Reckless Gamble for Profit that Placed Indian Cotton Farmers in Corporate Noose

Colin Todhunter

The dubious performance (failure) of genetically engineered Bt cotton, officially India’s only GM crop, should serve as a warning as the push within the country to adopt GM across a wide range of food crops continues. This article provides an outline of some key reports and papers that have appeared in the last few years on Bt cotton in India.

In a paper that appeared in December 2018 in the journal Current Science, P.C. Kesavan and M.S. Swaminathan cited research findings to support the view that Bt insecticidal cotton has been a failure in India and has not provided livelihood security for mainly resource-poor, small and marginal farmers. This paper was not just important because of its content but also because M.S. Swaminathan is considered to be the father of the Green Revolution in India.

The two authors provided evidence that indicates Bt crops are unsustainable and have not decreased the need for toxic chemical pesticides, the reason for these GM crops in the first place.

The authors cite the views of Dr K.R. Kranthi, former Director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research in Nagpur. Based on his research, he concluded in December 2016:

“Bt-cotton plus higher fertilizers plus increased irrigation also received a protective cover from the seed treatment of neonicotinoid insecticides such as imidacloprid, without which majority of the Bt-cotton hybrids which were susceptible to sucking pests would have yielded far less. It can safely be said that yield increase in India would not have happened with Bt-cotton alone without enhanced fertilizer usage, without increased irrigation, without seed treatment chemicals, and the absence of drought-free decade.”

In effect, levels of insecticide use are now back to the pre-Bt era as is productivity due to pest resistance and crop failures.

Following on from this, an April 2018 paper in the journal Pest Science Management indicates there has been progressive boll-worm resistance to Bt cotton in India over a seven-year period. The authors conclude:

“High PBW [pink boll-worm] larval recovery on Bt‐II in conjunction with high LC50 values for Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab in major cotton‐growing districts of central and southern India provides evidence of field‐evolved resistance in PBW to Bt‐I and Bt‐II cotton.”

This alongside other problems related to Bt cotton has had disastrous consequences for farmers. In a 2015 paper Professor Andrew Paul Gutierrez and his colleagues say:

“Bt cotton may be economic in irrigated cotton, whereas costs of Bt seed and insecticide increase the risk of farmer bankruptcy in low-yield rain-fed cotton. Inability to use saved seed and inadequate agronomic information trap cotton farmers on biotechnology and insecticide treadmills. Annual suicide rates in rain-fed areas are inversely related to farm size and yield, and directly related to increases in Bt cotton adoption (i.e., costs).”

In a new December 2018 paper, Gutierrez sends a warning to those considering rolling out GM food crops in India:

“… recent calls by industry and its clients to extend implementation of the hybrid technology in aubergine (brinjal, eggplant) and mustard and likely other crops in India will only mirror the disastrous implementation of the failed hybrid Bt technology in Indian cotton and, will only serve to tighten the economic hybrid technology noose on still more subsistence farmers for the sake of profits.”

He concludes that Bt cotton has placed many resource-poor farmers in a stranglehold. Bt cotton prevents seed saving and farmers must purchase costly seed, which leads to sub-optimal planting densities. Stagnant/low yields have followed, insecticide use has grown and new pests resistant to insecticide/Bt toxins have emerged.

Giterriez says that leading Indian agronomists have proposed that adoption of pure-line high density short-season varieties of rain-fed cotton which could more than double current yields and would avoid heavy infestations of pink boll-worm, thus reducing insecticide use and pesticide disruption. This cotton is not a new technology and predates Bt cotton.

Given what Gutierrez says, it is quite timely that Kesevan and Swaminathan question regulators’ failure in India to carry out a socio-economic assessment of GMO impacts on resource-poor small and marginal farmers. They call for “able economists who are familiar with and will prioritize rural livelihoods and the interests of resource-poor small and marginal farmers rather than serve corporate interests and their profits.”

This mirrors what Gutierrez and his colleagues argued in 2015 that policy makers need holistic analysis before new technologies are implemented in agricultural development.

Naturally, corporations and many pro-GM scientists wish to avoid such things as much as possible. They try to convince policy makers that as long as the science on GM is sound (which it isn’t, despite what they proclaim), GM should be rolled out regardless. They regard regulators and regulations as a mere hindrance that is preventing GM from helping farmers. Deregulating GM is the order of the day. It’s a reckless approach. We need only look at Indian cotton farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been devastated due to the ill thought out roll-out of Bt technology.

Kesavan and Swaminathan criticise India’s GMO regulating bodies due to a lack of competency and endemic conflicts of interest and a lack of expertise in GMO risk assessment protocols, including food safety assessment and the assessment of environmental impacts. Many of these issues have been a common thread in five high-level official reports in India that have advised against the commercialisation of GM crops:

The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal [February 2010];

The ‘Sopory Committee Report’ [August 2012];

The ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee’ [PSC] Report on GM crops [August 2012];

The ‘Technical Expert Committee [TEC] Final Report’ [June-July 2013]; and

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment and Forests [August 2017].

In her numerous submissions to India’s Supreme Court, prominent campaigner Aruna Rodrigues has been scathing. She recently told me that:

“It is proven in copious evidence in the Supreme Court in the last 13 years that our regulators are seriously conflicted: they promote GMOs openly, fund them (as with herbicide-tolerant mustard and other public sector GMOs) and then regulate them. Truth is a massive casualty. This is not lightly stated.”

She added that “failed hybrid Bt cotton in India” has put farmers on a pesticide treadmill as increasing levels of pest resistance becomes manifest.

Prior to this, in 2017, Rodrigues also said:

“Never has an agri-tech been sold as a ‘magic bean’ to farmers, like Bt cotton, with opprobrium attaching to our regulators and ministries of governance who supported and continue to support this technology-castle built on sand, in the absence of evidence and when the hard data said the opposite.”

In the rush to plant these ‘magic beans’, the area planted under Bt cotton has often displaced vital food crops at a time when India should surely have been looking to achieve food security and self-sufficiency.

Writing in India’s The Statesman newspaper in 2015, for example, the knife-edge existence of the people that rich corporations profit from was highlighted in the case of Babu Lal and his wife Mirdi Bai who had been traditionally cultivating wheat, maize and millet on their farmland in Rajasthan. Their crops provided food for several months a year to the 10-member family as well as fodder for farm and dairy animals, integral to the mixed farming system employed.

Company agents (unspecified – but Monsanto and its subsidiaries dominate the GM cotton industry in India) approached the family with the promise of a lump-sum payment to plant Bt cotton seeds in two of their fields. Lal purchased pesticides to help grow the seeds in the hope of receiving the payment, which never materialised because the company agent said the seeds produced had ‘failed’ in tests.

The family faced economic ruin, not least because the food harvest was much lower than normal as the best fields and most labour and resources had been devoted to Bt cotton. It resulted in Lal borrowing from private moneylenders at a high interest rate to meet the needs of food and fodder. On top of this, the company’s agent allegedly started harassing Lal for a payment of about 10,000 rupees in lieu of the fertilisers and pesticides provided to him. Several other tribal farmers in the area also fell into this trap.

The promise of a lump-sum cash payment can be very enticing to poor farmers, and when companies co-opt influential villagers to get new farmers to agree to plant Bt cotton, farmers are reluctant to decline the offer. When production is declared as having failed, solely at the company’s discretion it seems, a family becomes indebted.

According to that article, there was growing evidence that the trend to experiment with Bt cotton has disrupted food security in certain areas and had introduced various health hazards and had damaged soil due to the use of chemical inputs.

Before finishing, it is certainly worth mentioning Stone and Flachs’s 2017 paper on how certain interests within and beyond India are attempting to break traditional farming cotton cultivation practices with the aim of placing farmers on yet another corporate treadmill. This time, the aim appears to be to introduce herbicide-tolerant (HT) cotton in India on the back of Bt cotton. The authors indicate just how hugely financially lucrative for corporations the relatively ‘undeveloped’ herbicide market is in India. These HT cotton seeds have now appeared illegally on the market.

Ultimately, as Gutierrez implies, the bottom line is cynical corporate interest and profit – not helping Indian farmers or some high-minded notion about feeding the world. Just ask Babu Lal and thousands like him!

Of course, given the track record of HT crops, it is another disaster in the making for Indian farmers and the environment. This warning has already been made clear by the Supreme Court appointed Technical Expert Committee, which regards HT crops as being wholly inappropriate for India.

With various GM crops waiting in the wings, India should continue to adopt a precautionary approach towards GMOs as advocated by Jairam Ramesh and not implement another reckless gamble with farmers’ livelihoods, the nation’s health and the environment. About nine years ago, based on a rigorous consultation with international scientific experts regarding the commercialisation of Bt brinjal, Ramesh concluded that without any management of resistance evolution, Bt brinjal would fail in 4-12 years. Jairam Ramesh pronounced a moratorium on Bt brinjal in February 2010 founded on what he called “a cautious, precautionary principle-based approach.”

Isn’t such failure what we now witness with Bt cotton?  It serves as a timely warning for implementing a widespread GMO food crop regime in India. The writing is on the wall.

Elderly Abuse in Indian Society

Harasankar Adhikari

 Ageing scenario in India is under pressure so far as their all-round care is concerned. It may be their finance, healthcare or shelter. The changing family structure and functions do not agree to provide them space in their family which was the once of their own and for which they devoted whole life. At their later age, they are dysfunctional and unproductive. They are burden to their off-spring and they are treated as old luggage. Surprisingly, Indian culture always teaches to respect elderly and family is the best place for their later life. It is enough for happy ends of their last days. So, they have to suffer from mental illness, isolation and loneliness. They have to live as “sandwich” generation.

According to the Census Report, 2011, Indian’s 8% population was 60 years and above. And it is expected to be 12.5% by 2026 and 20% by 2050. So, it is fact that today’s young must  have reached to their old age. It is just like a vicious cycle. But unfortunately, today’s younger are blind and submerged within the consumerist society and they are busy to meet their materials greed. But they are unhappy and unsatisfied in daily life. They are violent towards their elderly. They abuse elderly in many ways. Physical and mental torture is common. Nowadays, elderly torture is burning issue covered by print and electronic media regularly.  Even, number of elderly orphans is increasing daily. They are being pushed out and abandoned from their home. According to the report of Help Age India (2018), about 52% of elderly of India are abused by their sons and then 34% of them is abused by their daughter-in-laws.  This report also recorded various modes of abuses. For example, 56% of them have to live with disrespect, verbal abuse(49%) and neglect (33%).

The above scenario reminds us that the tripartite relation of elderly, family/society and state are ineffective and it transforms radically with changing society which is a result of wrong imitation of globalization. In family spirituality, morality and ethical values among younger members are self-centred. The state is indifferent to imply laws against abusers(Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSC) Act). It has been noticed that state has failed to perform its social responsibility towards elderly. There is lack measure for care and protection (old age pension and others) of elderly as most valuable assets to the state. But it is only dutiful to get their opinion during an election. There is need of the integrated social, economic and cultural environment to save and protect (safety/security) our old experienced and respectful human resource.

At least there is a need of a campaign for “Happy Death” through a balanced happy environment.

Limited Use of Nuclear Weapons: Political and Military Implications

Manpreet Sethi 

Among the many things nuclear that 2018 will be remembered for, the rather cavalier statements made by leaders in the US, Russia and North Korea on the utility of nuclear weapons certainly stand out. Indeed, the US Nuclear Posture Review released early in the year, brought low-yield nuclear weapons and their limited use back into the nuclear discourse, even if others like Russia and Pakistan had already been touting a nuclear strategy of  ‘escalate to de-escalate’ for many years.

To go back a little in time though, it may be recalled that the idea of limited nuclear war had actually gained currency in the US in the late 1950s mostly as a counter to the doctrine of massive retaliation. It was propagated as an idea that could bring about an effective use of nuclear weapons as a rational instrument of policy by suggesting that means of deterrence be proportionate to the objectives at stake. Proponents of the concept of limited nuclear war argued that such an attack could limit the total amount of damage threatened, planned for and caused by choosing military targets such as missile sites, bomber bases or command and control centres instead of cities. Such an attack was meant to showcase only a sample of the destruction potential of the weapon in order to enable bargaining for an agreed termination of hostilities. In order to make such an attack possible, the focus accordingly shifted towards pursuit of counterforce capabilities of high precision and accuracy for more flexible strategic options for a ‘discriminate’ nuclear war.

However, the question that soon raised its head was whether it was at all possible to direct nuclear forces to execute a controlled nuclear response in a crisis. Many scholars pointed out that this would not only call for hugely sophisticated nuclear forces in numbers, types of weapons, and planning and command and control capability, but also the adversary's willingness to play the game of limited nuclear war. On both counts, the situation was uncertain. There was never any guarantee that the USSR would play along with only limited strikes of its own. In his book, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Lawrence Freedman rightly described these as “battles of great confusion; the casualties would be high; troops would be left isolated and leaderless; and morale would be hard to maintain. It would be difficult to ensure uncontaminated supplies of food and water or even of spare parts. The Army found it extremely difficult to work out how to prepare soldiers for this sort of battle and to fight it with confidence.” As this realisation emerged, the idea of limited nuclear war receded. By the 1980s, Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev had reached the understanding that nuclear wars could not be won, and must not be fought.  

In contemporary times, as the idea of deterrence through a limited nuclear exchange resurfaces, the political and military implications once again need to be well understood. The belief that one could successfully conduct a ‘limited’ nuclear exchange, keep it limited, and somehow come back to business as usual is not only bizarre, but also has serious implications for military buildup. It will lead to a renewed focus on building more accurate counterforce weapons for precision targeting. Showcasing the feasibility of limited nuclear use will lead to a greater focus on the war-fighting aspects of nuclear weapons, and drive up tendencies for building arsenals with low-yield weapons and necessary counterforce delivery systems. Vertical nuclear proliferation may, therefore, increase, leading further to greater chances of deterrence breakdown due to miscalculation and misunderstanding.

Even more importantly, the taboo against use of nuclear weapons will be seriously damaged. The conduct of a nuclear exchange and the successful ability of the parties involved to keep nuclear war limited could set a precedent that others could be tempted to follow. The idea that two countries can survive a limited nuclear exchange and resume 'near normal' relations could tempt others to acquire small arsenals to settle scores with adversaries. Nuclear proliferation could then be on the rise. Another major impact could be a heightened possibility of nuclear terrorism by non-state actors, who might feel liberated from the pressure of the nuclear use taboo. In fact, a limited nuclear exchange is likely to bring about a sense of complacency in nuclear use that will be most harmful for international security.

In the final analysis, it may be said that a limited nuclear exchange would be a human disaster of significant proportions. Even if the countries are big, and resilient enough to weather such a disaster, a general sense of acceptability of using nuclear weapons will not only make all nuclear weapon possessors reassess their nuclear force structures and postures towards greater offence, but also seriously vitiate the global security environment by setting into motion a cycle of negatives. So, while countries may survive a ‘limited’ nuclear exchange in the short to medium-term, the world may not be able to do so in the real long-term, especially if others develop a tendency to follow this precedent.

Understanding these dangerous implications, India has developed its nuclear strategy based on deterrence by punishment. It does not believe in war-fighting with nuclear weapons and considers limited nuclear war an oxymoron. Its nuclear doctrine categorically establishes that retaliation in case of any use of nuclear weapons would be designed to cause unacceptable damage. The same thought was reiterated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he announced the first deterrent patrol of INS Arihant. As other nuclear-armed states once again explore old ideas of limited nuclear war, India must stay the course on its stated nuclear doctrine and try to send this message across through the platforms it is able to use. May 2019 bring greater nuclear sense across the world.

The Future of Mass Surveillance in China

Saikat Datta 

There is a close link between intelligence and surveillance. This is evidenced, for example, by the Northrop Grumman case, involving Chinese infiltration of the US aircraft building company that was working on the F-35 JSF. The project was thus severely compromised, with US$ 1.3 billion losses incurred. This was followed in 2012 by the launch of China's 5th generation aircraft, which was developed on the same kind of technology being used for the F-35 programme. This brought to light the extent of Chinese capabilities in surveillance and infiltration. These same technologies that compromised US national interest could very easily be used for internal surveillance, and with far-reaching consequences. 

In addition to facial recognition, China has now begun looking into gait recognition technology which can identify people based on how they move or walk. People who are picked up or arrested by the police are asked for their voice samples, DNA and fingerprints. Surveillance is also undertaken through surveillance of mobile phone networks.

It has invested in artificial intelligence and big data, the results of which feed into the surveillance programme. For instance, a project known as  Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP), owned by the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation, has been working on technologies that can undertake  predictive policing. This is similar to what NATGRID in India is mandated with, that is, to produce predictive intelligence based on data collected from different sources. The difference in the Chinese model is that it is not only confined to intelligence - instead, it looks, far more ambitiously, at predictive policing. 

Unlike India, which is still a consumer of the Internet, China has produced its own Internet ecosystem within which it has built not just the Great Firewall of China but has also developed the capacity to replace Western companies and technologies with Weibo, WeChat and Baidu. This ensures a strong hold on the additional data collection points which eventually feed into their mass surveillance programme. The Digital National Identification Card, which is somewhat similar to India’s Aadhar Card, is now becoming a major source of data collection. 

China follows the US model of surveillance, with both countries focused on reconciling to surveillance with capitalism. They invest in technologies and companies that can innovate and build capabilities that the state can then use to fortify its surveillance systems. One way to track this investment is by analysing China's budgetary allocations to its Public Security Bureau (PSB), which have risen year on year. 

When it comes to surveillance, whether it is a totalitarian state or a democracy does not matter, since neither will actually push back, whether it is at the political, bureaucratic or judicial levels.

Xinjiang: Mass Surveillance & the Logic of Re-‐Education Camps

Mahesh Ranjan Debata

Xinjiang is located in the north western part of China where Uyghurs form the majority.  China has introduced some of its harshest internal policies in an attempt to stabilise the region.

China has introduced what is officially referred to as vocational and educational centres in Xinjiang. However, others like Amnesty International term these centres 're-education camps' - some have even gone so far as to call them 'concentration camps'. The Chinese rationale is that they are essentially 'de-extemisation camps' intended for Uyghurs involved in terrorist activities.

In 2008, China introduced an anti-extremism law, with the main objective being internal regional stability. The provincial government of Xinjiang was given a major role to play. Under the law, harsher penalties were introduced in order to instil patriotism.

Xinjiang is a geo-strategically important region with significant international borders. It is surrounded by three nuclear powers - India, Russia and Pakistan - and three central Asian countries with substantial Muslim populations. These contribute to Chinese concerns about the rise of what China refers to as the three evils: separatism, extremism and terrorism. It is suspected that common ethnic and religious identities across the border might further fuel separatist tendencies among the Uyghur. Reports also suggest that the Uyghur diaspora provides  psychological as well as economic support to the Uyghur community. Although the support is intended for religious purposes, it can be diverted for political goals. In China's view, the presence of these factors in Xinjiang make the region vulnerable to political instability. For Chinese authorities, stability in the region is crucial for the success of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), with Xinjiang playing a vital role in this ambitious plan. 

However, despite the humanitarian consequences of the repression underway in Xinjiang, the international community has remained silent. For example, the EU has not taken a public stand till date due primarily to its economic interconnectedness with China, a reason that has likely contributed to others' decisions to not pursue the issue forcefully as well. Saudi Arabia has also shied away from speaking on the issue, once again because of its economic and strategic interests.

Historically, Xinjiang has twice attempted declare itself as an independent republic but these were not successful. Many Uyghurs feel that they are slowly being silenced and eradicated as an ethnic group; that by distorting and misrepresenting facts, China attempting is to erase the 6,000-year old history of the region. 

Beijing maintains that the Uyghur are not a silent minority. The Turkistan Islamic Party, formerly known as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), is an Islamic terrorist organisation founded by Uyghur jihadists in western China. Their goal is to establish an independent state called ‘East Turkestan’ in Xinjiang. As per reports, in 2016, around 100 Uyghur militants joined the Islamic State (IS) from Xinjiang. The actual danger, in the Chinese opinion, is with the return of these trained fighters to China after the IS began crumbling, thus creating a new kind of security challenge in the region. 

A Boiling Pot: Impact of CCP’s Increasing Intrusive Surveillance in Tibet

Tenzin Tsultrim

The intensity and diversity of China's surveillance system has grown at an unprecedented scale over the past two years. While the concerns surrounding surveillance in Xinjiang are now, the system has been in place in Tibet since 2011. Further, reports groups such as Freedom House and the Tibetan Centre for Human Right and Democracy have found that the human rights situation in Tibet has correspondingly worsened.

Random stop-and-searches of monks and Tibetan youth are carried out by the armed police for interrogation and registration. Tibetans often fear their own relatives, with police informants and spies hidden among the local populace on the rise. This is one of the results of the Chinese state's incentivisation of informing on perceived criminal activity through cash rewards. These activities include, but are not limited to efforts to promote Tibetan culture or language, or ties to exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama.

Historically, states that have contended with separatism have dealt with the challenge through a two-pronged strategy: one, controlling the local population through surveillance, and two,  pumping money into the affected areas to induce cooperation and compliance through monetary incentivisation. The same is true of China. However, increased economic activity is not necessarily indicative of  greater cooperation.

The tendency to hide one's true feelings for fear of repercussions - what the economist Timur Khan termed "preference falsification" in his analysis of experiences in East Germany - are also reflective of the sentiment in Tibet. Clearly, China’s policy of forcefully assimilating Tibetans into the Chinese mainland for the sake of state-building is contributing to widespread resentment among the people.

The Chinese state promotes the narrative of China as a melting pot of ethnicities and cultures. However, continued repression in Tibet and Xinjiang is more likely to bring the country to a boiling point, with the infringement of privacy, freedom and dignity leading to unrest not just in Tibet but also in Xinjiang, where similar repressive measures are being undertaken.

Collision on Course? An Assessment of EU-US Fall-Out Over the JCPOA

Manuel Herrera

President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and resume US primary and secondary sanctions on Iran has positioned the EU and the US on a collision course.

There are signs of the EU possibly looking to carve out greater autonomy from US decision-making against the backdrop of these rising tensions. This commentary will analysis the feasibility of this move and the EU's capability to translate it into action, given the intrinsic (inter)dependencies between the US and itself.

Intent Vs Reality

EU’s positions show that the possibility of de-hyphenating itself in economic and security terms from the US is possible. For example, when asked about reactions to US sanctions resumption on Iran, Secretary General of the European External Action Service, Helga Schmid, stated that the EU “will do everything to make sure the JCPOA stays.” The European Commission announced that the EU will invoke the 1996 Blocking Statute and create a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to protect European companies operating in Iran. Yet another instance supporting this argument is recent statements by EU governments (particularly France and Germany) regarding their willingness and interest creating an European Army to reduce EU’s dependency on NATO.

However, these statements and initiatives are better understood as attempts by the EU to build a common and cohesive narrative to overcome the current crisis rather than operationally deplorable proposals. Of course, they also suggest that the EU is planning to push back and stand firm in pursuing its own interests, but that does not necessarily imply that the EU can in fact push back in actual terms. This begs the question, what are the economic, military and institutional costs that a divergence from the US would entail for the EU?

Feasibility Assessment

Many European companies have major interests in the US. For example, French multinational corporation, Airbus, has one of its main manufacturing and production facilities in the country. North America alone generates US$ 14.6 billion in revenue, accounting for almost  20 per cent of the company’s total revenue. Additionally, many European companies with businesses in Iran transact in US dollars. The French oil and gas company, Total, has 90 per cent of its financing operations managed by US banks, and 30 per cent of its investors are US shareholders. As a consequence, European corporations with economic interests in the US may just abandon their current operations in Iran to avoid being sanctioned because the maths simply does not add up in their favour. In terms of balance of trade, Iran represents less than 1 per cent of EU's global trade, while the US is EU's largest trading partner, responsible for nearly 17 per cent of European trade.

In military terms, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is considered key for the EU. 22 out of the 29 NATO members are EU member states. NATO is considered essential for the EU’s survival, particularly to balance Russia. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and its military actions in eastern Ukraine led to a rethinking of how the EU should deal with emerging Russian expansionism. The decision on how to act was taken at NATO’s February 2015 meeting, not at the EU Council. It was agreed to support Ukraine and improve relations with Georgia through NATO and not through EU institutions. Additionally, EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions are still reliant on NATO assets in terms of access to classified information and NATO planning capabilities for EU-led Crisis Management Operations (CMOs).

Finally, in institutional terms, EU foreign policy decisions must be adopted by consensus among its member states. Due to the fear of possible US retaliation, it is unlikely that all 28 will agree on adopting measures that may be seen as hindering US interests. France has outlined its willingness to consider countermeasures against US secondary sanctions, including establishing the SPV and making the Blocking Statute effective, but Austria has opposed it. The  EU Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmström, agrees that implementing the SPV will be very difficult due to this consensus principle.

Conclusion

At this point, despite having the will - which itself has its own set of shortcomings - the EU pushing back against the US appears untenable because of negative economic, military and institutional costs. Given the depth of economic and military ties between the EU (and its member states) and the US, as well as institutional shortcomings, the jury will remain out on whether the EU can eventually muster the political will and capacity needed to safeguard its interests from US actions.

Nonetheless, recent decisions made the US administration under Trump are a wake-up call for Europeans to think about developing the ability to act as an autonomous actor in foreign policy and international security. This will be possible if the EU is able to institute plans that can convert what are currently only narratives into action: the SPV, the Blocking Statute, and an European Army. As it stands, however, despite having some political will towards the preservation of its interests, it is neither feasible for the EU, nor does it have the capacity, to change the course of its relations with the US.  

IAS/AVAC Media Scholarship Programme 2019 for Journalists Reporting on HIV (Funded to Mexico)

Application Deadline: 24th January 2019, 23:59 CET.

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Mexico

About the Award: The IAS/AVAC Media Scholarship Programme makes the conference accessible to a select group of highly-qualified journalists who would not otherwise be able to attend and report on the conference proceedings. The programme also provides a training on HIV research, a series of briefings through the conference week and targeted support to help journalists strengthen their HIV reporting skills.

Type: Conference, Grants

Eligibility: Priority will be given to journalists:

• Representing national top tier media outlets or wire services with a wide regional or national reach, regardless of the medium.
• With a proven history of covering HIV and/or AIDS and/or infectious diseases. Scientific and broader reporting are both encouraged.
• Based in resource-limited settings as well as journalists representing target countries/regions of interest, including South East Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa.
• Demonstrating a strong commitment to reporting on HIV and/or AIDS. Emphasis will be given to journalists and outlets with a background in reporting on global health topics, infectious diseases and HIV and/or AIDS more specifically.
• Who are part of a key population or living with HIV.

Number of Awards: Limited

Value of Award: Recipients of the IAS/AVAC Media Scholarship will receive:

• Travel to and from the 10th IAS Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2019) (roundtrip ticket at lowest fare available from the nearest international airport)
• Accommodation (in a budget hotel for the days of the conference)
• A daily living allowance for each of the days of the conference (21-24 July 2019)
• Participation in the IAS/AVAC Media Scholarship programme including a day-long training with HIV experts, briefings, press conferences and site visits, and dedicated support in the conference media centre.

Please note that the programme will not reimburse any costs incurred prior to receiving a scholarship. Scholarships do not include visa costs, transportation to/from the airport, or any other incidental cost.

Duration of Programme: 21-24 July 2019

How to Apply: 

• The application process is entirely free. Applicants must create a user account to fill in an individual application form. A letter of recommendation and three bylined work samples are required to complete the application.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Reuters Institute Journalism Fellowships 2019 for Journalists in African/Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 11th February 2019.

Eligible Countries: African/Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): University of Oxford

About the Award: The fully-funded Fellowships are aimed at practicing journalists from all over the world, to enable them to research a topic of their choice, related to their work and the broader media industry, before returning to newsrooms. The Fellowships offer an opportunity to network with a global group of journalists, spend time away from the daily pressure of deadlines, and examine the key issues facing the industry, with input from leading experts and practitioners.

You do not need to specify which particular source of funding you are applying for – we will allocate the one most suitable for you based on your country of origin and research proposal.

• Thomson Reuters Foundation Fellowships
• Anglo American Journalist Fellowship
• Google Digital News Journalist Fellowship
• Mona Megalli Fellowship
• Wincott Business Journalist Fellowship
• David Levy Fellowship for International Dialogue

Type: Fellowship (Professional)

Eligibility:

• To be considered for a Fellowship you must have a minimum of five years’ journalistic experience, or in rare cases demonstrate the equivalent level of expertise.
• You will be able to write at a publishable level of English, allowing you to participate in the fellowship and produce papers when necessary. If English is not your first language, please present suitable evidence (this is an original certificate no more than two years old and issued by the relevant body) that you are at a suitable standard. More information on the university’s English language requirements is in the Programme Webpage Link below.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Most Journalist Fellowships are fully-funded and cover living costs and accommodation. There are some opportunities for self-funded candidates. Some Fellowships are open only to candidates who are employees of the sponsoring organisation.

Duration of Programme: Fellowships last one, two or three terms.

How to Apply

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Imperial Interventions, Withdrawal from Syria and Self-Determination

L.H. Sartori

Trump’s sudden announcement to withdraw US troops from Syria is a good development that should be welcomed by everyone who proclaims to care about what the US does in their name around the world. American interference in that country starting in 2011 was never authorized by the UN according to international law and therefore has been illegitimate from the start. But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be serious debate about how that withdrawal should be carried out.

The Kurdish Question

One of the most pressing questions that arise is about the quasi-autonomous, Kurdish-majority region of Rojava in Northern Syria. After the civil war started, infrastructure quickly collapsed and Assad lost control of large chunks of the country. That was seen by the Kurds of Syria as the perfect opportunity to try and build a Kurdistan along the lines of what Kurdish activist and political prisoner Adbullah Öcalan calls Democratic Confederalism and Democratic Autonomy. These models involve communal ownership of the means of production, equal rights for women and a progressive view on ecology and sustainability, and the people of Northern Syria (mostly Kurds, but also Arabs, Armenians, Syriacs and other minority groups) have been trying to implement them in Rojava against all odds. They have struggled with the lack of resources stemming from economic embargoes from Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey at the same time that they have had to fight an ISIS that was being given free passage into Turkish territory, from where they could launch attacks with impunity.

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is openly hostile to the Kurds, who he considers terrorists, and has recently stated that an offensive on Rojava is imminent. In fact, he has already attacked the canton of Afrin, one of the three units that compose Rojava, on January of this year, causing hundreds of casualties and forcing around 167,000 people to flee for their lives. The reason why casualties weren’t worse back then presumably being because the YPG, which is the army branch of the PKK (Kurdistan’s Workers party), had already at that time secured an alliance with Washington, thus forcing Ankara to exercise some restraint lest it anger its main NATO ally.

Now with the US about to withdraw, what will happen to the people of that region should be of serious concern to anyone with a conscience. If history is any indication, the US empire has no qualms in abandoning their Kurdish allies to their fates. As a matter of fact, it seems possible that Erdogan himself played a part in Trump’s decision to remove his troops, meaning that a new betrayal has possibly already happened. Washington seems to be delivering the YPG to Ankara, and with them, thousands of innocent civilians.

If you listen to what a certain segment of the left has to say, Assad is the only legitimate leader of an undivided Syria and therefore the Kurds should be seen as terrorist separatists who should either surrender or be crushed. The fact that they are an oppressed people with a right to self-determination and who are trying to implement leftist ideals on the ground instead of only talking about them on the internet seems to matter little to them. Their logic seems to be: the US invaded Assad’s Syria; Assad has a right to defend himself and his country; the YPG allied itself with the US; the YPG is the enemy. This is a kind of knee jerk anti-imperialism that casts aside any sense of human decency, and presumably also of irony, in that they want to defend the oppressed by opposing the Empire that right now is the only thing standing between the oppressed and carnage. They seem to participating in a who’s more anti-imperialist game where anyone who doesn’t immediately oppose US presence anywhere automatically loses their leftist credentials.

That is not say the US should stay there forever. Of course it shouldn’t. As I said above, the US never had any right to intervene in Syria in the first place. But since Washington got itself in a position where it can prevent massacres, they should provide protection until the situation can be solved diplomatically.

There is no contradiction between supporting withdrawal and at the same time advocating that some amount of US troops stay temporarily in Northern Syria. There is no reason why it would be impossible to arrange a negotiation between Turkey, the Rojava administration and Syria. US troops could then be replaced with UN forces with a very specific mandate to keep the peace. None of this is outside the realm of possibility and therefore the left ought to fight for such an outcome.

If the Trump doesn’t take the initiative, however, then Rojava’s only hope lies in some sort of agreement with Assad, which, while possible, is unlikely to result in continuation of its socialist experiment. Rojava would join the Paris Commune and the Spanish anarchists in the hall of movements that had enormous potential but an antagonist federal government in a position to crush them.

The Russian Question

I have also seen some debate over whether to oppose Russian presence now the US is on its way out. My own opinion on the matter is pretty simple: Russia was invited into Syria by president Bashar Al-Assad to help fight the civil war which erupted during the so-called Arab Spring. So unlike the US, it has legitimate reasons for being there, but only for as long as they are welcome there.

Now, it needs to be said that Russia was invited not by popular will, but because Assad had very little choice but to ask for help before his country convulsed into one or several failed states. But the now the situation is different. ISIS has been almost completely crushed, the Arab Spring ended in disaster everywhere but in Tunisia, and large sections of the country are starting to pick up the pieces as Syrians try to resume their daily lives. Not that the war is over yet –wars in the Middle East have a tendency to reignite when you least expect it-, but the fact is that Syrians are in a position to speak for themselves, if not right now then very soon. So it should not be up to Assad, who in true Mediterranean tradition was “elected” with more than 90% of the vote, to decide when Russia goes; that choice should be made by Syrians (in the same way, they should be allowed to organize free and fair elections in order to choose their post-war government, regardless of whether that results in them legitimizing Assad or getting rid of the man once and for all).

Just like in Rojava, the moral position should be to support the notion that it is the people who should be deciding who stays or who goes, who rules and who is ruled.

Cyprus: Deadly UK Military Bases, Refugee Camps …And Tourists

Andre Vltchek

Believe it or not, but not long ago, Cyprus used to be the only country in the European Union that was governed by a Communist Party. And it was not really too long ago – between 2008 and 2013.

Also, relatively recently, unification of the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish administered northern part of the island, appeared to be achievable.

And when Cyprus, like Greece, almost collapsed financially, it was Russia which offered to bail it out (before the EU did all it could to prevent this from happening).

Now it all seems like ancient history.

The city of Nicosia is still divided, with the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish immigration check-points located right in the middle of an old town. Graffiti painted in‘no man’s land’ demand an immediate end to the conflict: ‘One country; one nation solution’.

No man’s land in Nicosia

The crossing is busy.And to make it all somehow more colorful, perhaps, there is a huge white Pitbull, phlegmatically hanging around the border area. It does not bark; it is just there. Nobody knows whether he belongs to the Turkish or the Greek side, but it appears that he spends more time with the Turks, as, I suppose, they feed him better.

The Greek-speaking side of Nicosia looks like a slightly run-down EU provincial town. On their flank, Turks are smoking shisha (traditional Middle Eastern water-pipe), and their cafes appear to be more traditional, and the old architecture more elegant. In the southern part, freshly brewed coffee is called ‘Greek’, while a few meters north, you have to order ‘Turkish’, or at least ‘Arabic coffee’. Needless to say, you get the same stuff on both sides.

Otherwise, it is one island, one history and one sad and unnecessary partition.

*

The division of the nation is not the only madness here. Before you get used to the idea, you may go mental, finding out that there are two British administered territories still engraved into the island.

If you drive around, you will never notice that you are actually leaving Cyprus, and entering the U.K.Some car license plates are different to those regular Cypriot ones, but that’s about it.

You cross an invisible line, and you are in the UK; historically the most aggressive (militarily and ideologically) nation on the face of the earth.

You drive through some agricultural fields, but soon you see something very eerie all around the road: a few kilometers after passing the historic Crusader’s Kolossi Castle, there is an ocean of masts of different heights and shapes, as well as concrete, fortified military installations.The masts are ‘decorated’ with strange looking wires. It all looks like some old Sci-Fi movie.

Vile British military installations in Akrotiri

Of course, if you come ‘prepared’, you know what you are facing: tremendous installations of the BBC propaganda apparatus aimed at destabilizing and indoctrinating the Middle East. But that is not all. This entire enclave – ‘Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri’(as well as Dhekelia a few dozens of miles to the east) -is here mostly in order to spy on the ‘neighborhood’ of the Middle East. While London is some 4 hours flight away, Syria is just a short distance across the water, and so is Lebanon.

Further south, after you leave the propaganda and spy installations behind, is a small village of Akrotiri; a typical picturesque Cypriot charming settlement, with an old church, narrow streets and humble local cafes.It sits on top of the hill. But you are, actually, inside the U.K. From here, you can see the blue sea, a salt lake and the city of Limassol; but you are on British turf. How come? Simple: after Cyprus achieved independence from the British Empire, in 1960, the Brits ‘were concerned’ that they could lose control over their military bases in Cyprus, and at least partially, influence over the Middle East.As this being unimaginable to the British imperialist mind, the U.K. arm-twisted the Cypriots into this bizarre arrangement which holds to this day.

Entrance to Akrotiri RAF base

One more kilometer further south, and you hit the wall and a gate, decorated with threatening warnings. You are at the perimeter of the RAF Akrotiri base. From here, since December 2015, the RAF is carrying out illegal (according to international law) airstrikes against the sovereign Syrian Arab Republic.

According to Jeffrey Richelson & Desmond Ball, The Ties the Bind: Intelligence Cooperation between the UKUSA Countries, (Unwin Hyman, Boston/London and others, 1990, p.194 note 145):

“As of 2010, around 3,000 troops of British Forces Cyprus are based at Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Ayios Nikolaos Station, in the ESBA, is an ELINT (electronic intelligence) listening station of the UKUSA Agreement intelligence network.”

That was then, but now things are getting even deadlier. Practically, the U.K. is at war with Syria. Many in Cyprus are deeply concerned that Syria could retaliate, sending missiles against the RAF bases, from which it is being bombed (legally, independent Syria has the full right to defend itself against the attacks from abroad). Such retaliation could endanger the lives of the inhabitants of Cyprus.

There have been protests and demands for the British forces to return to Cyprus both of the ‘sovereign bases’, but the U.K. shows no interest in ceding what it controls.

As early as in 2008, former left-wing President Demetris Christofias (who was also the General Secretary of AKEL, the Communist Party of Cyprus) tried to remove all British forces from the island, calling them a”colonial bloodstain”.However, he did not succeed, and in 2013 he decided to step down and not to seek re-election.

Dhekelia Base is carved into the eastern part of Cyprus, bizarrely encircling both Turkish-controlled and Greek-speaking villages.

In the past, the Cypriots fought against the British presence. Nowadays, in the era of omnipresent surveillance, sabotages and resistance had been replaced by toothless protests. Still, hundreds of local people have been detained, demanding the departure of British troops from the island.

*

Cyprus is still divided, although reunification talks began, once again, in 2015. Now it is possible to walk between the Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus (controlled by Turkey).

It was not always this way. As Papadakis Yiannis wrote:

“On 15 July 1974, the Greek military junta under Dimitrios Ioannides carried out a coup d’état in Cyprus, to unite the island with Greece.”

Thousands of Turkish residents were displaced, many killed. Turkey invaded and the island got divided. But inter-cultural violence dated even further back than 1974. The history can be felt on every corner of Nicosia, and in many villages of the island. Northern Cyprus was never recognized by any other country except Turkey, but the division is still there. There are still entire de-populated towns that used to belong to the displaced Turkish and Greek inhabitants.

One of the eeriest is Kofinou, in the south of the island, which suffered on at least two occasions, unprecedented ethnic violence, which could be defined as ‘cleansing’. Once inhabited mainly by the Turkish Cypriots, Kofinou is now a ghost town, dotted with collapsed houses and agricultural structures, with foreign guest workers and farm animals living in appalling conditions.

*

Cyprus has two faces. It is proud to be one of the famous European tourist destinations. It is an EU member.

Simultaneously, it is a symbol of division.

Border fences between the Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus are scarring its beautiful countryside. Deadly British military installations, the air force bases, as well as propaganda warfare and disinformation campaigns are brutalizing, physically and morally, almost the entire Middle East.

Here, in Cyprus, European and Russian tourists coexist, uneasily. The ideological war between the West and the rest of the planet is clearly felt in Pathos and other historic areas of the island.

Some British residents (around 50,000 of them), as well as countless British tourists, often behave insultingly towards the generally humble Russian visitors. Here, the British Empire still appears to be ‘in charge’.

In the port of Pathos, I passed by an elderly Russian couple, who seemed to be simply admiring an old water castle. A British couple was passing by, then looked back and forged sarcastic, rude grimaces: “Those Russians,” uttered the man. This was not the only instance when I witnessed this sort of behavior.

In Cyprus, I drove exactly 750 kilometers, all around the island, trying to understand and define its present position, and its role in the ‘area’ and in the world.

I hoped to find reminiscences of at least some revolutionary spirit of the Communist (AKEL) government. But I almost exclusively found pragmatism, so typical for basically all European Union countries.Only questions like this were common: ‘Would Brexit be good or bad for Cyprus?’ Or: ‘Would the bombing of Syria be dangerous for the citizens of Cyprus?’

Refugee camp which is known as ‘prison’ near Kofinou

Symbolically, near the village of Kofinou, destroyed by the inter-cultural violence several decades ago, I found a tough-looking refugee camp, built mainly for the immigrants coming from the destabilized Middle East. It looks like a concentration camp. Locals call i

As I was driving around the area, I spotted, just a few kilometers from the camp, in front of an eerie and semi-abandoned farm, a huge goat.It was on its side; dying, in agony, in the middle of the road.

Cyprus has become a divided island with some hedonistic resorts, but also with terribly marginalized communities, located all over its territory.

One could easily conclude: this former British colony is still allowing, for a fee, the tremendous presence of the British/NATO military forces, as well as various spy facilities and propaganda outlets. RAF Tornado jet fighters are presently flying their ‘missions’ against Syria. Missiles are being fired from Akrotiri. People fleeing from the destroyed countries of the Middle East, are then detained in Cyprus, like criminals, behind barbed wire.

In the meantime, the people of Cyprus are calculating, whether all this is truly feasible, or not; whether to be an outpost of the empire is a good business, for as long as it pays, they will do very little to change the situation. Despite of its complex past and present, as well as its proximity to the Middle East, Cyprus is, after all, an integral partof Europe, and therefore of the Western empire.

What ails India’s women farmers?

Parvin Sultana

If one questions — what do women know about farming and agriculture, the answer will be pretty much everything. Women’s contribution to agriculture all across the world is exemplary. According to United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organisation, if women had the same access to productive resources as men, they could increase yields on their farms by 20-30%. Nevertheless women continue to be invisible in the discourse on farmers’ suicides, agricultural crisis etc.

India recently witnessed massive farmers’ rally demanding relief. One dominant feature of these rallies was the presence of women farmers in large number. Their split, cracked bloody feet which bore witness to their hardships left many across the country stunned. While most mainstream news channels downplayed the importance of these rallies and emphasised on other trivial matters, few channels did manage to put a spotlight on them and focused more on the plight of women farmers. Women farmers across the states shared similar stories and most had to do with non-recognition of women as farmers.

The country continues to witness agrarian crisis of an immense nature. While the government policies fall short of providing any relief to the farmers, noted journalist P Sainath points out that the Fasal Bima Yojana is a total sham and benefits only the insurance companies and banks. The farmers are left out of its ambit. And the picture of farming crisis continues to be grim.

Maharashtra’s Vidarbha continues to be a region with a very high number of suicide cases. Over the last two decades, more than two lakh farmers committed suicide. Flawed insurance plans and delays in settling claims have worsened the distress. There is an increase in the number of households headed by women. There is a feminisation of agriculture with the number of female agricultural labourers in Maharashtra, Tripura and Kerala seeing an upward trend since 1961.

The Wire came out with a report titled “Surviving Stigma: Housing and Land Rights of Farm Widows of Vidarbha, Maharashtra”. It highlighted the plight of farm widows and the repeated human rights violation and economic exclusion. Nearly 90% of the women farmers lived in joint families indicating financial dependence on the in-laws. They complained of physical and emotional abuse upon demanding their share in the family house or land. On many instances, they faced social ostracisation. Most women are even unaware of their rights or are incapable of benefiting from the policies aimed at helping them.

Vidarbha once known for production of “white gold” or cotton is now known mainly for farmers’ suicides. In nearby Marathwada, a debt of as less as Rs 10,000 can push someone to suicide. The widows are pushed into more debts and forced to take job as farm labourers on other’s farms to sustain themselves. The education of their children is stopped midways.

Kota Neelima’s upcoming book “Widows of Vidarbha” gives an account of such women. For widows left behind, to die seemed easier than to live. Women farmers are usually rendered invisible in spaces of policy making. Farmers’ suicides are thrown around as statistics, used as propaganda, referenced in campaign speeches and dismissed as political ploy of the opposition.

In 2015, data reveals that 98 million women in India work in agricultural sector but debate around farmer’s suicides often revolve around men because women don’t own property and hence don’t qualify as farmers. Only 13% women own the land that they work on. Their status is worse than workers. While 60-80% of all agricultural work is done by women, they are just given the status of farm workers.

Added domestic responsibility does not free women of difficult jobs like sowing, seeding, threshing, harvesting, ploughing etc. Even at the local galla mandis, women farmers face serious discrimination. They are offered raw deals and often face sexual harassment.

There is already a spike in farmer suicides. Farmer suicides rose by 42% between 2014 and 2015. Out of the 8007 farmer suicides in 2014, 441 were by women farmers and cultivators.

The empowerment of Indian women will not be complete without empowering those who are living at the society’s periphery. These voices need to be heard at both the policy level and the implementation level.

An increasing male migration away from villages has brought about significant changes to the work village women do, both at the household and societal level. Migration has redefined women’s role in agriculture.

Women farmers need direct access to information on improved agricultural practices and links to markets. One positive step is marking October 15 as Women Farmers’ Day. But it has to be supplemented by policies. Lack of land rights is a big problem. They are unable to avail any benefit of government policies. The need of the hour is to change inheritance practices and give land rights to daughters as well.

A patriarchal social set up conveniently co-opts women’s agricultural labour but falls short of giving her the status of farmers. Women farmers’ rights need to be recognised as farming was never exclusively a man’s work. Policy benefits also should extend automatically to the wives of the farmers who commit suicide. While the overall agrarian crisis needs to be tackled with utmost urgency, the gendered aspect should also be looked into. Otherwise the women farmers will continue to be one of the most marginalised lot in India.