22 Jul 2020

India-Indonesia: Expanding Cooperation to Include Defence Industry

Akash Sahu

India’s Great Nicobar Island in the Andaman Sea is barely 163 km from the Sabang district of Indonesia’s Aceh province. The geographical proximity of these two large democracies and their strategic locations in the Indian Ocean make them natural partners for maritime security. The leaders of both countries are invested in a shared vision for the Indo-Pacific.
While defence cooperation has garnered most bilateral attention, there is still greater scope for exploration in this domain, particularly as it pertains to defence industry. This will in turn aid greater synchronicity on the Indo-Pacific.
Defence Diplomacy and Trade
The bilateral diplomatic relationship was established in 1951, and upgraded to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2018. Under the Biennial Defence Ministers’ Dialogue, the Indian and Indonesian defence ministers have so far met twice, in 2012 and 2018. The Joint Defence Cooperation Committee has been active since 2007. The secretary general of the Indonesian Defence Ministry and Indian defence secretary have engaged in annual meetings under its aegis. The India-Indonesia Coordinated Patrol (IND-INDO CORPAT) in the Andaman Sea has been conducted 33 times since 2002.
Despite robust defence diplomacy, business in defence products between the two countries has been limited. India’s ongoing attempt to boost defence production and export and Indonesia’s increasing focus on essential defence imports opens up space for further bilateral collaboration.
India’s defence production and export priorities were recently enunciated at the February 2020 DefExpo, where PM Modi announced his government’s target of increasing arms exports to US$ 5 billion over the next five years. This was followed by the finance minister’s announcement of a hike in India’s foreign direct investment (FDI) cap in defence production under the automatic route from 49 per cent to 74 per cent. In May 2020, India entered the list of global arms exporters at number 23, with a focus on encouraging future weapons sales abroad.
Indonesia is attempting to modernise its defence system in collaboration with principal manufacturers such as the UAE, China, and Russia. This builds on its 2015 Defence White Paper which talked about a budgetary increase to one per cent of GDP and more in the next decade to achieve essential defence capability. The country’s defence budget for 2020 is US$ 9.26 billion, of which approximately 30 per cent has been allocated to procurement. Recent developments suggest a 21 per cent increase in the defence budget for 2021, resulting in an approximate total of US$ 10.4 billion at the disposal of the Defence Ministry by next year.
Identifying Potential Areas for Collaboration
On his visit to Indonesia in 2018, PM Modi, and Indonesian President Joko Widodo, took note of progress in the joint production of military equipment. Both leaders acknowledged the potential of this cooperation, and directed officials to take appropriate action.
Indian Defence Industry, a Department of Defence Production publication, lists several land, naval, and air systems for export, including the BrahMos missile, Multi-Barrel Rocket-Launcher (MBRL), fighter aircraft (Tejas, Dhruv, Cheetal), bridging systems, and communication and surveillance systems. This runs parallel to Indonesia’s defence requirements as highlighted in 2014 by the Indonesian Defence Industry Policy Committee, which spoke of the need for efficiency in seven weapon systems: medium tanks, jet fighters, submarines, propellants, missiles, radars and communication devices.
Indian naval systems like anti-submarine warfare (ASW) corvettes and advanced offshore patrol vessels (AOPV) could be of interest to Indonesia given its significant—and the world’s third longest—coastline. New Delhi could also assist Jakarta’s attempts to strengthen and expand military bases in the South China Sea’s (SCS) Natuna region, which is vulnerable to Chinese incursions.
India and Indonesia have both emphasised greater self-reliance in their respective defence sectors. Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has urged the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to focus on R&D in the field of critical defence technologies. In Indonesia, a Defence Ministry press release called for synergy between military, government, and defence industry to boost domestic production.
Strategic analysis in both countries has outlined the need for state investment in military R&D, and highlighted the collaboration potential of joint R&D in missile technology and UAVs. This focus on self-reliance creates mutually beneficial opportunities for further bilateral collaboration on information and equipment-sharing, collaborative R&D, private joint ventures, etc.
India has allowed a great degree of technology transfer to private manufacturing firms, which sits well with Indonesian preferences for arms deals. Jakarta is looking at loan options to finance plans for arms acquisitions—India can be helpful in this context given its extension of Lines of Credit to buy essential defence items, like the US$ 500 million to Vietnam in 2016.
Conclusion
Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs, Luhut Panjaitan, on his 2018 trip to India, suggested closer India-Indonesia cooperation as “important for balance of power in the region.” A stronger defence relationship will bring greater synchronicity to New Delhi and Jakarta’s regional objectives and their agenda for the Indo-Pacific. In the big picture, it is crucial to maintain and expand these links between India and Southeast Asia as maritime geopolitical competition between big powers intensifies.

21 Jul 2020

Wellcome Trust Collaborative Awards in Science 2020

Application Deadlines: 
  • Preliminary application deadline: 18th August 2020, 17:00 BST
  • Full application deadline: 10th November 2020, 17:00 GMT
Eligible Countries: UK, Republic of Ireland, Low- and middle-income countries

To be taken at (country): UK, Republic of Ireland, Low- and middle-income countries


About the Award: Collaborative Awards promote the development of new ideas and speed the pace of discovery. We fund teams of researchers, consisting of independent research groups, to work together on the most important scientific problems that can only be solved through collaborative efforts.


Type: Research


Type of Researcher: Basic, Clinical, Public health


Career Stage of Researcher: Intermediate, Senior


Eligibility:  Collaborative Awards are for teams of researchers bringing together the relevant expertise and experience to address the most important scientific problems.

Each applicant must be essential to the proposed collaborative research and have:
  • Proven research expertise and experience in their field.
  • An academic or research post (or equivalent).
  • A salary for the duration of the award period. If this is not in place, your employing organisation must provide a guarantee of salary support for the duration of the award.
Members of the team must have proven experience in collaborative research and consist of independent research groups.
Team size will depend on the proposed research, but should generally have more than two applicants, and no more than seven. Teams may be based in the same or in different organisations, and must bring different expertise or disciplines to the research question.
Applicants should usually be based at eligible organisations in the UK, Republic of Ireland, or low- or middle-income countries. However, we can make exceptions for projects that need specific expertise or resources provided by team members based in other countries.

Selection Criteria: 
  • Your proposal should describe a significant piece of work that addresses the most important questions, in an area relevant to the mission of the Wellcome Trust.
  • You should be able to demonstrate why the scientific problem you are tackling can only be solved through an integrated, collaborative team effort.
  • We encourage interdisciplinary research collaborations, although they are not essential. We also encourage applications that propose interdisciplinary research across our Science, Humanities and Social Science and Innovations teams.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Level of Funding: Up to £4 million

Duration of Funding: Up to 5 years

How to Apply: You must submit your application through the Wellcome Trust Grant Tracker (WTGT).

Visit Award Webpage for details

Kistefos Young Talented Leader Scholarships Program 2020/2021

Application Deadline: 1st November 2020

Eligible Countries: Norway, South Africa, Liberia, and Ethiopia. 

To be taken at (country): Norway

About the Award: Over four years, the program will grant a total of 46 scholarships to candidates in Norway, South Africa, Liberia, and Ethiopia.  The Fellowships for Leading Norwegian Talent will include two scholarships for undergraduate studies and 20 scholarships for pre-experience masters and the Fellowships for Leading Africa Talent will include 24 scholarships for pre-experience masters for candidates. 

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Scholarship candidates must demonstrate academic and personal excellence, strong leadership capabilities, an entrepreneurial mindset, and a commitment to impacting their home countries upon graduation.

Number of Awards: 24

Value of Award: All scholarships will cover up to 100% of tuition fees including living expenses and travel arrangements for the master programs.

Duration of Programme: 2 years

How to Apply: 
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage (see link below) before applying
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Global Warming and Ocean Acidification Accelerate

Manuel Garcia Jr

The global warming of the biosphere and its consequent acidification of the oceans is a complex of geophysical, biological and ecological, and sociological phenomena that are all accelerating. There is much that humanity could do to slow that acceleration, and to enact strategies for its own protection from Nature’s escalating assaults on civilization by the grand feedback loop of anthropogenic global warming climate change, but there is really nothing humanity can do to stop it.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
The anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) — the exhaust fume of economic activity — has increased steadily over the last 270 years, and explosively so for the last 70 years.
A close up of a map Description automatically generated
Annual CO2 Emission by Region
Those emissions were 5.28 billion metric tons of CO2 (1 metric ton = 1 tonne = 1000kg = 2,205 lb) in 1950, and 36.15 billion tonnes in 2017 (1 billion tonnes = 1 giga-tonne = 1 Gt). A rough quantitative characterization (analytical fit) to the historical trend of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the early 20th century is
E = 35.5•[(YEAR-1890)/130]^2, in Gt/year.
The cumulative emissions up to 2017 were 1,540Gt of CO2 (=1.54 trillion tonnes).
A screenshot of a cell phone Description automatically generated
Cumulative CO2 Emissions by Region
Carbon Dioxide in the Oceans
Of the annual CO2 emissions, about 30% are absorbed by the oceans.
A rough quantitative characterization to the historical trend of CO2 absorption by the oceans is
W = 10.4•[(YEAR-1890)/130]^2, in Gt/year.
The cumulative load of anthropogenic CO2 absorbed by the oceans is 450Gt.
According to there are 39,000Gt of carbon currently in the oceans. Since CO2 molecules are 3.667x more massive (‘heavier’) than pure carbon atoms, this represent 143,000Gt of absorbed CO2. The cumulative mass of Earth’s oceans is 1.366GGt (=1.366•10^9 Gt). Thus, the currently absorbed CO2 is in a mass ratio to seawater of 104.7ppmm (=104.7 parts per million by mass). The “ancient” seas (without the 450Gt anthropogenic load of CO2) had 104.4ppmm of CO2.
This seemingly small addition to the CO2 in the oceans has had profound biological and ecological effects, because of the increase of oceanic acidity by 26%. The chemical indicator of acidity used by scientists, pH, has dropped from 8.2 for “ancient” seawater, to 8.1 for present seawater. The pH scale is logarithmic, and its numbers decrease as the solution in question becomes more acidic.
Ocean acidity impedes the ability of shell-forming marine life to produce their protective coverings. With increased ocean acidity, even the shell structures in existence are eroded. These effects make it more difficult for shell-forming marine life to survive, and as many of these life-forms are small (part of the plankton) they are essential foods at the base of the marine food chain. So the ultimate concern about escalating oceanic acidity is the potential for a collapse of marine life. One estimate of the CO2 concentration needed for “ocean death” by acidification is 400ppmm to 500ppmm.
This implies that 400,000Gt to 540,000Gt more of CO2 would have to be deposited into the oceans; a task that would require 38,000 years to 52,000 years of anthropogenic emissions at the current rate (10.4Gt/year into the oceans). However, “ocean dying” is plainly evident with the current quantity of absorbed CO2, and it will only get worse at an accelerating pace as more CO2 is emitted by civilization.
The chemistry of ocean acidification is as follows.
CO2 + H2O + CO3 —> 2HCO3
Carbon dioxide plus water plus a carbonate ion react to form 2 bicarbonate ions. This process occurs in three steps:
CO2 + H2O —> H2CO3
Carbon dioxide plus water form carbonic acid, which is a weakly bound molecule.
H2CO3 —> H(+) + HCO3(-)
Carbonic acid breaks up into a hydrogen ion and a bicarbonate ion.
H(+) + CO3(2-) —> HCO3(-)
The hydrogen ions liberated in the previous reaction find carbonate ions floating in seawater, and combine into bicarbonate ions. The net result is two bicarbonate ions in the seawater solution.
Shell-forming marine life capture carbonate ions, CO3(2-), to combine them with calcium into calcium carbonate, CaCO3, to form their pearls and seashells. Extracting the needed carbonate by breaking apart bicarbonate ions, instead of just collecting free-floating carbonate ions, is more energy intensive and thus a frustration of the shell-forming biology of so much marine life. So, ocean acidification by CO2 removes some of the stores of a formally available free-floating carbonate ions from the reach of shell-forming marine life.
That acidity, a function of the liberated hydrogen ions, H(+), can also dissolve existing shells.
CaCO3 + 2H(+) —> Ca(2+) + CO2 + H2O
Calcium carbonate (shells) plus hydrogen ions react, dissolving the shell, into free-floating calcium ions plus absorbed carbon dioxide gas plus water.
The Rate of Global Warming is Accelerating
From what has been described up to this point, in conjunction with my previous modeling, I calculate the following tabulated results.
A picture containing telephone Description automatically generated
TABLE, Relative Warming Rate, %
Note that the rate at which global temperature is increasing is accelerating, as is the rate of global warming (the Watts absorbed by the biosphere each year). Also note that entries after 2020 are necessarily projections, and are based on the assumption of existing trends (and the analytical formulas fitted to them) continuing. The entries listed for the year 2020 are pointed out to show that earlier entries are backed by data, and later entries are projections; and to note that rate of global warming for any year listed is shown as a ratio to its rate for year 2020.
The Rate of Ocean Acidification is Accelerating
From what has been described up to this point, I calculate the following tabulated results.
A picture containing telephone, cellphone Description automatically generated
TABLE, Ocean Acidification
As in the first table, entries up to year 2020 are backed by data, while those after year 2020 are projections. Today’s oceans are 26% more acidic than the oceans of the late 19th century. An alternative comparison is that the oceans of the late 19th century were only 79% as acidic as they are today. If the current trend — of annually increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions — continues to the end of the 21st century, then the oceans would be 144% (2.44x) more acidic than in the late 19th century; or, equivalently, almost twice as acidic as they are today. Those future acidic oceans at pH=7.8 would reproduce conditions during the middle Miocene, 14 to 17 million years ago, when the Earth was several degrees warmer and a major extinction event was occurring.
“Fixing” Global Warming
I see no possibility of a technical “miracle” to fix global warming; something like an anti-global-warming planetary vaccine, making civilization safe to continue with capitalism.
The CO2 in the biosphere is an extremely dilute mass within enormous masses and expanses of air and water. Removing the anthropogenic excesses of CO2 from the air and the oceans would require the filtration of an immense bulk of matter. Processes of such filtration would require immense quantities of energy, to pump and chemically “strain.” Even if we were able to generate sufficient quantities of energy to power such processes, I cannot imagine that generation to be free of CO2 emissions that would exceed whatever quantity of CO2 was strained out of the biosphere. So, I see such ideas of “technical fixes” as fantasies of the perpetual motion machine variety, and obviated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (specifically, as it applies to reversing the process of diffusion).
The only lever I see humanity having with which to influence the pace of global warming is the degree of its restraint in emitting CO2 in the first place. There is no more energy-efficient counter-warming strategy we can devise. The most effective protective armor that can be devised to shield people from the potential harm that playing Russian Roulette can inflict is to not shoot themselves in the head in the first place.
The energy that we do generate and use to counteract the negative effects of global warming (not just to humans, but to thousands of other species) is best spent in transforming our societies and civilization for maximal mutual assistance and solidarity, and minimal competitive tribalism. Some of that energy would go into physical constructions to shield people from floods, inundation, excessive heat and drought; and some of that energy would go into civic arrangements for sheltering, feeding, healthcare and economic stability of all individuals, and the resettlement of those displaced by loss of habitat: by the loss of coastal land to the rising of sea level, and the loss of living space in continental interiors because of the onset of unlivable heat and loss of water.
Essential to the energy efficiency of both devising and implementing such counter-warming social transformations, it is necessary to stop wasting energy on activities without intrinsic social benefits. Specifically, we, worldwide — but most especially among the 10% wealthiest of Earth’s people, who produce 49% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions — need to abandon every trace of profligate CO2-spewing lifestyles enabled by competitive and exclusionary capitalism and its plethora of bigotries, to instead join cooperatively in World Socialism without consumerist economics nor tribal animosities.
A screenshot of a cell phone Description automatically generated
Percentage of CO2 Emissions by World Population (Oxfam)

Planet Earth is the loveliest jewel we know of in the entire Universe. If we treated it as such, and each other as part of the sparkle of that gem, we would experience lives in an actual Paradise, regardless of how challenging global warming made our existence.

Pandemic, AI, and end of Democracy

Bibin Manuel

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”
― George Orwell, 1984
The year 2020 is going to be recorded by future historians as a watershed moment in the history of mankind. The coronavirus pandemic is causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, causing unprecedented economic devastation on global proportions, forcing lockdowns across much of the world, and shaking societies and the assumptions on which they were operating until recently. The health crisis is now slamming headlong into a protracted global economic depression. But going forward, its most remarkable legacy will be the way that the pandemic dovetails with another major worldwide disruption of the recent times—the ascent, and widespread adoption of digital surveillance techniques enabled by artificial intelligence (AI). We need to understand the ongoing conflicts between governments and between tech companies for the control of data in this background. Most people whether they are in the developed world or developing world are just faintly aware, or not at all aware, of the ascent of AI and its potential impact on their lives. The technological disruptions which have been gathering momentum for the last few years have now confronting humankind with the hardest trials it has experienced in the recent past.
The pandemic has created a moment in history when the governments can implement and advance ideas that were touted by the blue-eyed boys of the Silicon Valley tech companies for so long. Something resembling a high tech shock treatment is beginning to emerge. As the bodies still pile up, the future is being re-imagined, repackaged, and delivered in warp speed. The weeks and months of lockdown of entire countries is not seen as a painful necessity to save precious lives, but as a living laboratory for creating a permanent — and highly profitable — future. The pandemic has presented the governments and the big capital with a golden opportunity to finally tame human beings for good. We are at risk of becoming like domesticated animals confined in high-tech industrial farms doing nothing but produce enormous amount of data for their masters.
In this future, our homes are not imagined as exclusive personal spaces but, via high-speed digital connectivity, as our schools, our hospitals, our gyms, our primary entertainment venues, and, if determined by the state, our jails. This is a future in which, for the privileged, almost everything is home delivered, either virtually via streaming, or physically via driverless vehicle or drone. It’s a future that employs far fewer teachers, doctors, and drivers. It accepts no cash or credit cards (under the guise of virus control) and has non-existent or little mass transit and far less live art. It’s a future that claims to be run on “artificial intelligence” but is actually held together by millions of invisible workers tucked away in warehouses, cloud kitchens, industrial farms, meat-processing plants, data centers, semiconductor fabrication plants, lithium mines, and prisons, where they are left unprotected from disease and hyper-exploitation. It’s a future in which our every action, our every thought, our every relationship is trackable, traceable, and data-mineable by unprecedented partnerships between governments and tech giants.
In the pre-COVID world, this precise app-driven, gig-based future was being sold to us in the name of convenience. But many of us had concerns. About the privacy, data security, and quality of telehealth and online classrooms. About driverless cars mowing down pedestrians and drones smashing packages (and sometimes people). About location tracking and cash-free commerce wiping out our privacy and reinforcing racial and gender discrimination. About unprincipled social media platforms poisoning our information ecology and our kids’ mental health. About “smart cities” filled with sensors and cameras superseding local government. About the good jobs, these technologies wiped out. About the bad jobs, they mass-produced.
And most of all, we had concerns about the extreme concentration of power and wealth by a handful of tech companies that are threatening democracy and evading all responsibility for the unrepairable damage they have done to the fields they now dominate, whether media, retail, or transportation. Now, against an agonizing backdrop of mass death, it is being sold to us on the questionable promise that these technologies are the only possible way to pandemic-proof our lives, the indispensable keys to keeping ourselves and our loved ones safe.
Fears of machines pushing people out of the job market are, nothing new, and in the past technological advancements proved to be creating new jobs in place of the obsolete ones. But artificial intelligence is increasingly proving old assumptions wrong. The old human-machine competition was mainly in manual skills. Now machines are making human workers economically irrelevant with cognitive skills. And we don’t know of any third kind of skill in which humans will always have an edge. Without any economic value, labor might also come to lose their political power, whatever little they already have. What is more worrying is the fact that the same technologies that make billions of people economically useless also make them easier to monitor and control.
Even before the pandemic, numerous countries around the world, including several democracies, were busy building unprecedented systems of surveillance. For example, Israeli occupied West Bank is a working prototype for a total-surveillance state. All phone calls, social media interactions, and travel or movement data of Palestinians are likely to be monitored by Israeli microphones, cameras, drones, or spyware. Sophisticated algorithms help the Israeli Defense Forces to analyze the gathered data, pinpoint and neutralize what they consider to be potential threats. The Palestinians may administer some towns and villages in the West Bank, but they do not hold any real power as the Israelis command the sky, the airwaves, and cyberspace. It, therefore, takes surprisingly few Israeli soldiers to effectively control even the minute aspects of the lives of the roughly 2.5 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank.
The Silicon Valley giants had been aggressively lobbying and running public relations campaigns pushing a dystopian vision of society that governments all over the world are now building as a response to the pandemic. At the heart of this vision is the seamless integration of government machinery with a handful of tech giants. This means public-funded schools, hospitals, police, and military all outsourcing many of their core functions to private tech companies. The cyber utopianists like Eric Schmidt of Google and Bill Gates of Microsoft call for exponential increases in government spending on research into artificial intelligence and on tech-enabling infrastructure like 5G. What is interesting is the fact that these investments would directly benefit the companies in which they themselves have extensive stakes.
Eric Schmidt has been pushing the argument that since the Chinese government is willing to spend limitless public money building the infrastructure of high-tech surveillance, while allowing Chinese tech companies like Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent to pocket the profits from commercial applications, the U.S.’s dominant position in the global economy is on the verge of collapsing. He also argues that “surveillance is one of the ‘first-and-best customers’ for Al” and further, that “mass surveillance is a killer application for deep learning.”Until very recently, public resistance against these companies was surging. Politicians in the western world including the US were openly discussing breaking up big tech companies. Local opposition was raging against Amazon for its plans for a New York headquarters. Google’s many surveillance projects were always faced with regulatory hurdles, and Google faced opposition to its collaboration with governments for surveillance tech with military applications both from public and from its own workers. Facebook’s Zuckerberg was grilled by skeptical US lawmakers on privacy concerns, election interference, and free speech.
In short, democracy with its inconvenient public scrutiny, civil society engagements, and institutional frameworks was seen as the single biggest obstacle to the vision these tech giants was advancing. Now, in the midst of the carnage of this ongoing pandemic, and with the fear and uncertainty about the future, these companies clearly see their opportunity to do away with all that democratic engagement. The Silicon Valley tech giants are now leveling the playing field with their Chinese counterparts, who have the luxury of functioning without being hampered by intrusions of either labor or civil rights.
The race to accumulate data is already on, In the global equity market, the leadership is U.S. equities, and within this large-cap U.S. tech and the so-called FAANG stocks. The 5 most valuable companies in the world are increasingly all AI companies. Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google (Alphabet). In China, the same situation, Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent the so-called BAT are all AI companies. Alibaba and Tencent in terms of market capitalization are the most valuable Chinese companies and both are cutting edge AI companies. In 2017, the Chinese Communist Party announced plans to be the world leader in artificial intelligence by 2030. The announcement caused considerable uneasiness in the U.S. and elsewhere about the scope of China’s aspirations and the extent to which the communist party might use AI to tighten surveillance control over its citizens and develop more sophisticated military capabilities.
The Australian government has already contracted with Amazon to store the data for its controversial coronavirus tracking app. Amazon is partnering with the Canadian government to deliver medical equipment, raising doubts about why it bypassed the public postal service. The government of India with the opaqueness and ever-increasing scope of its coronavirus contact tracing app is building a sophisticated surveillance state in gigantic proportions. Here also Amazon Web Services is contracted to store the data of hundreds of millions of people. Gates’s foundation with its charity giving and Microsoft with its technology is influencing public health and education policy of countries across the world undermining democracy and public engagement. Bill Gates and Google boys have more say on the way our children learn and setting our public health priorities than we as citizens. Citizens are increasingly becoming irrelevant in this new technological era.
But considering the sheer volume of data the Chinese tech giants are managing, it appears that as of now BAT is winning the race. With $504B valuation Tencent is the largest gaming company in the world. 60% of all mobile time in China is spent on Tencent apps. It is also best known for creating WeChat. They have strategic stakes in Snapchat, Reddit, Tesla, etc. Alibaba with a $470B valuation moves more merchandise in China than Amazon and eBay do in the rest of the world combined. It is also the owner of Alipay, a payments app that is functionally the world ‘s largest digital bank. Alibaba also owns India’s largest payment app Paytm. Alipay’s Yu’e Bao savings feature is the biggest money market fund in the world at $233B (passing JP Morgan)! Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia’s capital) is piloting Alibaba ‘s City Brain smart city system for mass surveillance. Bytedance owns TikTok, the fastest growing social video app in the world. The ridesharing giant Didi with roughly 1.5x the volume of Uber and Lyft combined call themselves “the world’s largest transportation platform.” Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent are all invested in Didi. Tencent and Didi have significant stakes in the Indian ridesharing app, Ola. DJI is the first Chinese company to build a globally dominant consumer brand, running away with a 72% share in the consumer drone market. DJI’s Mavic drone is being issued by the Israeli Defense Force for recon.
Technology with its powerful tools can positively transform the lives of millions of people, but not every problem has a technological solution. And the trouble with outsourcing key decisions about reimagining our societies to men like Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt is that they have spent their lives promoting the belief that every humanly imaginable problem has a technological fix. For them, the pandemic has provided a golden opportunity to receive not just the gratitude, but the respect and power that they feel have been unjustly denied.
So far, many of these companies whether Chinese or American, have acted as “attention merchants” by capturing our attention with free information, services, and entertainment, and then they resell our attention to advertisers. But it’s not just about selling ads. By capturing our attention they are actually accumulating immense amounts of data about us, which are worth more than any advertising revenue. We aren’t their customers—we are their product. Ordinary people are happy to give away their most valuable asset—their personal data—in exchange for free services and entertainment. It will, in turn, lead to a point where they have to depend on the network to make everyday decisions, and even for their health and physical survival. Finally, people will find it extremely difficult or even impossible to try to block the flow of data. Many of us are already experiencing this on a personal level, what we are going to see in the future is an extreme version of this.
The ideals of liberty and equality are far more fragile than we believe. Their success in the 20th century depended on unique technological conditions that may prove short-lived. The liberal ideas have already begun to lose credibility. Politics have grown more tribal and sectarian; and in more and more countries, leaders are showing a tendency for demagoguery and autocracy. There are complex reasons for this political shift, but the effects of the current technological developments on this shift can’t be ignored. The technology that favored and sustained democracy for long is becoming more and more obsolete, and the future developments in artificial intelligence might mark the end of democracy as we know it.
New technologies will continue to emerge, which may encourage the decentralization rather than the concentration of information and power. Blockchain technology is currently touted as a possible counterweight to centralized power. But blockchain technology is still in the rudimentary form, and we don’t yet know whether it will indeed counterbalance the centralizing tendencies of AI. It’s worth to note that the Internet, too, was hyped in its early days as a libertarian panacea that would free people from all forms of tyranny—but has now become the most powerful tool at the hands of authoritarian regimes.
Collectivization or state ownership of data could offer one solution; it would certainly restrain the tech giants competing for world domination. But history suggests that handing over the keys of information gateways in the hands of overmighty governments will be the most foolish thing to do. The only way to prevent the concentration of all wealth and power in the hands of a small elite (whether authoritarian governments or corporations) is to regulate the ownership of data. Our scientists, our philosophers, our lawyers, and even our poets need to turn their attention to this big question: How do you regulate the ownership of data? Whether or not we would be able to finally democratize data will have far-reaching implications on human beings as a species.
Currently, humans risk becoming similar to domesticated animals who produce enormous amounts of data and function as efficient chips in a huge data-processing mechanism, but they hardly attain their human potential. Like the inventions of vaccines, artificial insemination, and growth hormones led to the development of factory farming of broiler chicken and industrial dairying, the novel coronavirus can usher in a new era of intensive rearing of domesticated human beings with no trait of natural attributes like libertarian thinking or any thinking at all. As the American jurist, William O. Douglas famously said: “Nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”

The Coronavirus-Climate-Air Conditioning Nexus

Stan Cox


A wave of persistent, intense heat and humidity has enveloped the Midwest, South, and Northeast in this second half of July. By the time it subsides, more than half of the U.S. population will have been hit with heat indexes above 100; for many, the heat wave will last for several days.
The severe heat is driving almost all social gatherings and group activities into enclosed, air-conditioned spaces. That’s been the American way for more than fifty summers now, but this summer is different. Getting together these days in the cool indoor world can dramatically raise the risk of coronavirus infection.
For the duration of this pandemic, it will always be riskier to gather indoors than outdoors. In a paper published by the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases last month, more than 240 scientists warned that in an enclosed space, airborne, virus-laden “microdroplets” exhaled by an infected person can easily travel the length of a room and be inhaled by another person. Social distancing of six feet between people, they wrote, offers little protection in such a situation.
One of the scientists’ chief recommendations was to keep occupied rooms well ventilated with outdoor air, most effectively by keeping windows open. But air-conditioned spaces have to be zipped up tight, allowing airborne droplets to accumulate.
Air conditioning raises the risk further by lowering the indoor relative humidity. Studies show that coronaviruses in general, including those that cause the common cold, SARS, and MERS, remain viable and infective longer when humidity is low, whether they’re in the air or on surfaces.
There’s more. When humidity is high, exhaled virus particles are carried inside bulky droplets that fall to the floor or other surfaces within seconds. But with low humidity, they are in much smaller droplets called aerosols that can stay aloft in an enclosed space for as long as 9 minutes, waiting to be inhaled.
Some types of cooling systems also serve to circulate aerosols very efficiently and infect large numbers of people. A widely cited case study found that in January, one customer at a restaurant in Guangzhou, China infected nine other diners at three different tables with coronavirus. The breeze from an air conditioner near one of the tables had efficiently distributed virus-laden droplets along a twenty-foot-long path.
Air conditioning also can aggravate more routine maladies, including nasal congestion, asthma, and allergies. Studies in North and South America and Europe have found that people employed in air-conditioned workplaces have more health problems than those who work in non-cooled spaces.
Despite such impacts, air conditioning is customarily viewed as a net health benefit, because it can help prevent deaths during heat waves. However, research shows that heat deaths occur predominantly in marginalized, economically stressed urban areas with too much concrete and too little vegetation, often in communities of color who have inadequate access to services, especially health care.
Those who die in heat waves also are often elderly and/or have preexisting health problems, and they may be unable to afford the electricity to run an air conditioner. Not coincidentally, these communities and individuals who are most vulnerable to heat waves are also the most vulnerable to the coronavirus.
To be clear, air conditioning can indeed help keep people alive under harsh conditions, and that is no small thing. Nevertheless, it is important for us to acknowledge that in that role, the air conditioner is an in-case-of-emergency-break-glass tool. It’s not designed to fix the underlying social and economic injustices from which people need to be rescued, whether it’s from extreme heat or a viral pandemic.
Air conditioning is increasingly viewed as a key technology for adaptation to climate change, which is ironic because it also accelerates greenhouse warming. It accounts for 17 percent of year-round home electricity consumption and the resulting emissions; furthermore, the Energy Information Agency predicts that U.S. energy use for air conditioning will grow faster than any other use of energy in buildings of all kinds in coming decades.
The chain of causation forms a perfect circle. Greenhouse emissions from past decades (including billions of tons of carbon dioxide emitted by air conditioning, aircraft, and other technologies that also happen to be implicated in the pandemic) have made summers hotter than ever, prompting even more air conditioning use, which will further increase greenhouse emissions. Those emissions will help ensure that future summers are even hotter and future air-conditioning systems are pushed even harder.
Ending the climate emergency will require the rapid, mandatory reduction of fossil fuel use to zero and a complete overhaul of our built environment—including good, affordable housing and a healthy environment for all.
Meanwhile, we can at least curb the short-term damage. Home air conditioning should be turned off on those many days of the year when shade and fans can provide sufficient comfort. Offices should never be so frigid that workers resort to wearing sweaters or keeping space heaters under their desks in July. Every building should have windows that can be opened and that stay open as much as possible.
And, at least for the rest of this summer, let’s all get together outdoors.

Samoan government amends constitution to elevate traditional “custom”

John Braddock

Three bills which fundamentally change Samoa’s constitution are nearing their final reading in the country’s parliament. Critics, including the Samoa Law Society and members of the judiciary, assert that the COVID-19 pandemic is being used to push through the amendments without the mandatory public consultation.
Introduced by Prime Minister Tuila’epa Sailele Malielegaoi, the Constitution Amendment Bill 2020, the Land and Titles Bill 2020 and the Judicature Bill 2020 divide the judicial system into two parallel courts of equal standing, one to deal with criminal and civil matters, the other with customary land and titles.
The changes will assert more direct government control over the legal system, reflecting growing authoritarianism and appeals to tribalism by governments across the Pacific in response to rising poverty and discontent caused by the escalating economic crisis. Over 100 people protested outside Samoa’s parliament last month when the amendments were presented at a select committee hearing.
Currently the Land and Titles Court, composed of lay judges appointed on the basis of traditional hierarchical Samoan custom, has jurisdiction over customary land disputes and matai (chiefly) titles. Under the new amendments, the Land and Titles Court would be entrenched in the constitution, gain a new appellate court, and have “supreme authority over the subject of Samoan customs and usages.”
The current ability to appeal decisions of the Land and Titles court to the Supreme Court is removed. Furthermore, a government-appointed commission will be empowered to dismiss judges. These measures have been condemned by international legal organisations, including the South Pacific Lawyers’ Association and New Zealand Law Society, claiming they erode the independence of the judiciary and threaten the rule of law, while subjecting judges’ tenure to political pressure.
The changes elevate tribal custom as a source of law and integral part of the constitutional system. Tuila’epa bluntly declared that the constitution in its present form expressed “unfounded palagi [white foreigner] thinking,” when it was framed under pressure from the New Zealand colonial ruler and the UN as Samoa assumed formal independence in 1962.
The move also follows a controversial 2017 constitutional amendment which formally declared Samoa a Christian state. Christianity was expanded with European colonisation, and the churches remain a powerful force for social control today.
The powers of sections of the traditional Samoan elite, centred on the hierarchical matai system, will be further entrenched. Matai are the holders of chiefly titles and play the key role in the regulation of social life. There are nearly 17,000 matai out of a total population of 202,000. Importantly, the matai administer family property including customary land. About 81 percent of Samoa’s land is under customary ownership, with only 4 percent freehold and the rest public lands.
From independence only matai could vote and stand as candidates in elections to parliament. Limited universal suffrage giving the right to vote to adults aged 21 and over was only introduced in 1990. The right to stand for elections, however, remains with matai. In the 49-seat Legislative Assembly all 47 members are matai, with the exception of two seats reserved for non-Samoans. The new laws will entrench the control of this tribal elite over land ownership.
A former head of state, Tui Atua Tupua Tamasese Efi, has asserted that the real purpose of the bills is to enable the government to sell land to fund overseas debts and infrastructure developments. In December 2017, hundreds of people protested in the capital Apia against the Lands Title Registration Act 2008, which they claimed violates customary land rights by breaking communal land into individual titles. The government denied the claims, saying it only applied to freehold land.
Throughout the Pacific, disputes over the control of land have increasingly been at the centre of competing sections of the ruling elites. The traditional tribal hierarchy and customary landowners are pitted, not only against each other, but against business leaders, state bureaucrats and middle-class layers who resent the monopolising of the country’s wealth and political power.
With foreign investors barred from buying land, demands have also been raised by international financial agencies and the local imperialist powers, Australia and New Zealand, for programs of economic liberalisation to privatise the public sector, combined with hollow calls for more “democracy.”
In a 2008 report, the Asia Development Bank (ADB) praised Tuila’epa as an economic “reformer.” State-owned enterprises were corporatised, government ministries contracted out work, international air routes sold off and a new private mobile network operator licensed. However, ongoing criticisms over the size of the public sector, the cost of doing business and poor quality infrastructure remained.
The ADB report identified “weaknesses” in the land leasing framework as adversely affecting large parts of the economy, particularly finance, agriculture and tourism. It called for policies to make leasing more flexible to enable “the substantial land holdings of the state available to private investors. In a 2016 report, the ADB again warned about Samoa’s “high transaction costs… inefficiencies in state-owned enterprises, an underdeveloped finance sector, and poor access to secure land titles.”
Samoa’s pro-business economic drive attacking the social position of the working class has been accompanied by increasingly autocratic measures. University of Auckland law lecturer Fuimaono Dylan Asafo told Radio NZ that Tuila’epa, who has been prime minister for 21 years, has instituted a “rise in tyranny” in Samoa, including the suppression of free speech, curtailment or abolition of civil liberties and laws passed by decree without public debate or popular approval. Asafo, however, also defended the government’s record of economic “development.”
Escalating tensions have seen divisions erupt inside the ruling Human Rights and Protection Party (HRPP). Former parliamentary speaker and cabinet minister, La’auli Leuatea Polataivao Schmidt announced that under pressure from his constituents he had quit the party and would oppose the bills. Another dissenting MP, Faumuina Wayne Fong, has been sacked. La’auli claimed Samoa had become a “one party state” under Tuila’epa and he intends to establish a new party to contest next year’s election.
La’auli represents sections of the ruling elite that have no fundamental differences with Tuila’epa, in particular its economic agenda, but are seeking to establish new safety valves for opposition among the working class and rural poor. Popular hostility to the government is simmering over its disastrous mishandling of last year’s measles epidemic, in which 83 children died and 1,868 admitted to hospital. The deaths were a profound shock to the tiny country’s 200,000 people and Tuila’epa has dismissed widespread calls for an official inquiry into the disaster.
The dire economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic are exacerbating already severe social inequality. The COVID-19 State of Emergency has been extended for another month, taking the country to an unprecedented four-month lockdown. The collapse of tourism and remittance income, which together account for 40 percent of Samoa’s GDP, will thrust thousands even deeper into poverty.
The ruling elites across the Pacific, whether archaic relics of authoritarian tribal elites, privileged layers of business and the law and the upper middle class or, as in Fiji, military dictatorships, have all proved incapable of meeting the democratic aspirations and basic social needs of the mass of their oppressed populations.

Bangladeshi government cracks down on opposition to jute mill privatisation

Wimal Perera

On July 7, Bangladeshi courts jailed two jute mill union activists—Waliar Rahman, 44, and Nur Islam, 48—after plain clothes police raided their homes between 2.30 and 3.30 a.m. the previous day. The arrests came amid rising anger by jute mill workers over the government’s announcement on July 2 that it was shutting all 25 state-owned Bangladeshi Jute Mills Corporation (BJMC) plants and laying off 50,000 workers, including 25,000 permanent employees.
Rahman and Islam were temporary workers at Eastern Jute Mills and Platinum Jubilee Jute Mills, respectively, in Khulna. Rahman is the convener of Jute Industry Protection Youth Alliance and Islam is an adviser to the alliance. The men will be held for a week in Khulna jail for “questioning.” According to one press report, they were planning to hold a press conference to denounce the mill closures.
Family members told Agence France-Presse (AFP) that they feared both men could be murdered in a so-called “crossfire” incident. “Crossfire” is a pretext commonly used by security forces to justify extra-judicial killings.
Islam’s son Mohammad Jewel told the AFP that they had visited several police stations before he was informed about the arrests and the charges, more than 30 hours after his father had been seized by police.
Police claimed that Rahman and Islam were arrested because they were suspects in the vandalism of a police box [police post] and had obstructed police during workers’ protests over unpaid wages on April 4, 2019. The allegations are bogus and have been cooked up in an attempt to intimidate jute workers opposing the Bangladeshi government’s destruction of thousands of jute mill jobs.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s administration has exploited the crisis created by COVID-19 pandemic to push ahead with long-held plans to sell-off the state-run jute industry, claiming it cannot compete against the private sector. There are about 130 private sector jute and spinning mills in Bangladesh employing some 120,000 workers whose poverty-level monthly wage is just 4,380 taka ($US52) or less than half that paid to government workers.
On June 27, state-sector mill workers opposed to the government’s privatisation agenda walked out on strike for three days before unions called it off on the basis of a worthless government “promise” to reconsider its plans. A few days later the government announced that it was closing all 25 plants.
In line with World Bank demands for the privatisation of all state-owned industries, Hasina declared that jute mill workers should “peacefully” accept the closures and “help the government to implement the decision.”
The Stalinist Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) and other “left” unions in the jute industry claim to disagree with the closures and have denounced the arrest of Rahman and Islam. However, these apparatuses have paved the way for privatisation of BJMC plants and the mass job destruction.
Instead of mobilising jute mill workers in nationwide industrial action, the unions and so-called left parties have organised harmless protests appealing to the government to change course.
In the lead up the government’s closure announcement, the union bureaucracy, including the Patkal Sangram Parishad (PSP), the main jute mill union, held high-level meetings with State Minister for Labour Monnujan Sufian.
In late June, PSP convener Shahidullah Chowdhury, who is also president of the CPB-controlled Garment Workers’ Trade Union Centre, called on the Hasina government to invest 10 billion taka ($US118.5 million) to make the mills “profitable.”
The PSP dropped its “opposition,” however, after the government announced a so-called “golden handshake” redundancy program. The redundancy scheme does not include the 25,000 casual and temporary workers employed in the industry.
The Hasina government has cynically claimed that its measures will revive “the glory of the jute sector in the future” and last month allocated 366 billion taka to create an investment-friendly environment for the private sector. Only 50 billion taka is allocated to terminate permanent jute mill employees and to pay pensions owed to workers who have retired since 2014.
Following the arrest of Rahman and Islam, the “left” parties, including the CPB and Socialist Party of Bangladesh (SPB), along with the Workers Party—a government coalition partner—and several other groups, held nominal demonstrations demanding their release. These formations, however, have refused to mobilise garment workers—one of the largest section of the Bangladeshi working class—in solidarity with the jute workers for the release of Rahman and Islam or to fight the mill closures.
While CPB President Islam Selim has called for a united movement against the mill closures these appeals are entirely nationalist and directed towards defending the capitalist elite in Bangladesh. The privatisations, Selim declared, are a violation of the “spirit of the 1971 war of independence”—i.e., the struggle to establish Bangladesh as a capitalist nation state.
In 1980s, Bangladesh had the world’s largest jute industry, employing over 250,000 mill workers and earning 80 percent of Bangladesh’s national export income, today the industry annually earns just under $1 billion. Corruption and mismanagement, privatisation, the emergence of jute substitutes, and outdated machinery have produced a decades-long decline of the industry and the closure of scores of mills.
Jute workers have for years fought for wage increases, repeal of the privatisation program, payment of pensions and gratuities to retired workers and funds for the modernisation of the jute industry sector. These demands have been systematically betrayed by the unions.
In January this year, protests by tens of thousands of workers were sold out by the unions on the basis of bogus government promises. Workers were demanding the monthly minimum wage be lifted from 4,150 taka ($US48) to 8,300 taka—a level recommended five years ago by the 2015 national wage commission.
In mid-May, Khalishpur Jute Mill workers in Khulna walked out on strike to demand full payment of the annual Eid religious festival bonus and five weeks’ outstanding wages during the national COVID-19 lockdown.
Their counterparts in other industries in Bangladesh face similar attacks. During and after the COVID-19 lockdown, thousands of garment workers, sugar mill employees, tea estate workers, agricultural workers, journalists and others have staged protests against plant closures, job and wage cuts, and unsafe working conditions. These struggles have been betrayed by the unions.
To defend jobs and wages, jute mill workers must break from the unions, form independent rank-and-file committees and turn out to other sections of the working class under attack. Rather than trying to pressure the government, workers need to unify their struggles to fight for a workers’ and peasants’ government based on a socialist and internationalist perspective.