18 Jul 2017

The opioid epidemic in the US: A national health emergency

Genevieve Leigh

The Washington Post recently published an extraordinary article on policies to address the spiraling drug epidemic in the United States. The article—“As opioid overdoses exact a higher price, communities ponder who should be saved”—did not feature calls for emergency health care or rehabilitation programs, but rather suggestions by some local officials that the state should just let drug addicts die.
The Post highlighted, among others, the proposal of Middletown, Ohio Council Member Daniel Picard that emergency responders should not use the drug naloxone to save overdose victims more than two times. The newspaper noted that the drug is often “the only thing separating whether an overdose victim goes to the hospital instead of the morgue,” and draws the conclusion that it is perfectly reasonable to adopt policies to ensure that many more go to the latter rather than the former.
That such fascistic measures—what might be called the “Duterte solution” to the drug epidemic in the US—are being treated as a rational and legitimate part of the political debate is an expression of the debased political psychology that dominates in the American ruling class. As far as the corporate and financial elite is concerned, if tens of thousands more people die from drug overdoses, this is not only acceptable, it is a positive good.
Such measures are being advanced amidst a national public health emergency on a scale not seen since the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and ‘90s. In 2015, a shocking 52,000 people in the United States died from drug overdoses, including more than 30,000 from opioids alone. This compares to just under 42,000 deaths from AIDS at its peak in 1995. The figures for 2016, when finally totaled, are expected to show an increase of nearly 20 percent, rising to nearly 170 people every day of the year.
In the hardest hit regions, stories of morgues and funeral homes running at maximum capacity are commonplace. Twice already this year in Montgomery County, Ohio, the coroner’s office has been so overwhelmed with bodies that it was forced to rent extra refrigeration units.
Opioid-related deaths have jumped in states throughout the country, devastating rural areas and big cities, and affecting all races and ethnicities. In Maryland, the number of opioid-related deaths has nearly quadrupled since 2010. In Ohio, opioid related deaths jumped from 296 in 2003 to 2,590 in 2015, a 775 percent increase. In Florida in 2015, three opioids—heroin, fentanyl and oxycodone—were directly responsible for the deaths of 3,896 people.
The number of people directly impacted by the crisis—including family members, friends and colleagues, medical responders, social workers and many others—is in the millions. Many addicts have children who are forced into a resource-starved foster care system, or are left in the hands of family members who cannot provide for them. A recent study from University of Michigan estimates that one baby is born addicted to some sort of opiate every hour.
Thousands of workers who have dedicated their lives to jobs that treat drug addiction experience second-hand trauma from the hardships that come with combating the epidemic, with little to no resources. Hospital workers are forced to turn away withdrawing addicts from the emergency room without care; social workers have the task of telling children they cannot be reunited with their parents, or worse, that one or both of their parents have died; rehabilitation clinicians are expected to “cure” addicts with nothing more than additional drugs and a 12-twelve step program.
The drug epidemic is a public health crisis of incredible magnitude, and yet nowhere in the political establishment is there serious discussion on the measures needed to combat it—or who is responsible.
The underlying assumption in articles like the one in the Post is that drug abuse is a moral failing, and that those addicted deserve to face the consequence of their actions. This is a convenient explanation for those who wish to wash their hands of a problem that threatens their pocketbooks.
The drug epidemic, however, is not an individual failing but a symptom of a diseased social system. It is the product of definite actions taken by the ruling class and its political representatives, Democratic and Republican.
There are of course the pharmaceutical companies, which have for years have been given a free hand to aggressively market some of the most addictive opioids, making huge profits in the process. These drugs were recklessly misbranded as “abuse resistant” throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Prescriptions for opioids such as Percocet, Oxycontin and Vicodin skyrocketed from 76 million in 1991 to nearly 259 million in 2012, enough to supply each American adult with a bottle of pills, and some with two.
The same pharmaceutical companies continue to profit from the crisis that they helped foster. One of the reasons that cities face growing costs for using naloxone is that some companies marketing varieties of the drug have hiked up the price by as much as 500 percent.
More fundamentally, the drug epidemic is a symptom of the devastation produced by nearly forty years of social counterrevolution. Whatever the specific circumstances behind each individual tragedy, the crisis is the product of the unrelenting attack on social programs, wages, education and health care, combined with deindustrialization that has wiped out hundreds of thousands of jobs and produced levels of social inequality not seen since the 1920s.
Obama concluded his two terms in office declaring that “things have never been better” in the United States—a proclamation that applied to the ruling elite he served, but not to the great mass of the population. Now, under the Trump administration, the political establishment is engaged in a great “debate” over the future of health care, currently centered on just how much and in what way to destroy Medicaid, which funds at least eighty percent of drug abuse services.
The outcome of the new health care bill, whatever its form, will be nothing short of social murder. In this sense, Picard, the local Ohio official, is merely channeling the general outlook of the ruling class, for which the reduction in life expectancy is a basic strategic aim.
A health emergency on the scale of the drug epidemic requires an emergency response. The Socialist Equality Party insists that billions of dollars must be allocated to fund rehabilitation centers, using the most advanced scientific methods and procedures. The health care system must be equipped with detox centers and connected to institutions to help with long-term recovery. All social workers in the field must receive a decent wage and the counseling and support needed. Children must be given the highest level of care while their parents recover.
Such elementary measures and more must be connected to the reconstruction of society to ensure that everyone has the right to a high-paying job, health care, education and quality housing. Only in this way can the underlying causes of drug addiction be addressed.
None of these measures is possible without a frontal attack on wealth of the corporate and financial elite and its stranglehold on the entire economic and political system. As tens of thousands die, the ruling class conspires to spend trillions on war and conjure up new ways to amass ever greater fortunes.
The disease of which the drug epidemic is a symptom is the capitalist system. It can be cured only through the mobilization of the entire working class in the fight for socialism.

Reviving the Indian Economy: Structural Reforms Needed

Prerana Priyadarshi


When Narendra Modi took over as India's prime minister in May 2014, he had a mammoth task of reviving the Indian economy which had taken a beating under the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)-II regime. After three years of repairs and reforms, the current account deficit has been reduced to a historic low of 0.7 per cent; forex reserves are at an all time high of US$ 360 billion; the consumer price index (CPI)-based inflation came down to 2.18 per cent in May 2017; and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stood at 7.1 per cent in the first quarter of 2017. 

However, the economy is not just about macro economic growth; a closer study of three key sectors of the Indian economy (listed below) reveals another story.

Industry
Agriculture
Financial Institutions

Industrial Sector
In September 2014, the Modi government launched its flagship programme, Make in India to encourage manufacturing of goods, both national and multinational, within India. Toward this, the government simplified manufacturing-related processes and checklists. An Investor Facilitation Cell was set up to guide and assist investors during the entire tenure of their business. Consequently, India’s ranking on the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business list improved from 134 in 2015 to 130 in 2016.

Since then the number (and value) of industrial projects set up in the country increased by 28 per cent since 2013; foreign direct investment (FDI) accelerated to US$ 60.08 billion in the last three years as against the US$ 36.05 billion received in 2013-14; merchandise exports also began picking up after witnessing a fall of 5.5 per cent YoY in November 2016 as against 10.43 per cent in 2013.

However, these numbers do not match the reality posed by the weak Indian industrial activity since 2014. According to India's Central Statistics Office's data, the annual IIP growth rate was 1.1 per cent in FY2012, which has now fallen to 0.7 per cent in FY2016. Industrial output is showing a slight growth in 2017 owing to the growth in the mining and quarrying sectors and the electricity segment with no contribution from the manufacturing sector. 

Low growth in the manufacturing sector has immensely impacted the jobs in the country. And unfortunately, even the Make in India and Skill India missions have not helped the government achieve its target of creating 10 million jobs. Although 4,06,032 youths have been trained in the FY2016 (till 25 December) under the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana, unemployment has risen from 4.9 per cent in 2013-14 to 5 per cent in 2015-16. The number of beneficiaries of the Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) has fallen from 428,000 in 2012-13 to 323,362 in 2015-16 (a 24.4 per cent fall). 

Agricultural Sector
The response to the Modi government’s Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) – an insurance coverage scheme for financial support to the farmers in the event of notified crop failure due to natural calamities, pests and diseases - has been positive from states like Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, which have allocated INR 1,855 million in the state budget of 2016-17.

Another scheme, the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY), was launched to increase the coverage of irrigation and improve water use efficiency. In January 2017, NITI Aayog laid out a detailed roadmap for implementation of the irrigation scheme, prioritising ongoing projects. The move is expected to fast-track PMKSY - 99 priority irrigation projects and 21 projects with a total irrigation potential of 5.22 lakh hectares were expected to be completed by June 2017 (data yet to be released). 

Under the e-National Agriculture Market (e-NAM), the government also aims to link 585 (so far 417 markets from 13 states have been integrated) regulated agri-markets across the country to increase agricultural output and reduce productions costs.

Despite the many initiatives, India’s agri-GDP under the Modi government grew by just 1.7 per cent per annum, which is less than half of what was achieved during the final three years of the preceding UPA government (3.6 per cent). This in turn hit farmers' income and has led to an increase in demand for farm loan waivers. But a waiver is a temporary solution and it can erode credit discipline, make banks conservative towards lending to farmers and deteriorate the state's fiscal position.

Financial Institutions
The Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) (launched in August 2014) has shown impressive results - as of June 2017, 28.90 crore bank accounts have been opened with a total balance of INR 64564.09 crore in accounts. But in the haste to achieve targets, banks did not perform proper checks, leading to duplicate account holders. 

The government’s Digital India project launched in July 2015 aims to eradicate corruption by ensuring digitisation and formalisation of the economy. Although e-payments picked up after the demonetisation announcement on 8 November 2016, they declined as soon as cash was replenished. Demonetisation contracted cash supply and slowed GDP growth but bore a few benefits such as increased digitisation, greater tax compliance and reduction in real estate prices. The number of persons in the tax net has increased by 91 lakh post demonetisation.

The health of India’s banking sector remains a concern. Non Performing Assets (NPA) have been increasing and banks' asset quality has been deteriorating. As per the CARE Rating’s research report, the gross NPAs ratio of 13 public sector banks rose 143 per cent in the two-year period from March 2015 to March 2017. Only 5 of those 13 banks saw an increase of Rs 50,000 crore between March 2016 and March 2017. To combat the grim situation of NPAs, India's Ministry of Finance released an ordinance on 4 May 2017, which allows the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to enforce the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 on firms that fail to repay money borrowed from banks. Although the RBI's Internal Advisory Committee (IAC) has already identified 12 accounts of corporate borrowers (names undisclosed) for insolvency proceedings under the IBC, it will be interesting to see how the RBI will tackle the indispensable political-corporate nexus. NPAs have weakened growth in IIP because companies stuck with high debts are not keen to invest immediately even after the resolution of bad loans.

In its latest accomplishment, the government rolled out the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on 1 July 2017. Through a single tax system, the GST aims to reduce complexities and compliance cost of various taxes, lowers the tax rate and broadens the tax base, in turn increasing the tax revenue collection. However, proper implementation of the GST is crucial to prevent a setback for the economy.
 
Conclusion
Overall, through several initiatives and flagship programmes, the Modi government has been able to revive the economy and simplify the rules and procedures to initiate economic reforms in the country. However, it has failed to provide jobs, uplift the farming community and save the financial institutions from the NPAs. The government will have to structurally address these concerns of the economy.

Nuclear Power’s Annus Horribilus

JIM GREEN

This year will go down with 1979 (Three Mile Island), 1986 (Chernobyl) and 2011 (Fukushima) as one of the nuclear industry’s worst ever ‒ and there’s still another six months to go. Two of the industry’s worst-ever years have been in the past decade. There will be many more bad years ahead as the trickle of closures of ageing reactors becomes a flood ‒ the International Energy Agency expects almost 200 reactor closures between 2014 and 2040. The likelihood of reactor start-ups matching closures over that time period has become vanishingly small.
In January, the World Nuclear Association anticipated 18 power reactor start-ups this year. The projection has been revised down to 14 and even that seems more than a stretch. There has only been one reactor start-up in the first half of the year according to the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System, and two permanent reactor closures.
The number of power reactors under construction is on a downward trajectory ‒ 59 reactors are under construction as of May 2017, the first time since 2010 that the number has fallen below 60.
Pro-nuclear journalist Fred Pearce wrote on May 15: “Is the nuclear power industry in its death throes? Even some nuclear enthusiasts believe so. With the exception of China, most nations are moving away from nuclear ‒ existing power plants across the United States are being shut early; new reactor designs are falling foul of regulators, and public support remains in free fall. Now come the bankruptcies. … The industry is in crisis. It looks ever more like a 20th century industrial dinosaur, unloved by investors, the public, and policymakers alike. The crisis could prove terminal.”
USA: The most dramatic story this year has been the bankruptcy filing of US nuclear giant Westinghouse on March 29. Westinghouse’s parent company Toshiba states that there is “substantial doubt” about Toshiba’s “ability to continue as a going concern”. These nuclear industry giants have been brought to their knees by cost overruns ‒ estimated at US$13 billion ‒ building four AP1000 power reactors in the U.S.
The nuclear debate in the US is firmly centred on attempts to extend the lifespan of ageing, uneconomic reactors with state bailouts. Financial bailouts by state governments in New York and Illinois are propping up ageing reactors, but a proposed bailout in Ohio is meeting stiff opposition. The fate of Westinghouse and its partially-built AP1000 reactors are much discussed, but there is no further discussion about new reactors ‒ other than to note that they won’t happen.
Six reactors have been shut down over the past five years in the US, and another handful will likely close in the next five years. So how far and fast will nuclear fall? Exelon ‒ the leading nuclear power plant operator in the US ‒ claims that “economic and policy challenges threaten to close about half of America’s reactors” in the next two decades. According to pro-nuclear lobby group ‘Environmental Progress‘, almost one-quarter of US reactors are at high risk of closure by 2030, and almost three-quarters are at medium to high risk. In May, the US Energy Information Administration released an analysis projecting nuclear’s share of the nation’s electricity generating capacity will drop from 20 percent to 11 percent by 2050.
There are different views about how far and fast nuclear will fall in the US ‒ but fall it will. And there is no dispute that many plants are losing money. More than half of the country’s reactors are losing money, racking up losses totalling about US$2.9 billion a year according to a recent analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. And a separate Bloomberg report found that expanding state aid to money-losing reactors across the eastern US may leave consumers on the hook for as much as US$3.9 billion a year in higher power bills.
Japan: Fukushima clean-up and compensation cost estimates have doubled and doubled again and now stand at US$191 billion (€167 billion). An analysis by the Japan Institute for Economic Research estimates that the total costs for decommissioning, decontamination and compensation could be far higher at US$443‒620 billion (€389‒544 billion).
Only five reactors are operating in Japan as of July 2017, compared to 54 before the March 2011 Fukushima disaster. The prospects for new reactors are bleak. Japan has given up on its Monju fast breeder reactor ‒ successive governments wasted US$10.6 billion (€9.3 billion) on Monju and decommissioning will cost another US$2.7 billion (€2.3 billion).
As mentioned, Toshiba is facing an existential crisis due to the crippling debts of its subsidiary Westinghouse. Toshiba announced on May 15 that it expects to report a consolidated net loss of US$8.4 billion (€7.4 billion) for the 2016‒2017 financial year which ended March 31.
Hitachi is backing away from its plan to build two Advanced Boiling Water Reactors in Wylfa, Wales. Hitachi recently said that if it cannot attract partners to invest in the project before construction is due to start in 2019, the project will be suspended.
Hitachi recently booked a massive loss on a failed investment in laser enrichment technology in the US. A 12 May 2017 statement said the company had posted an impairment loss on affiliated companies’ common stock of US$1.66 billion (€1.46 billion) for the fiscal year ended 31 March 2017, and “the major factor” was Hitachi’s exit from the laser enrichment project. Last year a commentator opined that “the way to make a small fortune in the uranium enrichment business in the U.S. is to start with a large one.”
France: The French nuclear industry is in its “worst situation ever” according to former EDF director Gérard Magnin. France has 58 operable reactors and just one under construction.
French EPR reactors under construction in France and Finland are three times over budget ‒ the combined cost overruns for the two reactors amount to about US$14.5 billion (€12.7 billion).
Bloomberg noted in April 2015 that Areva’s EPR export ambitions are “in tatters“. Now Areva itself is in tatters and is in the process of a government-led restructure and another taxpayer-funded bailout. On March 1, Areva posted a €665 million net loss for 2016. Losses in the preceding five years exceeded €10 billion.
In February, EDF released its financial figures for 2016: earnings and income fell and EDF’s debt remained steady at €37.4 billion. EDF plans to sell €10 billion of assets by 2020 to rein in its debt, and to sack up to 7,000 staff. The French government provided EDF with €3 billion in extra capital in 2016 and will contribute €3 billion towards a €4 billion capital raising this year. On March 8, shares in EDF hit an all-time low a day after the €4 billion capital raising was launched; the share price fell to €7.78, less than one-tenth of the high a decade ago.
Costs of between €50 billion and €100 billion will need to be spent by 2030 to meet new safety requirements for reactors in France and to extend their operating lives beyond 40 years.
EDF has set aside €23 billion to cover reactor decommissioning and waste management costs in France ‒ just less than half of the €54 billion that EDF estimates will be required. A recent report by the French National Assembly’s Commission for Sustainable Development and Regional Development concluded that there is “obvious under-provisioning” and that decommissioning and waste management will take longer, be more challenging and cost much more than EDF anticipates.
In 2015, concerns about the integrity of some EPR pressure vessels were revealed, prompting investigations that are still ongoing. Last year, the scandal was magnified when the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) announced that Areva had informed it of “irregularities in components produced at its Creusot Forge plant.” The problems concern documents attesting to the quality of parts manufactured at the site. At least 400 of the 10,000 quality documents reviewed by Areva contained anomalies. Work at the Creusot Forge foundry was suspended in the wake of the scandal and Areva is awaiting ASN approval to restart the foundry.
French Environment and Energy Minister Nicolas Hulot said on June 12 that the Government plans to close some nuclear reactors to reduce nuclear’s share of the country’s power mix. “We are going to close some nuclear reactors and it won’t be just a symbolic move,” he said.
India: Nuclear power accounts for just 3.4 percent of electricity supply in India and that figure will not rise significantly, if at all. In May, India’s Cabinet approved a plan to build 10 indigenous pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWR). That decision can be read as an acknowledgement that plans for six Westinghouse AP1000 reactors and six French EPR reactors are unlikely to eventuate.
The plan for 10 new PHWRs faces major challenges. Suvrat Raju and M.V. Ramana noted: “[N]uclear power will continue to be an expensive and relatively minor source of electricity for the foreseeable future. … The announcement about building 10 PHWRs fits a pattern, often seen with the current government, where it trumpets a routine decision to bolster its “bold” credentials. Most of the plants that were recently approved have been in the pipeline for years. Nevertheless, there is good reason to be sceptical of these plans given that similar plans to build large numbers of reactors have failed to meet their targets, often falling far short.”
South Africa: An extraordinary High Court judgement on April 26 ruled that much of South Africa’s nuclear new-build program is without legal foundation. The High Court set aside the Ministerial determination that South Africa required 9.6 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear capacity, and found that numerous bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements were unconstitutional and unlawful. President Jacob Zuma is trying to revive the nuclear program, but it will most likely be shelved when Zuma leaves office in 2019 (if he isn’t removed earlier). Energy Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi said on June 21 that South Africa will review its nuclear plans as part of its response to economic recession.
South Korea: South Korea’s new President Moon Jae-in said on June 19 that his government will halt plans to build new nuclear power plants and will not extend the lifespan of existing plants beyond 40 years. President Moon said: “We will completely re-examine the existing policies on nuclear power. We will scrap the nuclear-centred polices and move toward a nuclear-free era. We will eliminate all plans to build new nuclear plants.”
Since the presidential election on May 9, the ageing Kori-1 reactor has been permanently shut down, work on two partially-built reactors (Shin Kori 5 and 6) has been suspended pending a review, and work on two planned reactors (Shin-Hanul 3 and 4) has been stopped.
Taiwan: Taiwan’s Cabinet reiterated on June 12 the government’s resolve to phase out nuclear power. The government remains committed to the goal of decommissioning the three operational nuclear power plants as scheduled and making Taiwan nuclear-free by 2025, Cabinet spokesperson Hsu Kuo-yung said.
UK: Tim Yeo, a former Conservative politician and now a nuclear industry lobbyist with New Nuclear Watch Europe, said the compounding problems facing nuclear developers in the UK “add up to something of a crisis for the UK’s nuclear new-build programme.” The lobby group noted delays with the EPR reactor in Flamanville, France and the possibility that those delays would flow on to the two planned EPR reactors at Hinkley Point; the lack of investors for the proposed Advanced Boiling Water Reactors at Wylfa; the acknowledgement by the NuGen consortium that the plan for three AP1000 reactors at Moorside faces a “significant funding gap”; and the fact that the Hualong One technology which China General Nuclear Power Corporation hopes to deploy at Bradwell in Essex has yet to undergo its generic design assessment.
The only reactor project with any momentum in the UK is Hinkley Point, based on the French EPR reactor design. The head of one of Britain’s top utilities said on June 19 that Hinkley Point is likely to be the only nuclear project to go ahead in the UK. Alistair Phillips-Davies, chief executive officer of SSE, an energy supplier and former investor in new nuclear plants, said: “The bottom line in nuclear is that it looks like only Hinkley Point will get built and Flamanville needs to go well for that to happen.”
There is growing pressure for the obscenely expensive Hinkley Point project to be cancelled. The UK National Audit Office report released a damning report on June 23. The Audit Office said: “The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s deal for Hinkley Point C has locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits … Today’s report finds that the Department has not sufficiently considered the costs and risks of its deal for consumers. … Delays have pushed back the nuclear power plant’s construction, and the expected cost of top-up payments under the Hinkley Point C’s contract for difference has increased from £6 billion to £30 billion.”
Writing in the Financial Times on May 26, Neil Collins said: “EDF, of course, is the contractor for that white elephant in the nuclear room, Hinkley Point. If this unproven design ever gets built and produces electricity, the UK consumer will be obliged to pay over twice the current market price for the output. … The UK’s energy market is in an unholy mess … Scrapping Hinkley Point would not solve all of [the problems], but it would be a start.”
And on it goes. Hinkley Point is one of the “great spending dinosaurs of the political dark ages” according to The Guardian. It is a “white elephant” according to an editorial in The Times.
EDF said on June 26 that it is conducting a “a full review of the costs and schedule of the Hinkley Point C project” and the results will be disclosed “soon”. On July 3, EDF announced that the estimated cost has risen by €2.5 billion (to €23.2 billion, or €30.4 billion including finance costs). In 2007, EDF was boasting that Britons would be using electricity from Hinkley to cook their Christmas turkeys in December 2017. But in its latest announcement, EDF pushes back the 2025 start-up dates for the two Hinkley reactors by 9‒15 months.
Former Ecologist editor, Oliver Tickell and Ian Fairlie wrote an obituary for Britain’s nuclear renaissance in The Ecologist on May 18. They concluded:
“[T]he prospects for new nuclear power in the UK have never been gloomier. The only way new nuclear power stations will ever be built in the UK is with massive political and financial commitment from government. That commitment is clearly absent. So yes, this finally looks like the end of the UK’s ‘nuclear renaissance’.”
Switzerland: Voters in Switzerland supported a May 21 referendum on a package of energy policy measures including a ban on new nuclear power reactors. Thus Switzerland has opted for a gradual nuclear phase out and all reactors will probably be closed by the early 2030s, if not earlier.
Germany will close its last reactor much sooner than Switzerland, in 2022.
Sweden: Unit 1 of the Oskarshamn nuclear power plant in Sweden has been permanently shut down. It was to be shut down on June 29, but an abnormal event on June 17 led to an automatic shut down and the reactor will not be restarted. Unit 2 at the same plant was permanently shut down in 2015. Ringhals 1 and 2 are expected to be shut down in 2019‒2020, after which Sweden will have just six operating power reactors.
Russia: Rosatom deputy general director Vyacheslav Pershukov said in mid-June that the world market for the construction of new nuclear power plants is shrinking, and the possibilities for building new large reactors abroad are almost exhausted. He said Rosatom expects to be able to find customers for new reactors until 2020‒2025 but “it will be hard to continue.”
China: With 36 power reactors and another 22 under construction, China is the only country with a significant nuclear expansion program. However nuclear growth could take a big hit in the event of economic downturn. And nuclear growth could be derailed by a serious accident, which is all the more likely because of China’s inadequate nuclear safety standards, inadequate regulation, lack of transparency, repression of whistleblowers, world’s worst insurance and liability arrangements, security risks, and widespread corruption.

17 Jul 2017

Turkey One Year After The Failed Coup

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Saturday there will be no mercy for traitors.
Speaking at a rally in Istanbul to mark one year of a failed coup, Erdogan warned to “chop off the heads” of traitors.
The opposition says his call for “chopping off the heads” may return the capital punishment abolished in August 2002, in a bid to join the European Union.
Erdogan said that he would approve “without any hesitation” any legislation that would reinstate capital punishment in Turkey.
“I spoke to the prime minister and […] when they appear in court, let’s make them appear in uniform suits like in Guantanamo,” Erdogan added. “Nobody who betrays this nation can remain unpunished.”
On his part, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim called the coup attempt a dark moment for Turkey, with deadly clashes between the people and rogue military forces. “It has been exactly one year since Turkey’s darkest and longest night was transformed into a bright day, since an enemy occupation turned into the people’s legend,” he said.
“Our people did not leave sovereignty to their enemies and took hold of democracy to the death,” he went on, as Erdogan and members of opposition parties looked on. “These monsters will surely receive the heaviest punishment they can within the law.”
Deep-lying tensions
Beyond the groundswell of nationalism, the coup’s greatest legacy has been the far-reaching purge on multiple sectors of Turkish society.
About 150,000 people have been sacked or suspended from jobs in the civil service and private sector. More than 50,000 have been detained for alleged links to the putsch.
A fresh wave of firings came on Friday, when the government announced it had dismissed another 7,000 police, civil servants and academics for suspected links to the US-based Muslim cleric Fatullah Gulen it blames for the putsch.
Western governments and human rights groups have repeatedly criticized the purge which has taken place following the coup as well as the conduct of the referendum voting.
President Erdogan and his supporters have spoken of “foreign hands” behind the coup plot. Western governments, they charge, had been slow in condemning the coup against a democratically elected government, waiting to see which side won.
Interestingly, hundreds of thousands gathered at a protest rally in Istanbul last Sunday, July 9. Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), who had headed a 25-day, 425 km (265 mile) “justice march” from Ankara to Istanbul, to protest the detention of a CHP lawmaker. He declared it was a “rebirth for us, for our country and our children”.
Critics, including rights groups and some Western governments, say that Erdogan is using the state of emergency introduced after the coup to target opposition figures including rights activists, pro-Kurdish politicians and journalists.
The pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) was represented by its deputy chairman as the party’s two co-leaders are in jail – as are local members of rights group Amnesty International and nearly 160 journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Over 11,000 cases filed against FETÖ members in Ankara
The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office has launched more than 11,000 cases against suspected members of Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) probe in Ankara since last year’s defeated coup in Turkey, the office announced on Saturday.
The 11,325 cases were against suspects accused of “attempting to stage a coup” and “being a leader or a member in armed terror group”. Among the total 57,567 suspects, 9,271 were arrested as part of investigations into FETÖ.
FETÖ is also behind a long-running campaign to overthrow the state through the infiltration of Turkish institutions, particularly the military, police, and judiciary, according to the Anadolu news agency.
Turkey urges world to take FETÖ threat seriously
The Turkish Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee has urged countries around the world to take the Fetullah Terrorist Organization’s (FETÖ) threat seriously as Turkey marks the first anniversary of the deadly July 15 defeated coup.
In a letter sent to foreign affairs committees of parliaments world over where Turkey has a representative office, the Turkish committee’s chairman Taha Özhan warned his foreign counterparts to not believe that FETÖ is a threat just for Turkey.
He said FETÖ members’ failure in Turkey does not entail their failure in other countries. The letter called for supporting the Turkish people and the state in its fight against FETÖ.
The letter described FETÖ as “the new age terrorist organization,” and reminded that FETO members coordinated operations in 173 countries, which poses a clear threat to the whole world.
“Following the July 15 coup attempt, more than 20 countries heeded the call of Turkey and showed their support to this just cause by closing down FETÖ schools within their jurisdictions and transferring the administration of the school to Turkey with the aim of barring the terrorist organization from the human and financial resources.”
Özhan said many countries remained unaware of the danger. “They are yet to thoroughly analyze the political psychology of the terrorist organization and uncover their insidiousness through investigative journalism,” he said.
OIC backs Turkey on 1st coup anniversary
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has underlined support for Turkey on the first anniversary of a failed coup attempt. In a statement on Saturday, the OIC reiterated its condemnation of the failed coup, launched last year by rogue elements within the military that martyred 250 people and injured nearly 2,200 others.
According to the Turkish government, the Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) and its U.S.-based leader Fetullah Gülen orchestrated the defeated coup. FETÖ is behind a long-running campaign to overthrow the state through the infiltration of Turkish institutions, particularly the military, police, and judiciary.
OIC Secretary General Yousef Al-Othaimeen recalled that the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers had adopted a resolution in October 2016 that showed the OIC’s full solidarity with Turkey in their fight against FETÖ.

Militarising Civilian Life: Australia, Policing And Terrorism

Binoy Kampmark

It is far from unusual in recent times: a spate of terrorist activity, followed by police seemingly agog, then the call for cavalry, usually in the form of military forces to guard vital installations and furnish the public with a reassuring presence.  Unfortunately, such moves tend to take place long after the horse has bolted, an ineffectual measure in terms of combating terrorism but pernicious in terms of dealing with distinctions policing.
Australia’s Turnbull government has promised new powers under a national security review conducted last year that will grant the Australian army powers to kill terrors suspects on sight.  This is not all: the actual militarisation of Australian police personnel is set to take place with specialists from the ADF embedded in various teams. Training from elite SAS personnel is also slated to take place.
These measures are far from reassuring, suggesting that the military aspect of policing has been given not just a jolt but a terrific heave ho.  The Prime Minister, showing he is far from mellowing in his role on the subject of defusing fear, insists on the authoritarian prerogative of streamlining and trimming the interaction between military and policing functions.  Cut the strings, the heavy bound red tape, and the world will be a safe place.
According to Malcolm Turnbull, “The overhaul will make it easier for Defence to work together with federal, state and territory police in the event of a terrorist incident.  State and territory police forces remain the best first response to terrorist incidents immediately after an attack starts.”
Distinctions between the policing element of a state, and its military, are worth having. One, working within the boundaries of the law, targets and prevents crime; the other, focuses on the defence of the realm.  These points are far from being the same thing.  But the terrorist genie, floating about with menace, has been used to render these points theoretical, which is more than just a crying shame.
In another conspicuous area, military and defence functions have been obliterated to cope with refugee and asylum seeker arrivals by boat.  Civilian functions more akin to traditional policing and processing have become the purview of the military, a move that was significantly advanced during the years of the Howard government. The signalling shot there was the deployment in August 2001 of the SAS against the Norwegian vessel, the MV Tampa.  Its apotheosis is Operation Sovereign Borders.
Theories on how the Australian military interact with policing functions are far from sophisticated.  There is, for instance, no equivalent Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 US initiative passed by a Democratic-led Congress after troops were deployed two years prior ostensibly to maintain order at various polling places in southern states.
The Democrats were convinced that the measure was designed to fix the election for Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and pushed for provisions that would limit the role of the US military in terms of operating in civilian spaces, or to “execute the laws”.
This did not mean, of course, that the PCA would not be assailed with grubby hands indifferent to civil liberties.  President Bill Clinton did his very best with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Act of 1996, part of an omnibus of crime statutes that effectively pulled the carpet of law enforcement from under the GOP law-and-order hawks.
While Clinton did not get his wish initially (the final version did not contain an abolition of Posse Comitatus in terms of working with police), the writing was left to dry on the wall.  The sheer power and pseudo-military aspects of much in current US policing has arguably rendered neat distinctions redundant.
The Australian constitution does provide for the following: “The Commonwealth shall protect every state against invasion and, on the application of the Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence.”  Once declared by the Governor-General, “Permanent Forces” may be called out, with “Emergency Forces and Reserve Forces” sought in the event that numbers are insufficient.
In the past, Australia’s military has become the fall-back option for authorities, called upon as a grand clearing house to supply substitute civilian functions.  At points, the authorities in Canberra have been cautious to blend military matters with civilian disputes.
In 1997, the National Farmers Federation urged Prime Minister John Howard to use troops to forcibly “reform” the waterfront and keep the docks running during a strike.  “I don’t contemplate,” came Howard’s response, “the use of the military in civilian disputes. I’ve never advocated the use of troops.”
The NFF’s request was perhaps understandable, given that a Labor prime minister, Bob Hawke, had used military personnel and material to replace lost manpower during the famed wage dispute of Australian pilots in 1989.
What is being contemplated in these new measures by Turnbull is the deployment of lethal measures and military control over civilian spaces.  The ADF, as with other military arms, can provide heavy lifting in the event of natural disaster, emergencies and the like, but deploying it as a de facto police force is setting a vicious cat amongst the pigeons.
Conflating police and military functions is not only an insidious overreach, but blurs assumptions about justice and law enforcement.  As a US federal court put it, “Military personnel must be trained to operate under circumstances where the protection of constitutional freedoms cannot receive the consideration needed in order to assure their preservation.”
Even in the absence of a Posse Comitatus provision in Australia, the tendency to throw the book of evidence and prosecution out and favour summary rough handling, even execution in such cases, is genuine.  In this sense, the Australian government risks pushing its domestic arena further down the pathway of a militarisation with grave consequences.

Australian government shuts off power to refugees imprisoned on Manus Island

Max Newman

At the Australian-run detention centre on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea (PNG), asylum seekers are being forced into worsening living conditions, including the disconnection of electricity. The Australian government is seeking to force them into a less secure facility, from where they will be dumped in PNG to live in impoverished conditions.
Buzzfeed News obtained information and photos from the Manus refugees, showing the destruction of the basic facilities. On June 23, the gym was shut down and the equipment removed by the local police. The gym had helped detainees deal with their mental health problems and sleep better.
Parts of the camp have been demolished and the Internet facility was taken away, leaving mobile phones as the only connection to the outside world for the detainees.
An Iranian refugee Amir Taghinia told Buzzfeed the authorities were “making the food quality much more undesirable than before.” Meals were being served uncooked and “raw.” Food supplies were also being cut, so that detainees at the end of the line might not eat.
English classes had been cancelled for more than four weeks, leaving detainees with little to do during the day. Those interviewed said these measures were “deliberate” to “provoke the guys” and force them to move to the East Lorengau Refugee Transit Centre (ELRTC) near Lorengau, the island’s major town.
Behrouz Boochani, a Kurdish-Iranian journalist imprisoned on Manus Island, said: “Two weeks ago some other refugees left Foxtrot [part of the existing compound] and went to the rooms which were part of the old medical clinic but they could not stay there because immigration cut the power and they were homeless for a few days.”
Boochani said when the refugees asked the guards and officials for a place to stay, “they say you must go to East Lorengau camp. East Lorengau is close to the local community and means the refugees would be forced to live in PNG.”
Many of the refugees fear living in Lorengau. There have been reports of detainees visiting Lorengau being beaten, robbed or abused by local people, due to hostility whipped up by local and PNG authorities. A detainee was recently attacked with a machete and had to have emergency medical treatment in Port Moresby, the PNG capital.
The move to Lorengau is an attempt by the Australian government to force the detainees to either languish indefinitely in PNG or return to the countries they fled, regardless of the dangers. The ELRTC is designed to house only 280 men, not the well over 800 in the old facility.
The existing centre’s closure was announced last August by the Australian government, four months after the PNG Supreme Court ruled that it violated international law and the PNG constitution, which bans the unlawful deprivation of personal liberty.
At first the Australian government defied the ruling, insisting that the asylum seekers remain detained. Last November, Immigration and Border Protection Minister Peter Dutton said those imprisoned would be “resettled” in PNG, returned to their country of origin or transferred to the US under the refugee swap deal negotiated with the Obama administration.
This swap deal has since been used to try to coerce the detainees into compliance with their shift to Lorengau. A notice posted at the detention centre declared: “If you refuse to move to the ELRTC or ignore other directions given to you, your failure to cooperate will be noted. US authorities will take your history of behaviour into account when deciding whether to offer you an opportunity to resettle in the US.”
US Homeland Security officials have been conducting “extreme vetting” interviews that lasted up to six hours, with in-depth questions on associates, family, friends and any interactions with alleged terrorists. Hundreds of detainees have been interviewed and a few dozen reportedly completed the third and final stage of medical checks.
Now it seems that no detainees will be accepted this year, if ever. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump reduced America’s annual refugee intake from 110,000 to 50,000 as part of a broader immigration crackdown, and that cap has been reached, the US State Department told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Behrouz Boochani told Australia’s Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) detainees had seen the US deal as their only hope. “They are confused and the people are broken at the centre,” he said. “They don’t trust anyone. They don’t trust the US deal but are doing it as they have no choice.”
The uncertainty adds to the bitter disappointment among the refugees over last month’s $70 million out-of-court settlement by the Australian government for hundreds of detainees, which left them with average payouts of only $35,000 for years of unlawful detention and abuses.
Pakistani refugee Naeem told SBS: “Money cannot [give me] back the four years of my life that I have lost, without committing any crime.”
Australian Greens immigration spokesman Senator Nick McKim said the asylum seekers on Manus are being “smoked out” through bullying tactics. “If the worst happens and violence again flares up, it will be because of the choices [immigration minister] Peter Dutton has made.”
McKim’s attempt to posture as a defender of the detainees is a sham. It was the minority Labor government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, kept in office by the Greens, that reopened the Manus Island detention camp in 2012.

China establishes military base in Djibouti

Peter Symonds 

Two Chinese naval vessels set sail from the southern Chinese port of Zhangiang last week with an undisclosed number of military personnel, including marines, for Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa where China is establishing its first overseas military base.
Djibouti, the former French colony known as French Somaliland, is strategically located adjacent to the narrow Bab el-Mandeb Strait that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea—one of the world’s busiest and most important shipping routes.
China will join the US, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain and soon Saudi Arabia in maintaining a permanent military presence in Djibouti. Since 2012, the Chinese navy has been part of the international anti-piracy force that has patrolled the seas off neighbouring Somalia alongside warships from a host of other countries, including the US, many European powers, Japan and India.
Beijing has been at pains to downplay the military deployment. The state-owned Xinhua newsagency declared that the Djibouti base would perform a variety of functions, including “military cooperation, joint exercises, evacuating and protecting overseas Chinese and emergency rescue, as well as maintaining security of international strategic seaways.”
Global Times editorial last week highlighted the importance of the new facility, stressing that it was a military, not a commercial, base that “can support the Chinese navy to go farther, so it means a lot.” At the same time, after pointing to the navy’s anti-piracy and so-called humanitarian functions, it emphatically declared: “It’s not about seeking to control the world.”
The last remark indicates the sensitivity in Beijing to criticism of China’s rapidly expanding economic presence in Africa—both within Africa and by various pundits voicing the concerns of rival powers, above all the United States.
The Chinese military base in Djibouti is dwarfed by the global network of American bases and alliances that enables Washington to project military force anywhere in the world. This military infrastructure has underpinned US-led wars of aggression over the past quarter century in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Nevertheless, Beijing’s decision to play a more active military role in Africa does signal a shift in policy, which was triggered in particular by the debacle for China of the US-led military intervention in Libya in 2011. The US and European bombing of Libya compelled China to mount the long-distance evacuation of more than 35,000 Chinese citizens for which it was not prepared.
The ousting of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi compromised billions of dollars of Chinese investment and virtually ended China’s efforts to secure oil supplies from the North African country. At the same time, China was in no position militarily to further its interests by joining in the US-led assault on the regime and therefore sharing in the spoils.
The subsequent debate in Chinese ruling circles has resulted in a shift away from the longstanding policy of “non-interference” that has served Chinese capitalism in establishing economic ties in Africa and around the world. Beijing provided investment, loans and other forms of assistance to countries without regard for so-called “human rights” that the US and European powers have exploited to further their own interests in the region.
The Chinese military dispatched its first contingent of combat troops overseas as part of the UN peacekeeping force in South Sudan where China has significant interests in securing oil supplies. China now has 750 UN peacekeepers in South Sudan and more than 2,000 troops in Africa as a whole, including in Liberia and Mali.
A European Council on Foreign Relations report noted that in 2015 Chinese President Xi Jinping committed 8,000 troops to the UN peacekeeping standby force—one fifth of the total of 40,000 troops committed by 50 countries. It has also promised $100 million to help fund the African Union standby force.
China’s military involvement in Africa takes place amid rising geo-political rivalry that threatens its considerable investment in, and trade with, Africa. China’s massive manufacturing industries rely heavily on Africa for raw materials, especially energy and strategic minerals, which, in turn, bring Beijing into competition with the major existing powers that have dominated the continent.
Speaking at the National People’s Congress in March, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi justified the establishment of the Djibouti “support base” by pointing to China’s interests that “are constantly expanding overseas” and involve “30,000 Chinese enterprises all over the world.” While declaring that China was not “pursue hegemony,” he declared that the military base was “not only reasonable, but also in line with international practice.”
China’s economic interests in Africa are huge and growing. Figures cited by the Financial Times last month showed that China-Africa trade had risen from $10 billion in 2000 to $220 billion in 2014—a 20-fold increase. Over the same period, China’s cumulative foreign direct investment in the continent rose from 2 percent of the US total to 55 percent. China now contributes one sixth of all lending to Africa.
Beijing has already incorporated Africa in its ambitious One Belt, One Road plans that will link the continent into the network of ports, rail, road and communications proposed to integrate the Eurasian landmass and consolidate ties between China and Europe. There are an estimated one million Chinese citizens in Africa engaged in various business enterprises and working on a variety of infrastructure projects, including rail links and port facilities.
The establishment of a military base in Djibouti is clearly a first step in protecting Chinese economic and strategic interests not only in Africa, but the Middle East and more broadly. In addition to the emergency withdrawal of Chinese nationals from Libya in 2011, Beijing has also had to evacuate its citizens from Yemen following the escalation of the Saudi-led military intervention, backed by the US, in that country.
An extensive article in the New York Times in February reflected that concerns in American military and intelligence circles that China’s new base could compromise the major US base in Djibouti. Analyst Gabriel Collins told the newspaper: “It’s like having a rival football team using an adjacent practice field. They can scope out some of your plays.” The article also speculated that Chinese financial aid to Djibouti might undermine Washington’s own position in the country and the region.
In a visit to the US base earlier this year, head of the Pentagon’s Africa Command, General Thomas Waldhauser, stressed that “this particular piece of geography is very, very important to our strategic interests.” Camp Lemonnier, the only permanent American military base in Africa, was established as part of the “war on terror” following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the
US. It houses some 4,000 personnel and is used by naval warships, as well as to carry out drone killings and mount special forces operations across the region.
The presence of Chinese military personnel in Djibouti underscores the geo-political rivalry that is deepening in response to Washington’s militarism and wars to secure its dominance in key strategic regions and across the globe.