Indian Nuclear Decision-Making and the Border Standoff with China

Tanvi Kulkarni

The 2020 border standoff between India and China marks a tipping point in the bilateral relationship. It brings to an end the Indian illusion that the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China is a ‘disputed but peaceful’ border. As Beijing capitalises on the COVID-19 pandemic to rake up disputes in its neighbourhood through military intimidation, New Delhi is driven to revise its diplomatic and military calculations vis-à-vis its Asian neighbour. China’s growing military assertiveness also poses challenges for India’s nuclear deterrent.

This article looks at four factors that are likely to be of concern for Indian nuclear decision-making.

Context

China managed to pull a fait accompli with India on the LAC in the Ladakh region, which led to skirmishes between Indian and Chinese troops in Galwan Valley, and the Hot Springs and Pangong Tso areas. From April to June, China beefed up troops and military infrastructure in areas disputed by the two countries. Initial diplomatic engagement yielded little respite for India. In a rare episode in the border dispute, even as both sides attempted to disengage and de-escalate, on 16 June, twenty Indian soldiers and an undeclared number of Chinese soldiers were killed in a violent scuffle in Galwan Valley. Although details of the incident remain murky, the standoff and the Chinese fait accompli have activated the India-China conflict.

China’s Expanding Nuclear Arsenal

Since 2014, China has been gradually expanding its nuclear arsenal—both missile and warhead stockpiles. In mid-June 2020, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported an unusual jump in China’s nuclear arsenal to 320 warheads in 2020—an increase by 30 warheads from the 290 estimated in 2019.

China’s modernisation programme has involved enhancing its nuclear triad through multiple-range missile systems and additional nuclear submarines, Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle (MIRV) and Anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) capabilities, and cyber and electronic warfare capabilities. China’s modernisation efforts are prompted primarily by the need to ensure a credible second-strike capability against the US (missile defence and conventional prompt global strike). Indian policy-makers have so far taken respite in China’s No First Use (NFU) policy, reiterated in their 2019 Defence White Paper. Western and Chinese experts have ruled out a reversal of China’s NFU policy despite its expanding arsenal.

However, Beijing’s mounting nuclear arsenal is still a cause for Indian concern, for two reasons. First, the PLA’s Rocket Force (PLARF) deploys some of its rail and road-mobile medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) in the far-western Xinjiang province, which is geographically close to Aksai Chin and Ladakh. In the event of another standoff, Beijing could leverage these capabilities in the form of nuclear signalling or nuclear coercion. Second, while China asserts its growing nuclear prowess, its nuclear postures have become more ambiguous. The Chinese nuclear arsenal has departed from the classic minimum deterrence policy and there is little clarity about what Beijing considers sufficient deterrence in terms of the size and composition of its nuclear force structure.

The ‘Nuclear-ness’ of the Indo-Pacific Theatre

The Indo-Pacific region has emerged as the new theatre of major power conflict with China at its pivot. As the US, China, and Russia attempt to reduce the deterrence gap and exploit each other’s vulnerabilities, a wide range of conventional and military technologies are manifesting themselves in the region, including short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with hypersonic glide vehicles, supersonic cruise missiles on sea-based platforms like nuclear submarines (SSBNs), precision strike weapons, MIRVs, cyber systems, space-based systems and counterspace capabilities, missile defences, and enhanced command and communication.

Some of these technologies entail high readiness, quick launch capabilities, and the blurring of lines between conventional and nuclear attacks—dangerous postures which risk inadvertent nuclear use. Indian decision-makers will have to assess the specific impact of each of these technologies on India’s nuclear deterrence as well as their broader geopolitical implications on national security.

Looming Nuclear Arms Race

A renewed and reinvigorated arms race between the US, Russia, and China has consequences for India. Although it does not necessitate any fundamental change in India’s existing nuclear policy, the impulse to keep up with emerging capabilities as new benchmarks for nuclear deterrence are not likely to escape India’s national security establishment.

India could feel compelled to respond strategically to these growing nuclear capabilities and threats perceived from the nuclear arms race between the three major nuclear powers. In this dynamic, as India’s security interests converge with the US and diverge from China’s, Indian decision-makers would be encouraged to review the country’s operational force posture and nuclear policy.

China-Pakistan Redux

China’s military aggression vis-à-vis India is another signal that territorial consolidation and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are among Beijing’s top national security priorities. With the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)—a part of BRI—Pakistan is now formally China’s key strategic partner. India should expect greater collusion between its nuclear-armed neighbours, especially with regard to border disputes with both countries. Even though India’s nuclear policy is not country-specific, a two-front confrontation with China and Pakistan poses unique strategic and operational challenges for India’s nuclear deterrence, particularly with regard to command and control issues, targeting strategies, or other doctrinal commitments.

But It’s Not All Downhill

India’s nuclear policy and doctrine currently hold off temptations of arms racing and military use of nuclear weapons. At the same time, strategic ambiguity has given space for manoeuvre to India’s national security decision-makers. The recent standoff is also indicative of Beijing’s reluctance toward military escalation with India.

Greater insight into China’s military thinking and nuclear behaviour will be a key factor for Indian decision-making. This will require systematic scholarship within and around the national security establishment. At the broader regional level, an arms control deal between the US, Russia, and China will be of tremendous help in dousing nuclear dangers in the Indo-Pacific.

The good news is that despite obliterating the Cold War arms control architecture, President Trump is not averse to multilateral arms control, provided it includes China. Given its increasing strategic closeness toward the US, New Delhi might be expected to support such a multilateral arms control arrangement.

DAAD ClimapAfrica Postdoc Fellowship 2020 for Africans in Climate Research

Application Deadline: 14th September 2020.

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: The goal is to foster application- oriented research results by enhancing knowledge exchange between the postdoctoral fellows and experienced alumni of German funding initiatives. Fellows and alumni will collaborate in joint working groups that encompass several postdoctoral projects in a specific field related to climate change research. The working groups will benefit from the expertise of distinguished German mentors.
Fellows and Alumni will increase their research impact and output through a comprehensive training and support program, including general skills training, science policy advising and science management.
Postdoctoral fellows and alumni will connect with peers, regional and international experts and practitioners in their fields and create a growing network. This community will represent an important voice to raise the awareness for climate change as one of the most pressing issues of our time.

Type: Post doctorate, Research

Eligibility: Applicants

• must be nationals of an African Country.
• should be willing to contribute to the initiation and the coordination of alumni working groups.
• should be willing to realize their project at a host institution in western or southern Africa

Selection Criteria: ClimapAfrica supports research on climate change, its impacts and possible counter actions. It should be possible to assign the postdoctoral research project to one of the following research areas: Agriculture, (Adapted) Land Use, Biodiversity, Food security, Marine Science, Human Security, Economics, Education, Energy, Informatics, Water security, Woodland and forest sustainability. If you are not sure if your research field is fitting, do not hesitate to contact climapafrica@daad.de.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The basic fellowship consists of:

• A flat-rate travel allowance to your target country and back
• A research lump sum of max. EUR 10,000
• A monthly allowance of EUR 800
• An accident, personal liability and health insurance

Additionally, support for the following activities can be granted (subject to availability of funds):

• Short-term research stays in Germany (2 to 6 months)
• Mobility fellowships for the active participation (poster or talk) in relevant international conferences in the field of climate change/ climate Research

Duration of Award: The fellowship awards are tenable for a period of 12 to 24 months.
This fellowship period begins in July 2020. Please take this date as your starting date for your application.

How to Apply: Apply until Sept 14th. Link below

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Digital Trade Rules: a Disastrous New Constitution for the Global Economy Written by and for Big Tech

Deborah James

The largest corporations in the history of the world ― Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft ― are seeking to use “trade” rules to rig the rules of the global (digital) economy to enable them to collect more data, exercise more control over our lives and over their workers, and amass ever more profit.

More than 80 members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) are currently negotiating a new agreement on digital trade based on these proposals. This paper seeks to explain how these corporations operate in order to achieve their goals; what the potential impacts of the rules would be― on workers, citizens, communities, developing countries, public services, safety and security, and democracy itself; what the alternatives are; and what we can do to stop this mass corporate takeover.

This paper was written toward the end of 2019. Today, in 2020, the world seems a different place, as we collectively experience the coronavirus crisis and new awareness about issues of racism and policy brutality. These crises have brought about new, and highlighted existing, urgent problems ― often exacerbated by Big Tech’s iron grip on our economic and social lives.

Emerging Challenges in 2020

The WTO itself is in serious crisis. The 12th WTO Ministerial Conference was due to be held in June 2020, but has been postponed ― possibly for another year. WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo has said he will step down on August 31, 2020, a year before completing his term. The United States is still blocking the appointment of new Appellate Body Members to the WTO, which means the WTO’s judicial function is not operational.

At the same time, many countries have had to take measures to deal with the novel coronavirus pandemic that are inconsistent with their WTO obligations. This is leading to a rethinking of whether the WTO model ― which left many countries short on domestic productive capacity and locked in rules that put foreign corporate rights before the domestic public health emergency ― are really fit for this purpose. There is a need for countries to have greater flexibility to depart from existing trade rules. This could well lead to a fundamental rethink of the WTO and its model of extreme liberalization ― which would be an urgent and welcome outcome.

Online commerce is booming, but many technology start-ups and thousands of small businesses have been hit hard by the pandemic-related economic shutdowns. On the contrary, Facebook, Google, and Amazon have seen their market shares and profits explode during the crisis.

At the same time, there is growing concern about the control that Big Tech exerts over so many aspects of public life, especially through anticompetitive behavior. Members of the US Congress and several federal agencies have joined European Union leaders in growing calls to break up vertically integrated roll-up corporations like Amazon, Google and Facebook.

A key provision of US tech policy that shields platforms from liability is coming under political scrutiny in the United States. As science deniers circulated inaccurate information about COVID-19 on social media, some tech corporations began to take steps to remove or flag erroneous content from their platforms. The Trump administration claimed a political bias, and Republicans are looking into rescinding the platforms’ immunity. At the same time, Democrats are concerned about some of the platforms’ policies of not taking down false or misleading political advertising that could jeopardize our elections.

There is growing recognition in many countries that digital corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. The EU is proposing this as a fiscal support measure in the wake of the crisis, but the Trump administration has just abandoned efforts toward a multilateral solution at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Dependence on essential workers during the coronavirus crisis has also led to a greater understanding of the need for hazard pay and social protections, especially in sectors with sectoral bargaining agreements. But so-called “gig”workers, such as Uber drivers, GrubHub deliverers, and Instacart shoppers, still do not enjoy basic labor rights as workers, rather than as “contractors.”

In the United States, pressure campaigns have successfully targeted the use of facial recognition software powered by artificial intelligence (AI), since studies have demonstrated the racist impacts of such software: AI gives false positives for Black people more often than for whites.

At the same time, WTO members have undertaken multiple rounds of negotiations with a view to drafting a new “plurilateral” agreement on digital trade. They have negotiated draft texts in secret on 13 different provisions on data collection, liability, market access rights, nondiscrimination, source code disclosure, taxes, cybersecurity, and more, as described in this paper.

During these times of crisis, uncertainty, and rapid transformation, we need our governments to be able to respond more proactively to emerging problems. We need public interest concerns about economic rights, racial justice and fairness, and human, civil, and political rights to be the focus of conversations about rewriting the rules governing data and technology.

To accomplish this, however, we need to ensure that corporations are unable to acquire new WTO “trade” disciplines designed by Big Tech to consolidate their power over our economy and limit democratic oversight in the public interest.

Oil Comes First in Peru, Not Coronavirus Danger, Not Indigenous Rights

W.T. Whitney Jr.

As of July 7, 10,772 people had died of COVID 19 infection in Peru, which is the 8^th most severely affected country in the world. The actual toll is probably far greater, especially in Peru’s Amazonian region. Indigenous inhabitants there, isolated from medical care, suffer from the pandemic and from an environment poisoned by oil extraction.

Canadian oil company Frontera Energy had operated an oxygen-producing plant at in Shiviyacu, located near Peru’s northern border with Ecuador. At a meeting June 26 with government officials, the company announced it would shut the plant down. Represented at the meeting was PetroPeru, the state -owned company whose NorPeruano pipeline conveys Frontier Energy’s crude oil to refineries on the Pacific coast.

Peru’s metallurgical and mining industries produce and use most of the oxygen used in Peru. But indigenous communities are apparently seeking that industrial oxygen be made available for treating COVID 19 infection. They denounced Frontera Energy’s decision as a violation of human rights.

The drama plays out in Block 192, in Loreto department. There Frontera Energy produces almost 20 percent of Peru’s oil; it enjoys exclusive extraction rights.

Indigenous communities have been protesting “large exposure to toxic materials and the disproportionate impact on specific groups of the population.” Over the last five years, the company allegedly was responsible for at least 80 major oil spill-overs, six of them since February. Indigenous peoples have expressed concern that waste material and toxins will remain after oil extraction in Loreto is finished.

In fact, oil reserves in Loreto are almost depleted, and the situation there is volatile. Frontera Energy itself is no rock of stability, having emerged in 2017 out of the post-default reorganization of its predecessor, Pacific Exploration & Production. That entity was the former Pacific Rubiales Energy Corporation, notable for ties to paramilitaries, violations of labor rights, and stock manipulation.

With operations in Colombia Ecuador, Guyana, and Peru, Frontera Energy currently registers a gross annual revenue of $1.68 billion and net income of minus $189 million.

The company is refusing to produce oxygen in Shiviyacu as long as oil-production facilities are being sabotaged – presumably by indigenous activists. PetroPeru reports “26 incidents along the aging 1,100 km pipeline since early 2016, with 19 caused by some form of sabotage.” In late 2018, the NorPeruano pipeline and Frontera Energy’s oil installations were temporarily closed – one of many times – after indigenous groups kidnapped and quickly released 20 oil workers.

Indigenous activists have long demanded that the government take responsibility for the oil company’s abuse of the environment. They’ve blocked roads and met with government and company officials. Along the way, their communities have demanded basic health services. A “high-level commission” in November 2017 acceded.

Aurelio Chino, president of an indigenous federation, in September 2019 complained that, “when we mobilize, they brand us as terrorists, as savages.” Indeed, “We may be natives or indigenous, [but] we are not animals, the government has to understand that.”  Speaking of his people’s exposure to heavy metals –  documented in a recent Health Ministry report – Chino called for hospital services and clean-up of oil spills.

Indigenous demonstrators in January, 2020 threatened to occupy a pumping and electrical-generation station in Andoas in Loreto. They eventually did so, and Frontera Energy closed the station on May 1. This was the situation when, on June 21, communities in the same area demanded that Frontera Energy re-open its oxygen-producing plant. They regard the pandemic as a “death sentence.”

In refusing, the company demanded documents “with signatures” showing that the communities would “guarantee operations without restrictions or blockades.”  The indigenous see the requirement as an attempt “to use the oxygen plant [as a means] to impose control over the communities’ discontent.”

Peru’s extreme shortage of medical oxygen needed for treating COVID 19 infection aggravates the conflict. That shortage is a scandal.

Only two companies produce medical oxygen in Peru. Some is imported from Ecuador. Family members seeking oxygen for hospitalized relatives must stand in long lines to buy fresh tanks or refill old ones. With the pandemic advancing, prices paid by families rose from $259 to $1,799 per tank. A local diocese  of the Catholic Church and a Spanish actor have raised money to fund oxygen-generating machines for Loreto.

Metallurgical engineers called upon Peruvian President Martin Vizcarra to facilitate the use of industrial oxygen for treating COVID 19 infection. Their June 15 letter expressed regret at the president’s neglect of an earlier one. They assured him that gas in tanks used by industry contained at least 93 percent oxygen and that making them available would be a good way for the government to respond to the pandemic.

Anarchy thus plays out in one small Peruvian cockpit. Strife overflows as implacable forces collide. They are: a precariously positioned multinational corporation desperate to preserve assets, communities of victimized indigenous peoples who resist, and globalized capitalism intent upon wealth accumulation at the cost of human needs.

Events in Loreto suggest a society in shambles. Preparations for the pandemic were at best inadequate, at worst non-existent. The situations of Cuba, China, and Vietnam are different. Governed by Communist parties, they succeeded in protecting their people from “CoronaShock” – as documented here.

Spiteful Authority: Malaysia Goes for the Journalists

Binoy Kampmark 

Malaysia’s record on letting journalists be is a blotted one.  This month, authorities have been kept busy intimidating the independent news outlet Malaysiakini, with a seven-member federal court panel agreeing to hear contempt proceedings against its editor-in-chief Steven Gan.  Charged under section 114A of the Evidence Act, Gan and his outlet are said to have permitted the publication of over five reader comments critical of the judiciary.

The Committee to Protect Journalists senior Southeast Asia representative Shawn Crispin urges Malaysian prosecutors to “drop the bogus contempt of court charges pending against Steven Gan and stop using legal threats to intimidate the media.”  In Crispin’s pertinent view, “Pursuing an independent news outlet over comments from random internet users reeks of a witch hunt and sends a worrying signal about the state of press freedom under Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin’s new government.”

Malaysia is facing a season of official pettiness and persecutions.  Boo Su-Lyn, editor of the health news portal CodeBlue, is being investigated under the Penal Code and Official Secrets Act for publishing the findings of an investigation into a fire at the Hospital Sultanah Aminah in 2016 that left six dead.  Her claim is that the report in question had been declassified.

Former ministers have also attracted official attention, including the former women, family and community development minister, Hannah Yeoh.  The MP attracted the interest of authorities after being targeted for supposedly disseminating a remark that the government’s deputy minister of women and family development had been less than keen to deal with child marriage.  The remark, she argues, was falsely attributed to her.

The judicial calendar may well have other additions if the investigation into the work of six journalists working for Al Jazeera sufficiently exercises state prosecutors.  The six journalists, of whom five are Australian, are being investigated on possible charges of sedition and defamation.  Breaches of the country’s Communications and Multimedia Act are also being considered in the possible charge sheet.

The journalists in question are part of Al Jazeera’s 101 East program, which took interest in Malaysia’s treatment of undocumented migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The crew had much to work on.  The “movement of control order”, implemented in response to the pandemic, has been particularly brutal towards the undocumented who clean and slop the underbelly of the state.

In May, Malaysian authorities executed four immigration crackdowns and arrested over 2,000 undocumented migrants.  Among them were asylum-seekers and 98 children.  This took place despite the promise by authorities on March 27 that they would not “focus on their documents… the most extreme case that could happen is a 14-day quarantine COVID19.  That is all.”  By May, the National Police Inspector-General Abdul Hamid Bador had removed the gloves and any sense of pretence, readying his forces to arrest and detain any undocumented residents supposedly in breach of the partial lockdown.  “We cannot allow them to move freely while the MCO is still in progress as it will be difficult for us to track them down if they leave the identified locations.”

The policy has been astonishingly self-defeating.  Concentrating such individuals in confined quarters has had the effect of encouraging the spread of COVID-19.  On May 26, Noor Hisham Abdullah, director-general of the Ministry of Health, was grave in warning.  “We have identified detention centres as a high-risk area.”  On May 22, 35 cases were identified at a detention centre.  Within four days, the number had bulked to 227 across three sites.  By May 31, the number had increased to 410 across four sites.

The work of Al Jazeera’s six journalists yielded up Locked Up in Malaysia’s Lockdown, featuring much of what we already know. Al Jazeera does not mince its words introducing it.  “Now, undocumented foreign workers are scared for their future.  Out of work and forced to live in cramped conditions, some are starving and dependent on charities to survive.”  The Malaysian government may have successfully checked the spread of the coronavirus but had “also put some of the poorest areas of Kuala Lumpur behind barbed wire – testing and fingerprinting migrants, and arresting anyone without valid documents.”

The short production raised the hackles of the political establishment, who insist that any tolerable standard of journalism must accord with government policy.  Malaysia’s Defence Minister Ismail Saabri insists that Al Jazeera “apologise to all Malaysians”.  “As international media, we expect Al Jazeera to have high ethics.  But, the report does not seem to contain clear facts and is full of baseless accusations.”  The immigration department’s director general has warned that foreigners making “inaccurate statements aimed at sullying the country” could have visas and work passes revoked.  The hunt for Md Rayhan Kabir, one of the migrants interviewed in the report, has also commenced pursuant to the country’s Immigration Act.

The six staff members were duly asked to present themselves at the Bukit Aman federal police headquarters on Friday.  Al Jazeera’s statement, released on Thursday, affirmed that it stood by “the professionalism, quality and impartiality of its journalism,” warning of “serious concerns about developments that have occurred in Malaysia since the broadcast of the documentary”.  The network also noted how its staff had been “targeted by sustained online abuse, including death threats and disclosure of their personal details over social media.”  Repeated attempts to obtain the government view on the topics covered in the report failed due the refusal to grant interviews.

The obvious is often the most infuriating for authoritarian states, even amateurish ones with airs.  While Malaysia’s abuse of journalists has some way to go before it keeps company with violence of the Philippines, it is making a spiteful effort to climb the charts.  An air of intimidation has set in.

The deep irony in all of this is that the five Australians of the Al Jazeera outfit can count on little genuine assistance from to the land of their citizenship.  The Australian government has shown itself to be rather keen in targeting the fourth estate for publishing material it deems in breach of national security legislation.  Dan Oakes of the ABC awaits the deliberations of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions over a brief by the Australian Federal Police for his role in publishing the Afghan Files.

Any potential prosecution will need final approval of the Australian Attorney General, Christian Porter, who nurses a faux belief in the merits of the free press and his role as its defender.  In Australia, secret trials and investigating journalists for exposing state abuses is all the rage.  The fox, in the form of Porter, is guarding the hen house.  Malaysia’s heavy handed authorities, for that reason, have nothing to trouble themselves over.

Crime, Justice and Capitalism

Bhabani Shankar Nayak

The right-wing henchmen and their liberal brethren provide moral justifications for extra judicial deaths during colonial plunders and imperialist wars. From Iraq wars to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and from honour killings to domestic violence, police encounters, and custodial deaths around the world are part of the same genealogy, that justifies violence on moral grounds. Colonialism as civilising mission, imperialist wars for democracy and human rights are products of unfounded moral discourses shaped by the ruling class propaganda. The moral arguments continue to provide justifications to institutionalise violence and patronise it in the name of nationalism, religion, community and caste honour. The masses fall into such false intellectual narrative and celebrate such extra judicial, structural and institutionalised violence as justice. It has shaped the Orwellian proverbial expression. “Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Those who do not die by the sword die of smelly diseases”. Such a violent social formulation derives its cultural legitimacy from Christian theology.  The Gospel of Matthew echoes it by saying “sword shall perish with the sword”. The patronage of violence is an integral part of most of the world religions. The idea of god and religions will perish without cherishing the ideals of violence and fear in the name of justice. In this way, normalisation and naturalisation of violence as justice derives its legitimacy from religious and moral discourses, which is antithetical to ideals of justice.

The moral foundation of extra judicial killing as justice is not new in the world. The modified version of the Hammurabian code and Anglo-Saxon culture of crime, evidence, punishment and justice continues to resonate in the 21st century judicial praxis. The origin and growth of crime and its moral foundation is intrinsically linked with ascendancy of private property from feudalism to finance capital. The economic construction of society and transformation of individual as a mere producer and consumer in support of capitalism both in its old and new forms led to the rise of crime. The culture of consumerism has promoted a culture of competition, where realisation of one’s own self-interest is supreme goal. The capitalist transformation of need-based culture to a desire-based culture with the help of advertisement industry, which has destroyed collective foundations of society.  The ascendancy of capitalism has increased wealth without diminishing miseries. It has led to the concentration of wealth in the hands of few, and growth of huge social and economic in inequalities in the society.

The rotten capitalist system continues to produce miseries for many and prosperity for the few. Laws are made by the capitalist classes to protect their own interests. The Corn Laws were made to uphold the interests of landed aristocracies, mercantile classes and industrial bourgeoisie in early 19th century England. The legacies of such laws continue to exist today in different parts of the world. The special economic zones, industrial zones, agricultural zones, export and import zones are classic examples of policies, working conditions and labour laws, which disempower the working-class masses and empowers capitalist classes.  The strong-security state and conformist bourgeois judiciary is important to provide protection to the private properties of capitalist classes. The capitalist system not only produces crime, it also uses organised criminal gangs to promote its regimes of capitalist profit accumulation.

Historically, alienating capitalist system is an organic incubator for crime and criminals. There is nothing new in the criminogenic character of capitalism. The law is used and interpreted differently to different classes of people. As a result of which American prisons are over flowing with black, ethnic minority and working-class population whereas Indian prisons packed with lower caste, tribal and poor population. The criminals have their classes. The punishments and prison cells are different according to their class location of the criminals. If criminals are rich and powerful; the law takes a different course whereas law takes its own course with poor and vulnerable. The unequal availability and accessibility to police, law and judiciary did not help society to grow in an egalitarian way. The police, law firms, solicitors, judiciary and prisons did not deliver justice. These judicial institutions of law and order did not help to eradicate social and economic problems of our times. It has rather helped to consolidate the power of the capitalist elites while the masses continue to suffer in different forms of miseries.

The contemporary capitalism is organised around ideals of illiberal and undemocratic governance of the society in which citizens are free consumers and wage labours. The ideals of individual liberty, freedom and rights are cosmetic covers to criminogenic face of capitalism. The capitalist societies do not overcome the problem of crime but it opens up in frontiers of crime every day in different stages of its development. The culture of crime and punishment is an integral part of the proportional retributive judicial system with bourgeois spirit in which ‘popular/elite consciousness and an element of desire for revenge’ plays key role shaping laws to regulate crime and criminals. The capitalist judicial system is based on the perceived notion of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Such a system disciplines the citizens and does not destroy the crime and criminals. It does not reform the criminals or did not provide the environment for the criminals to develop their abilities to reform themselves. It normalises and naturalises the culture of crime within retributive judicial system that complements capitalism. The moral foundations of retributive justice derive its legitimacy from major religions of the world. There is nothing modern about it. It is feudal, medieval and barbaric in letter and spirit. The social, economic, religious and cultural conditions that produce crime and promotes criminals continue to thrive under capitalist patronage. Such a system moves the society into unending darkness of injustice.

It is time to understand and unravel the innate goodness and human values in human beings, which are destroyed by capitalist cultures. Crimes and capitalisms are unnatural whereas love and peace is natural to all human beings in all societies. The cosmetic vicissitudes of capitalism and its actuarial justice cannot solve the problems of crime. The world needs new language of penology by addressing the alienating capitalist conditions that produces and patronises crime and criminals.  The establishment of a crime free society is possible and inevitable. It depends on our abilities to struggle for an egalitarian economy, democratic society and non-discriminatory governance based on progressive politics of peace and prosperity. Such decriminalised transformations depend on unwavering commitment of people’s struggles to ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity and justice for all. These ideals are indivisible to establish a crime free, punishment free and prison free society based on harmony and love for each other.

Special Forces commander admits Australian troops committed war crimes in Afghanistan

Jason Quill

Special Forces commander Adam Findlay told a secret military briefing in early March at Perth’s Campbell barracks that “some elite soldiers committed war crimes in Afghanistan.”

Findlay blamed the atrocities on “poor moral leadership up the chain of command” of the Special Air Services (SAS), according to leaked information published by Nine Entertainment’s “60 Minutes” television program and Melbourne’s Age newspaper.

Findlay claimed that only a few officers and soldiers were involved. He said a “small number of commissioned officers had allowed a culture where abhorrent conduct was permitted” and “a handful of experienced soldiers including patrol commanders and deputy patrol commanders, who typically led five-man SAS teams on missions, had also enabled this culture to exist.”

An Australian light armored vehicle in Afghanistan

The briefing was given to dozens of current SAS soldiers, who were told that these “war crimes may have been covered up.” Findlay said, “Australia’s special forces will take a decade to recover from the long-running investigation” overseen by a judge, Paul Brereton. The judge is due to release the findings of his four-year inquiry to the military chiefs and Liberal-National government in the coming weeks.

The Special Forces commander also revealed for the first time that the inquiry itself did not originate from concerns in the upper echelons but from SAS soldiers writing letters to the top brass about misconduct. This had forced Defence Force Chief General Angus Campbell to call for inquiries to “examine our soul because it wasn’t right.”

The comments are the first direct admission by someone of such high rank of the cover-up culture that has been fostered in the armed forces. However, Findlay, who himself served in Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor, did not make these admissions for the purpose of exposing the criminal conduct, much less to clarify why it occurred.

In fact, the commander said it was “unfair that the misconduct of a few soldiers who served in Afghanistan had damaged the reputation of the majority of the SAS who had done nothing wrong.”

Such attempts to attribute war crimes to supposed “bad apples” are a diversion. The systematic unlawful killings and other abuses—as well as the protracted cover-ups—are the inevitable product of the types of brutal, neo-colonial invasions and occupations mounted by the US and its allies to attempt to secure control over the strategic and resource-rich Middle East and Central Asia region.

The Special Forces have been on the front line of these operations precisely because their members are trained and conditioned to kill anyone regarded as an enemy, that is, most of the population.

Findlay’s purpose was to warn the military and political establishment of the likely backlash when some of these revelations are made public, while proposing tactical measures to try to repair the tattered reputation of the armed forces at home and abroad.

While saying that those identified as “perjurers,” who lied under oath out of a “misguided loyalty,” should be “removed from the SAS at a minimum,” Findlay insisted: “We have to rehabilitate the reputation and the capabilities and everything of this command … we can’t wallow in it.”

This is necessary, according to Findlay, to resolve an “issue of trust” between the Special Forces, which comprise the SAS and the Commandos, and the Australian people and the wider military.

In his closed-door inquiry, Brereton, a New South Wales Supreme Court Justice and army reserve Major General, has reportedly conducted over 250 interviews and looked into at least 55 alleged war crimes incidents between 2005 and 2016.

Findlay said Brereton was compiling “a raft of findings” but his inquiry had taken four years because “a number” of new whistleblowers had recently emerged.

The “60 Minutes” segment featured an interview with one such whistleblower, former medic and SAS member, Dusty Miller, who was allegedly involved in the killing of Afghan farmer and father of seven, Haji Sardar, in the southern Afghanistan village of Sarkum during March 2012.

Miller was put in charge of treating Haji Sardar, who had a gunshot wound through his thigh, although he was not suspected to be with the Taliban. It was an uncomplicated medical procedure. When Miller said, “this guy is going to survive,” a senior SAS soldier ordered him to hand over the injured farmer.

“At the time, I thought it was very, very strange,” Miller said. “I’m wondering why. But probably in the back of my mind, I knew exactly what was going on.” Miller continued: “A few minutes later, that same person, the senior operator came back to me and said, ‘Hey Kilo (Miller’s call sign) ... that guy didn’t make it’.”

Miller reported the farmer’s death as soon as he returned to base, but said his senior regimental medical officer brushed off his concerns. “I assumed that he was killed basically,” Miller said. “He didn’t die of his wounds, I can promise you that.”

In March this year, Miller made contact with the farmer’s family via Skype to beg for their forgiveness, saying, “I wanted to tell them that I was sorry for what happened to their father and that I should have done more.”

Prime Minister Scott Morrison refused to comment on the revelations, saying he had “no intention of involving himself in an independent process.” But his government is prosecuting former military lawyer David McBride, who faces a closed-door trial for allegedly leaking classified material to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) documenting at least 10 possible war crimes. The Federal Police also raided the ABC headquarters, and ABC journalist Dan Oakes could still be prosecuted as well.

Far from curbing the Special Forces, Morrison’s government is boosting them, as its Labor Party predecessors did. Last August, Morrison announced extra funding of $3 billion over 20 years, including $500 million over the next four years, to upgrade the Special Forces’ weapons and resources.

The move is part of intensifying preparations for war. Australian governments have relied almost totally on the Special Forces for every military intervention since the Vietnam War.

These units also could be deployed internally, with “shoot to kill” powers, to put down civil unrest under the expanded military call-out laws introduced in 2018. New powers were created for the government or the chief of the armed forces to call out troops to put down “domestic violence.”

French trade unions agree to attacks on healthcare system amid coronavirus pandemic

Will Morrow

On Friday, amid the accelerating deadly coronavirus pandemic, the French trade unions and the Macron administration announced a new healthcare agreement that will erode conditions for hospital and other healthcare workers, and do nothing to address the catastrophic conditions in hospitals exposed by the virus.

The full contents of the agreements have not yet been published, but even those details published by the media make clear that it is a major assault on healthcare. They include:

• A further ending of restrictions on the 35-hour work week for nurses. According to the financial daily Les Echos, the agreement stipulates “the possibility of individual contracts for completing an annual quota of supplementary hours” on top of the 35-hour week. The federal secretary of the General Federation of Labour (CGT), Patrick Bourdillon, was forced to admit that these “additional hours will be paid, but we do not have the details of how much. We are therefore being asked to sign a blank check to end the 35-hour week.” While loopholes already existed on the 35-hour week, these are to be further expanded, enabling hospital management to “use this more often,” according to Les Echos. The newspaper hailed the agreement for “permitting reorganizations at the hospital, giving management room to maneuver … and thus increasing overall productivity.”
• No pledge for reopening beds. In the last six years, 17,500 overstay hospital beds have been closed in France due to continuous cuts to hospital budgets. Of these, almost one quarter were closed in 2017-18. Over the past 20 years, more than 100,000 beds have been closed. The agreement includes no pledge for hospital funding to reverse the impact of this bipartisan decadeslong assault.
• A negligible increase in hospital staff. The agreement includes a pledge to increase the number of nurse positions by 7,500. This amounts to a drop in the ocean, approximately one or two additional nurses per facility. Moreover, half of these positions had already been allocated within the existing budgets of hospitals but had not been filled because of the atrocious conditions for nurses.
• An inadequate pay rise for nurses of 180 euros per month. This is just over half the 300 euros that the trade unions had claimed was their central demand in advance of the negotiations. Nurses will not see any increase until September, and the full wage rise will not come into force until March next year. This follows decades of real wage cuts for nurses and other healthcare staff.

The total funding budgeted toward nurses and retirement home staff comes to €7.5 billion, and an additional €450 million for doctors. This is roughly two percent of the almost €400 billion that the Macron administration pledged to guarantee the loans of French banks and corporations as it imposed a lockdown in March. Moreover, as further details of the agreement continue to emerge, there will no doubt be even more far-reaching attacks revealed.

Nonetheless, three trade union federations, the French Democratic Labor Confederation (CFDT), National Union of Autonomous Unions (UNSA), and Workers Force (FO), declared that the deal for nurses represented a great victory and that they would sign it tomorrow. It would therefore pass, since the combined vote these federations received in the last union elections was just over 50 percent, and they therefore claim to represent half the workforce.

This has enabled the CGT to play its assigned role of fraudulently criticizing elements of the agreement, while committing it to nothing. The CGT is itself seeking to demobilize widespread opposition among nurses and healthcare workers to the agreement. While the media has claimed that the CGT is opposed to the agreement, this is false. On Thursday evening, it published a video by Mireille Stivala, the general secretary of the Federation of Health and Social Work (FSAS). Stivala said the agreement crossed a number of the union’s “red lines,” but concluded that the union may still vote for it anyway.

The union would prepare a report for members on the deal “so that the point of support for the signature or the nonsignature of the agreement comes from the base and the workers. Even if the agreement may be disappointing, we have to acknowledge all the same that it’s thanks to the mobilisation of staff over recent years, and thanks to the trade unions, that we’ve been able to [obtain] … this wage increase.” She concluded absurdly by calling on workers to join a national protest on the national holiday of Bastille Day on July 14 to call for improvements in workers’ conditions that the unions and the government are in the process of tearing up.

The agreement underscores certain definite social realities. The systematic assault on the hospital system in France and internationally over decades has not been the result of mistaken policies or a lack of understanding of the importance of the healthcare system for society. In the midst of the greatest pandemic in a century, in which over 30,000 have been killed in France and 568,000 around the world, the response of the ruling class and its political and trade union representatives is to further trash the public healthcare system.

As far as the capitalist class is concerned, if more workers die, and particularly the elderly who are no longer able to produce profits for employers, this is not only unimportant, but can be a positive good, as it will reduce spending on both healthcare and pensions. The slashing of social spending is necessary to fund the massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich that has been accelerated throughout the pandemic. And the rich will continue to enjoy the best quality healthcare that money can buy. That is why governments internationally are maintaining their return-to-work policy, ensuring that corporate profit-making activities can be resumed despite the threat to millions.

It would be the greatest mistake for healthcare workers to believe that the latest sellout can be reversed through the placing of pressure on the trade union leaders, as is put forward by the recently-formed Inter-Urgences trade union. It is not merely a matter of corrupt individuals, though that is in great supply. Under conditions of globalized production, the corporatist and nationalist program of the trade unions in every country has transformed them into the open agents of corporate management and governments, tasked with suppressing opposition among workers and increasing profits.

Healthcare workers must instead break free from the corporatist grip of the union apparatuses and form their own independent organisations of struggle, rank-and-file committees, organized by workers themselves. An appeal must be made for the development of a unified industrial and political offensive of the working class internationally. This must be tied to a socialist program, for the taking of political power by the working class internationally, and the reorganization of society on a socialist basis. The coronavirus pandemic has made clear that the capitalist class is in a war against society. The fight against the pandemic means a war against capitalism and the fight for socialism.

Bereaved family members march on Downing Street to demand UK COVID-19 inquiry

Robert Stevens

Families representing over 1,000 coronavirus victims marched to Downing Street Saturday to protest the Johnson government ignoring their demand for an independent public inquiry into the Tories handling of the pandemic.

Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK have set up a petition calling for an “immediate inquiry” that has been signed by over 154,000 people. It states, “The UK death toll has risen to over 40,000, and it is one of the highest in the world. We’re urgently calling for an inquiry to find out why—and to stop this happening again. Especially as we may be on the brink of a second wave.

Becky at the protest with a photo of her father Peter (credit: Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK-Facebook page)

“Each person who has died in this pandemic is a loved person, a life gone too soon and a family torn apart… it is clear that there were huge gaps in the country’s preparedness including delays to locking down, inadequate supplies of PPE, policies of discharging into care homes and more… Despite this, the government continues to refer to its ‘apparent success’ and being ‘proud’ of its record.”

According to the group’s lawyer, Elkan Abrahamson, an inquiry could be led by a High Court judge. If the government refuses to hold a public inquiry, lawyers representing the families say they are prepared to challenge the decision at the High Court via a judicial review.

One of those attending the protest was co-founder Jo Goodman, 32, who lost her father Stuart, 72, on April 2. Stuart had to attend a hospital appointment in person on March 18 and it is possible this is when he became infected. Speaking to the Daily Mirror, Jo, from Norwich, said, “It’s been a month since we sent our formal request calling for an inquiry and we’ve been blanked ever since. The Prime Minister [Boris Johnson] has not even given us the decency of a personal acknowledgment, let alone responded to our requests for a meeting.

“So we thought if he won’t come to us, then we would go to him. We won’t let the deaths of our loved ones be in vain.”

Ellis with a photo of his grandfather, Berrice (credit: Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK-Facebook page)

Another member is Ken Sazuze, the husband of Elsie Sazuze, a nurse at a care home who died in Sutton Coldfield on April 8, aged 44. She left behind son Andrew, 22 and daughter Anna, 16. Leshie, also a member, is the daughter of a London bus driver, Ranjith Chandrapala, who drove the 92 bus route from Ealing hospital, where he died on May 3, aged 64. The father of member Fiona Kirton, Bernard, was transferred from a hospital to a care home without first being tested for the virus. He died in Warwick Hospital on Tuesday April 7, aged 84. Many other families have suffered the same fate. Around 22,000 of COVID-19 deaths in Britain have been in care homes.

Charlie Williams’ father, Rex, died of COVID-19 at the care home where he lived in April in Coventry. Speaking to Channel 4 News July 7, Charlie said Rex died within days of being diagnosed with coronavirus. “We were first notified on Thursday April 16 that his health had deteriorated and by Monday he’s passed away… My father was bed bound in a day care home, where he had lived for several years happily. We were told, that they had received patients from the hospital and before we knew it our dad had passed away…”

As part of the government’s policy to free up NHS beds, thousands of elderly people were sent to nursing homes. Many were not tested for COVID-19. Charlie was interviewed on the same day that Johnson blamed care homes for deaths as “too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could.”

Jade, who lost her father Larry, at the protest (credit: Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK-Facebook page)

Charlie said that the bereaved families’ group “had got a reply, quite late on [from Downing Street]” in response to their petition. This was “two lines, not even condolences, a measly two lines he gave us. We are quite disgusted with that reply… they basically acknowledged that they had received the letter and that’s it.”

While the petition correctly warns of the dangers of a second wave due to the reckless flinging open of the economy with all schools to reopen in September, the first wave of the pandemic continues. As the families protested at Downing Street, a further 148 deaths were announced and 820 cases. On Sunday, a further 21 people were reported dead.

The deaths recorded over the weekend brought the official death tally to 44,819, equating to 660 deaths per million—a higher rate than every major capitalist country in the world except Belgium (844 per million). However, the government’s figures do not include “excess deaths”—understood to the be most accurate measures of COVID-19 deaths.

Several newspapers, including the Financial Times and the Times, conclude that over 65,000 excess deaths have already occurred. The FT noted at the weekend, “The total number of people who died, directly or indirectly from coronavirus in the UK, during the phase when deaths were above average, stood at just over 65,200.” Jamie Jenkins, “an independent statistician who formerly worked at the ONS, estimates a figure of just over 69,000 for the entire pandemic.”

Jean lost her father Aldrick, known as Cleo (credit: Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK-Facebook page)

Numbers signing the petition have grown substantially in the last days, reflecting mounting anger at the horrifying human cost of the Conservative government’s “herd immunity” policy allowing the deaths of tens of thousands, including thousands of health and social care staff, education workers and teachers. Some of those signing the petition on Sunday commented:

• “We have been deceived and lied to by this Government.”
• “As a care worker, we are doing our absolute best to protect our most vulnerable. What a disgrace our PM is to imply the thousands of care home deaths are at the fault of care staff.”
• “This government has been reckless and incompetent and in my opinion their actions are criminal!”
• “The government have pushed for herd immunity without following the facts, they were incompetent with PPE and continue to lie and deceive the public with death and test figures.”
• “The government has lied and put wealth over health.”

The preventable mass deaths from COVID-19 in the UK are an act of social murder. They took place because the government took none of the necessary measures to protect the population, particularly the most vulnerable. Its refusal to impose a timely lockdown, social distancing and mass testing allowed the untrammelled spread of a deadly disease for months.

Many have compared the neglect of the authorities for the health, safety and very lives of thousands of people to that of the deregulation, and profiteering that resulted in the social murder of 72 men, women and children in the Grenfell Tower inferno of 2017. Once again, the bereaved must have the answers to how their loved ones died of COVID-19, but all experience testifies that demanding that governments act to establish the truth though public inquiries--after their policies have led to mass deaths--is a dead-end.

After more than 30 years of fighting, including during 13 years of a Labour government, the families of the victims of the Hillsborough football disaster were denied justice, with nobody held to account. More than three years after the Grenfell fire, not a single person in political and corporate circles has been charged with a single offence in relation to the deaths. The public inquiry has no powers of prosecution and has extended to grant legal immunity to the parties responsible for turning Grenfell into a death trap.

What is needed to establish the truth is an independent political movement of the working class for socialism.