The impact of US opioid epidemic on foster care and social services

Genevieve Leigh 

The epidemic of opioid addiction in the US, which has reached never before seen heights in the past two years, has put an immense strain on the already resource-starved US health care system. Among the most devastating consequences of this crisis has been the thousands of children who lose their parents to addiction every day. These children have flooded the foster care system, and their cases have exhausted social services.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in 2012, 397,000 U.S. children were in foster care. By 2015, that number had risen 8 percent, to 428,000. There is no concrete data yet for 2016; however, experts predict that the past two years—the height of the opioid epidemic so far—has increased that number dramatically.

A recent study published by the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that in 14 states the number of foster kids rose by more than a quarter between 2011 and 2015.

States that are experiencing a massive influx of children into protective custody all face similar problems, with varying degrees of severity. None are equipped with the resources to adequately deal with the crisis. Three of the hardest hit states have been Maine, Florida, and Ohio.

Thousands more children are now in foster care

Maine

More than 1,800 children were reported to be in foster care across the state of Maine in 2016—a nearly 45 percent increase in foster children since 2011.

Last year, 376 people died from drug overdoses in Maine. This is the highest number ever recorded for the state and marks a 114 percent increase over a period of just four years, coinciding with the rise of the opioid crisis. Moreover, more than 1,000 children were born addicted to drugs in Maine last year, with the majority of the cases involving some form of opioid.

Opioid deaths in 2015

Bette Hoxie, executive director of Adoptive and Foster Families for Maine, a non-profit organization that works to provide support services for adoptive and foster parents, as well as kinship providers, recently spoke to the WSWS about the immense scope of the opioid epidemic.

“We work with about 3,100 families. Of these, 1,600 are utilizing our resources from more intensive services than just basic services. This means that they need things like clothes, they need help working through the system, they need bedding, they need much more active involvement.”

“The homes where these children are going are just not prepared with everything they need to house a child,” Hoxie noted.

“I would say nearly every single one of those cases is due to drug addiction. Of the kinship calls [when children are placed with extended family members instead of with foster families] that we get, at least 85-90 percent have been due to drug addiction, with the majority being opioids.”

Hoxie explained the effect of the spike in opioid use on the child care services: “Up until about 8 or 10 years ago, when children were coming into protective services, they were placing kids with foster care families until they could reunite them with their families or place them in permanent homes.”

“Over the last few years—in a large way, to deal with the sudden influx of such high numbers of children—there is more and more use of family members. There is definitely a strain on the system. We have 1,900 children in care, and we have 1,200 licensed foster homes.” Hoxie expressed concerns that some of these children end up in homes where the caregivers, often grandparents, are on fixed incomes and struggle to provide for the children.

Speaking on the opioid crisis more generally Hoxie added, “The biggest thing we are struggling with here in Maine is recovery options. ... When a family with addiction problems reaches out for help and they hear ‘Well, it will be three months before we can get you into a place,’ these people lose a lot of hope.”

Ohio

The state of Ohio has one of the nation’s highest overdose rates. In 2016, 4,149 deaths from drug overdose were reported, showing a 36 percent jump from the year before. In 2015, an astounding one in nine heroin deaths nationwide occurred in Ohio, a number that has likely jumped even higher since.

Ohio’s foster population has gone up nearly 10 percent, with more than 60 percent of children in the system because of parental drug abuse. The situation in Ohio is unique, not only because the opioid epidemic is so severe, but also because it is possibly the most resource-starved state in terms of child care services. The state ranks 50th for state share of children services total expenditures. In fact, Ohio state expenditures for child services are so low that if the number doubled, it would still remain 50th in the country.

Scott Britton, who works for Public Children Services Association of Ohio, told the WSWS: “The drug epidemic really has caused a crisis across the board. We have 11 percent increase of children in custody and 19 percent increase in retention rate. We have some 2015 data that showed that 28 percent of the parents of kids who were taken from their homes were using some type of opioid. So that means more than one in four and almost one in three. This is not counting kinship care or other ways a child might come in. We suspect that number has only gone up in 2016, considering that back in 2015 we were not seeing near the same volume of opioid use as we had in 2016 and which continues today.”

Median days in custody

“It is affecting just about every facet of the foster care system. Some come into our care because they were born with addiction, others because they have experienced severe neglect. They very often come in with a lot of trauma from their experiences, which complicates things. Sometimes placing them with a typical foster family is not what’s best due to the severity of their issues.”

Another major problem, mentioned by every charity group, nonprofit, and social service worker who spoke to our reporters, is the effect the pressure has had on social workers. Britton explained that Ohio is no different: “These workers are emotionally exhausted. They are often the ones who are left with tasks like telling a child that one of their parents, or sometimes both of their parents, have died from overdose, for example.

“Our caseworkers are really committed to reunifying children with their parents. That is our number-one goal. They work really hard to get parents into treatment. Unfortunately, they are seeing less and less of that, which is really tough on their morale. We did a survey in 2016 and found that one out of every four caseworkers left their positions. I suspect they just become exhausted from taking that emotional stress home.”

Florida

The worst manifestation of the opioid epidemic in Florida is in the state’s 12th Judicial Circuit Court, which includes Sarasota, Manatee and DeSoto counties. One figure that sheds light on the severity of the situation in this area is the number of doses of Narcan (Naloxone), the drug that reverses the effects of an overdose, being administered. In July 2015, emergency responders in this area administered a record 281 doses of the “miracle drug.” By July 2016, that number had more than doubled to 749. Officials in the area remain unable to stem the epidemic.

More broken families, less funding

Kathryn Shea is the president and CEO of the Florida Center for Early Childhood, which is an early childhood mental health provider. Shea works in the heart of the Florida epidemic.

Shea told the WSWS: “The numbers we are seeing in Sarasota of kids in care we have never seen before. There is no question that the biggest cause is substance abuse, and the primary drug is opioids. Our children have been dramatically impacted, as have our babies.”

When asked about reports that Florida and other states such as Oregon and Texas have been forced to have children sleep in state buildings because there were no foster homes available, Shea responded, “Yes, that has happened here. Not as often, because they are constantly recruiting foster parents. Instead, here they often have to go over their waiver of five kids per parent.”

Shea also commented on the effect this crisis has had on those who work in the field, “Our turnover rate for social workers is just horrible. It’s very hard to keep cases managers and investigators. A lot of these workers are very young and have just gotten out of college or just have high school degrees and don’t have a lot of life experience to help buffer the intense situations that they have to deal with. Let me put it this way—I have been in this industry 37 years and it is still difficult for me. Often they are traumatized by what they go through on the job. They end up with secondary trauma from what they see and do. Honestly, from all my years in the field, I’ve never seen the situation this bad.”

When asked about what sort of impact the Trump health care plan, which would end Medicaid as an entitlement program, might have on the children affected by the opioid epidemic Shea said it would be a disaster. “Most of our families are on Medicaid. This covers over 90 percent of our kids. The services for them would be dropped. What we are talking about is the difference between life and death for children. I am not saying that lightly. I am very serious. We will be hurting the most vulnerable population. I think it’s an absolute crime.”

Asked to explain what she thought was driving the opioid epidemic Shea told the WSWS: “Well, I think the real root cause of this is poverty. Many of these people were raised in poverty and don’t see a way out of it. Many of them have experienced serious trauma and have never been treated properly because they don’t have the money and they use drugs to self-medicate, and to deal with the pain.”

EU and Japan sign largest-ever Free Trade Agreement

Gary Alvernia

The European Union (EU) and Japan last week agreed in principle to ratify a free trade agreement (FTA) that is seen as a pointed challenge to the Trump administration’s “America First” nationalism and threats of trade war.

Despite being hyped as a victory for free trade over protectionism, the FTA signals the accelerating division of the world into competing trade blocs and the growing danger of trade conflict and war.

The FTA, the result of four years of intense secret negotiations, must now be ratified by each member state of the EU and the Japanese parliament—a complicated process without guaranteed success.

Nevertheless, the trade deal covers 640 million people, 30 percent of the world’s gross domestic product and 40 percent of global trade by volume. It is the largest of its kind ever negotiated. If ratified, it would be the biggest trading bloc in the world, ahead of the US-led North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Economic analysts have focused on the FTA’s reduction of tariffs on automobiles and dairy products. Several media outlets labelled it the “cars and cheeses deal.” Under its terms, the EU will lower restrictions on Japanese automakers in European markets, while Japan will reciprocate by eliminating its traditionally high tariffs on wine and dairy imports over the next 10-15 years.

The agreement has been portrayed as a boon for European agriculture, which, due to increased competition and reduced subsidies, has been losing jobs and profits, particularly in the dairy industry. Similarly in Japan, the deal has been touted as a major boost for automakers. This was a key factor in Japan agreeing to negotiations in 2013, following the ratification of a similar agreement between the EU and South Korea in 2012.

Despite these supposed benefits, progress in talks was slow and mired in sharp disagreements until the election of Donald Trump. His junking of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), involving the US, Japan and 10 other nations, was a significant blow to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who hoped the bloc would help revive the stagnant Japanese economy.

As for the EU, the FTA deal with Japan is part of efforts to shift its economic and strategic dependence away from the US—a drive led by Germany, which has come under attack by Trump for supposedly unfair trade practices.

In thinly-veiled references to Trump, the European Commission and Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs both spoke of the need to reach an agreement as soon as possible to “counter the protectionist movements,” as the latter put it.

A joint statement signed by Donald Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker (presidents of the European Union and European Commission respectively) and Prime Minister Abe affirmed “our joint commitment to international standards for an even closer cooperation in the future.”

The statement emphasised that the agreement would “demonstrate to the world—and to our citizens—that free trade, with clear and transparent rules fully respecting and enhancing our values, remains an important tool to promote prosperity in our societies.”

In Washington, the message was received clearly. Media headlines read “EU, Japan Speed Up Trade Talks to Counter Threat of US Protectionism” ( Wall Street Journal ) and “As EU and Japan Strengthen Trade Ties, US Risks Losing Its Voice” ( New York Times ). Sections of the ruling elite are hostile to Trump’s protectionism and regard the lack of American participation in similar deals as lost economic opportunities.

The loud proclamations by Japanese and EU leaders of the importance of free trade are also aimed at countering protectionist advocates within Europe and Japan—such as the British Tory government of Prime Minister Theresa May.

A Financial Times article noted that the UK would not benefit from the FTA’s provisions after 2019 as a result of last year’s Brexit referendum. Quoting EU and UK officials, the article, entitled “EU-Japan trade deal poses risks for post-Brexit UK,” warned that Japanese capital investment currently in Britain would be diverted to Europe, with serious consequences for the automobile industry. On these grounds, it rejected claims by May that the UK could negotiate such treaties without the support of Europe.

In Japan, the FTA has been presented as a major victory for Abe, whose Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is currently in crisis due to recent political scandals and heavy losses at regional elections in Tokyo. Abe confronts protectionist tendencies within the LDP and invested considerable political capital in ratifying the TPP before Trump sank it.

Despite claims that the EU-Japan FTA represents an advance for prosperity and democracy, geopolitical considerations and an anticipation of profits were the main concern of the ruling classes in Europe and Japan.

Globalisation itself is a progressive development, representing the integration of the productive forces on a world scale. Under capitalism, however, it leads only to the increased exploitation of workers. Free trade agreements have been utilised over the past 30 years to enable transnational corporations to slash the living standards and wages of workers, by pitting them in cut-throat competitions against one another.

Indeed, the social devastation caused by agreements such as NAFTA has enabled right-wing ideologues such as Trump, assisted by the trade unions, to pose as defenders of working people by promoting nationalist measures like protectionism. Protectionism, however, provides no solution for workers. It will only heighten the worsening global economic crisis, trade conflict and the danger of war, while undermining the unity of the working class.

Scientists warn of “biological annihilation” as Earth’s mass extinction accelerates

Josh Varlin

A study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) indicates that human activity is precipitating “biological annihilation” and a mass extinction event.

The peer-reviewed paper, “Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines,” argues that the severity of the ongoing biodiversity crisis is often underestimated by looking primarily at extinctions (the loss of all individuals in a species). The study looks more broadly at species’ population decline and argues that “Earth’s sixth mass extinction episode has proceeded further than most assume.”

The study was coauthored by Gerardo Ceballos of the Instituto de Ecología at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City and by Paul R. Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo of Stanford University’s Department of Biology.

The authors argue that while the extinction rate is already alarmingly high—including at least two vertebrate species per year for the past century—this does not tell the full story. Even if species have not yet gone extinct, their numbers and geographic distribution are decreasing dramatically, signaling an accelerating trend toward eventual extinction.

Detailed historical data from 1900 to 2015 is available for about 200 mammals, which are often major components of their ecosystems. Most of these key species are in crisis, even though they are not extinct: “In the 177 mammals for which we have detailed data, all have lost 30 percent or more of their geographic ranges and more than 40 percent of the species have experienced severe population declines (>80 percent range shrinkage).”

Gerardo Ceballos et al., 2017, "Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Online, www.pnas.org.

Because population declines presage extinction, the study concludes that the planet has already begun its sixth mass extinction—the first since humans evolved.

The last mass extinction was at the end of the Cretaceous Period, about 66 million years ago, which saw the end of the dinosaurs, paving the way for mammals to dominate on land. The end-Cretaceous extinction was caused by an asteroid colliding with Earth, creating nuclear winter-like atmospheric effects.

The most catastrophic known mass extinction occurred at the end of the Permian Period (252 million years ago), and is known as “The Great Dying.” Approximately 70 percent of terrestrial species died during this cataclysmic event, which is thought to have occurred due to massive volcanic eruptions.

The fact that PNAS, one of the top science journals worldwide, published an article raising the possibility of events along the lines of “The Great Dying” is a sign that the ecological crisis is far advanced.

The paper, which is only about five pages long, not counting graphs or references, uses the word “annihilation” six times, “catastrophic” twice and a variety of “decimation” three times. Ceballos told the Atlantic that such frank language is warranted. “It would be alarmist if we didn’t have the data,” he said. “Now it would be irresponsible on our part to not use strong language. I wish we could say we are wrong but unfortunately, this is what is happening.”

The breakthrough made by Ceballos, Ehrlich and Dirzo is their thorough examination of populations, rather than staying at the level of species. A population is a group of individuals separated from other populations, usually by geography. Each species is made up of one or more populations.

If a species is losing several key populations but its overall numbers have not collapsed, it often will not be recognized as being in crisis. However, if a species is atomized into disparate, isolated populations, with its overall habitat shrinking, that makes its eventual extinction more likely.

In other words, the loss of each population of a species is one major step toward its overall extinction, unless measures are taken to restore the population and reverse the crisis.

Because most studies focus on extinction and not the loss of populations, they understate the scale of the crisis. Not only is the decline in populations a prelude to a significant number of extinctions, but the pace of population loss is accelerating.

Gerardo Ceballos et al., 2017, "Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Online, www.pnas.org.

Moreover, many species with decreasing populations are not yet recognized as being endangered. Of all land vertebrates with decreasing populations, about 70 percent have been recognized as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). However, less than half of decreasing bird species are recognized as endangered by the IUCN.

Because of the complexity of the environment, removing even a seemingly minor population or species can severely impact other species—if enough species go extinct, it can damage whole ecosystems. Human life as we know it relies on an increasingly strained ecological balance, and may be impossible if biodiversity is reduced too much. The loss of this dynamic balance, once it reaches a certain point, can cascade into a catastrophic, possibly irreversible collapse.

The study identifies “the proximate causes of population extinctions” as “habitat conversion, climate disruption, overexploitation, toxification, species invasions, disease and (potentially) large-scale nuclear war—all tied to one another in complex patterns and usually reinforcing each other’s impacts.”

These factors are all caused or greatly exacerbated by humans’ unplanned and irrational interaction with the environment, rooted in the subordination of all social and economic life to private profit. It is worth noting in this context the mention of the potential environmental consequences of a nuclear war, which could be set off by any number of conflicts around the world caused by the division of the world into competing capitalist nation-states.

The authors identify “the ultimate drivers of those immediate causes of biotic destruction” as “human overpopulation and continued population growth, and overconsumption, especially by the rich.” One need not agree that population growth itself is the problem to recognize that human activity, without scientific planning, places immense strains on the environment.

Ceballos, Ehrlich and Dirzo conclude their paper by noting that “the window for effective action is very short, probably two or three decades at most.” Their article should serve as a notice that the clock is ticking for humanity to establish socialism—a social system in which life is scientifically organized around human need, including the need to be in harmony with the natural environment. Only through the conscious effort to place humanity on such a rational basis can ecological collapse be prevented.

The “liberation” of Mosul: Washington’s latest war crime in the Middle East

Bill Van Auken

President Donald Trump issued a statement on Monday celebrating the “liberation of Mosul” as a “victory over terrorists who are the enemies of all civilized people.”

The fate of Iraq’s second-largest city and that of the country as a whole, however, has proven that when it comes to enemies of humanity, ISIS is a bit player compared to US imperialism.

This city, which three years ago had a population of nearly two million, has been subjected to a murderous siege that dragged on for nearly nine months. The scenes of destruction in Mosul are comparable only to the kind of devastation that was wrought upon European cities in the Second World War. The Old Town of western Mosul, the heart of this ancient city, has been largely flattened by US missiles, bombs and shells, with hardly a single residential or commercial building left intact.

The crimes carried out against the civilian population are on a Hitlerian scale. Close to one million people have been driven from their homes. Those trapped in the city were subjected to a continuous bombardment by US warplanes, attack helicopters and heavy artillery. Early on in the siege, the destruction of basic infrastructure and the cutting off of all supply routes deprived hundreds of thousands of men, women and children of electricity, clean drinking water and access to adequate food and medical care.

The total number of dead and wounded may never be known. Buried in the reports of the victory celebrations by the US-backed Iraqi forces is the grim fact that these troops were dancing on rubble amid the unmistakable stench of rotting corpses.

The monitoring group Airwars has documented the deaths of 5,805 civilians as a result of attacks launched by the US-led “coalition” between February and June of 2017. There is no doubt that this figure, which excludes casualties during the first four months of the siege as well as those resulting from the intense bombardment of the past three weeks, is a serious underestimate. Tens of thousands more have been wounded.

Among those escaping from the besieged city, boys and men were treated as ISIS suspects, in many cases subjected to interrogation, brutal torture and summary execution, all under the approving eyes of American Special Forces “advisers.”

Amnesty International issued a report Tuesday titled “At Any Price: The Civilian Catastrophe in West Mosul,” in which it recounted that civilians were subjected “to a terrifying barrage of fire from weapons that should never be used in densely populated civilian areas.”

In Amnesty’s typically cautious fashion in dealing with the US government, the report stated that “US-led coalition forces appear to have committed repeated violations of international law, some of which may amount to war crimes.” The organization is calling for the convening of “independent and transparent investigations where there is credible information that violations of international humanitarian law have taken place,” in order to “prosecute those reasonably suspected of responsibility for war crimes.”

While Amnesty indicts ISIS with far greater conviction than it does the US military, it raises no questions as to who is responsible for ISIS in the first place, much less the historical roots of the human catastrophe inflicted upon Mosul.

When it swept across Iraq three years ago, seizing Mosul and roughly one-third of the country’s territory and exposing the rotten foundations of the US-trained Iraqi security forces, ISIS had been well-armed, funded and trained for use as a proxy force in the wars for regime change orchestrated by the CIA and Washington’s regional allies, first in Libya and then in Syria.

The roots of the emergence of Al Qaeda-linked Sunni militias in Iraq, however, lie in the quarter-century of war, sanctions, invasion and occupation inflicted by US imperialism on the oil-rich country, resulting in the decimation of an entire society, the loss of well over a million lives, and the turning of millions more into homeless refugees.

In pursuit of a divide-and-rule strategy, the US occupation stoked sectarian divisions in Iraq, with particularly bloody results in Mosul, with its broad intermingling of ethnic and religious groups. Subsequently, the Shia-dominated government installed in Baghdad persecuted the Sunni majority of Mosul and Anbar province, creating fertile soil for ISIS.

The overriding source of the disasters that have befallen the people of Mosul, Iraq and the broader Middle East is the unprovoked war of aggression launched by the US in 2003 on the basis of lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. At the time, apologists for US imperialism promoted the war with the charge that “Saddam Hussein kills his own people.” The late Iraqi ruler, however, would be amazed at the scale of death and destruction Washington has been able to inflict upon his country over the course of the past 14 years.

If the legal principles and criteria employed by the prosecutors at Nuremberg were applied today, there would be many in Washington facing life in prison, if not execution. These include George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the US administration that launched an unprovoked war of aggression, the main charge for which the surviving leaders of the Third Reich were tried.

In addition, there is Barack Obama and the leading figures in his administration and military-intelligence apparatus. Elected largely on the basis of misplaced hope that he would put an end to US wars, Obama continued them in both Iraq and Afghanistan and expanded US interventions into Libya and Syria. It was under his administration that the siege of Mosul was launched.

Finally, there are the criminals within the Trump administration, from the president to his defense secretary, Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who proclaimed a policy of “annihilation” in Iraq and Syria, to the generals and CIA chiefs who have implemented this policy of mass slaughter.

Both major political parties, a media that has become a shameless instrument of war propaganda, the corporations and banks seeking to counter American capitalism’s decline by means of militarism and war, and every other major American institution are responsible for the war crimes in Mosul and those that have been carried out throughout Iraq and the rest of the region over the past decade-and-a-half.

Complicit as well are the US academics who have maintained a discreet silence on the crimes and lies that pervade US policy, not to mention the various pseudo-left organizations that have enlisted themselves in support of imperialism under the disreputable banner of “human rights.”

If action were taken on Amnesty’s proposal to “prosecute those reasonably suspected of responsibility for war crimes,” the defendants’ dock in Washington would be crowded indeed. Yet no one has been held accountable for these crimes.

Settling accounts with Washington’s war criminals is the task of the American working class, united in struggle with the working people of Iraq, the rest of the Middle East and the entire planet. Under conditions in which escalating militarism in the Middle East and around the globe threaten to coalesce into another world war, the fight to build a new mass antiwar movement based on the working class and the youth and directed against the capitalist system assumes ever greater urgency.

Preferring the Bilateral to the Multilateral: Personal Diplomacy and India's Trade Negotiations

Mihir S Sharma

In the three years since Narendra Modi was swept to power with an unprecedented mandate, the conduct of India's foreign policy has been given a new energy. Mr Modi has been an indefatigable traveller, and his administration has sought to build or repair relationships with many of India's neighbours and partners.

 

It is difficult to claim that any grand strategy underlies this energy, which seems rather to respond to the demands of the moment than anything else; but it could well be argued that Mr Modi sees foreign policy essentially as an extension of his immediate domestic priorities. These can be summarised as the following: first, to ensure fewer constraints on the development of India's economy, and the creation of more jobs in the formal sector to employ the country's ever-increasing population of young people; and second, to raise India's profile and inculcate a new sense of pride in nationhood. 

It is the first of these two priorities that is of concern here. Under Mr Modi's administration, economic relations have taken on a primacy in foreign policy. On his visits to various countries, he has stressed his government's efforts to improve the business climate in India, and has determinedly pitched for an increase in foreign investment. There has been much talk of improving bilateral trade ties with a series of trading partners - though sadly little action. 

Yet even this rhetorical emphasis on bilateral trade ties is not present when the Modi government's approach to multilateral trade is examined. Here, in fact, it is easy to see this government as moving backward when compared even to its predecessor, led by Dr Manmohan Singh. 

Signs of this backsliding were visible early on in Mr Modi's term, when commerce ministry negotiators single-handedly held up the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) trade facilitation agreement, in an attempt to get the rest of the world to agree to India's right to stockpile enormous amounts of grain as part of the public distribution system (PDS). This was sold as a right-to-food issue, but in fact emerged from Mr Modi's conviction that public procurement of grain was an essential tool to ensure his continued popularity in rural areas. It was clear at that very point, just a few months into the new government, that multilateral trade negotiations were not to be considered a priority. 

Subsequent developments were even more disquieting. Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman made it clear that the burst of trade agreements that had been negotiated, signed or initiated over the previous decade or so would need to be reviewed. Partly this was a product of concerns openly raised by various stakeholders over India's  free-trade agreements (FTA) with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which some claim 'benefited' India less than it did the other parties to the agreement. In a sign that Mr Modi's government preferred bilateral to multilateral deals, there has been little movement on pushing this FTA forward into new domains such services, and instead efforts have been made to rework bilateral investment treaties with dozens of countries. 

It is certainly undeniable that movement on other multilateral agreements has been stalled. Negotiations with the European Union (EU) have broken down on various issues to do with protectionist impulses from India's automotive and dairy sectors as well as demands for concessions from the big information technology companies. Since, instead of this complex multilateral enterprise the Modi government has shown a preference for dealing with individual governments, some hope attached to post-Brexit contact between New Delhi and London - though that, too, seems unlikely to prosper in the immediate future thanks to both sides being fairly intransigent on the question of migration. India wants more and easier visas as part of any deal, and the Conservative government in Whitehall is mindful of the fact that many of its voters supported Brexit precisely because they wished for less migration into the UK. 

India has, of course, never been particularly enthusiastic about the great plurilateral trade deals that seemed to be becoming a feature of the global order under the previous dispensation in the US. It had no intention of joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the commerce ministry even claimed erroneously the TPP was likely to make little difference to Indian exports. This cynical approach may seem to be validated by the rise of Donald Trump, and his dramatic denunciation of such deals - which he followed up by taking the US out of the TPP. But it would be unwise to declare the era of mega trade negotiations over. Even the TPP may have a surprising afterlife - once domestic consensus is achieved in so many countries over regulatory harmonisation and behind-the-border changes, it would be futile to expect that it would have no influence on future negotiation.

Indeed, it is reported that discussions for the plurilateral trade deal known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RECEP), to which India is a party, have begun to feature some of the aspects of the TPP in terms of regulatory issues that New Delhi is least comfortable with. In general, New Delhi's generally negative positions at RCEP negotiations has led to much publicised comments from foreign diplomats about the possibility that RCEP might even move forward without Indian participation. 

 

The Modi government's preference for bilateral trade discussions over multilateral or plurilateral trade deals is a reflection, perhaps, of the prime minister's penchant for personal diplomacy, as well as a certain smugness in the New Delhi establishment about the indispensability and bargaining power of a fast-growing India. But the larger arguments, from India's point of view, in favour of multilateral and plurilateral deals have not lost any force in the past three years, however much they may have been ignored.

India needs to embed itself in a world trading system that has gone on without it. It needs behind-the-border international deals in order to force its own antiquated regulations and systems to change. And it is far more likely to get a good deal by taking the initiative at the WTO or in forums like the RCEP than through sporadic and inconsistent bilateral negotiations. Hopefully, in the two years that remain of his term, Mr Modi will expand his notion of economic diplomacy sufficiently.

India-EU: Potential Partners in the Emerging World Order?

KP Fabian

We need to contemplate the prospects of relations between India and the European Union (EU) and the rest of the continent keeping in mind the shifting geopolitical equations; the state of EU; the challenges it is facing; and the new world order likely to emerge and replace the departing world order. 

We might start with India-EU relations since 2014 when a new government with a comfortable parliamentary majority led by Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi assumed office in May of that year. PM Modi visited Brussels in March 2016 and attended the 13th India-EU Summit. The Summit should have been held in 2014 as EU and India had earlier agreed to meet at a summit level once in two years. The previous summit was held in 2012. A few issues, including the case of two Italian marines held in India after they shot dead two Indian fishermen, delayed the Summit. Italy had taken an unreasonable stand in the matter arguing that it alone had jurisdiction as the tanker Enrica Lexie was flying the Italian flag. Italy’s position was not sustainable as the fishing boat was as much protected by United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as the tanker. The EU lent support to Italy - albeit it had no case - out of a sense of EU solidarity by delaying the summit.

The 13th Summit came out with an EU-India Agenda for Action 2020, which provides for cooperation on a variety of issues such as clean energy, climate partnership, water partnership, migration, mobility, and counter-terrorism. The Agenda for Action is ambitious and it is for the two partners to work together to meet the commonly agreed targets.

India wanted the EU's endorsement of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) first proposed by India at the UN General Assembly in 1996. Though Brussels had suffered a major terrorist attack in March 2016 resulting in the deaths of 32 innocent civilians, EU was unable to endorse India’s CCIT.

Another matter where there was not much progress is the Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA), negotiations for which had begun in 2006. An agreement is yet to be reached over some issues including services, data security, visa facilitation, market access to some goods, geographical indications, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) relating to pharmaceutical products. Another Summit is due later this year in Delhi.

Even without the BTIA, EU-India trade has grown appreciably with EU being India’s top trade partner, with trade between the two accounting for 13.5 per cent of India’s global trade in 2015-16. The value of India’s exports rose from 22.6 billion Euros in 2006 to 39.3 billion Euros in 2016. India’s imports jumped from 24.2 billion Euros to 37.8 billion Euros during the same period. 

As we look at the prospects of India-Europe cooperation, we might start with a clarification. The words “European Union” represent more an aspiration than a reality. The population of Europe is 740 million (as of 2016), but the EU has only a population of 510 million. If and when UK leaves, the EU population will drop by 65 million. The short point is that India should concentrate on its bilateral relations with the member-states on all matters other than trade and investment for reasons explained below.

The EU is facing few serious problems. Brexit, if it happens, will hurt both UK and the EU. The EU’s plans for 'Common Security and Foreign Policy' (CSFP) is yet to take off and its prospects for success will be seriously affected by Brexit. The EU has failed to arrive at a common policy on refugees coming from Syria and elsewhere. Its agreement with Turkey on refugees is in danger of unravelling. 

Though the election results in the Netherlands and France have shown that the anti-EU political parties have not done well, the fact remains that there is a general trend to look at EU with a degree of disenchantment and the popular dissatisfaction with the Brussels bureaucracy shows no sign of decreasing.

The geopolitical equations are being rewritten. The EU can no longer depend on the US as German Chancellor Angela Merkel said after the 2017 G20 meeting in Hamburg. We are witnessing a move away from a world where the US played a leading role since the end of World War II. After Donald Trump took office as the US president, there is a radical change in Washington's policy. With his policy or slogan of “America First,” Trump has withdrawn from the historic 2015 Paris Accord on Climate Change which previous US President Barack Obama had taken the lead in getting adopted. Trump has walked out of the 12-nation Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and has raised questions about North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He has questioned the advantage of free trade and globalisation.

The key question is as to what extent the EU or its major member-states and India can work together in shaping the emerging new world order. Both India and the EU want the new order to be based on values they share. But it is unclear whether the EU is able and willing to adopt an independent foreign policy, primarily a policy independent of US policy. It is not being suggested that the EU should begin taking a line opposed to Washington. The fact of the matter is that till now Washington has influenced EU policy and the EU has hardly influenced US policy. What is required for the EU, if it is serious about CSDP, is to be less dependent on the US. While it is almost impossible to work with the US on a basis of equality, there is some scope for making it less unequal.

Let us look at some areas where the EU has made and can make significant contributions. One area of importance is peace-keeping and peace-building. The EU tried to mediate in Egypt to prevent the 2013 Rabaa massacre in Cairo after the military coup against the first democratically elected president in Egypt’s history. EU’s High Representative Catherine Ashton worked hard and succeeded in drawing out an agreement. If Egypt’s military had accepted it, the massacre could have been avoided. What is sad is that though the EU had every reason to be proud of the mediation effort, there is no mention of it in the annual report for 2013, possibly because the EU was keen to cultivate the new regime in Cairo.

The EU has the right credentials to be a trusted mediator and can do more in this sphere. Both India and the EU should consider the potential for working together in this regard. Africa is another area for India and the EU to collaborate. Piloted by Chancellor Merkel, the G20 Summit in Hamburg has endorsed an ambitious plan for Africa’s progress. India, with its historic connections with Africa can be a valuable partner for Germany.

Scholarships Available at Musicians Institute, USA for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 1st September, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): USA

Eligible Field of Study: The following scholarships are available to international students who wish to undertake study in the following fields:

• Guitar Program Scholarships 
• Bass Program Scholarships
• Vocal Program Scholarships
• Drum Program Scholarships
• Keyboard Program Scholarships
• Audio Engineering Program Scholarships
• Music Business Program Scholarships
• Guitar Craft Program Scholarships
• Bachelor of Composition Scholarship
• MI Scholarships

About the Award: The Musicians Institute scholarships are available for US citizens and non US citizens enrolling into various programs beginning in September 2016 at Musicians Institute, USA. The scholarships range from $1,000 to $2,500 which would be applied as tuition credit. Scholarships will be divided between new students and current students, so candidates should make sure they apply for the exact scholarship they need. New students beginning Fall 2016 must have already received their letter of acceptance before applying for the scholarships. Scholarships available for different criteria such as guitar, vocal, drum, music, arts, including certificates in performance.

Type: Scholarship

Eligibility:

• MI Scholarships are available only to students enrolling in a new program. Before you may submit a scholarship application, you must have a Letter of Acceptance from MI’s Admission Department.
• Scholarship applications are available from the Financial Aid Office or Admissions Department or by download from this site.
• Completed applications submitted by the appropriate deadline will be reviewed and applicants will be notified of the results within two weeks after the deadline.

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Scholarship: Scholarships are awarded in the form of tuition credit only.

Duration of Scholarship: Renewable

How to Apply: Each scholarship has it’s requirements. Interested candidates should visit the Scholarship Webpage to learn how to apply.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Musicians Institute, USA

Deutsches Museum Scholar-in-Residence Scholarship Program for International Researchers 2017

Application Deadline: 13th October 2017

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

About the Award: Applicants are invited to base their projects on the collections of the Deutsches Museum and to cooperate closely with museum staff on site when formulating their research proposals. Projects involving innovative approaches to artefact-oriented research are especially welcome.

During their stay, visiting scholars will have daily contact with the museum´s curators, archivists and librarians (approx. 50 staff members) as well as members of the Münchner Zentrum für Wissenschafts- und Technikgeschichte (Munich Center for the History of Science and Technology; approx. 50 staff members).

Scholarship holders will have their own workplace with a desktop computer and telephone, and the opportunity to reside temporarily in subsidized apartments of the museum complex insofar as these are available. They will present their research projects to colleagues at the beginning of their stay and will be expected to participate regularly in the museum’s and the Munich Centre’s Monday colloquium series and workshops.

Type: Research

Eligibility:

• Scholars at any level of seniority are eligible to apply, provided they have at least one university degree.
• There are no restrictions regarding nationality.
• All scholars are requested to make their own provisions for health insurance.
• The ability to read German is a prerequisite for the application (passive language skills).

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Pre-doctoral stipends: € 7,500 (six months) / € 15,000 (full year). Post-doctoral stipends: € 15,000 (six months) / € 30,000 (full year).

Duration of Program: six or 12 months

How to Apply: Please send applications, including:

• completed application form (pdf-file, 20 kB or rtf-file 60 kB)
• curriculum vitae
• project description (3 to 5 pages)
• two confidential references (can be sent directly by the referees)

to the following address:

Andrea Walther
Coordinator of the Research Institute
Deutsches Museum
80306 Munich
Tel.: 00 49 (0) 89 2179-280
Fax: 00 49 (0) 89 2179-239
E-Mail: a.waltherdeutsches-museum.de

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Deutsches Museum

Andela Uganda Paid Fellowship (Cohort III) for Ugandan Tech Students 2017

Application Deadline: 17th July 2017.

Eligible Countries: Uganda

About the Award: The Andela Fellowship is a full-time employment opportunity that will enable you to own your learning as you hone the skills you need to become a global technology leader. We seek out exceptional people from a variety of backgrounds who are committed to unlocking their full potential and improving the world through technology.

Through four years of intensive learning and real work experience on the world’s leading engineering teams, you’ll master the professional and technical skills needed to become a global technology leader.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• You must be 18 or older
• Andela does not have any degree or diploma requirements.
• Andela is a full-time, four-year commitment, so if you have any major commitment such as school or work, we recommend applying when you have graduated, stopped school or ended other commitments
• Most importantly, you must embody Andela’s values: Excellence, Passion, Integrity and Collaboration

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: Through extensive training and work experience with top global technology companies, you’ll master the professional and technical skills needed to become a technology leader, both on the African continent and around the world.

We are training future leaders committed to helping others succeed. As you advance in the program, you’ll mentor and support the next generation of Andela fellows. The Technical Leadership Program prepares you for endless career paths, including founding your own company, moving into management positions at Andela, and taking leadership roles at local and global tech companies. Graduates become a part of an exclusive alumni network and have access to career support, advice and opportunities.

• Competitive monthly salary
• High speed fibre internet
• Financing plans for accommodations and a Macbook Pro
• Breakfast and lunch Monday through Friday
• Healthcare coverage
• Savings account ($5,000 USD upon completion of Fellowship)
• A community of excellence
• A chance to change the world

Duration of Program: October 2nd, 2017 – October 2nd, 2021

How to Apply: Join the Andela movement by applying via Fellowship Webpage link below

It is important to go through the Application Procedure and FAQs before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Andela

Important Notes: Please note that this position will require extensive travel and off-site skills training outside of Uganda.

Andela Nigeria Paid Fellowship (Cycle XXVI) for Nigerian Tech Students 2017

Application Deadline: 28th July, 2017

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

About the Award: The Andela Fellowship is a four-year paid technical leadership program designed to shape you into an exceptional software engineer. The program requires that you dedicate yourself to the broader Andela community and requires that you apply yourself and challenge yourself to constantly improve personally and professionally throughout the four years of the Fellowship.

Andela’s four-year Technical Leadership Program is a blend of personalized instruction, supported self-study and hands-on experience building real products. Instead of paying tuition, as you would for a traditional academic program, you’ll earn a competitive salary and benefits throughout your four years with Andela.

After successfully completing the initial training period, you’ll be fully prepared to start working with one of our clients as a full-time, distributed team member. During the remaining 3.5 years, you’ll apply your knowledge to client work, while receiving ongoing professional and technical development, coaching and mentorship.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• You must be 18 or older
• Andela does not have any degree or diploma requirements. (Nigeria only: However, if you have completed university or have a Higher National Diploma from a Polytechnic, and have not been formally exempted, you must complete your one-year National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) before applying to Andela)
• Andela is a full-time, four-year commitment, so if you have any major commitment such as school or work, we recommend applying when you have graduated, stopped school or ended other commitments
• Most importantly, you must embody Andela’s values: Excellence, Passion, Integrity and Collaboration

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: Through extensive training and work experience with top global technology companies, you’ll master the professional and technical skills needed to become a technology leader, both on the African continent and around the world.

We are training future leaders committed to helping others succeed. As you advance in the program, you’ll mentor and support the next generation of Andela fellows. The Technical Leadership Program prepares you for endless career paths, including founding your own company, moving into management positions at Andela, and taking leadership roles at local and global tech companies. Graduates become a part of an exclusive alumni network and have access to career support, advice and opportunities.

• Competitive monthly salary
• High speed fibre internet
• Financing plans for accommodations and a Macbook Pro
• Breakfast and lunch Monday through Friday
• Healthcare coverage
• Savings account ($5,000 USD upon completion of Fellowship)
• A community of excellence
• A chance to change the world

Duration of Fellowship: 4 years

How to Apply: Join the Andela movement by applying via Fellowship Webpage link below

It is important to go through the Application Procedure and FAQs before applying.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Andela