EU imposes sanctions on Lukashenko as strikes continue in Belarus

Alex Lantier

After a two-day summit in Berlin, European Union (EU) foreign ministers voted yesterday to impose sanctions on top Belarusian officials. The EU accuses these as-yet unnamed officials of helping incumbent President Aleksandr Lukashenko steal the August 8 presidential election and crack down on protests against the election outcome. Three people died in the crackdown, which provoked an ongoing wave of strikes and protests at factories and schools across Belarus.

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said around 20 Belarusian officials or perhaps more could be targeted. The EU, wrote the German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, “wants to intensify pressure on the country’s leaders and give a sign of solidarity with the people of Belarus.”

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko speaks during a meeting with officials in Minsk, Belarus, August 27, 2020 [Credit: Sergei Sheleg, BelTA Pool via AP]

Conflicts erupted at the summit, however, over the EU decision not to sanction Lukashenko, who is responsible for the policies it is supposedly condemning. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Antanas Linkevičius, whose government is offering protection and asylum to Belarusian opposition presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhonovskaya, said the EU reaction is “too symbolic. … This definitely does not go far enough. This is not a serious reaction.”

The EU’s vote is a clumsy, hypocritical attempt to maximize its influence in Belarus, while dealing with an event that is largely unexpected and unwelcome in EU circles: an initial intervention of the working class into political life in a former Soviet republic.

Yesterday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the Belarusian people are fighting for rights to protest “which we take for granted” in Europe. Merkel criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin, who on Thursday offered to send “reserve police” to Belarus to back Lukashenko against protesters.

Putin said this police reserve would “not not be used until the situation gets out of control, and until the extremist elements, hiding behind political slogans, cross certain boundaries such as looting, setting fire to cars, seizing administrative buildings and so on. We came to the conclusion that there is no such need now, and, I hope, it will not exist, and therefore we will not use this reserve.”

While Merkel said, “I hope that troops won’t be deployed,” French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters in Paris: “We don’t want a repeat of what happened in Ukraine. All external intervention in Belarus, starting with Russian forces, military or police, would breach international rules and internationalize this conflict.”

The EU’s protestations of outrage at Lukashenko’s attack on democratic rights and Putin’s threat to intervene in Belarus are utterly false and hypocritical. Macron’s security forces detained 10,000 people, killed two bystanders and authorized the French army to open fire on “yellow vest” protests. And ever since the Stalinist regime’s dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO has intervened militarily across Eastern Europe, from the 1999 bombing of Serbia to its support for the fascist-led putsch in Kiev that toppled a pro-Russian government in Ukraine in 2014.

Behind lying phrases about democratic rights and non-intervention, however, the most ruthless sections of European capital are working out their political strategy. A key concern, of course, is strengthening the EU’s military position in Eastern Europe against Russia, building on the NATO military build-up in neighboring Poland and Lithuania. It has backed the Coordination Council set up by right-wing opposition parties around Tikhonovskaya, which is calling for talks with Lukashenko on constitutional change for the post-Soviet capitalist state in Belarus.

The EU has not yet decided to burn its bridges with Lukashenko, however, particularly as mounting workers’ militancy and an upsurge of class struggle spreads not only in Belarus, but across Europe and internationally. Political grievances driving strikes against Lukashanko—social inequality, low wages and the disastrous official handling of the COVID-19 pandemic—are shared by European workers. The EU senses that Lukashenko, who has threatened to draft protesting youth into the army to crush the “bacchanalia” of protests, could yet serve its interests.

The critical issue for the emerging movement of workers and youth in Belarus is to struggle against both the ex-Stalinist strongman Lukashenko and the corrupt, pro-EU opposition. Like the EU itself, this opposition could under many conditions easily and happily support a crackdown by Lukashenko, if it targeted the working class.

There were continuing reports yesterday of strikes and protests by teachers, as well as planning for more strike and work-to-rule actions by miners and industrial workers in Belarus. After Lukashenko responded to the protests by declaring that all teachers should support the state ideology, many teachers resigned or stopped teaching. Parents joined teachers on picket lines in Minsk, and appeals by teaching staff to broader layers of workers to join in strikes spread on social media.

One such appeal, written by someone claiming to teach at the Belarusian State Technological University in Minsk, declares: “I believe students are full members of civil society, and that student strikes could be an important part of an all-Belarusian general strike. I want to use this platform to tell all Belarusian students: you are the majority, and professors will support you, too!”

Strikes and work-to-rule actions by potash miners against fertilizer export firm Belaruskali have reportedly cut output to only 60 to 70 percent of normal levels, and the company has confirmed it is several days behind in terms of its output. Fitch Ratings reported that a continued strike there could cut Belarusian exports and raise global fertilizer prices on spot markets. The Belarusian ruble has fallen over 10 percent against the euro since the presidential elections.

Political activists linked to Tikhonovskaya’s EU-backed opposition are intervening in workplaces that led the strikes against Lukashenko. Activists told news site belzabastovka.org they are meeting with workers at the Minsk Auto Factory (MAZ) and discussing further action: “Our goal is to obtain as many signatures as possible and to launch a big strike. … We are certain that we will defend our rights and civic position and that we will contribute to the struggle for liberty!”

As the working class re-emerges into struggle in Belarus and across Europe, it faces complex issues of political strategy and perspective. These flow from the false, decades-long identification of Stalinism, the Soviet bureaucracy and its allies and descendants with Marxism and socialism. But long and bitter experience of workers in Eastern Europe has confirmed a central thesis of Leon Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution against Stalinism and Popular Frontism: workers cannot establish or defend democratic rights by supporting one or another faction of the capitalist class.

Against the threats of Lukashenko, the best allies of Belarusian workers are the European and international working class. It is not the pro-imperialist opposition around Tikhonovksaya, which, like the EU itself, is seeking a deal with the Lukashenko regime. Rather, it is the millions of workers across Europe and the world, who are entering into struggle against the reactionary social order that emerged from the Stalinist restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe in 1991.

Forces influenced by the Tikhonovskaya opposition who are intervening in workers’ struggles are putting forward a political line hostile to the working class. Gleb Sandros, cited in news reports as a Belaruskali strike committee spokesman, explained he hoped the potash strike will provoke a collapse of the Belarusian currency on world markets: “The critical issue here is to punish the government with the ruble.”

He told the website Global Voices, linked to the New America think-tank in Washington, that he hopes an economic collapse will shame workers into backing the Belarusian opposition: “If the economic crisis in Belarus, which we can now justifiably talk about, intensifies, then this will motivate more people—and I mean workers—to wake up and take a sober look at the situation and their conscience.”

Plans to exploit workers’ struggles to provoke capitalist shock therapy and imperialist-backed regime change are reactionary and offer nothing to workers. The way forward is an international struggle based on revolutionary, socialist opposition to Lukashenko, Putin, the EU-backed opposition and the EU itself, based on a common struggle of the working class for the United Socialist States of Europe.

Social crisis, class struggle and the 2020 election

Andre Damon

The 2020 election is taking place against the backdrop of the greatest social, economic and political crisis in the modern history of the United States.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has deeply destabilized American society. Over 185,000 people have been killed. Some 16 million people are unemployed. Food lines stretch for city blocks, and one fifth of mothers with young children say their families do not have enough to eat.

The ruling class’s efforts to force workers back on the job, despite a raging pandemic, have led to a wave of strikes and protests and seen millions of people demonstrate against police violence in thousands of cities and towns throughout the country.

The 2020 election is defined by these twin processes: the protracted crisis of American capitalism exposed by the pandemic, and the explosive growth of anti-capitalist sentiment and mass radicalization in the working class, as part of a growing wave of social protest all over the world.

In their own way, last week’s Democratic National Convention and this week’s Republican National Convention represented the response of the parties of the ruling class to the eruption of social opposition, to which they are both hostile and fearful.

The more direct response comes from the Republicans. Speaker after speaker railed, in hysterical tones, some literally screaming, against a tide of left-wing opposition engulfing the nation. They ranted against “Marxism,” “socialism” and “mob rule” by left-wing demonstrators.

In his hysterical fixation on the growth of socialist sentiment, Trump knows he is not speaking about Democrats, such as Biden, Pelosi, Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He has taken the measure of all of them and some, such as Kamala Harris, he has directly financed. Rather, he expresses the hysterical fear of the ruling class of mass working-class opposition emerging outside of the two-party system.

The Democrats’ response is more sophisticated. Employing their army of professional apologists and left-talking spin doctors, the Democrats sought to present themselves as sympathetic to the demands of protesters against police violence and of workers facing an American social disaster. But this was only to chloroform and disarm the mounting opposition, to splinter it into an array of warring “identities,” and to channel it into the dead end of racial politics.

It is a testament to the Democrats’ sensitivity to the growth of social radicalization that Bernie Sanders dropped all talk of a “political revolution” as soon as the pandemic broke out. He has since become the most enthusiastic proponent for the corporate shill Joe Biden.

In the spirit of patent medicine salesmen, both parties peddle their candidates as the miracle cure for what ails the country. But it is already clear that this election, regardless of its outcome, will not restore any form of normalcy to American political life.

In fact, the crises facing the country are so vast, sweeping, and all-pervasive, that neither convention was capable of even addressing them by name.

American capitalism, its exports increasingly uncompetitive on the world stage, is hooked on debt. Its corporations, with their astronomical valuations and massive executive bonuses, cannot survive without ever-larger government handouts. On Thursday, the final day of the Republican convention, the Federal Reserve announced a change to its basic methodology whose only discernable intent is to tell financial markets that it will give them even more money in perpetuity.

“Low Rates Forever!” proclaimed the Wall Street Journal, declaring that the strategy will lead to “more financial manias, panics and crashes.” The financial markets cheered, with all three stock indexes now in positive territory for the year despite what has been called the worst peacetime economic crisis in a century.

Millions are cutting back spending on food because congress refused to extend emergency unemployment aid. However, Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, has nearly doubled his wealth since the start of the year, becoming the first person with a net worth of $200 billion.

In the background, there are mounting warnings that the economic arrangement that gave rise to America’s “exorbitant privilege”—the hegemony of the dollar—may be at an end, as the price of gold breaks record after record.

Unable to compete with China’s rapidly developing technology sector, which has eclipsed the United States in several key aspects, Washington is provoking a new “cold war” with Beijing. America has been continuously at war for three decades, but its effort to reconquer the Middle East has been a disaster. Its hulking military machine is under major strain. In simulated tabletop conflicts, insiders complain that China’s military beats the United States. And yet, every day, the two countries are inching closer toward a military clash.

The toxic effects of inequality, reaction and war—with their ensuing sociopathic detachment to human suffering—has been given expression in America’s disastrous response to the pandemic, with its grisly toll of nearly 200,000 dead.

The only concern of the White House, local governments and major corporations is to sweep infections under the rug in order to limit corporate liability and paid time off. The number of tests is constantly shrinking, and the White House this week shockingly demanded that those exposed to the disease not be tested.

“Why Don’t The Dead Matter?” asks a columnist in the military blog Defense One. Endless wars, he argued, have made America “anesthetized” to death by “military adventures overseas that took… human lives… with near reckless abandon.” Indeed, mass death has been so institutionalized that the nightly news does not even report the daily death toll.

The World Socialist Web Site explained in its 2017 statement, “Palace Coup or Class Struggle,” that the Democrats’ opposition to Trump is centered on issues of foreign policy. They have demanded a more aggressive policy toward Russia and China, and even orchestrated his impeachment exclusively based on claims that he was insufficiently supportive of Ukraine in its “hot war” with Russia.

Since Trump’s election, the Democrats have worked on a bipartisan basis with Trump to slash corporate taxes, build up Trump’s personal gestapo of border patrol units, and carry out the largest bailout of major corporations in human history through the CARES Act.

This orientation is continued in the 2020 election. Indeed, the Democratic Party has cobbled together a coalition of right-wing former Republicans, generals, representatives of the state intelligence bureaucracy, members of the financial oligarchy and most of all, the affluent suburbs that are repeatedly invoked as the party’s target demographic.

In other words, the Democratic Party is running the 2020 election as a re-run of the 2016 election, which resulted in the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College despite the fact that she won the popular vote by more than three million.

Trump is framing the election, as he noted ahead of his impeachment, as a “civil war,” in which all methods of political, military, and paramilitary struggle are permissible. By contrast, his democratic opponents see the conflict, in the words of former President Barack Obama, as an “intramural scrimmage,” in which the greatest mistake would be to play too rough.

That is because, speaking as one of the two parties of Wall Street and big business, the Democrats are just as terrified of, and hostile to, the growth of mass popular opposition to capitalism as Trump is.

Outside the conflicts in Washington, however, another political force is entering onto the scene. Over the past several months, workers in major manufacturing facilities throughout America’s industrial heartland, as well as educators throughout the United States, have begun to form rank-and-file committees to resist the efforts by corporations and governments to force them to work in increasingly unsafe conditions.

And millions of workers and young people have participated in mass demonstrations—according to some, the largest protests in American history—against police violence and the Trump administration’s deployment of federal troops to American cities.

Much as Trump may rant and rave, puffing himself up in imitation of Mussolini, the next stage in American political life will be a movement, not to the right, but to the left, in a mounting social and political offensive by the working class.

The Disappearing collegiality in Pedagogy: The COVIDian times

K. Rajasekharan Nayar

The online teaching due to the lockdown is a new experience for many students in the country. It has gone through many glitches due to lack of facilities,  lack of expertise among teachers, and lack of exposure to the  new medium devoid of collegiality, lack of interpersonal exchanges that people are used to in class  room teaching. This has resulted in  new  stressors and tensions among teachers and students. Also mothers of young children are increasingly under tension due to the close monitoring needed from them. The wide differentials in socioeconomic status also became prominent during this process due to unaffordability of this media and the facilities. It is increasingly difficult for students from the marginalised sections to access this new technology although many state governments have announced concessions, free distribution of the devices as well as a form of collective access while adhering to pandemic norms.

The worse impact is the loss of collegiality, a term normally used to describe cooperative relationships between colleagues. I want to move beyond the dictionary meaning to  a form of formal and informal mutuality between students and teachers which makes the whole process of learning a beautiful experience. Such collegiality plays an important role in shaping the students and their personality which cannot be possible in  such a virtual world. Both students and teachers are involved in the act of learning and this is not possible or it may be face several imperfections when a degree of interactions get limited or constrained by the digital world.  The teachers also have lost the power, the power to decide many things including a just and fair evaluation as their familiarity and assessments are limited to the virtual encounters. What could be conceivable in this new culture of pedagogy is an entire set or generation of students who can be called as the virtual products as we do not yet know or can declare with some level of confidence that this may end by such and such date.

The 1918 Influenza epidemic (also called erroneously as the Spanish Flu) lasted for nearly two years from  February 1918 to April 1920. In many countries, there were acts of defiance to the  measures imposed to control the pandemic. In the US especially where it is believed to have originated in the city of Kansas, people protested against the strict control measures similar to the ones implemented presently. Many such acts of defiance have been recorded. One such case is reported from the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, in the state of Minnesota. The school managements openly revolted against closure since it meant paying non-working teachers. For instance, one county board in the state of Minneapolis thought that the 12000 dollars a day which they had to bear due to the closing order was exorbitant. The problem of extra school days due to the closing was also cited as a reason. In one case, on the request of parent-teacher association, the school reopened only to be forcibly shut down due to police action.

In the present Pandemic as well, the situation is not different. The school closing here is also creating additional stressors for the parents and teachers in addition to the children. However, this may not be a homogenous process. The stressors could be exceptionally high in the pre-primary and primary education where familiarity with technology, behavioural patterns of the children, and the extra inputs required for maintaining attention of the children to the learning process become important. It is in this stage that the socialization process which happens during real world interactions becomes a primary determinant for learning social values and norms by direct observation. Students learn the art of interactions during the socialization process which takes place in the real school experience within the class room and in the play fields. The impacts of the new medium of technology and the virtual-real dichotomies are another by-product which could last for many years even after the pandemic disappears.

The teachers being considered as a formality to complete the learning process could  probably emerge as one of the outcomes of this new pedagogy. A reverse evaluation could happen when teachers are constantly judged in a technological environment where both the learners and the teachers are not familiar with the new technology medium and that also with considerable imperfections such as availability of data, breaking signals, even disturbances etc. This could be extremely disastrous for the future academic environment in the world of learning. The relationships between the teacher and the student will end up as a ‘pizza delivery process’ or a form of ‘completing syndrome' where the teacher as a delivery boy and even the student will end up somewhere on a 10-pont scale. This form of ‘finishing portion’ culture was already predominant in many schools and colleges and this new technological conduit in knowledge transfer could reinforce such a culture and it may be for the worse. This is especially so because of the disappearance of proper evaluation mechanisms or even formal examination processes.

It is certain that as the pandemic wanes may be in some months, these imperfections may last for many months. The 1918 pandemic lasted for two years and in the present era, even after so much technological advancements, we are unable to predict the course of events. But certainly, it is high time that both the national and state governments in the country should evolve a time line for future and that also scientifically with models and options rather than just announcing number of cases per day and taking pride in using police and security forces on controlling people’s lives.

From Cotton to Brinjal: Fraudulent GMO Project in India Sustained by Deception

Colin Todhunter

Insecticidal Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton is the first and only GM (genetically modified) crop that has been approved in India. It has been cultivated in the country for more than 20 years. In a formal statement to the Supreme Court of India, the Indian government has asserted that hybrid Bt cotton is an outstanding success. It therefore argues that Bt cotton is a template for the introduction of GM food crops.

However, over the last week, two important webinars took place that challenged the government’s stance. The first was on Bt cotton and involved a panel of internationally renowned scientists who conclusively debunked the myth of Bt cotton success in India. The webinar, organised by the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture and Jatan, focused on an evidence-based evaluation of 18 years of approved Bt cotton cultivation in India.

The second webinar discussed the case of Bt brinjal, which the country’s apex regulatory body, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), has brought to the brink of commercialisation. The webinar highlighted deep-seated problems with regulatory processes in India and outlined how the GEAC is dogged by secrecy, conflicts of interest and (scientific) fraud: participants outlined how the GEAC has been colluding with crop developers and seed companies to drive GM crops into agriculture.

Bt cotton failure

The panel for the Bt cotton webinar (YouTube: Bt Cotton in India: Myths & Realities – An Evidence-Based Evaluation) on 24 August included Dr Andrew Paul Gutierrez, senior emeritus professor in the College of Natural Resources at the University of California at Berkeley; Dr Keshav Kranthi, former director of Central Institute for Cotton Research in India; Dr Peter Kenmore, former FAO representative in India, and Dr Hans Herren, World Food Prize Laureate.

Dr Herren said that “the failure of Bt cotton” is a classic representation of what an unsound science of plant protection and faulty direction of agricultural development can lead to.

He explained:

“Bt hybrid technology in India represents an error-driven policy that has led to the denial and non-implementation of the real solutions for the revival of cotton in India, which lie in HDSS (high density short season) planting of non-Bt/GMO cotton in pure line varieties of native desi species and American cotton species.”

He argued that a transformation of agriculture and the food system is required; one that entails a shift to agroecology, which includes regenerative, organic, biodynamic, permaculture and natural farming practices.

Dr Kenmore said that Bt cotton is an aging pest control technology:

“It follows the same path worn down by generations of insecticide molecules from arsenic to DDT to BHC to endosulfan to monocrotophos to carbaryl to imidacloprid. In-house research aims for each molecule to be packaged biochemically, legally and commercially before it is released and promoted. Corporate and public policy actors then claim yield increases but deliver no more than temporary pest suppression, secondary pest release and pest resistance.”

Recurrent cycles of crises have sparked public action and ecological field research which creates locally adapted agroecological strategies.

He added that this agroecology:

“… now gathers global support from citizens’ groups, governments and UN-FAO. Their robust local solutions in Indian cotton do not require any new molecules, including endo-toxins like in Bt cotton”.

Prof Gutierrez presented the ecological reasons as to why hybrid Bt cotton failed in India: long season Bt cotton introduced in India was incorporated into hybrids that trapped farmers into biotech and insecticide treadmills that benefited GMO seed manufacturers.

He noted:

“The cultivation of long-season hybrid Bt cotton in rainfed areas is unique to India. It is a value capture mechanism that does not contribute to yield, is a major contributor to low yield stagnation and contributes to increasing production costs”.

Prof Gutierrez asserted that increases in cotton farmer suicides are related to the resulting economic distress.

He argued:

“A viable solution to the current GM hybrid system is adoption of improved non-GM high-density short-season fertile cotton varieties.”

Presenting data on yields, insecticide usage, irrigation, fertiliser usage and pest incidence and resistance, Dr Keshav Kranthi said that a critical analysis of official statistics (eands.dacnet.nic.in and cotcorp.gov.in) shows that Bt hybrid technology has not been providing any tangible benefits in India either in yield or insecticide usage.

He said that cotton yields are the lowest in the world in Maharashtra, despite being saturated with Bt hybrids and the highest use of fertilisers. Yields in Maharashtra are less than in rainfed Africa where there is hardly any usage of technologies such as Bt, hybrids, fertilisers, pesticides or irrigation.

It is revealing that Indian cotton yields rank 36th in the world and have been stagnant in the past 15 years and insecticide usage has been constantly increasing after 2005, despite an increase in area under Bt cotton.

Dr Kranthi argued that research also shows that the Bt hybrid technology has failed the test of sustainability with resistance in pink bollworm to Bt cotton, increasing sucking pest infestation, increasing trends in insecticide and fertiliser usage, increasing costs and negative net returns in 2014 and 2015.

Dr Herren said that GMOs exemplify the case of a technology searching for an application:

“It is essentially about treating symptoms, rather than taking a systems approach to create resilient, productive and bio-diverse food systems in the widest sense and to provide sustainable and affordable solutions in it’s social, environmental and economic dimensions”.

He went on to argue that the failure of Bt cotton is a classic representation of what an unsound science of plant protection and a faulty direction of agricultural development can lead to:

“We need to push aside the vested interests blocking the transformation with the baseless arguments of ‘the world needs more food’ and design and implement policies that are forward looking… We have all the needed scientific and practical evidence that the agroecological approaches to food and nutrition security work successfully”.

Bt brinjal – the danger is back

The government’s attempt to use a failed technology as a template for driving GMOs into agriculture has been exposed. Nevertheless, the GEAC has been moving forward with late-stage trials of Bt brinjal, while ignoring the issues and arguments against its commercialisation that were forwarded a decade ago.

In February 2010, the Indian government placed an indefinite moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal after numerous independent scientific experts from India and abroad had pointed out safety concerns based on data and reports in the biosafety dossier that Mahyco, the crop developer, had submitted to the regulators.

The then Minister of the Ministry of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh had instituted a unique four-month scientific enquiry and public hearings. His decision to reject the commercialisation of Bt brinjal was supported by advice from the renowned scientists. Their collective appraisals demonstrated serious environmental and biosafety concerns.

Jairam Ramesh pronounced a moratorium on Bt brinjal in February 2010 by stating:

“it is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary principle-based approach and impose a moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal, till such time independent scientific studies establish, to the satisfaction of both the public and professionals, the safety of the product from the point of view of its long-term impact on human health and environment, including the rich genetic wealth existing in brinjal in our country.”

The moratorium has not been lifted and the conditions he set out have still not been met. Moreover, five high-level reports have advised against the adoption of GM crops in India. Appointed by the Supreme Court, the ‘Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report’ (2013) was scathing about the prevailing regulatory system and highlighted its inadequacies. The TEC went a step further by recommending a 10-year moratorium on the commercial release of all GM crops.

The regulatory process was shown to lack competency, possessed endemic conflicts of interest and demonstrated a lack of expertise in GMO risk assessment protocols, including food safety assessment and the assessment of environmental impacts.

Ten years on and regulators have done nothing to address this woeful state of affairs. As we have seen with the relentless push to get GM mustard commercialised, the problems persist. Through numerous submissions to the Supreme Court, Aruna Rodrigues has described how GM mustard is being forced through with flawed tests (or no tests) and a lack of public scrutiny. Regulators are seriously conflicted: they promote GMOs openly, fund them and then regulate them.

And this is precisely what the webinar ‘Bt brinjal – the danger is back’ (watch on YouTube) discussed on 27 August. Organised by the Coalition for a GM-Free India, the webinar was arranged because the regulators have again brought to the brink of commercialisation a new Bt brinjal ‘event’ – a different Bt brinjal than the 2010 version. Also included in the webinar were the experiences of Bt brinjal introduction in Bangladesh.

Dr Ramanjaneyulu (Centre for Sustainable Agriculture) highlighted how need has never been established for Bt brinjal of which India is a recognised centre of diversity. The argument for Bt brinjal in the run-up to Jairam Ramesh’s moratorium was that pesticide use is a problem in containing the brinjal fruit and shoot borer. He noted that Bt brinjal was promoted by Monsanto, USAID and Cornell University, but serious protocol violations, environmental contamination concerns and potential adverse health impacts were discovered.

He outlined simple non-pesticidal, agroecological management practises that can and are being used to deal with the brinjal fruit and shoot borer.

Farida Akhter of UBINIG (Policy Research for Development Alternative) outlined how the introduction of Bt brinjal in Bangladesh was not needed but imposed on the country, which has 248 varieties of brinjal. Where pesticide use is problematic, she argued that it concerns hybrid varieties rather than traditional cultivars of which 24 varieties are resistant to fruit and shoot borer.

Akhter said that poor quality brinjal and financial losses for farmers have been major issues. Many have abandoned Bt brinjal, but farmers have received incentives to cultivate and where they have done so, fertiliser use has increased and there have been many pest attacks, with 35 different types of pesticides applied.

The Bill Gates-funded Cornell Alliance for Science, a public relations entity that promotes GM agriculture, and USAID, which serves the interests of the GMO biotech sector, tried to sell Bt brinjal on the basis it would ‘save’ people from the overuse of pesticides and related illnesses. But Akhter argued that Bangladesh was targeted because the Philippines and India had rejected Bt brinjal. Again, protocol violations occurred leading to its introduction and Akhter concluded that there was no scientific basis for Bt brinjal: its introduction was political.

As for India, event EE1, the initial Bt brinjal, has now been replaced by event 142, a different Bt brinjal. Kavitha Kuruganti (Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture) explained this in the webinar and notes that the GEAC, immediately after the 2010 moratorium was announced, went straight ahead and sanctioned new trials for this Bt brinjal. The GEAC basically stated that the moratorium did not apply to this version, while ignoring all the criticisms about lack of competence, conflicts of interest, non-transparency and protocol violations. It was effectively business as usual!

With event EE1, Kuruganti implied that the GEAC acted more like a servant for Mayco and its Monsanto master. Nothing has changed. She noted the ongoing revolving door between crop developers (even patent holders) and regulators. As before, developers-cum-lobbyists were actually sitting on regulatory bodies as event 142 was proceeding.

Under public-private-partnership arrangements, event 142 has been licensed to private companies for biosafety testing/commercialisation. Despite major concerns, the GEAC has pressed ahead with various trials. In May 2020, under lockdown, Kuruganti notes that the GEAC held a virtual meeting and sanctioned what were effectively final trials prior to commercialisation. She explains that important information and vital data is not in the public domain.

According to Kuruganti, the regulator sits with the crop developer and the companies and grant biosafety clearance, claiming all tests (soil, pollen flow, toxicity, etc) are complete. What is also disturbing is that these licensed companies have closed and opened under new names (with the same people in charge), thereby making accountability and liability fixing very difficult if something were to go wrong further down the line.

She concludes that the story of event 142 is even worse than event EE1:

“Once again, they are certainly hiding things that they don’t want conscientious scientists and aware citizens to see and know.”

Taken together, the two webinars highlighted how hybrid Bt cotton is being deceptively used as a template for rolling out GM food crops: a fraud being used to promote another fraud in order to force unnecessary GMOs into Indian agriculture.

Australia-China Relations: Down Under Squabbling

Binoy Kampmark

These are proving testy times for Australian-Chinese relations.  Last week, Chinese authorities announced that an investigation would be conducted into claims that Australia has been using unfair dumping practices for its wine on the Chinese market.  This was not what Australian wine makers wanted to hear, given that exports of Australian wine to China grew from AU$268 million in 2015/16 to AU$1.75 billion in 2018/19.  While the investigation will take eighteen months, it risks going the way of a similar anti-dumping inquiry into Australian barley that was concluded in May.

On Wednesday, Wang Xining, the deputy head of mission of China’s embassy to Australia, spoke about various creases that had arisen in the relationship.  Before the National Press Club in Canberra, he wished to “remove the shadows” that had been cast.  “We are not trying to turn Australia into the People’s Republic of China … we’re not asking Hungry Jack’s to sell Chinese dumplings.”  He suggested there was a confusion between foreign interference and foreign influence.  Australia could hardly enjoy wealth, cultural diversity and intellectual richness “without accepting some foreign influence.”

Australia had also done its bit to hurt “the feelings of the Chinese people” by promoting an international investigation into the origins of the coronavirus.  “All of a sudden, they heard this shocking news of a proposal coming from Australia, which is supposed to be a good friend of China.”

Response to his speech was miffed.  Liberal MP Dave Sharma struggled to identify the “authenticity” of the message.  He questioned Chinese willingness to “having open channels of dialogue”, given Beijing’s insistence on limiting contact with counterparts in Canberra.

Then came the freely expressed opinions of former Australian Defence Minister Kevin Andrews, whose private Zoom call with party members spoke of his “problems … with the most complete totalitarian regime that we’ve seen probably on the face of the earth from the regime of Xi Jinping.”  Previous totalitarian regimes might have taken issue with that characterisation, not least of all because they would have deserved top billing for that honour.

But Andrews, along with a good number of Australian politicians, is rattled by the Oriental Menace.  His grievances span “aggression in the South China Sea”, repression and incarceration of the Uighurs in “re-education camps”, and “a complete trampling of the agreement with China and the UK (to allow greater freedom).”

When such criticisms make their way to stage and podium, the crude, and not altogether invalid criticism from Deng Xiaoping comes to mind.  National sovereignty, he insisted, came first but “talk about human rights, freedom and democracy is designed … to safeguard the interests of … strong and rich countries.” Countries keen to huff about human rights violations were often the very same ones infringing “upon the sovereignty of poor, weak countries of the Third World.”

Within Australia itself, lashes of concern are being directed at Victoria’s Belt and Road agreement with Beijing.  The Morrison government has promised to introduce legislation that will grant the foreign affairs minister powers to review and cancel such initiatives.  Foreign minister Marise Payne noted the current absence of legislation compelling states and territories to consult the Commonwealth “on arrangements with foreign governments”.

Keen watchers of this episode will note the stark inconsistency of positions taken by the Morrison government and his predecessors on such Beijing-related matters.  On the one hand, the BRI nestling in an Australian state constitutes a threat, a tingling sensation of discomfort that has ministers and backbenchers up in arms.  On the other, Australia has expressed approval in forming a partnership with China on that very same initiative, covering infrastructure projects in other countries.  When the decision was made by the Northern Territory government to grant a 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to China’s Landbridge Group, the Commonwealth kept its distance.

A club of anti-China enthusiasts is attempting to reverse, or annul, such agreements.  Liberal Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells spoke in May of possibilities that evoking a national security emergency might give.  Australia had to reverse its attitude to Beijing, which had “erred on the side of appeasement instead of standing up to often bellicose and illegal actions”.

On August 26, China put more runs on the board of grievance with its customs department suspending beef exports from John Dee claiming it had found traces of the banned veterinary chemical chloramphenicol in sirloin pieces.  According to a statement from China Customs, “In order to safeguard the food security of imported meat, China has informed the Australia side to conduct a comprehensive investigation on the company and report the result to China side.”  This added to the suspension of four Australian abattoirs in May over those ever regularly cited reasons: non-compliance with health and labeling requirements.

Not to be outdone, the Australian government blocked the sale of Australia’s oldest family-owned meat processor and Japanese-owned Lion Diary and Drinks, to China Mengniu Dairy Company. Both parties had already sensed that the Foreign Investment Review Board might be reluctant to grant final approval, and agreed to cease the process.  It was certainly a departure from the initial confidence felt in February, when the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission gave its blessing, claiming the sale would not undermine local milk supplies.

But the times are awash with squabble and suspicion.  Half-baked reasons are circulating about the next trade snipe, the next meddle and investigation.  The Australian treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, had told Mengniu Dairy that “the proposed acquisition would be contrary to the national interest,” a view he claimed was “preliminary”.  Nothing of detail was provided and certainly seemed at odds with the Morrison government’s approval of the AU$1.5 billion sale to Mengniu of the baby formula business Bellamy’s last year.  National interest can be such a slippery concept.

Race, Class, and the True Roots of American Inequality

Benjamin Mitchell-Yellin

Prominent analyses of the current moment by those on the Left showcase an increasingly bitter division among progressives focused on combating inequality. The summer of Covid-19 and Black Lives Matter underscores different lessons depending on which you see as this country’s original sin: class or race? Everyone agrees that something must be done to help Americans out of work and in danger of losing their economic futures. And everyone agrees that racial disparities in incarceration, education, and wealth are unacceptable. But there is real disagreement about what fundamentally explains these societal ills and, consequently, what to do about them.

Those who adopt a class-based analysis contend that the country has made real progress combating racial prejudice. Explicit racial discrimination is unconstitutional and (largely) socially beyond the pale. At the same time, economic disparities have only gotten worse for the vast majority of Americans of all races and ethnicities. Wealth is increasingly concentrated at the top, while access to healthcare, nutrition, and education remains a privilege, not a right. This situation, the contention goes, calls for a platform of broad economic change. And those focused on class warn that to fetishize White supremacy and pour resources into anti-racist programs risks undermining true progress in narrowing the gap between the haves and have-nots. The capitalist system is increasingly showing signs of coopting efforts at racial sensitivity. Diversity in the boardroom is no panacea against rapacity.

These arguments fail to persuade those who see America as founded on a racial caste system adept at evolving with the times. Even if racial prejudice is no longer welcome in the light of day, that doesn’t mean it has been exorcised from the room where it happens. And even if Americans’ hearts and minds are no longer tainted by them, the systems founded, and for centuries maintained, by racist attitudes are capable of humming along as originally intended. Race-blind management, this side argues, will not eliminate the racial wealth gap, segregation in education and housing, or deeply engrained racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Real change requires facing the fact that the American project, including American capitalism, has been racialized from the beginning.

This debate is not new. But it has renewed significance, not least because it may threaten the unity of the Democratic Party at a time when it is imperative that all those under its big tent work in lockstep to avert four more years of Trump. It may seem as if the two sides have dug trenches so deep they cannot climb out. But pessimism is unwarranted. There is a common structure to these competing analyses of American inequality, and recognizing this opens up the possibility of reframing the issues in terms more amenable to collaboration on a set of policy goals aimed at eliminating a common enemy.

Both the class-based and the race-based analyses of inequality in America focus on the fact of division between socially constructed groups to the benefit of those already in power. Neither economic classes nor human races are natural kinds. People invented them. This isn’t to deny that these divisions have their own histories. Class divisions pre-date the founding of this country, whereas our contemporary racial divisions owe their genesis to the way Americans engaged in slavery and genocide, and continue to regulate immigration. But this does not undercut the contention that both have been effective, and mutually supportive, tools for maintaining the status quo. Race and class are best understood as distinct offshoots of underlying human psychological and social tendencies.

A robust body of evidence supports the view that the true roots of the various disparities that mark American inequality are attributable to the fusion of our tendency to invent distinctions between groups of people and to develop social structures that perpetuate and rationalize them. Social Dominance Theory posits that some people have a stronger natural orientation towards making group-based divisions, such as between races and classes, and will be more likely to occupy roles that shape social institutions. And these divisions are normalized through the adoption and maintenance of justifying ideologies, which in turn shape and are shaped by institutional structures. Our present social landscape is the result of the historical development of individual psychologies, social norms, practices, and structures, all of which are tightly woven and interdependent.

Perhaps, then, the race-class debate has proven so intractable because it has missed the crux of the matter. Neither race nor class is fundamental to understanding American inequality. Rather, they are particular ways of manifesting deep-seated psychological and social tendencies. This suggests a common enemy: existing power structures, their supporting rationalizatons, and those who seek to maintain them.

The welcome news is that this way of conceptualizing things provides a blueprint for identifying policy goals all those in the fight against inequality can get behind. We need to attend to who occupies seats of power and interrogate the histories of the systems in which they are to be seated, including the narratives that rationalize them. Doing so will allow us to identify the targets of necessary change in a manner that avoids stoking the fire of intractable disputes about which analytical category is more fundamental.

Washington Schemes to Heat Up the Arctic

Brian Cloughley

One of the more bizarre indications that Trump Washington is interested in the Arctic was made a year ago when he said he would like to buy Greenland, a vast territory that is administered by Denmark.  It is about the same size as Saudi Arabia, and slightly smaller than India — a big country in which there is a Pentagon base at Thule which, among other things, as Defence News tells us, is “the U.S. military’s northernmost base and the only installation north of the Arctic Circle. It is home to the 12th Space Warning Squadron, a cadre of Air Force officers and enlisted personnel that provide 24/7 missile warning and space surveillance using a massive AN/FPS-132 radar. Besides being a critical site for missile defence and space situational awareness, Thule hosts the Defence Department’s northernmost deep-water seaport and airfield. Those assets would come into play in any sort of military conflict in the arctic, giving the Pentagon forward-basing options if needed.”

In the Pentagon’s “New Arctic Strategy” it is stated that the Space Force will “develop new technologies and modernize existing assets in the Arctic necessary to ensure access to and freedom to operate in space,” while Air Force Secretary Barbara Barret announced in July that “U.S. air and space forces value the Arctic. Access and stability require cooperation among America’s allies and partners, along with a commitment to vigilance, power projection, and preparation.”

Barrett’s observation that the region should be “a free and open domain for benevolent actors” would be more credible were the Pentagon indeed a benevolent actor — and while Washington always declares that other countries are indulging in military adventurism when developing defences in their own territory, it is a different call when the Pentagon indulges in “forward-basing.”  For example, it is believed to be sinister that in its own Arctic territory, “Russia has refurbished airfields, invested in search and rescue, and built radar stations to improve awareness in the air and maritime domains” while U.S. military expansion in the Arctic is considered essential because “it is a critical domain to protect America’s homeland.”

This was raised by Trump during his fantasising about buying Greenland when, although acknowledging that “Denmark essentially owns it” he claimed that this hurts Denmark “very badly” because it loses “almost $700 million a year” (which is not so) but that he wants to continue “protecting” Washington’s “big ally.”

Denmark and the rest of the world laughed at Trump’s silly fantasy which caused the usual Trump reaction, in that he promptly cancelled a scheduled visit to Copenhagen and tweeted childish abuse about Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.  His reason for scrapping the visit and insulting the Danish people was that the prime minister had “no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland”.  As with the entire Washington establishment — and most notably the Machiavellian Pompeo — Trump considers that when a country is presented with demands made by the United States then there has to be speedy and totally compliant action on the part of the targeted government.

Trump’s petulant insult was laughed at by the Danes and everyone else, but then he turned his attention to another part of the Arctic.  As pointed out by Juan Cole, on August 18, the same day that scientists produced a research analysis concluding that the Greenland ice sheet is losing 500 billion tons of ice each year (equal to a million tons a minute), the real estate agent in the White House finalised his plans to encourage oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

You have to hand it to Trump, in that he rarely fails to make a complete idiot of himself when an opportunity arises.

The wildlife refuge was first protected by legislation brought in forty years ago, but has been under constant threat from oil and gas companies which are faithfully supported by members of the Republican Party whose Congressional legislators in 2017 (when they controlled both Houses) approved a tax bill that opened the area to oil and gas leasing.  It has been calculated that the oil and gas sector contributed $84.4 million in the 2018 election cycle. Koch Industries was the largest single donor, at $10.5 million. Total campaign spending by the oil and gas sector since 1990 has totalled $625 million.

Trump and the people who fill the pockets of legislators — and the pocket-filled legislators themselves — are not in the slightest concerned about the effects of gas and oil drilling in the Wildlife Refuge, which are likely to be catastrophic.

Which brings us to the military expansion equation, in which the Pentagon is to the fore in explaining in its Arctic Strategy that “U.S. interests include maintaining flexibility for global power projection, including by ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight; and limiting the ability of China and Russia to leverage the region as a corridor for competition that advances their strategic objectives through malign or coercive behaviour.”

Russia and China wish to develop economically, and the Arctic is an area that can be beneficial to their interests.  Russia, as even the Pentagon has to admit, “is the largest Arctic nation by landmass, population, and military presence above the Arctic Circle”, although of course it is regarded as deplorable that its “commercial investments . . . have been matched by continued defence investments and activities that strengthen both its territorial defence and its ability to control the Northern Sea Route.”

As to China, the summation is that it is “attempting to gain a role in the Arctic in ways that may undermine international rules and norms, and there is a risk that its predatory economic behaviour globally may be repeated in the Arctic.”  In other words, Washington, which fancies it does not indulge in predatory economic behaviour, does not want either Russia or China to continue their initiatives in developing the region.

Neither Russia nor China is furthering schemes whereby northern wildlife will be destroyed by their economic activities, and there is no evidence that their military activities are in any way confrontational or aggressive.  But the Pentagon is determined to find justification for its own posture in the region and is developing a “U.S. Arctic deterrent” which “will require agile, capable, and expeditionary forces with the ability to flexibly project power into and operate within the region, as the Joint Force must be able to do elsewhere globally.”

Trump’s emphasis on expanding fossil fuel production and throwing open the Alaskan Arctic to drilling and associated construction will imperil endangered species and contribute massively to the climate change crisis.  The Pentagon’s military strategy for the region will increase international tension and inevitably lead to confrontation, as it expands its presence in order to “project power.”  Washington’s schemes for the Arctic will heat the place up to the point of crisis.

Modi’s love for animals and politics of hate

Bhabani Shankar Nayak

As Indians are sinking amidst the Coronavirus pandemic, the makeup dependent, camera addicted, and selfie-savvy Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi is busy with sharing his multitasking photos, his photography skills and his love for animals, birds and wildlife. The utter economic and social crisis does not disturb his focus on camera. The positive vibe photos of Modi feeding peacocks at his residence is flooding social media timelines. The idea is to make people believe in the compassionate character of Mr Narendra Damodardas Modi and represent his simplicity and love for animals. The petting of animals and birds for company and entertainment is not same as unconditional love for animals. Some animal lovers are people haters. The feudal and authoritarian leaders have always used animals to project their leadership in terms of power, strength and courage. Jan Mohnhaupt (2020) in his book ‘Animals in National Socialism’ depicts the way animals were used in Hitler’s footage showing his love for animals and demanding obedience to his leadership. Adolf Hitler to Karl-Otto Koch of the Schutzstaffel (SS) of Nazi Germany were known for their love for animals and used pets for entertainment and diversionary strategy. The Nazi propaganda used animals to undermine political opponents. There was no contradiction between love for animals and Nazi death cult. Similarly, the love for animals cannot hide the evil Hindutva politics and polices of Modi led BJP government in India.

Under Modi’s watch thousands of Muslims were killed during the Gujarat pogrom of 2002; as the Chief Minister of the state, he watched it silently. The rise of hate crime, lynching of Muslims, attack on rationalists and activists continue to grow in India under Modi’s watch as the PM of India. The recent Delhi riot has taken place directly under his watch. The ministers in Modi’s cabinet are known for their Islamophobic views and anti-Muslim statements in public. There is no doubt that Mr Modi loves camera more than animals and considers Muslim not as citizens but as Puppies. The hugging corporate heads and humilating Muslims are twin pillars of Hindutva politics. The vilification campaigns against Muslims, secularists and political opponents are everyday affairs. The brazen abuses of civil liberties and celebration of riots are daily reminder of worsening of law and order situation after the formation central government by BJP under the leadership of Modi. It is important to identify how the love for animals and Hindutva politics of hate moves together in India. The subjugation of minorities and undermining the secular and democratic character of India is defining feature of Hindutva ideology in praxis.

Mr Narendra Modi is trying to seduce Indian masses by showing his love for animals and hide all his failures as the PM of India. The ambiance of Modi’s photoshoot makes one feel as if Modi stays far away from the ugly realities of majority of Indians. No amount of propaganda can provide relief to the pain of hunger. No amount of media management can hide the agrarian and unemployment crisis in India. The social crisis and foreign policy crisis make India looks as if there is no government in the country. The Hindutva anarchy is a systematic design to manufacture crisis, which can be used as a shock therapy to control masses with authoritarian culture of law, police and court. The making of democratic deficit is an opportunity for Hindutva fascist forces in India. The Modi’s jubilant photoshoot is a project to hide the darkness and dangers of Hindutva ideology. The policies of Modi government display that it neither cares for animals nor for human beings.

The animal love narrative by Modi is myopic without loving fellow human beings irrespective of their religious background, food habits and dress patterns. The citizenship rights are no less than animal rights but authoritarian politicians like Modi use animal love to hide their sinister design to diminish citizenship, democratic rights and liberties. Hindutva politics of hate will not stop with Muslims, it will percolate to every level of Indian society. It is time to stand with Indian Muslims and other religious minorities to save citizenship rights and constitutional democracy in India. Make no mistake, the stripping of Indian Muslim’s citizenship right is a threat to the citizenship of Hindus in India. The diversity is India’s strength and Indian’s pride. The Modi led BJP is opposed to the idea of diverse India. The idea of Hindu nation by BJP is a cover for corporate rule in India. Modi’s love for animals will not save Indian economy from plummeting to new low every day.

It is time to defeat Modi led Hindutva’s fake propaganda with facts. The failure to stop the forward march of Hindutva would push Indian society to perpetual conflict within the country. There will be no peace and prosperity in India as long as there will be Hindutva ideology. It is time to greet Modi’s false euphoria with mass demonstrations and civil disobedient movements across the country to save the idea of secular, liberal and democratic India. The future of Indians depends on the defeat of Hindutva politics and its bigoted ideology.   Political silence is no longer an option for Indians.