construction of the original border fence, which now consists of 11 kilometres (6.8 miles) of parallel three-meter (10 feet) high razor wire fences, equipped with watch posts, CCTV, spotlights, noise and movement sensors.

Under the PSOE, Spain participated in the US-led NATO war on Libya, which killed approximately 30,000 people and destroyed the country’s infrastructure, paving the way for the current civil war and the spread of ISIS in North Africa.

The response of the pseudo-left to the demonstration was typified by the pro-Podemos mayor of Barcelona, Ada Colau, who pontificated, “It is very important that in a Europe of uncertainty where xenophobia is on the rise for Barcelona to be a capital of hope.”

This demagogy will not wash. Last year, the same Colau ordered the police force of the “capital of hope” to remove migrant workers from the streets. They are mainly from sub-Saharan Africa, with little chance of finding work in a country with mass unemployment, and struggle to survive by selling trinkets. Now they are in constant fear of arrest and possible deportation.

Colau, as with Podemos as a whole, wholeheartedly defends the Syriza government in Greece, which is playing a key role in enforcing the EU’s reactionary Fortress Europe policy. Around 62,000 migrants are effectively trapped in Greece, barred from crossing the borders into other EU countries. In early January, three people froze to death in just one week—their tents totally inadequate in the cold weather that swept the country.

US-European tensions remain despite reassurances on NATO

Bill Van Auken 

A series of speeches by top American officials at this year’s Munich Security Summit has failed to assuage growing concerns within European ruling circles that the “America First” policy enunciated by President Donald Trump will be pursued at their expense, threatening an accelerated breakup of institutions and alliances that have undergirded capitalist Europe since the end of the Second World War.

US Vice President Michael Pence delivered the main message from Washington to the conference, which brings together leading state officials, top military personnel, security experts and big business figures for what has long been seen as a candid discussion of challenges facing the US-dominated transatlantic alliance.

For the first time in the 62 years since the first of these annual gatherings, the greatest threat to stability is seen as emanating from Washington. These concerns stem from Trump’s advocacy of a unilateralist and nationalist foreign policy, combined with his statements dismissing NATO as “obsolete,” suggesting a unilateral lifting of Russia’s sanctions and supporting Brexit, while encouraging other countries to follow Britain’s example in defecting from a European Union that he contemptuously referred to as the “consortium.”

In his remarks to the gathering on Saturday, Pence delivered a rhetorical pledge of allegiance to the NATO alliance, while mentioning the name “Trump” a dozen times. He repeatedly assured his audience that he was speaking on behalf of the American president, in evident anticipation of intense skepticism that anyone in Washington can spell out the real foreign policy of the new administration.

The US would be “unwavering” in its support for NATO, Pence declared, and Donald Trump would “stand with Europe.” He added, “Know this: The United States will continue to hold Russia accountable,” even as the Trump administration seeks “common ground” with Moscow.

After his remarks, Pence met with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and, according to a White House statement, “underlined that the United States does not recognize Russia’s occupation and attempted annexation of the Crimean peninsula,” which rejoined Russia following a popular referendum held in the wake of the Western-orchestrated right-wing coup in Kiev in 2014.

Pence’s statement regarding Russia followed similar remarks last week by Trump’s defense secretary, former Marine General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who ruled out any military collaboration with Russia until Moscow “proves itself” regarding Ukraine and Crimea.

Even more bellicose were members of a bipartisan congressional delegation present in Munich. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on Sunday that “2017 is going to be a year of kicking Russian ass in Congress,” and vowed that Congress would pass new rounds of sanctions against both Russia and Iran. Senator Christopher Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut who spoke on the same panel as Graham in Munich, said there would be no “partisan divide” on the push for redoubled sanctions.

Whatever differences have surfaced between the Trump administration and Washington’s NATO allies over Russia—not to mention the bitter internecine struggle in Washington over the issue—the US-NATO build-up continues with the deployment of some 4,000 US troops to Eastern Europe, while the remarks in Munich suggest that no lifting of US sanctions against Moscow are imminent.

Present in Munich for Pence’s remarks to the conference, Konstantin Kosachyov, the head of Russia’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee, responded: “I heard nothing in the speech. The new American leaders have started to reproduce the negatives accumulated under the previous administration.”

Much of Pence’s speech was given over to a celebration of American militarism and vows that under Trump the US build-up to war would undergo a dramatic acceleration.

“I can assure you that the United States will be strong, stronger than ever before,” said the vice president. “We will strengthen our military, restore the arsenal of democracy and, working with many members of congress gathered here today, we’re going to provide soldiers, sailors, airmen and coast guard with renewed resources to defend our nation and our treaty allies from the threats of today and unknown threats of tomorrow.”

At the same time, Pence, echoing earlier remarks by Defense Secretary Mattis, chided European NATO members for failing to pay their “fair share” to fund the US-led alliance. He charged that “some of our largest allies”—an apparent dig at Germany—were not “on track” to meeting a commitment to devote 2 percent of their GDP to military spending.

In her own defensive remarks to the Munich conference, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel stressed the importance of multilateral institutions and insisted that NATO was as much “in the American interest” as it was in Germany’s or Europe’s. In relation to the demand that Germany boost its military spending to 2 percent of GDP—nearly a doubling of the current military budget—Merkel said, “We will do everything we can to fulfill these commitments.”

Responding to a question after her speech, Merkel pointed out that Germany is increasing its military spending by 8 percent this year and pleaded that “we cannot do more...Money has to be absorbed somehow [from the national budget].” Her remark reflected the fact that the German ruling establishment faces overwhelming popular hostility to the country’s military buildup, and that the cost of it will have to be imposed on the German working class through draconian cuts in social spending and living standards.

Both Merkel and German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel suggested that Germany’s spending on refugees and social development should be counted toward NATO’s 2 percent mandate.

Elsewhere, however, the demand from Washington for Germany’s remilitarization has been welcomed. In its February 18 edition, Germany’s Der Spiegel carried an editorial declaring “Donald Trump is right” about Germany’s military spending.

“The era in European history when the Continent could delegate its security to a partner across the Atlantic has passed, irrevocably. That will remain true even after Trump is no longer in the White House,” the editorial states, declaring Trump “a symptom of the crisis in the West, not its cause.”

It continues by warning that it would be “reckless and naïve if Europe were not to prepare for the fact that it can no longer unconditionally rely on the United States.”

The editorial calls for Europe to “massively expand the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy,” adding that “the idea of Europe being a junior partner could finally be consigned to the dustbin of history and lead Europe to begin defining its own interests.” Finally, the editorial allowed that Germany does not necessarily have to develop its own nuclear weapons, if it can develop “a level of trust in the nuclear power of France.”

One notable feature of Vice President Pence’s speech was that, while it included multiple vows of support for NATO, it made not a single mention of the European Union, which some in Munich took as a warning that Washington is embarking on an aggressive pursuit of US imperialist interests at Europe’s expense.

Wolfgang Ischinger, the former German ambassador to Washington who chairs the Munich Security Conference, told Deutsche Welle that if the Trump administration continued to take a hostile attitude to the EU, “it would amount to a kind of nonmilitary declaration of war. It would mean conflict between Europe and the United States. Is that what the US wants? Is that how he wishes to make America great again?”

It was Ischinger who drafted the report issued at the opening of the Munich conference. It warned that the international situation is “arguably more volatile today than at any point since World War II” and went on to ask, “Will this new era again be marked by greater tensions and, possibly, even outright conflict between the world’s major powers, not least between China and the US?” Given the issues that dominated the conference, the same question clearly applies to Europe and America.

Forecast 2017: Sri Lanka

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera

It was less than half a million votes that restored democratic order in Sri Lanka and set the nation in the correct direction three years ago. 8 January 2015 saw the dawn of good governance locally and a recalibration of the island’s foreign policy. The draconian 18th amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution was scrapped by an (extra) ordinary man who took on the challenge to topple the existing government. Expectations were and are high to change existing political cultures. Adoption of new ways is difficult for individuals who believed deeply in a set of values because it represents a shift from an established zone of comfort and influence. Fresh recommendations, new methods of fighting corruption and much more have to be absorbed and proven instead of rejecting every idea.

On the economic front, in Sri Lanka, 2016 began with the visit of George Soros. While his visit did not bring with it the anticipated investment, Prof Riccardo Hausmann from Harvard University shared valuable insights. The appointment of the new governor to Sri Lanka’s Central Bank was appreciated by many due to the controversy surrounding the former. 

The bipartisan unity government with deep differences in political ideologies experimented with different methods of working together throughout 2016 but failed to deliver on many promises. However, the effort to work together with differences must be appreciated. The biggest challenge is in finding a common ground to execute differing ideas. Civil society experts could perhaps educate the government on bipartisan methods and models instead of destroying the new model. The nation will have only one choice if the present model is reset. The Sri Lankan governance model is evolving towards a technocracy. People expect a technocratic rule by technical experts to deliver results in areas such as infrastructure, clean air, water management, reliable transportation, public safety, ease of conducting business, good schools, quality housing, freedom of expression, access to jobs etc. Result oriented technocratic governance structures and high quality civil servants with delivery of results is what the country requires and what the people seek.

President Sirisena’s Third Year

At a ceremony to mark the beginning of third year in office, Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena invited Chandrababu Naidu, chief minister of India’s Andhra Pradesh state, as his special guest. The visiting chief minister shared lessons learnt from the technological development of Andhra Pradesh’s economy, particularly on water and power management. According to President Sirisena, poverty in Sri Lanka stands at between 25 to 27 per cent. This is ample reason to declare 2017 as the year to eradicate poverty – a challenging task given the present economic situation. 

Looking back, in the past two years, there has been an improvement in the human rights situation in the country, particularly with regard to media freedom. There has not been a single incident of murder or incidents reporting on journalists departing the nation due to fear during President Sirisena’s time in office. However, the perpetrators of the murder of veteran journalist Lasantha Wickramatunga  - who was killed on 08 January 2009 – are yet to be brought to justice. Social media comments regarding this delay raise questions that as to whether this investigation would meet the same fate as that of Richard de Zoysa, another veteran journalist who was assassinated in 1990. Not all solutions can be found in 24 months but the media is highlighting the people’s frustrations.

Cyber crime and threats to state security domains on this frontier remain. The hacking of the president’s website and the recent Muslim Cyber Army claim for hacking the Health Ministry website are incidents the government should immediately curb. There have been multiple incidents of hacking by the same group in India and other places but these were a first in Sri Lanka. Rise of violent non-state actors in the cyber domain has become a complex geopolitical problem that threatens many countries today. 

Sri Lanka and the New World Order

China’s rising naval power has built one of the largest submarine fleets. Their fleet is causing a tense situation in making port calls in the Indian Ocean, which sets to further unfold in next few years, especially in the South China Sea. In this global power tapestry, Sri Lanka has to find its path to gain the best geopolitical and economic benefit; but this is a challenge, because of the strategic interests of the global powers. According to Prof Indra de Soysa “Our strategic position is likely to be of great political interest to great powers that will be tempted to meddle in the internal politics of Sri Lanka. This means that Sri Lankan policy must synchronize with regional and extra-regional powers with an interest in the region. On this count, Sri Lanka could potentially take a lead role in establishing a movement that demilitarizes and de-securitizes the Indian Ocean by building a regime for peaceful cooperation.”

Challenges in 2017

In 2017 the nation will face 3 key challenges: 

First, is its debt crisis. According to the governor of Sri Lanka’s Central bank, the country is still in the hospital but not in ICU. FDI remains at a very low rate compared to last year. Two global reports were unfavorable towards Sri Lanka: Bloomberg ranked it among the highest risk countries in the world for investors; and the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) placed the island-state at the 95th place – from 94th in the previous year. The primary focus should be on the economic crisis the nation is facing. 

The second challenge is the human rights issue that the government has to face in March 2017. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, there are credible reports to show white van abduction has taken place under Sirisena government. International pressure on these baseless allegations questioning the island country continues by the same individuals accusing of no structural reform to tackle systemic failures of the justice machinery. The Sri Lankan government needs to effectively counter these challenges. The Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTFRM) appointed by government recommended a hybrid court with foreign judges, and was endorsed by the Global Tamil Forum and the Tamil National Alliance. Reportedly, the president expressed his displeasure towards the idea of a hybrid model. This position was clearly expressed even in the past. 

The third challenge is the local government elections and the new constitution with internal political pressure created by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The recent political rally and protest by the villagers and the joint opposition members at the opening ceremony of the Sri Lanka-China Industrial Zone in Hambantota near the Chinese built port Hambanthota is a clear indication of the same. The government’s decision to lease 15000 acres of land to a Chinese company was viewed as a serious threat to the nation’s sovereignty. The project is moving forward despite the protest. Clearly the island country holds substantial strategic value due to its geographical position and the Sri Lankan government owes Beijing $8 billion (more than 12 per cent of its total $64.9 billion debt).

2017 began with the loss of one of the country’s most eminent jurists and visionary for peace. Justice CG Weeramantry was instrumental in introducing peace education to the world and although he was a recipient of the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education, he failed to introduce the same to his own country. Peace education and global dignity are programmes that are operational in over 60 countries. Such programmes should be introduced to Sri Lanka. Given the right set of universal values, children may one day unite the broken country.

Inadequate Budgetary Allotment and India's Defence Preparedness

Gurmeet Kanwal

In the budget for the Financial Year (FY) 2017-18, presented in the Indian parliament on 1 February 2017, the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been allotted INR 2,74,114 crore, excluding the provision for pensions.

The nominal increase of 5.7 per cent over the revised estimates (RE) for FY 2016-17 is barely adequate to provide for domestic inflation. The increase is insufficient to cater to the increase in the pay and allowances of the armed forces and the civilian employees of the MoD consequent to the implementation of the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission.

The additional expenditure that needs to be incurred on account of the upward revision in pay and allowances has resulted in an increase in the share of expenditure planned on the revenue account in the defence budget and a corresponding decrease in the share of the expenditure on the capital account.

While revenue expenditure has increased from 65.3 per cent of the total budget in FY 2016-17 to 67.0 per cent, expenditure planned on the capital account has gone down from 34.7 to 33.0 per cent.

The total capital outlay for the next financial year – meant mainly for the acquisition of new weapons systems and defence equipment – is pegged at INR 86,488.01 crore. Though the government has been making efforts to encourage the acquisition of weapons systems and defence equipment through the “make in India” route, about 70 per cent of the requirements are still imported.

The 10.05 per cent increase in the capital budget over the budgetary estimates (BE) for FY 2016-17 (INR 78,586.68 crore) is barely adequate to compensate for the 10 to 15 per cent inflation per annum in the prices of weapons and defence equipment procured through imports. The amount actually spent on the capital account in FY 2016-17 is INR 71,700.00 crore (RE). A sum of INR 6,886 crore was transferred to the revenue account.

The customs duty now being imposed on defence imports and the drop in the value of the Indian Rupee against the US Dollar also make the import of weapons and equipment comparatively more expensive. The Rupee had dropped to 68.71 to one US Dollar on 24 November 2016 – its lowest level during the year.

Despite low levels of funding on the capital account, allocations continue to be surrendered almost every year or transferred to the revenue budget. All of these systemic weaknesses work in tandem and, consequently, the modernisation plans of the armed forces are adversely affected.

As a ratio of the country’s GDP, the defence expenditure planned for FY 2017-18 stands reduced to 1.62 per cent. This is the lowest level since the disastrous 1962 war with China when it was 1.59 per cent of the GDP and is grossly inadequate to meet India's growing threats and challenges and the need for military modernisation.

The allocation for defence must go up to at least 2.0 per cent of the GDP in the supplementary demands for FY 2017-18. It should be raised gradually to 3.0 per cent of the GDP as recommended repeatedly by the Standing Committee on Defence in Parliament if another military debacle is to be avoided.

According to a press release issued by the MoD, the Defence Acquisition Council chaired by India's Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had accorded initial approval – referred to as acceptance of necessity (AON) – to defence procurement projects worth INR 2,39,000 crore till July 2016. Of this, contracts worth INR 1,13,995 crore had been signed. At a DAC meeting held in November 2016, AON was given for new procurement projects worth INR 82,117 crore.

The new projects include the purchase of 83 Tejas Mark 1A Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) for the Indian Air Force at a cost of INR 50,025 crore; 15 helicopters for the IAF and the Indian Army at a cost of INR 2,911 crore; 598 mini-UAVs for the army at a cost of INR 1,100 crore; and 464 T-90 Russian tanks at a cost of INR 13,448 crore.

Given the low availability of funds on the capital account and the ‘committed liabilities’ of previous years – previously negotiated contracts with a fixed annual outgo, It will be difficult for the MoD to find the funds that will be required to sign contracts to acquire even half the weapons and equipment for which AON has been accorded in November 2016.

In FY 2017-18, funds amounting to only about INR 5,000 crore are likely to be available for new weapons and equipment acquisitions. Assuming the first year’s payment to be 10 per cent of the total, contracts worth about INR 50,000 crore may be concluded.

A workable method needs to be found to overcome the inability of the MoD bureaucracy and the armed forces to spend the funds allotted on the capital account fully and to curb the tendency of India's Ministry of Finance to allow part of the allotted funds to lapse as a tool to manage the burgeoning fiscal deficit.

In the interim budget that he presented for FY 2004-05, the then Indian Finance Minister Jaswant Singh had made an excellent recommendation. He had proposed to introduce a non-lapsable, rolling defence modernisation fund worth INR 25,000 crore. It was an innovative measure that did not find favour with the then Congress-led UPA government that presented the full budget after it came to power.

The reason given then was that the ‘rules of business’ do not permit a non-lapsable fund as all unspent funds compulsorily lapse at midnight on 31 March at the end of the financial year.

Such a roll-on fund is known to have been in vogue during the British rule. Since then, the rules of business have not changed substantially. And, even if the rules of business need to be amended now, surely a constitutional amendment is not necessary to do so.

It is an inescapable national security imperative that a roll-on, non-lapsable defence modernisation fund be instituted with a corpus of INR 1,00,000 crore. It should be linked with the Consolidated Fund of India.

Besides being a statement of account, the defence budget is a tool for demonstrating the country’s resolve and for enhancing deterrence through signalling. Infirmity in the approach to the formulation of the defence budget creates the impression that the management of national security does not rate a very high priority. That is not a worthy message to send out from the premises of the Indian parliament.

Overall, with the present defence budget, operational preparedness will deteriorate further even as the threats and challenges continue to increase. And, military modernisation, which had just about begun to pick up steam, will stagnate once again.