Exit talks begin between UK and European Union

Chris Marsden

Britain’s Brexit Secretary David Davis and Michel Bernier of the European Union (EU) launched negotiations yesterday on the terms of Britain’s exit from the trade bloc.

Davis did so representing a government in the midst of an ever deepening crisis, with a question mark hanging over the survival of Prime Minister Theresa May, a party split down the middle on whether a “hard Brexit” involving leaving the Single European Market should be abandoned, and a majority of all the major trade and business organisations insisting that it must be.

Davis, who represents the pro-Brexit wing of the Conservatives, was on a back foot from the start. Talks will begin according to the timetable set by the EU, with the cost of Britain’s “divorce settlement” and the status of Northern Ireland among the “separation issues” to be discussed before trade relations post-Brexit.

Earlier Davis had pledged “the fight of the summer” over this sequencing, but folded without a murmur yesterday. Everything the government does is now with one eye on surviving in office. May’s disastrous performance in the UK’s snap general election, the well of popular opposition expressed in Labour’s much better than expected performance under Jeremy Corbyn, and the hatred aroused by the Grenfell Tower fire has fuelled speculation of imminent leadership challenges. These are held in abeyance only by the threat of hastening a second general election that the party could lose.

It was in the midst of this febrile atmosphere that five major UK business bodies jointly demanded in a letter to Business Secretary Greg Clark that the government “put the economy first” and secure continued access to the European Single Market.

The comments from the British Chambers of Commerce, Confederation of British Industry, Education Endowment Formation, Federation of Small Businesses and Institute of Directors were scathing. Josh Hardie, the CBI’s deputy director-general, said, “It is a time for reflecting on how businesses are feeling.” Stuart Rose of online grocer Ocado described the snap election as a “proxy re-referendum” against hard Brexit. Karan Bilimoria of Cobra beer said May had “zero credibility” and Britain could now rethink leaving.

Within the Tory Party, Chancellor Philip Hammond went on TV Sunday to denounce May’s electoral campaign and stake his claim to be the “soft Brexit” candidate in a future leadership contest. He described May’s “no deal is better than a bad deal” stance as “a very, very bad outcome for Britain”.

On the other side of the divide, newly appointed Environment Secretary Michael Gove said May was right to insist that the UK would not sign up to anything which “harmed” the UK.

The problem for the bourgeoisie is that May is more in thrall to the pro-Brexiteers than ever. Along with pro-Remainers Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, those spoken of as most likely to replace May are Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

The internal fighting between them is toxic.

The Sunday Times wrote under the headline, “Tories tell May: You’ve got 10 days”, that confidence in her was “in freefall” with constituency party bosses telling “ministers and MPs to force her from power.”

“Up to a dozen MPs are ready to demand a vote of no confidence in May by submitting letters to the backbench 1922 committee... Cabinet ministers have also let it be known that they will oust the prime minister if it looks like she is in danger of losing the vote on the Queen’s speech on June 28.”

A cabinet minister told friends he was “worried about her state of mind,” while another said, “She had better stop feeling sorry for herself, pull up her socks and start to lead—and if she can’t do that she should go. Shape up or ship out.”

The Sunday Telegraph wrote of a “stalking horse” challenge if May “waters down Brexit.” An influential former minister said, “If we had a strong signal that she were backsliding I think she would be in major difficulty,” while another former minister said, “If she weakened on Brexit, the world would fall in… all hell would break loose.”

May has fear of political disaster on her side—for the moment. Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun insisted, “The Conservatives must put aside their differences, rally around Theresa May and make Brexit a success... Sniping from the sidelines won’t force her into a ‘soft Brexit’—it’ll weaken the Government and hand Corbyn keys to No10.” It insisted, “Mrs May needs to insist, as she has all along, that we must leave the single market and customs union.”

Corbyn has long been the subject of a political witch-hunt by the ruling elite, but is determinedly wooing them with promises that he can bring stability for British capitalism—including by suppressing social discontent using his “left” reputation but also by prioritising access to the single market in what he terms a “jobs Brexit.”

There will be an audience for such an approach in the EU, especially with reports already of backdoor discussions between Hammond and Berlin and Paris.

The EU’s major powers cannot be seen to give an inch to Britain if it pursues a hard Brexit for fear of weakening the cohesion of the continent. But they cannot afford the luxury of schadenfreude either given the dangerous implications of political instability in the UK.

Berlin and Paris would welcome a retreat if this becomes a possibility given the economic and political impact of Brexit.

In April, investment bank ING sent a note to clients warning that a bad deal for the UK would likely backfire on the EU. Quoted in Business Insider, the note warned, “ A severe downturn in the UK would be particularly felt in the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland given the importance of trade with the UK,” but stressed above this political uncertainty.

It warned that “if there is electoral success for anti-EU parties, the prospect of EU break-up could return. Bad politics, combined with economic dislocation and financial contagion would likely lead to recession across Europe.”

Italy “goes to the polls within the next twelve months. The concern is that the first and third place parties in opinion polls are both decidedly anti-EU. In a worst-case scenario, fears of EU break-up could see toxic politics combine with economic dislocation and financial contagion, which would spell disaster for the European economy—not just the UK economy.”

Such concerns led French President Emmanuel Macron to stress this month in a meeting with May that “the door is also open as long as the Brexit negotiations aren’t over” and German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble to pledge that if the UK “wanted to change the decision, of course, they would find open doors.”

However, from the standpoint of the working class in Britain and Europe, the factional struggles within the bourgeoisie promise only political and social reaction.

At stake is whether the UK cuts itself adrift from the other European powers in the hope that the Trump administration will find its services useful in rising trade conflicts with Germany and France, or whether the EU can exploit Britain’s economic and political crisis to force a retreat and to insist on a greater degree of collusion—above all as the EU sets about securing a military capability independent of NATO, which London has up to now opposed.

In either case, the working class on both sides of the Channel will be urged to accept more austerity, greater sacrifices of jobs, wages and essential social services on the altar of “competitiveness” and “security.”

Escalating threat of US-Russian confrontation in Syria

Bill Van Auken

Raising the specter of the Syrian conflict escalating into a military confrontation between the world’s two major nuclear powers, the Russian Defense Ministry Monday issued a warning that it would treat any US or allied aircraft operating in western Syria, where Moscow’s own forces, as well as those of the Syrian government, are based, as a hostile target.

The Russian warning came in response to the shooting down of a Syrian air force jet Sunday by a US Navy fighter plane over northern Syria, where US-backed proxy forces led by a Kurdish militia are advancing on the ISIS-held city of Raqqa.

Sunday’s incident marked the first time that a US warplane has brought down a Syrian plane flying over its own territory and represents a major escalation in the six-year-old US-orchestrated war for regime change. The Syrian pilot, last seen parachuting into an area controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is still missing.

“In regions where the Russian Air Force is carrying out operations in the skies above Syria, any flying objects—including airplanes and drones of the international coalition—discovered west of the Euphrates River will be treated as aerial targets for tracking by land and air defense systems,” the Russian Defense Ministry warned.

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov described the US attack on the Syrian plane as “an act of aggression and a direct breach of international law.”

Moscow also indicated that it had cut off a “deconfliction” hotline with the Pentagon used to prevent unintended clashes between US and Russian fighter planes over Syria.

Washington delivered a series of conflicting responses to Russia’s warnings. The chairman of the US military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, told the media that the Pentagon would be working “diplomatically and militarily in the coming hours to re-establish deconfliction.” Asked if he was concerned for the safety of US pilots flying over Syria after the Russian warning, the general responded that he was confident “our forces have the capabilities to take care of themselves.”

At a bizarre White House press conference Monday in which reporters were barred from either filming or recording answers to their questions, White House press secretary Sean Spicer was quoted as saying that Washington was “going to do what we can to protect our interests,” in Syria, adding, “We will always preserve the right of self-defense.”

Only the perverse logic of the US imperialist drive for hegemony in the Middle East and around the globe can explain the invocation of “self defense” for actions taken by US military forces in shooting down a plane flying over its own territory and attacking forces loyal to the existing government.

The shooting down of the Syrian jet follows a series of US acts of aggression against Syrian government forces. Last September, US-led airstrikes killed or wounded as many as 200 Syrian soldiers in the eastern province of Deir el-Zour. While the Pentagon subsequently claimed that the attack was a “regrettable error,” it provided air support for ISIS fighters to overrun a strategic Syrian government position.

Then in April, the US rained 50 cruise missiles on Syria’s al-Shayrat airbase, ostensibly in response to an alleged gas attack that had all the earmarks of a CIA provocation.

Within the last month, the Pentagon has carried out three separate airstrikes on pro-government forces that were alleged to have come close to a desert base near the al-Tanf southeastern Syrian border crossing with Iraq, where some 150 American special forces troops are training so-called “rebels” to prosecute the war for regime change against the government in Damascus.

With each new attack, it becomes ever more clear that the so-called anti-ISIS campaign being waged by US-led forces is a cover for an American military intervention aimed at securing the aims of the six-year-old war for regime change in Syria, the toppling of the Assad government and the imposition of a US puppet regime. To this end, the Pentagon is determined that territory wrested from ISIS remain under its control rather than that of the Syrian government. The clashes that led to the downing of the Syrian jet are bound up with this scramble for territory.

The campaign in Syria is part of the broader US drive toward war with Iran that was spelled out by US President Donald Trump in his trip last month to Tehran’s two major regional enemies, Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Trump administration’s turn toward an openly aggressive posture toward Tehran has served to further destabilize the entire region, with the Saudi monarchy, backed by Egypt and the UAE, imposing an all-out blockade tantamount to war against Qatar, which hosts the forward headquarters of the US Central Command, while at the same time depending heavily on revenues from a huge gas field it shares with Iran.

The threat of a wider war was further underscored by an Iranian missile strike directed against ISIS targets in the eastern Syrian city of Deir el-Zour. The missiles were launched from western Iran, some 370 miles away, flying over the territory of Iraq, whose government gave permission for the attack.

While Tehran justified the missile strike as a retaliation for terrorist attacks earlier this month claimed by ISIS in which 18 Iranians were killed and more than 50 wounded, Iranian officials made it clear that they were intended to send a wider warning.

“The Saudis and Americans are especially receivers of this message,” said Gen. Ramazan Sharif of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). “Obviously and clearly, some reactionary countries of the region, especially Saudi Arabia, had announced that they are trying to bring insecurity into Iran.” Tehran has charged that the Saudis were behind the terrorist attacks. The Trump White House, meanwhile, issued a statement essentially blaming the Iranian government for bringing the terror on itself.

The threat that the US intervention in Syria can explode into a regional and even global war is exacerbated by the Trump administration’s ceding to the US military brass virtually all decisions as to the waging of Washington’s multiple wars, from Iraq and Syria to Afghanistan and beyond. Troop levels, rules of engagement and other essential policies are being set by a cabal of active duty and recently retired generals, including Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis and Trump’s national security advisor, Gen. H.R. McMaster, together with commanders on the ground.

Sections of the military bitterly resented the Obama administration’s pulling back from a planned war against Syria in 2013, when in the face of overwhelming popular hostility to another Middle East war and deep divisions in the foreign policy establishment, Washington settled for a Russian-brokered deal to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons. Since then Russian and Iranian support have allowed the Syrian government to drive back the CIA-supported Islamist militias and retake virtually all of the country’s major population centers.

Reversing these advances is essential for the US to assert its dominance over the oil-rich Middle East. There are no doubt those within the US military brass who would welcome a confrontation with Iran and even Russia to achieve this end, regardless of the threat of a wider and potentially world catastrophic war.

Significantly, when reporters asked General Dunford Monday on what authority the US military was carrying out armed actions against the government of Syria, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman cited the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks nearly 16 years ago.

There has been no debate, much less any vote, within the US Congress authorizing a war against Syria. The Democrats have raised no opposition to Trump’s giving free rein to the generals and have politically driven the hysterical anti-Russia propaganda campaign that is paving the way toward military confrontation.

Record abstention overshadows Macron victory in French legislative election

Alex Lantier 

The record 57 percent abstention in the second round of the French legislative elections constitutes the initial verdict of the French people on the political program announced by Emmanuel Macron since his election as president on May 7. His anti-democratic policy of imposing a permanent state of emergency, dictating austerity by decree and militarizing the country elicits only hostility or indifference among a large majority of the population.

Macron has benefited from the absence of any real opposition. In the second round of the presidential election, Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Unsubmissive France (UF) and the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) made clear they considered him a democratic alternative to the neo-fascist National Front (FN). Facing the unity of the established parties around Macron’s LREM (La République en Marche--Republic on the Move), those who turned out to vote gave Macron the majority he wanted. Though only 16 percent of registered voters supported his organization in the first round of the election, it will have an absolute majority of 361 out of 577 seats in the National Assembly.

According to initial estimates, The Republicans (LR) will win around 128 seats, Melenchon’s UF (Unsubmissive France) will obtain 18, the Stalinist French Communist Party (PCF) will win 10, and the FN will hold 8 seats. Forty-two of the 355 seats obtained by the LREM list will go to members of Francois Bayrou’s MoDem (Democratic Movement), which reached an electoral agreement with the LREM.

The election signals the end of an era in French and European politics, with the collapse of Parti Socialiste (PS). This social democratic party, which had dominated what passed for the “left” in France since its foundation in 1971, shortly after the general strike of May-June 1968, has been decimated. It dropped from 331 seats obtained in the 2012 legislative elections to 46 seats today.

In a televised address immediately after the results were announced yesterday evening, PS First Secretary Jean-Christophe Cambadélis announced his resignation. The PS, which may have to sell its headquarters on Solférino Street in Paris, will organize an emergency meeting of its secretariat Tuesday morning.

The so-called “far left,” including the NPA and Workers Struggle (LO), who together received 3 million votes in the 2002 presidential elections, obtained no seats whatsoever.

Macron’s prime minister, Edouard Philippe, reacted to the results by declaring that he would use his parliamentary majority to press ahead with his agenda: “On this Sunday, you have given a clear majority to the president of the Republic and to the government. It will have one mission: to act for France. With their vote, the French people have, in their large majority, preferred hope to anger, and confidence to despair.”

Marine Le Pen, who was elected in her district of the socially devastated coal basin of northern France, declared that her FN was the only opposition party in the Assembly, given that LREM was allied to large sections of the PS and LR. “The old parties have become the satellites of a movement that includes them now,” she said. She called for proportional representation, spoke of the “problem of legitimacy” of the government, and issued a bellicose denunciation of immigrants.

The vote is yet another defeat for Mélenchon. In order to promote the bankrupt perspective of a parliamentary opposition to Macron, Mélenchon first pledged to beat Macron in the presidential election. Then, after his elimination in the first round, he promised to win the legislative election and become prime minister. Unsurprisingly, under conditions where all electoral polls indicated that Mélenchon would win only a small minority of seats, this perspective led to defeat.

Mélenchon reacted demagogically, declaring that the French people now had at its disposal a “coherent, disciplined and aggressive” Unsubmissive France parliamentary group in the Assembly.

The collapse of the PS is the expression within France of the disintegration of the international political context in which it developed its policies since first coming to power in 1981 under François Mitterrand, beginning with the dissolution of the USSR by the Stalinist bureaucracy in 1991. EU austerity policies and NATO imperialist wars waged since 1991 have deeply discredited the political establishment and social anger is rising among workers across Europe.

Voters' anger erupted against the cynicism and bad faith of claims by the previous president, PS leader François Hollande, to be an “enemy” of finance and a “socialist.” He supported deep austerity with the European Union, waged imperialist wars in Libya, Syria and sub-Saharan Africa, and imposed a state of emergency in response to terror attacks by Islamist networks Paris and NATO were using in the war in Syria. The principal symbol of Hollande's unpopularity was his attempt to impose the reactionary PS labor law despite mass protests and the opposition of 70 percent of the population.

Yet this was only the development by Hollande of the basic orientation of the PS--the “austerity turn,” support for the EU, and imperialist wars in the former French colonial empire—which it developed starting the first time it held the presidency, under Mitterrand.

Yesterday, a new series of high-ranking PS officials lost their seats: Hollande’s former Labor Minister Myriam El Khomri, Education Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, intelligence specialist Jean-Jacques Urvoas, and “rebel” PS deputy Christian Paul.

The main question now facing workers and youth is how to struggle against the social counter-revolution being prepared by Macron and his absolute majority in the National Assembly. They are threatened with a permanent state of emergency eliminating basic democratic rights and a determined drive to rewrite French social law by a government aiming to enormously develop European military forces through an alliance with Berlin.

Only a broad mobilization of workers in struggle outside of the usual political and trade union channels, internationally and across Europe on the basis of an independent, revolutionary and truly socialist perspective, can stop Macron’s offensive. Attempts by figures such as Mélenchon to promote yet another symbolic trade union protest in the face of Macron’s cuts amount to throwing dust in the eyes of the workers.

Mélenchon called the mass abstention a “citizens’ general strike” and called for “social resistance.” He appealed for a large regroupment of political forces around him, declaring, “It is the most total resistance that is legitimate under these circumstances.” While it is already clear that the labor law of the PS, on the basis of which Macron is preparing his social attacks, is deeply unpopular, Mélenchon proposed to organize a referendum on Macron’s social measures, apparently in a forlorn attempt to convince Macron to abandon them.

The Parti de l'égalité socialiste (PES) insists that the way forward is a ruthless break with Mélenchon, the NPA and all the forces that have for decades worked in the political orbit of the PS. They formed alliances with the PS and even worked to build the PS itself instead of building a revolutionary party in the working class. The collapse of the PS, after a series of defeats of struggles against austerity led by the trade union bureaucracies since the 2008 Wall Street crash, also points to their own political bankruptcy.

The collapse of the PS underscores the need for the working class to turn to revolutionary Marxism and Trotskyism, and the construction of the PES, to provide the political perspective and leadership for the coming struggles against the Macron government’s policies.

US-backed siege batters Old City of Mosul

Bill Van Auken

Backed by US airstrikes, artillery and special forces “advisors,” Iraqi troops began storming Mosul’s crowded Old City, where the United Nations estimates that some 150,000 civilians are trapped under the siege.

Iraqi commanders have issued triumphalist statements hailing the offensive as the beginning of the end for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which took control of Iraq’s second-largest city after government troops melted away in the face of their advance in June 2014.

“This is the last chapter” in the battle for Mosul, Lt. Gen. Abdul Ghani al-Asadi, the commander of the Counter Terrorism Service (CTS), the elite US-trained unit that has borne the brunt of the fighting, told the media Sunday. He warned that he expects a “vicious and tough fight.”

How long this “last chapter” will last is by no means clear. Some commanders have predicted that it will take at least a month to retake the area. US-backed Iraqi forces began their siege of Mosul eight months ago. Since then, thousands of Iraqi civilians have died under US bombs, rockets and shells. The UN has confirmed the killing of 230 civilians in western Mosul during the last two weeks alone, undoubtedly a significant undercount of the real death toll. The rest of the population has been reduced to desperate conditions, without adequate food, water or medical aid.

This final stage of the battle may well prove the bloodiest. The Old City is the most densely populated area of Mosul, with narrow alleyways that will make an advance by infantry troops difficult.

The International Rescue Committee, which is coordinating aid to the civilian population, warned that it expects a sharp rise in bloodshed. “With its narrow and winding streets, Iraqi forces will be even more reliant on airstrikes despite the difficulty in identifying civilians sheltering in buildings and the increased risk of civilians being used as human shields by ISIS fighters,” said Nora Love, the IRC’s acting country director.

Love added that “the buildings of the old town are particularly vulnerable to collapse even if they aren’t directly targeted.”

The launching of the siege of the Old Town was preceded by an intense bombardment by US and allied warplanes, together with an intense artillery bombardment beginning at midnight.

The Washington Post quoted an Iraqi officer as reporting that the offensive began with the early morning firing of three TOS-1 thermobaric rockets into an area near a school. The so-called “fuel-air” weapons disperse a cloud of flammable liquid into the air around the target, and then ignite it. The results are horrific, generating a more powerful explosion and shockwave than conventional missiles and consuming all of the oxygen in the area. They can kill everything in a 3,000 square-foot area, with victims dying from the intense pressure of the blast or suffocating as their lungs rupture as a result of the air vacuum.

The use of these terrifying weapons against densely populated neighborhoods follows the earlier confirmation that the US military has attacked Mosul with white phosphorous shells, which are banned in populated areas. The incendiary chemical weapons ignite human flesh on contact, burning it to the bone.

The use of these weapons and the mounting number of civilian casualties is evidence of the US military implementing what US Secretary of Defense James Mattis described last month as “annihilation tactics” in the anti-ISIS campaign. “Civilian casualties are a fact of life in this sort of situation,” Mattis, a recently retired Marine Corps general who led the murderous sieges against Fallujah in 2004, commented at the time.

US warplanes have dropped leaflets on Mosul’s Old Town urging residents to flee. While those who do face the threat of dying in US bombardments or being killed in the crossfire, the Pentagon is clearly creating the groundwork for arguing that civilians being slaughtered are either “human shields” or ISIS diehards.

Even if the US and Iraqi government forces succeed in retaking all of Mosul, after reducing most of this ancient city on the banks of the Tigris River to rubble, it will by no means spell an end to the savage conflict that was unleashed by the US invasion in 2003.

Sectarian divisions, manipulated by the US occupation as part of a divide-and-rule strategy, will only be exacerbated by the retaking of Mosul. The city fell to ISIS in the first place because of the bitter resentment of its Sunni majority population against the Shia-dominated government and army. Now this same army is assuming control, backed by Shia sectarian militias.

Huge numbers of people will remain homeless and in desperate need. More than a year after the so-called liberation of Ramadi from ISIS control—after 80 percent of the city’s buildings were damaged or destroyed—only 60 percent of those displaced have been able to return.

Moreover, Washington has no intention of withdrawing its troops from Iraq. It was reported early last month that the Pentagon had entered negotiations with the government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on a proposal that would maintain a permanent US troop presence in Iraq. The plan calls for thousands of US troops to remain in the county, deployed at five separate bases, including on the Iraqi-Syrian border.

The pretext for this continued military presence is that of preventing a resurgence of ISIS in Iraq. The real aim, however, is to further US geostrategic aims in the region, which include removing Iran as an obstacle to the imposition of unchallenged American hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East.

The Trump administration has deliberately stoked a confrontation between the Sunni regimes led by the Saudi monarchy and predominantly Shiite Iran. In Iraq, this conflict poses the threat of reigniting a bloody civil war, with or without ISIS.

This threat was underscored by remarks made over the weekend by Prime Minister Abadi and earlier in the week by his vice president, Iyad Allawi, a former CIA asset and one-time US-installed prime minister.

Abadi stressed that he would not allow Iraq to be turned into a battlefield between the US and Iran or a launching pad for attacks on Iran. “If we are given the rule of the entire world and promised free reconstruction, we will not engage in hostility toward Iran,” he said.

Speaking earlier in the week during a visit to Egypt, Allawi echoed Washington and the Saudi regime, accusing Iran of interfering in parliamentary elections set for next year and charging that both Iran and Qatar are seeking to “split Iraq into a Sunni region in exchange for a Shia region.”

Civil Nuclear Energy Initiatives

Niharika Tagotra

In July 2014, months after the NDA government returned to power, PM Narendra Modi visited the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai and declared that nuclear power would be an essential part of India’s energy security. The initiatives taken in this regard by the current government are reflective of this intent. While most of these initiatives are a continuation of the previous government’s policy push in the nuclear energy sector, many other initiatives undertaken by the current regime go a step further. It is however important to note that the present government remains conspicuously silent on issues such as improving regulation and transparency in the nuclear sector, and no major policy break from the previous government can be identified in the issue area.

PM Modi’s Nuclear Diplomacy

Continuing with the nuclear diplomacy that was initiated by the previous UPA government, PM Modi has signed civil nuclear deals with over ten countries. Of these, the India-US and India-Japan nuclear agreements were quite significant because they removed some significant bottlenecks in the fuel and technology imports for the sector.

Under the India-US nuclear agreement signed in January 2015 during President Obama’s visit to India, the two countries were able to reach an understanding on the issue of civil nuclear liability. The India side agreed to set up a nuclear insurance pool to the tune of INR 1500 crore under the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), which was fundamental in assuaging the concerns of foreign and domestic investors regarding the issue of liability in the nuclear sector.

This removed a major bottleneck for private companies and the visit subsequently saw the initiation of commercial negotiations between Westinghouse and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL). The personal bonhomie between US President Barack Obama and PM Modi is said to have played an important role in the matter - both leaders circumvented domestic political opposition and were able to ultimately forge a consensus on the liability issue.

The India-France nuclear deal signed in 2010 was again a legacy of the UPA government inherited by the Modi government. The deal had been stuck in limbo because the reactor vessels used by Areva were sourced from Japan and in the absence of an India-Japan civil nuclear arrangement, the supply of these vessels was not possible. A permanent resolution to the issue was achieved in December 2015 when India and Japan signed a landmark civil nuclear agreement, bringing six years of negotiations to a successful end. This was a significant exception for India as it became the only non-NPT country to sign a nuclear deal with Japan. While the agreements did see a long drawn process of negotiations between the countries - a period that spanned the regimes of both the UPA and the NDA - diplomatic efforts led by Modi himself and his emphasis on forging deep personal engagements with the leaders were fundamental in the successful culmination of most of these negotiations.

PM Modi’s efforts at using diplomacy to secure nuclear deals however suffered a setback when India’s diplomatic push for securing a membership to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) hit a roadblock. A major opposition to India’s bid came from China and a group of other countries including Ireland, Austria and New Zealand. While, the benefits from NSG membership for the domestic nuclear energy sector is debatable, there is no doubt that the failure at achieving its intended goal caused India some major diplomatic embarrassment.

Policy Push for Nuclear Power

Besides the diplomatic overtures, certain important initiatives have also been taken at the domestic front to streamline the flow of investments to the sector. The push for the ratification of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for nuclear damage in February 2016 was a step in this regard. While the convention was signed in 2010, its ratification saw a delay of six years owing to the government’s lack of political will. The ratification of the agreement in 2016 reflected the intent of the current government to implement and abide by the convention in its entirety.

The government has also attempted to alleviate concerns regarding the provision of sufficient investment to the sector by announcing a yearly budgetary allocation of INR 3000 crore to nuclear energy for the next two decades. Making the announcement during his 2016 budget speech, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley categorically stated that the government was looking at nuclear energy as the power source for long-term stability. Recently, the government announced the plan for setting up of ten indigenously developed Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs), an initiative that is expected to fast-track India’s nuclear power programme and provide the much needed push to the domestic nuclear industry by generating manufacturing orders to the tune of INR 70,000 crore and creating over 33,400 jobs in the country. The units, developed in fleet mode, will be one of the flagship ‘Make in India’ projects, and will aim to link India’s nuclear power sector with the indigenous industrial capacities in high-end technologies.

Unaddressed Issues

With regard to nuclear energy, it is not just the economic and political realities that act as an obstacle but also the social mindset that stalls its development. The lack of transparency in the functioning of the sector is the primary cause for the trust deficit between the general public and the nuclear energy sector. The lack of information or misinformation about the sector adds to the distrust of nuclear power in a post-Fukushima world. Some fundamental long-pending reforms in this regard still remain unaddressed. The issue of increasing accountability in the sector - by increasing the regulatory powers of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and making the atomic energy institution more accountable to the public - remains pending, while the Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Authority (NSRA) bill which lapsed in 2014 with the change of government is yet to be re-introduced in parliament. The continuing problems with the L1 system of procurement, which has been flagged by the private sector as the reason behind the never-ending delays in the construction of domestic power plants and spiralling costs, have also not been taken up.

Thus, while there is no doubt that the Modi government has undertaken some important steps to further the generation of nuclear energy, with PM Modi personally leading some diplomatic initiatives, the reluctance of the government to attend to some of the persistent issues in the sector is a major gap in the Modi government’s policy push for the nuclear sector.

Crisis and Foresight Analysis

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera

The dawn of the Fourth Industrial Revolution brings with the promise of further human advancement. . And yet, while humanity should be aspiring for a better life, disturbing events like the terrorist attacks in Manchester, London, and the Philippines, and the recent white phosphorus attack in Raqqa, Syria, point to humanity’s burial of its own journey toward a better world. The 17th century philosopher Pascal rightly explained, “Humanity is great, because it knows itself to be wretched.” Is there  then, with advance human intellect, still hope of creating a better world and preventing or minimising the loss of human life? Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter III) has said, “It is necessary not only to pay attention to immediate crisis, but to foresee those that will come and to make every effort to prevent them.” 

In Sri Lanka, this year, over 200 lives were lost and half a million affected from the torrential rainfall that caused floods and landslides; it was the same cycle of rain with a different magnitude than last year. The nation’s vulnerability to such natural disasters in the near future and years ahead should be taken into highest consideration. The attitude of a reactive response to crisis situations should change.

A proactive methodology designed to minimise casualties should be considered. When asked about the vision for 2050, the 100 ministries within Sri Lanka and the newly created ones, indicate vagueness and uncertainty.

Sri Lanka’s future will depend on the choices that are created today for a better tomorrow. For this, it is important to question the reference template used to make such choices – is it outdated or still a relevant template? For example, in the last budget, the Sri Lankan government increased taxes of electric vehicles.

However, at the UNFCCC COP 21 in Paris, the president pledged to the sustainability project, followed by supporting remarks by the prime minister in New York. This is a relevant template. The question then is how to bridge the gaps in policy making?  

Sri Lanka could play a significant role in the next few decades due to pivotal geo-strategic positioning. Therefore, it is very important to identify and discuss the national challenges for the next 25 to 50 years, and even beyond. Demographic shifts, urbanisation, population ratios and the challenges that Sri Lanka could face from within and from outside powers are some salients to be considered. For this there is a need to prepare foresight maps for the nation, its institutions and ministries  for a long term 50 year time horizon and with correct methodology, so that the nation can be easily steered from regime to regime and mandates could be identified in a scientific method. This does not happen in Sri Lanka at present. 

In Sri Lanka, ministries have been connected and the government claims that this has been done scientifically. For instance, Education and Highways have been clubbed; similarly, Finance and Media have been clubbed. There is no connection among the subject areas of these ‘scientifically’ clubbed ministries. Additionally, the ministries' mandates are spread in an ad hoc manner. Sometimes they overlap or duplicate the process. When institutes are created or reset this way, they  lose their strategic direction and focus. 

It appears that the quality of governance has been replaced by quantity. In a country, the grand strategy is spelled out by its leaders and the strategy has to be adjusted justifiably to accommodate changes in the context. If it cannot be justified, the government should not create new entities that will burden its budget and could even derail the grand vision. 

As per to the Millennium Project, “The decision support software and foresight systems are constantly improving: for example, big data analytics, simulations, collective intelligence systems, indexes and e-governance participatory systems.” Integrating foresight systems to a society is a priority and many governments have already included it years ago. In 2016, the Sri Lanka Foresight Initiative was launched by this author with the Millennium Project which operates in over 60 countries to improve policymaking and strategic narrative on key priority areas by engaging government and all others in important stakeholders in the society.

Unfortunately since its launch in May 2016, till now there has not been a single inquiry or request to implement this methodology. The powerful Delphi platform that is used has benefited many countries and the Sri Lankan Millennium Node could visit ministries and institutes and assist and train the officers to develop the foresight map. According to futurist Dr Puruesh Chaudhary who operates the Pakistan node for Millennium Project, “Futures thinking facilitate the process of institutionalized decisions amongst the leadership corridors improving learning faculty and increases the quality of policy inputs and strategic outcomes.” She eloquently explains the importance of inculcating future study to government policy making in her latest book 'The Big Idea: Next Generation of Leadership in Pakistan needs a 'New-Think’. 

For a country like Sri Lanka which aspires to be the ‘Miracle’ or ‘Wonder of Asia’, its leaders should craft the foresight map that takes the country to the aspired destination.

India-China Relations: A Mixed Bag

TCA Rangachari

“The prospects of the 21st century becoming the Asian century will depend in large measure on what India and China achieve individually and what we do together.”  

                                                - Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Beijing, 15 May 2015

“Simultaneous re-emergence of India and China as two major powers in the region and the world offers a momentous opportunity for realization of the Asian Century. … India-China bilateral relations are poised to play a defining role in the 21st Century in Asia and indeed, globally….. The two countries pursuing their respective national developmental goals and security interests must unfold in a mutually supportive manner with both sides showing mutual respect and sensitivity to each other’s concerns, interests and aspirations.” 

                                                                -India-China Joint Statement, 15 May 2015

Has the relationship lived up to these exalted sentiments? 

The first question to ask is whether we can make a worthwhile assessment of India-China relations by looking at this one short phase of a relationship stretching back a millennia and more? Or, should we view the relationship as a continuum where the past, present and future are all component parts?

The past will remain ever present in our bilateral dealings given that India and China have inherited a rich historical and cultural legacy. The present is relevant because that is what we have to deal with; also because, in democracies, governments have to gain and retain the support of their peoples whose judgement will be based on real-time consequences and benefits. Ignoring the future is not an option as China and India are both projected to become the second and third largest economies of the world in a conceivable time-frame. The displacement of established powers with attendant implications for global governance makes it imperative to evolve new arrangements and adjustments. 

The broad choice before India and China is 'Cooperate or Compete'. Cooperation in a constructive spirit would contribute to peace, stability and economic betterment of the region. It will provide an impetus for speedier regional integration. Commonalities in the problems faced by India and China – poverty elimination; ensuring balanced and equitable growth; governance and rule of law; demographics; rural-urban migration; labour flows and employment; environment and climate change – should encourage cooperation. Containment would derail these objectives. It would aggravate bilateral tensions and hostility, and widen the trust deficit that the leaderships in both countries are committed to redressing. 

 

India and China both seem to be engaged in a combination of the two. There exists a clear acceptance of the need for a cooperative approach; the underlying suspicions, however, linger on. How successful we are in managing each other will significantly influence the achievement of our respective ‘dreams’ and influence regional and global stability and developmental goals. 

In this back-drop, the past three years have been a part of the continuum to maximise mutual benefit while limiting differences to manageable levels. There have been notable gains even as unresolved problems persist and new ones have emerged.

Multiple mechanisms have facilitated exchanges and dialogue at various levels. In the last three years, new ones have been added covering health, science & technology, vocational education and skill development, and other sectors. Civil society dialogue is being institutionalised. In acknowledgement of our federal polity, new arrangements have been agreed upon for exchanges at the state and city levels. Exposure to the progress made by China might help our state-level leadership overcome ideological or other reservations in formulating and implementing growth-oriented policies. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s initiatives like promoting Yoga have been warmly welcomed and supported.

The biggest gain has been on the economic side. Investments from China have shown a notable increase. On 31 August 2016, Chinese newspaper Global Times reported that against $1.35 billion FDI in India during April 2000-March 2016, investments worth $2.3 billion were announced in the second quarter of 2016.

Another report on 10 May 2017 noted that an increasing number of Chinese companies are now investing in India covering sectors such as hardware, software, marketing, medicine, e-commerce, manufacturing, insurance and research & development. In effect, the Summit level decisions of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping are yielding results. The amounts are still much too small to offset India’s trade deficit in excess of $ 50 billion. It will require much effort on the two sides for investments to leap-frog and the deficit to decline. Nevertheless, this is a welcome development.

Dialogue may have led to greater understanding of each other’s viewpoints but problems persist. Some of China’s policies and actions – some enduring, some of recent origin – including in our neighbourhood and the Indian Ocean, remain adverse to India’s interests. China’s position on India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, its stand on the issue of Pakistan-based terrorist outfits and the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) under the rubric of Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative disregards India’s interests and concerns. China’s own stated position is opposition to terrorism in all its forms. It has also been a victim of Pakistan-based terrorist groups. Most recently, on 10 June 2017, China expressed "grave concern" to Pakistan over the abduction and killing of two Chinese teachers in Pakistan. In these circumstances, covering up for Pakistan is inexplicable.

Equally inexplicable is the dismissiveness regarding India’s position on CPEC given China’s own position on sovereignty and territorial integrity. The border issue is not amenable to quick resolution. While the border areas have, by and large, remained peaceful, China needlessly complicated matters by upping the rhetorical ante by notifying, on 14 April 2017, Chinese names for six places in Arunachal Pradesh. The Chinese Foreign Office spokesman said this was “legitimate and appropriate.” “These names reflect from another angle that China's territorial claim over South Tibet is supported by clear evidence in terms of history, culture and administration.” Would it not, in consequence, be “legitimate and appropriate” for India to review its Tibet policy which was not predicated upon claim being laid to Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet?”

China might also view some of India’s policies as adverse to its own interests. One recent development relates to China’s fears that India is moving too close to the US.

At the multi-lateral level, there has been cooperation in several different forums, the latest being at the June 2017 Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit (SCO) in Astana, with India finally becoming a full member of the SCO. Xi then said China wished to “maintain coordination and cooperation on major international and regional issues” with India. India and China are partners in the BRICS Bank, AIIB and other organisations. 

Thus, we have a mixed bag. Some positives, some negatives. 

If there is a lesson from the past three years, it is that India and China have to work together to accommodate differing, competing, even conflicting, interests in a cooperative arrangement.

Indian Nuclear Policy and Diplomacy

Manpreet Sethi


Democracies often undergo swings in policies with change of governments. India’s nuclear policy, however, in both its dimensions - weapons and power generation - has enjoyed broad support across political parties. The pace of development of these programmes may have varied depending on the personal inclination of the leadership, but the general direction of the policies has mostly remained the same irrespective of the party in power. India’s ability to conduct nuclear tests in 1998 was enabled by the continued support given to the programme by leaders of all hues while occupying the prime minister’s chair between 1948-98. 

More recently, the broad-based consensus on nuclear weapons-related issues has been demonstrated through the continuing validation of India’s nuclear doctrine. This was first articulated in 1999 (and officially accepted with slight revisions in 2003) under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The change of administration in 2004 with the coming in of the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government headed by Dr Manmohan Singh did not lead to any alteration in the doctrine over two of his terms (2004-2014). Subsequently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has yet again expressed his support for the doctrine despite the noise made by his party during the election campaign about a possible doctrinal revision. 

The PM’s endorsement of the doctrine, especially its attribute of no first use (NFU), early in his tenure was the right move to set the record straight on India’s nuclear strategy. Given that India believes that nuclear weapons are meant to deter use of similar weapons, the principle of NFU is grounded in sound political and military logic. Using them first is sure to bring back nuclear retaliation from India’s nuclear-armed adversaries, both of whom have secure second strike capabilities. Hopefully, India’s leadership will continue to understand and uphold this simple logic even as India is passing through not so benign nuclear developments in the neighbourhood. Even if the adversaries develop ostensibly counterforce capabilities, the NDA government would do the country a favour by steadfastly declining to go down the route of nuclear war-fighting.  

Instead of effecting any doctrinal changes, the focus of India’s nuclear strategy must be on capability build-up to further the survivability and reliability of the nuclear arsenal to lend credence to the promise of assured retaliation. To its credit, the NDA government has retained the momentum on capability as evident in the regular testing of delivery systems. Its focus has also rightly been on the full operationalisation of INS Arihant, as well as making future additions more potent to enhance the credibility of deterrence. 

As regards India’s nuclear power programme, the NDA inherited the major breakthrough achieved through a full operationalisation of the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, including a waiver granted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to its members to do nuclear trade with India. The UPA had already captured the new opportunities through the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on peaceful nuclear cooperation with as many as 11 countries by 2011. However, the nuclear accident at Fukushima, and the subsequent enactment of the Civil Liability Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), which was imbued with many strict provisions that the nuclear industry considered unfriendly for investment, significantly slowed India’s ability to encash the cooperation agreements. 

On its occupation of the seat of power, the NDA - whose main constituent party, the BJP, when in opposition had been responsible for the stridency of the CLNDA - began to take steps to resolve some of the hurdles to the rapid expansion of India’s nuclear energy programme. In order to address liability concerns, the government issued new clarifications on the provisions in 2015, besides creating an insurance pool to assure nuclear industry in 2016. PM Modi also used his visits to the major nuclear supplier countries to allay their fears. However, the results have been slow, running into further problems because of the flux in international nuclear industry. Even as price negotiations with AREVA were being worked out, it was taken over by Electricite de France (EdF). Organisational and procedural realignments at their end are sure to slow the finalisation of the contract with India. Meanwhile, in another blow, Westinghouse declared bankruptcy earlier this year, placing in jeopardy India’s cooperation with the Toshiba-Westinghouse consortium. 

Owing to these developments, India has not yet been able to start construction of any imported reactor. However, in an attempt to keep some of the targets on track, the NDA government has approved construction of 10 indigenous nuclear power plants of 700 MWe each. This is a good move and will give a boost to the local nuclear industry. In fact, it would be best if the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), the national nuclear builder and operator, is able to show the capacity to build these plants with no financial overruns and time delays since nuclear power is today competing in the mind space with fast expanding renewable energy. 

One major disappointment for the NDA has been its inability to secure NSG membership for India. On this issue, they seem to have run into the China Great Wall even as proactive Indian nuclear diplomacy was able to bring around some of the other countries that had earlier expressed reservations on India’s inclusion. China, however, remains intransigent for now and some clever diplomacy will be required to make a breakthrough here. 

One such idea could be to prepare India to step into the nuclear export market with its own wares. India could be a nuclear supplier even without being an NSG member. It certainly has the requisite expertise especially in small and mid-sized nuclear reactors that could be suitable for many countries. In case the need for financial and fuel support to enable export of Indian nuclear reactors is felt, India could explore the possibility of partnering with some other nuclear suppliers such as Rosatom or even a Chinese company. In the next two years, the NDA administration could put in place a nuclear export strategy for India and provide a new direction and momentum to national nuclear policy and diplomacy. 

Travel Scholarship: Wits Africa-China Workshop on Reporting Africa-China Engagements 2017

Application Deadline: 18th July 2017.

Eligible Countries: Journalists in African countries and China

To be taken at (country): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

About the Award: The workshop will bring together selected African and Chinese journalists to equip them with knowledge, skills and training for covering current Africa-China engagements. The workshop will focus on the crucial sectors of agriculture and industrialisation/manufacturing. Agriculture is crucial in Africa for its direct link with food security. Industrialisation on the other hand is important because it has been elevated in recent Africa-China policy promulgations, specifically the Johannesburg Forum on China Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) summit in 2015. Industrialization is seen as an antidote to the high levels of poverty in Africa, which is manifest in frequent cases of famine. These two areas deserve more focused journalistic reporting than is currently the case.

Underlying the focus on agriculture and industrialisation are three broad policy frameworks that influence and shape Africa-China relations: Agenda 2063, the Forum on China Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as Agenda 2030.  How do these policy frameworks affect the implementation of agricultural and industrial projects and programmes in African countries?

Key questions:

• Does Africa-China cooperation help impoverished African communities to overcome poverty?
• What is the impact of Africa-China agricultural engagements on food security in Africa? What is the evidence?
• How is the Africa-China industrialisation programme being implemented in Africa from one country to another and from one community to another?
• Are there any links between completed and ongoing projects and Agenda 2063, FOCAC and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?

Type: Workshop

Eligibility: African and Chinese journalists are invited to apply to attend this workshop.

Number of Awards: About 20 journalists from Africa and China will be invited to attend the three-day workshop

Value of Program: 

• Selected journalists will be provided with airfares to/from Addis and accommodation and catering in Addis Ababa
• The workshop programme will include excursions to the African Union (AU) headquarters and other significant locations in Addis Ababa, as well as a day trip to one of the Chinese industrial parks in Ethiopia
• Selected journalists are expected to apply the knowledge, skills and training acquired by undertaking investigations and publishing in their media. The Wits Africa China Project will financially support some of the journalists to do fieldwork on specific stories after the workshop

Duration of Program: 23-25 August 2017

How to Apply: African and Chinese Journalists are invited to send applications addressing the requirements below in an email entitled “APPLICATION: ADDIS WORKSHOP 2017” to africa-china@journalism.co.za BY NO LATER THAN 18 JULY 2017.

Applications should contain the following:

• Applicant CV
• List of applicant’s previous published reporting on Africa-China, especially on agriculture, industrialisation and sustainable development
• Reporting proposal for a topic relevant to Africa-China agriculture, industrialisation and/or sustainable development, indicating clearly the country/region focus, along with a budget for costs relating to the reporting grant (please refer to the Africa-China Reporting Project’s guidelines for reporting grants)

Only shortlisted candidates will be notified.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Wits Africa-China Reporting Project and the Oxfam Africa-China Dialogue Platform.

Virginia International University (VIU) Undergraduate and Graduate Scholarships for International Students 2018

Application Deadlines: 

• Fall 2017 :  26th May 2017
• Spring 2018: 1st September –  6th October 2017

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: VIU has been attracting individuals who take their VIU experiences into their own cultures, share their knowledge with future generations, and launch successful careers. Thus, there are several different types of scholarships available based on exemplary personal skills, academic achievement, extracurricular participation, on-campus work, and residency.

Type: Graduate, undergraduate and ESL programs On-ground & Online

Eligibility: Current and prospective students are eligible to apply. Students who are enrolled in any of VIU’s undergraduate, graduate, and language studies programs as full-time students are eligible to apply for a scholarship if requirements are met. Students enrolled in the language studies program (ex. ESL program) as part-time students are also eligible to apply. Prospective students have the chance to apply for scholarships during their application process for admission to VIU.

Selection: The scholarship selection process begins immediately after the application period ends. All applications are initially screened for completion and criteria assessment. Once the application is deemed complete, the application will be available for the Scholarship Committee’s review. Each application is reviewed and assessed on an individual basis.

Selected applicants will be invited for an interview with the members of the Scholarship Committee as part of the selection process. The interview will be held at VIU campus or via Skype. Applicants may bring additional supporting materials to the interview if they wish.

Scholarship awards will be determined by the Scholarship Committee prior to the first day of classes for the semester to which the student applied. Awardees will be notified by email.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: Scholarship awards are given as a credit towards semester tuition only.

How to Apply: To apply for a scholarship, students must follow these steps:

1. New students: Apply for admissions at VIU
2. Browse the scholarship opportunities
3. Choose up to two types of scholarship
4. Review the requirements for the scholarship application
5. Apply online (applicant portal or student portal)
6. Upload your documents via applicant portal or student portal.

Once the application form and all the supporting documents are received, students will receive a confirmation email.

Document Submission: 
All submissions must be scanned, color copies of the original document. Samples of these documents may include transcripts, diplomas, certificates, and test scores. Photocopies are NOT considered acceptable documentation. If any document is issued in the applicants’ native language, they must provide both the original document and a translation of the document in English. Translated documents must be notarized. VIU has the right to request original documentation. Submission of fabricated or false documents will result in disqualification from future scholarship application.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Virginia International University