The Pathway to Repair the Tapestry That Kashmir Once Was

Nyla Ali Khan

Given the highly volatile situation in Kashmir, millenials or the Net Generation in the state are unable to employ effective strategies to successfully resolve issues that they are invested in; they lack access to their representatives/ legislators/ decision-makers in order to implement their recommendations; and they lack the space to reflect on their strategies, challenges, the processes of negotiation, dialogue, and accommodation required to reach some kind of fruition.

In the current situation, the local community is unable to exercise any clout and is unable to think constructively about structural change. Politics is an abstract notion for the young people in our state, and not a concrete method to bring about long-term reforms, which younger generations could build on.

Unfortunately, once the government of a federal country and its appendages become centrist and integrationist, they insidiously insert themselves into political structures and organizations in states, which is the reason that the new breed of politicians in J & K no longer feels the need to establish its credibility through ideology, conviction, perseverance, and working for the well-being of their electorate. Instead, they become complacent and rule with carte blanche, which is why electoral politics has been stigmatized.

In politics, the only viable way is forward, not a constant looking back. And policies and methods must be revisited, revised, and readjusted not just by mainstream politicians, but by separatist politicians as well in order to meet today’s needs.

Do we require the resuscitation of a concrete political ideology, which bridges divides, as opposed to the deification of martyrdom in the murky conflictual world of politics in Jammu and Kashmir (J & K)? Has the Government of India been assiduously working to engage young people in Jammu and Kashmir (J & K) in the processes of democracy, to acquire skills and knowledge that would enable them to effectively participate in decision-making and political processes, to recognize the importance of standing up and being counted as well as the value of the vote? Is there a recognition of action civics in the higher echelons of power at the federal and state levels when it comes to facilitating the growth of political processes in Kashmir? Several attempts to deconstruct the political fabric of Kashmir have been made by academics, scholars, and ideologues of various hues, but, it is high time we move beyond social commentary, demythologizing, and decanonizing to the revival of transformative progressive politics. I consider it a lot more significant to facilitate bringing about much needed systemic and structural changes in conflict ridden, politically and socio-economically decrepit polities in South Asia, like J & K. It is important for the civilian population of J & K to engage with the various political organizations, mainstream and separatist, in the State in order to evolve a solution that would facilitate nation-building.

More than mobocracy, kangaroo courts, lynchings, and panaceas, we need a return to the rule of law and the process of internal political dialogue. It is all very well to raise the slogans of self-determination, autonomy, and self-rule, but it is time to think beyond sloganeering about the kind of social and political fabric we want to create for younger generations. Sloganeering that is devoid of a clear blueprint for nation-building remains hollow, and, eventually, becomes defunct. In order to prevent further fragmentation of our social fabric, regional political parties, mainstream as well as separatist, of diverse religious and ideological leanings, must create the pathway to repair the tapestry that Kashmir once was and give the younger generation hope for the future.

There is a large section of the populace of Jammu and Kashmir that is still ecumenical; a large section of the populace that would still veer away from the forces of radicalization or any kind of monocultural identity.

When excesses—military, religious, and/ or political are not curbed, they have terrible long term damaging effects. And when religion and politics are conflated, especially self-determination, that is a problem.

Of course as responsible citizens, we need to hold up a mirror to the state government as well as to the federal government and we can do that more easily because they are accountable to us in a democratic setup, more accountable than militant organizations are—but human right violations on both sides need to be highlighted, need to be showcased.

Future Is The Son Of The Past, Dear Russia!

Ashish Kumar Singh

It is almost certain that Vladimir Putin will continue to be in office as elections in Russia are about to be held. Things have changed for Russia after the collapse of the USSR. Still, there are a lot of things which seems to be the same as they were. An article by Anders Åslund (Anders, A (2001). Russia. Foreign Policy, No. 125 (Jul. – Aug., 2001), pp. 20-25) needs our attention. He tried to portray the situations of then Russia; which like any other growing economy needed an overhaul. Russia was no longer following the communist traditions with wounds and ghosts (or legacy) of the past but then, it is not perceived as a democratic nation even today. Yes of course, one could debate on what is good or bad for Russia, but Åslund provided an interesting analysis. To be frank, I am not sure if personally I would agree with everything presented in the article, it is still worth reading, discussing and keeping in mind. While reading it, let’s not forget that it was published back in 2001.

The article presents various examples and arguments to portray the economic situation of the then USSR, which is now a growing economy. In doing so, it analyses some of the conceptions about Russia as an Economic Superpower, brings in facts from the soviet era and questions (as well as contradicts) the western belief about Russia as a declining economy.

As opposed to the western understanding, the author argues that the Russian economy has not collapsed, instead it is showing a slow progress. During the communist period in order to achieve the goals there were exaggeration of data; and information was manipulated. The quality of products was also not good. However, post-communism trends are showing different patterns.

There is a slow economic growth, and Russia is picking up with the global economic shifts with its GDP being 5.4 percent in 1999 to 8.3 percent in 2000. The author writes further that all the problems of modern day Russian economy, be it excessive state intervention, corruption, high tax rates, lingering inflation, or limited rule of law are due to the fact that there were no sufficient measures taken to change the system. Countries like Poland and Estonia took more stringent actions and have achieved better results. Russia needed to take even stricter and radical actions in order to perform better.

Furthermore, the article presents GDP data to show that privatization has not created corruption in Russia, on the contrary it has helped the economy grow. Since 1997, Russia’s private sector has created around 70 percent of the country’s GDP. Corruption in Russia is not due to the privatization, as it (privatization) permanently deprives public servants of public property. The main reasons for corruption in Russia are related to the law enforcement, tax collection, and state intervention. The author continues by giving cases of Poland and Ukraine to show how both the countries adapted privatization with slower pace than Russia and achieved different results because of the reform policies they implemented simultaneously.

There is another misconception about Russia that it cannot collect taxes. The author says that this information is incorrect. Russia is a different type and size of economy than United States, former Soviet Union or Western Europe. The tax rates were different in Russia and now have been changed to 13 percent flat. By presenting the discussions on International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the article continues further by saying that the current tax rates are a good step for the Russian economy because it is encouraging people to pay taxes than investing in tax saving schemes. The author does not exclude the problem of lawlessness among the tax collectors.

Saying that Russia’s infrastructure is falling apart is another misinformed statement. Russia’s telecom industry, ports and aviation industries are growing. Privatization has only increased its speed. There are challenges of maintenance remain, that are mostly caused by the state monopoly. Russia like any other country doesn’t need more foreign direct investment (FDI) but more exports and more domestic investments according to the author. Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic used different mechanisms to attract FDI, and have shown different results. Russia has problems of excessive bureaucracy and corrupt law enforcement which needs to be changed to achieve a better economic growth.

Talking about the health sector in Russia, the author reiterates that although the statistics do not favour Russia the situation is not pessimistic. Russia’s population growth has declined, so has of the Western Europe. The trends of life expectancy are similar to that of East Slavic and Baltic countries. The investment in the health sector has increased and accessibility to healthcare has also increased. Some of the challenges such as low salaries, low efficiency, bribery are carried forward by the systems of the past and need reform. AIDS, TB are new epidemics which need attention by the health service decision makers.

Contradicting the popular Western belief that Russia has been a black hole for Western aid, the author says that Russia has been given lesser aid than it was announced. Most of this aid was spent on western consultants, who helped formulating new economic reforms possible for Russia. The west particularly the United States should be thankful to Yeltsin and Gorbachev. The articles adds further by saying that if more had been given early on, much more could have been attained.

The author argues that many Russians and foreigners think that Russia needs a strong leadership. However, it is not required for Russia as democracy and market reform are positively correlated. As per Anders, the disregard for democracy and repression of the press are(were) main challenges Russia faces today.

As human beings, some nation states learn from mistakes of others and some only from their own. Russia has experienced both. From the time of publication of the article there has been many changes in the Russian economy in almost each dimension presented by the author. Undoubtedly, as it said in Timor Leste future is the son of the past. There is a lot to learn and to do. Let us hope for a better future for Russia and its people.

Bullied Relations: Australia, East Timor And Natural Resources

Binoy Kampmark

“The Commission instead opted for the easiest way out, which is a shame as in my perception it reveals a lack of impartiality on your behalf!”

Chief East Timorese negotiator, Xanana Gusmão, Feb 28, 2018

In the scheme of things, Australia has deputised as regional bully for imperial powers since it became an outpost of the British empire.  Neighbouring states have been ridiculed, mocked and derided as sub-human and incapable.  The term “failed state” is still used in Canberra’s circles of presupposing power over desperate basket cases.  Little wonder that China smells a wounded reputation.

It is in that spirit that signing of an agreement between Australia and East Timor to demarcate maritime borders took place.  Officially, there were smiles, even a sense of back slapping.  The March 7 press release from Foreign Minister Julie Bishop conveys the moment of false elevation:

“The treaty is a historic agreement that opens a new chapter in our bilateral relationship.  It establishes permanent maritime boundaries between our countries and provides for the joint development and management of the Great Sunrise gas fields.”

The story behind the rubbing and flesh pressing was more questioning.  The countries had, after all, reached this point after allegations of espionage threatened to scupper talks.  Those allegations pertained to efforts on the part of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service to spy on East Timorese delegates during negotiations of the 2006 CMATS (Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea).  Where the division of revenue is concerned – in that case, the Greater Sunrise gas field in the Timor Sea – the spooks will follow.

The central points of historic contention between the states remain traditional: natural resources and how best to harness them.  Neither could quite agree on who should have access to oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea.  The political imbroglio had its genesis in the 1989 Timor Gap Treaty signed between Australia and Indonesia when President Suharto’s kleptocracy, not to mention brutal suppression of East Timor, were deemed acceptable matters of realpolitik.

The subsequent liberation of East Timor left the fledgling state in a parlous, near-death state.  Indonesia and Australia continued to share the resources of the Timor Gap in gluttonous merriment till the signing of the Timor Sea Treaty.  The document had one glaring flow: the lack of a determined permanent maritime border.  CMATS, which East Timor duly tore up, permitted an equal division of revenue, but similarly postponed the discussion of a maritime border.

Central to the Timor-Leste strategy was a determination to do it by the international law book.  East Timor argued for a maritime border lying half way between it and Australia; Australia, that it follow its continental shelf.  The Permanent Court of Arbitration, and Conciliation Commissioners, were duly engaged in applying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.  Australia subsequently celebrated the outcome as “the first ever conciliation under [UNCLOS].”

While students of international law cheered the result, the political dimension proved uglier.  East Timor’s chief negotiator and all-round resistance figure Xanana Gusmão lashed Australia and the Commissioners in a letter to the Conciliation Commission.

The Commission, he argued, were ignorant on East Timorese matters.  The “chosen technical expert does not have appropriate experience or understanding from working in Timor-Leste or similar developing country contexts.”  Their assessments on “potential benefits to the Timor-Leste population” were “shockingly superficial”, a point that only advantaged Australia.

Gusmão also had another gripe: Australian negotiators had seemingly been gotten to by the extractive industry heavies, Woodside Petroleum and Conoco Philips. “Civil society could potentially perceive this as a ‘form’ of collusion between the Government of Australia and Darwin LNG Partners and/or the Sunrise J.”

That the officials of Timor-Leste should harbour obstinate suspicions is not only understandable but sagacious.  To deal with a repressive, sanguinary Indonesian military was painful enough.  But then came international knowledge about the brutal regime operating in East Timor, knowledge that came precariously close to active complicity.  Fraternal talk tends to be counterfeit in the market of geopolitics.

The 2,500 page Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor, transmitted by Gusmão, then East Timorese president, to the national parliament in November 2005 referenced hundreds of illuminating formerly classified US and British documents.  These showed tacit approval by both the US and UK for the invasion of East Timor in 1975 and the status quo till 1999, during which some 100,000 Timorese died.

There were even open instances of Indonesian officials showing interest, as a National Security Council memorandum to US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger states, “in knowing the American attitude regarding Portuguese Timor (and, by implication, our reaction to a possible Indonesian takeover).”  They were not disappointed.

As late as 2014, the Australian government would go to considerable lengths to prevent the release of files pertaining to Canberra’s knowledge of Indonesian troop deployments during the occupation.  Of particular sensitivity were operations conducted in late 1981 and early 1982 which ended in predictable massacre.  In a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal agreeing with the government, President Justice Duncan Kerr claimed with Kafkaesque absurdity that he had to “express conclusions which I am unable to explain”.

What the justice did reveal was a tantalising titbit on the regional bullying East Timor has been subjected to at the hands of murderous and occasionally complicit powers.  Evidence submitted to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade revealed a certain insistence on the part of US authorities in 2013 wanting “the Australian government to continue to restrict access to… four documents” with “ongoing sensitivities”.

East Timor remains a state on a drip. It is impoverished.  Despite all this, the Australian preference remains determined and exploitative.  The issue on where the oil and gas will be processed continues as a niggling sore point.  Canberra prefers that piping take place through Darwin, with an 80 percent revenue sweetener to East Timor.

That will hardy pass muster for Dili, which sees value in having the processing facility in East Timor, where a “petroleum hub” is being developed. To that end, it is even willing to surrender a revenue cut to Australia.  Power machinations, and Australia’s petroleum lobby, may well yet undo these arrangements. The regional bully remains renascent.

Australia: Anger erupts over privatised bus services in Newcastle

Max Newman

An estimated 1,000 people gathered at a public meeting on February 19 in the industrial city of Newcastle, two hours north of Sydney, expressing discontent and frustration over the privatisation of the city’s buses. It was standing room only, with residents spilling outside the hall.

The meeting was held just days after the New South Wales (NSW) state government announced the extension of the bus privatisation program to inner-western Sydney. It handed a major contract to private operator, Transit Systems, deepening the attack on public transport services and workers across the state.

The Newcastle meeting was organised by the opposition Labor Party, with the support of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU), in an effort to cover over their own role in the privatisation of the city’s bus service and divert the hostility of the residents toward the re-election of another pro-business Labor government.

The meeting was called after numerous complaints surfaced over a new timetable in January that resulted in a further reduction in the reliability of services. One high school student told the meeting it now takes him one hour and 50 minutes to get to school in the morning and two hours and 15 minutes to get home. Yet his school is only a 40-minute drive from his house.

Bec Cassidy, who cannot drive due to a medical condition, said that the timetable change means she will have to send her daughter to another primary school for her final year.

The promised “on-demand” bus system was also condemned. A mother with a three-month-old son said she had ordered a bus for between 9am and 9:30am, four days before an important 10am appointment. She lives outside the “on-demand” area, so had to walk 20 minutes in the rain with her son to reach the bus stop, only to receive a message at 9:02am that her bus was cancelled. It took numerous phone calls before a bus finally turned up at 9:45am.

In 2016, the state Liberal-National government awarded Keolis Downer, a joint venture between Keolis, a large French transport group, and Downer Rail, an Australian railway engineering company, a 10-year contract to run Newcastle’s buses, ferries and a proposed light rail system. The consortium has been granted similar contracts across the country.

Since Keolis Downer took over the Newcastle operations last July there has been a sharp fall in on-time services. According to the company’s own statistics, from July to November the proportion of on-time bus services dropped dramatically, from 95.24 percent to 79.08 percent. Mid-trip measurements fell from 86.92 percent to 51.93 percent.

This has particularly affected school children, university students, people with a disability and residents who cannot drive. Many people depend on the buses because Newcastle, Australia’s seventh largest city, with nearly half a million people, has only two train lines, neither of which now reaches the city centre since the state government shut the downtown line in 2014.

The first official speaker, RTBU division secretary Chris Preston, told the meeting that bus drivers had been underpaid since Keolis Downer took over. This was in reference to media reports last August of around 70 drivers being underpaid. Some were owed $200 from the previous fortnight, and others said they were underpaid $600 in a month.

“From the drivers’ point of view,” Preston said, “the company has been in for eight months and we’re still trying to get drivers paid for the hours they work.” Preston finished his speech by appealing to Keolis Downer management, declaring: “This company has to listen to the people, it has to listen to workers.”

The reality is that the trade union has played the key part in suppressing its members’ opposition to the privatisation. When the sell-off plans were announced in 2016, the RBTU released a statement saying it “cautiously welcomed” the news.

In the statement, Preston said: “It’s a great step forward for Newcastle transport workers who can now finally put a face to their future employer… We look forward to this being a positive project for the people of Newcastle and the Hunter, with smoother public transport integration and much needed revitalisation.”

The Labor Party’s claims to defend public transport are no less of a fraud. Addressing the meeting, state Labor Leader Luke Foley likened Newcastle’s public transport to that in a “third world country.” Yet he merely urged the government to conduct a “damn urgent review” of the transport system.

At the end of the meeting, Newcastle Labor MP Tim Crakanthorp proposed a motion to reject the timetable changes and call on Transport Minister Andrew Constance to conduct a review. Significantly, no call was made to oppose the bus privatisation itself.

While in office from 1996 to 2011, state Labor governments spearheaded the sale of state assets, including freight train operators and the electricity distribution network.

In 2004, Premier Bob Carr’s government commissioned a review of bus services statewide, conducted by former Labor Premier Barrie Unsworth. It recommended the expansion of private contractors, with lucrative government subsidies, in order to boost corporate profits while cutting jobs and costs.

The bus privatisations are part of a broader assault on the jobs and conditions of transport workers and the entire working class. The state government, working hand-in-glove with the RTBU, is currently trying to impose a new enterprise agreement on 9,000 NSW rail workers and Sydney train workers that will further erode basic conditions, destroy more jobs and pave the way for the contracting out of rail services.

The Newcastle meeting shows the potential for, and necessity of, a unified struggle by transport workers and passengers, and the entire working class, against this assault. That will require breaking out of the grip of the trade unions and Labor Party, which are working to continue isolating and wearing down the struggles of bus and rail workers.

Social media giants work with Indian government to censor Internet

Pradeep Ramanayake

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, working in conjunction with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Internet technology companies, is intensifying its censorship of selected websites and social media accounts.

According to recent data, 1,329 social media URLs were blocked on the recommendations of a government committee dealing with “objectionable content” during the first 11 months of 2017. That was an almost 38 percent increase on the 964 URLs blocked or removed for the whole of 2016. In 2014, 10 URLs were blocked, followed by 287 in 2015.

Attempting to justify the censorship, an internal note from India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, declared: “While social media sites are a good medium to share and exchange information, some miscreants are also using this platform to spread rumours and posting objectionable content thereby causing disturbance in the society.”

Elected in 2014, Modi’s Hindu-supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP)-led government has implemented pro-investor economic “reforms,” including privatising public sector enterprises, slashing subsidies and further opening sectors of the economy to foreign investors.

To divert the growing opposition to its big business policies, the Modi government is whipping up Hindu communalism and ultra-right chauvinist elements to be used against the working class in general, and its political opponents in particular. Extreme-right Hindu fundamentalists have been mobilised to intimidate or silence anti-government sentiment among university students.

The ministerial note’s reference to “causing disturbance in the society,” indicates that New Delhi is acutely nervous about the mounting dissent and any exposure of its promotion of Hindu communalism and complicity in the communal violence.

Facebook and other social media giants are fully cooperating with the government’s censorship demands. According to Facebook’s latest “Government Requests Report,” the government made 9,853 requests for data in the first half of 2017, a more than 30 percent increase from the 6,324 requests in the first half of 2016.

The company admitted restricting access to 1,228 pieces of content “in response to legal requests from law enforcement agencies and the India Computer Emergency Response Team within the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology” during that time.

Facebook claimed that “the majority of content restricted was alleged to violate local laws relating to defamation of religion and hate speech.” But how far Facebook jumps to the government’s political demands is indicated in the following:

* On September 26, 2017, Facebook blocked the account of journalist Mohammad Anas for 30 days after he shared a photograph of a trader’s cash memo with a message at the bottom that read: “It was our mistake to vote for the lotus [BJP’s symbol].” The post had been widely commented on and shared, another indication of the opposition to the government.

* The next day, the “Humans of Hindutva” Facebook page, which shares satirical posts criticising the government, was blocked.

* Facebook suspended the account of graphic designer and documentary film-maker Gautam Benegal in September after he shared someone else’s post, entitled: “Ways to identify a Hindutva [ideology of far-right Hindu extremism] sympathizer.” The post criticised the BJP’s promotion of Hindu extremism.

Twitter also has admitted receiving numerous requests from the government “asking it to block over 100 accounts and tweets that have been found ‘propagating objectionable content’.”

Most of these accounts were maintained by journalists, human rights activists and seemingly unaffiliated individuals. They included political criticism, and video and photographic exposures of government repression in Kashmir, the country’s only Muslim-majority state.

India’s Internet censorship is carried out via the Information Technology Act (ITA), passed in 2000. Section 69A is entitled “power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.” Under the legislation the government can censor the Internet “in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order.”

Under ITA amendments passed in 2011, Internet companies must remove content deemed “objectionable” within 36 hours of being notified by authorities. Internet café owners must photograph their customers, keep copies of client IDs and browsing histories for one year, and forward this data each month to the government.

Modi’s government has transformed India into a frontline state in Washington’s drive to militarily and diplomatically encircle and prepare for war against China. Military and intelligence ties have been strengthened with Washington. Workers, youths and rural toilers widely oppose this shift, which poses the danger of nuclear war. The government’s escalating censorship and other attacks on democratic rights seeks to suppress anti-war opposition.

Indian governments also frequently shut down public access to the Internet in parts of the country. According to internetshutdown.in, which tracks these closures, authorities cut off Internet access 70 times last year, more than double the number from 2016. Jammu & Kashmir state was subjected to the largest number of shutdowns.

These measures are part of growing attacks on democratic rights, free speech and Internet access by governments around the world.

Last July, the World Socialist Web Site revealed that Google had changed its search algorithms in order to block out left-wing, anti-war, and progressive websites.

After Burkina Faso bombing, France pledges to step up war in Sahel

Francis Dubois

Ougadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso, was shaken on March 2 by an attack by two heavily-armed commando squads on the French embassy and the headquarters of the Burkinabe army in the center of the city. For several hours, the Burkinabe army and French special forces were locked in a firefight with the assailants. According to eyewitnesses, approximately 30 people died in the attack, including 8 Burkinabe soldiers, and 85 were wounded including civilians.

A newly-formed jihadist group, the Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims (GSIM), claimed responsibility for the attack on Saturday evening, stating the attack was retaliation for French military operations Barkhane and Sabre. The French intervention has claimed the lives of 20 GSIM members in the north of Mali. The group had already claimed responsibility for the death of two French officers in the east of Mali on February 21.

“What I saw here were truly apocalyptic scenes,” said Paul Kaba Thiéba, the prime minister of Burkina Faso, after a visit to the army headquarters, which had been heavily damaged by a car bomb. He paid tribute to “the memory of our brave soldiers who fell … arms in hand.”

According to Security Minister Clément Sawadogo, “the vehicle was stuffed full of explosives, the charge was enormous” and caused “enormous damage” to the army headquarters. “There was a meeting about the G5 Sahel … maybe it was being targeted,” he declared during a press conference.

Press reports indicated that the explosion in fact destroyed a room where the G5 alliance of five Sahel countries aiding France in its war in Mali (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali) was supposed to meet. The location of the meeting was reportedly changed at the last minute.

The attack caused panic in the city, which returned to calm only late in the afternoon. The armed forces were deployed across the capital.

Whereas in the last two years, two previous terror attacks had claimed numerous victims in a restaurant and a hotel in Ouagadougou, the latest attack targeted some of the most heavily protected sites in the country.

It was aimed at the G5 armies that France is trying to build up as a “counter-terrorist force” operating across the entire Sahel region, and that Paris wants to associate to the 4,000 French troops who have for four years been in the region for Operation Barkhane, located primarily in Mali.

“We have the impression that this attack was an act of retaliation by these groups, just as [French President] Emmanuel Macron is putting pressure on the G5 Sahel to organize an offensive in the border area between Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso,” declared political commentator Antoine Glaser.

Shortly after the attack, Macron stressed his “determination and the full engagement of France, at the sides of its partners in the G5 Sahel organization, in the struggle against terrorist movements.”

After this latest attack, it was widely remarked in the press that Burkina Faso has become a terrorist target since the removal in 2014 of former President Blaise Compaoré in a French-backed putsch. Compaoré relied above all on negotiations to avoid the spread of attacks by terrorist groups in the Sahel into Burkina Faso. The former president still has many supporters inside the army, which launched a putsch in 2015 and briefly toppled the transitional government supported by Paris, which then intervened militarily to re-impose it.

GSIM was created by a merger in March 2017 between several Islamist movements including Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Ansar Dine and Al Mourabitoun, which were able to spread across the Sahel region after NATO backed Islamist militias in its 2011 war in Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. This war devastated the oil-rich country and divided it into zones dominated by rival warlords in shifting alliances with on various imperialist powers. Its consequences went on to destabilize the entire Sahel.

Libya now has become an internment zone for countless thousands of refugees who are locked up in European Union-sponsored camps in horrific conditions, tortured or even sold as slaves.

Macron’s reaction makes quite clear that Paris is preparing a new intensification of the war it has been waging across its former colonial empire with conditional assistance from Washington. This region, whose surface is as large as Europe’s, is rich in mineral and energy resources that Paris and the EU consider to be essential to the profits of European transnational corporations. This war policy led to street protests against Macron’s visit in Ouagadougou on November 27, the day before the Abidjan summit announced an intensification France’s war in the region.

Like the other European powers, Paris sees the militarization of the Sahel was an important way to stop the flood of refugees who want to cross the Mediterranean. In January, the German parliament voted to increase from 350 to 1,000 the number of German soldiers deployed to the region, making Mali the largest foreign deployment of the German army.

The army of Burkina Faso—a country of 19 million people that, like Mali and Niger, are among the 20 poorest in the world—is supposed to provide a substantial portion of the new anti-terror forces of 10,000 men that France is demanding be set up.

Last week’s terror attack in Ouagadagou underscores how the neo-colonial policy of France and the EU threatens to unleash an even greater disaster across this entire region of Africa. Its population is being offered only the choice of greater misery, losing their lives in a terror attack or being used as cannon fodder in an army unit supporting the European imperialists.

Germany: Grand coalition expands foreign operations in Afghanistan and Iraq

Johannes Stern

The incoming grand coalition government is preparing a massive expansion of Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan. No sooner had the membership of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) voted for the continuation of the government alliance with the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) than the expansion plans were announced.

On Wednesday the caretaker government decided to increase the previous upper troop limit in Afghanistan by about one-third, and send up to 1,300 soldiers to the central Asian country in future. According to reports, the Bundestag (parliament) should agree to this by the end of March.

The CDU/CSU and SPD are swiftly implementing the militarist plans they have concocted in recent weeks and months. The coalition agreement states, “We want to continue our involvement in the Resolute Support Mission (RSM) mandate in Afghanistan, with an unchanged mandate. As part of the multilaterally agreed concept of protection for northern Afghanistan, we will increase the number of soldiers deployed to protect trainers.”

The Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan is not about “concepts of protection” but about the geo-strategic and economic interests of German imperialism. “Asia’s unbroken dynamic continues to offer great opportunities for Germany and Europe. At the same time, massive changes in the international order are emerging in the region,” the coalition agreement states. “Asia harbours great potential for conflict through a multitude of unresolved conflicts. We are therefore dedicated to a strong German and European economic, social and security policy commitment in Asia.”

The SPD and CDU/CSU had already agreed on the extension of German intervention in the resource-rich Middle East in the coalition agreement. In the section on “current foreign missions” they explain, “The Bundeswehr mission in northern Iraq was successful, IS [Islamic State] has been largely pushed back there militarily. Therefore, we can phase out and end the training mandate in northern Iraq ... In a further step, we want to further develop this mandate for the comprehensive stabilization and sustainable fight against IS terror, in particular through capacity building.”

By “capacity building” the government means comprehensive and long-term military engagement throughout Iraq. The new draft mandate, which initially foresees a maximum of 800 soldiers and was also approved by the federal cabinet on Wednesday, states, “On the basis of requests from the international anti-IS coalition and the Iraqi government, NATO is currently reviewing a transformation and possible intensification of its previous involvement in training and consulting in Iraq into a training mission.”

Specifically, this concerns the training of the Iraqi army as a proxy army and lackey for imperialist interests. “The regular Iraqi armed forces and security forces need to be empowered to respond to the changing threat and thus ensure the security necessary for successful stabilization,” reads the mandate. The planned actions serve to “strengthen structures and capabilities, through the training of trainers” and “also to ensure effective political control over the security forces.”

A particularly perfidious aim of the grand coalition is the preparation of mass deportations of refugees to Iraq. The mission also “contributes to creating the basis for the return of internally displaced persons and refugees,” write the CDU/CSU and SPD in the draft mandate. At the same time, they undertake to continue the West’s brutal air warfare in Syria, which has turned hundreds of thousands into refugees.

In addition to the new Bundeswehr mission in Iraq, the German war effort in Syria should continue. This includes reconnaissance flights by German Tornados from Jordan, the refuelling of jet fighters of the so-called anti-IS coalition and the surveillance of the region using AWACS reconnaissance aircraft. Germany supports “the international coalition in the fight against IS directly by the provision of reconnaissance means,” and by doing so, “contributes to the fact that air reconnaissance over the area of operation of IS becomes all the more important the more IS operates in a concealed manner,” the mandate reads.

The government’s attempt to portray the deployment of the Bundeswehr as an “anti-terrorist operation” is pure propaganda. It is well known that the US invasion under George W. Bush in 2003 initiated the destruction of Iraq, and that IS itself was the product of the country’s subsequent occupation and of Western cooperation with Islamist militias in the regime-change wars in Libya and Syria.

While Germany had held back during the wars against Iraq and Libya, it was fully involved in the Syria war from the outset. The Bundeswehr is directly or indirectly using terrorist methods. The Peshmerga units and Iraqi forces it has trained and armed have killed tens of thousands of civilians in the so-called liberation of Mosul from ISIS, and the German Air Force supplies target coordinates for the massacres of the US-led anti-IS coalition in Syria.

Although the grand coalition is now planning to intensify the brutal and unpopular war effort, there is virtually no opposition in the Bundestag. Representatives of all parties backed the new government on Sunday and have already voted in favour of foreign deployments of the Bundeswehr in the past. If there is any criticism from the so-called opposition parties, it focuses on the orientation and concrete implementation of the new mandates.

For example, in the Frankfurter Rundschau, Green Party foreign policy spokesman Omid Nouripour said that while it was right to want to help Iraq, the mandate was “so imprecise that it is unclear how it should succeed and how parliamentary control is possible.” Tobias Pflüger, Defence Policy Spokesman of the Left Party, also complained that the mandate was unclear. “The previous cabinet draft leaves open how many soldiers should be transferred to Iraq, including the relationship of trainers and other soldiers,” said Pflüger. With such a “vague submission,” the Defence Minister leaves “everything open” and will have to “answer questions” in the Defence Committee.

Anti-Russia campaign follows alleged poisoning of former UK/Russian double agent and daughter

Robert Stevens

The British government and mass media have mounted a hysterical anti-Russian campaign centred on the still unexplained circumstances surrounding the hospitalisation of former British double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, after they were found unconscious on a bench in Salisbury on Sunday.

Initial reports Monday stated that Skripal, aged 66, may have ingested fentanyl, a synthetic opioid many times stronger than heroin, which can be fatal in small doses.

On Tuesday, the other person hospitalised was identified as Skripal’s 33-year-old daughter, Yulia, who was also said to be in a critical condition.

Skripal is a former colonel in Russia’s GRU, the military intelligence service. He spent four years in jail in Russia after being found guilty in 2006 of passing secrets to MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

Skripal served four years before being released in 2010, when he was pardoned by Russia as part of a well-publicized 10-person spy swap between the US, the UK and Russia. He moved to the UK where he has lived for the past seven years.

The pair were found unconscious and slumped on a bench near the Maltings shopping centre. Police stated that two became ill at around 13.30 p.m. Police arrived on the scene at around 16.15 p.m., after being alerted by a concerned member of the public. It was announced Wednesday that a police officer is also in critical condition after attending the incident. The Skripals visited a nearby restaurant, Zizzi’s, which was cordoned off, as well as a local pub, The Bishop's Mill.

By Tuesday, despite nothing of substance being reported by the police, the government and media had effectively declared the incident an act of terrorism, with the finger pointing at Russia’s Putin government. References to an opioid being involved were dropped, with media reports saying the government’s secret chemical lab at Porton Down was as yet unable to identify the substance. Wiltshire police announced that London’s Metropolitan Police counter-terrorist unit would be taking over the investigation.

In parliament, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson spoke about the “disturbing incident in Salisbury” and stated, “Although I am not now pointing fingers, because we cannot point fingers, I say to governments around the world that no attempt to take innocent life on UK soil will go either unsanctioned or unpunished,” He then referred to Russia as a “malign and destructive force” and warned that if Moscow were found to be involved, the government would “take whatever measures we deem necessary to protect the lives of the people in this country, our values and our freedoms.”

In another pointed reference to Russia, he stated that the case had “echoes of the death of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006”—the former officer in Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB, the successor to the KGB), who died on November 23, 2006 after having been granted asylum in Britain in 2000. The UK, backed by the US have long claimed that the Putin regime ordered the killing despite no evidence being presented in an official British inquiry in 2016—other than the presence of the radioactive substance polonium.

Johnson threatened that England could consider boycotting the soccer World Cup in Russia this summer.

Every newspaper, apart from the Financial Times, led with hysterical anti-Russian headlines . The Sun blared, “Red Spy in UK Poison Terror,” with an accompanying story referring to “fear over a Kremlin backed hit…” The Daily Mirror’s headline was “ ‘Assassins’ on British street”.

In an article in the Spectator, columnist Ed West posed the question, “Will Britain stand up to Russia?”

By the evening, despite Newsnight anchor Kirsty Wark introducing the story by saying, “so far we know nothing about what happened to them, if they were poisoned and if they were, by whom,” the BBC’s flagship news programme was dedicated to a narrative that Russia was responsible and that Skripal and his daughter were likely victims of an attack by Russia intelligence operatives.

The media have reported the deaths of Skripal’s wife, his son and his older brother as mysterious events requiring investigation. His wife died of cancer in 2012 in Britain.

The following day the Daily Telegraph asserted that “Putin swore death on poisoned Russian spy.” The Times went with “MI5 believes Russians tried to kill former spy.”

On Wednesday morning, the government convened its COBRA committee, which meets during periods of national emergencies. On Wednesday evening, Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley announced that Skripal and his daughter were subjected to an attack by a “nerve agent,” with it being classified as a case of “attempted murder.”

No information released by the authorities can be taken at face value. All reports attest that Skripal was supposedly politically inactive. He evidently did nothing to hide his identity, buying a house for £260,000 in his real name and applying to join a railway social club. He regularly bought lottery scratch cards and purchased food from a local Polish food store.

If the Putin regime were indeed set on killing Skripal and his daughter, some explanation needs to be made as to motive. Skripal’s daughter lived and worked in Russia and made regular trips back and forth.

At least one other person released from jail in Russia would appear to have been a much more likely target of the Putin regime than Skripal, if indeed its intention was to prevent anti-Russian activities. Igor Sutyagin developed into a prominent anti-Putin figure in the UK, becoming a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) defence and intelligence think-tank.

RUSI is central to the formulation of British imperialism’s anti-Russian policy. Even the Guardian’s main advocate against the Putin regime, columnist Luke Harding, was forced to acknowledge that Sutyagin “gave lectures on Vladimir Putin’s darkening state, and kept a high public profile. Skripal, by contrast, eschewed London. He settled with Liudmilla [his wife] in the comparative quiet of Wiltshire.”

Asking the question who would benefit from the deaths of Skripal and his daughter, there would appear to be no obvious reason why the Putin government would authorize such an act. Putin is currently campaigning in the last stretch of the 2018 presidential election, which takes place on March 18. He is expected to be re-elected.

Under conditions in which the NATO powers, including Britain, are seeking to utilise any pretext to justify their ongoing encirclement of Russia’s border, Putin authorising the murder of two people on the streets of the UK would be a propaganda gift to his opponents.

The response of the government and media to these events must be placed in the context of the concerted drive by London to demonize Russia. Only last week the Times devoted its front page, an op-ed piece and an editorial to bellicose calls by senior military figures, including second in command of the armed forces, Sir Gordon Messenger, for an increase in military spending, naming Russia as the power that must be confronted.

This followed a January speech given at RUSI by General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the General Staff of the British Armed Forces, in which he declared that the UK had to actively prepare for war with Russia and other geo-political rivals.

US emergency departments report significant increase in opioid overdoses among all age groups, including infants

Shelley Connor

Two recent reports—from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—reveal that hospital emergency departments in the United States continue to see increases in opioid overdoses. Moreover, the population most at risk of opioid poisoning appears to be children under the age of six years old.

The AAP study begins with a dire summary, noting: “The number of deaths in the United States that are attributable to opioid medications has doubled since 2000.” Prescription drug poisoning has become the primary cause of injury-related deaths in the US, and prescription drug poisoning continues, despite prevention strategies, to be a “major cause of morbidity among children.”

Published this month, the AAP report highlights worrisome trends in the continuing opioid epidemic, especially amongst the youngest. Between 2004 and 2015, there were 3,647 opioid-related hospitalizations of children; of this number, 42.9 percent required treatment in Pediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs). Hospitalizations requiring PICU care for opioid poisoning doubled, with 37 percent of these cases requiring mechanical ventilator support.

The AAP highlights the extensive impact of the opioid crisis, explaining, “[Emergency department] visits for prescription-opioid overdose, abuse, and misuse now rival those of illicit drugs, including heroin and cocaine.” While this fact has been supported by numerous studies over the past decade, the AAP report brings to light a disturbing and previously underreported facet of the burgeoning opioid crisis: among children under the age of six, “opioids now account for the majority of drug poisonings.”

During the study period, the mortality rate for children visiting the hospital for opioid poisoning was 1.6 percent. While deaths decreased from 2.8 percent in 2004 to 1.3 percent in 2015, the incidence of pediatric opioid exposure increased, with significant intervention required by PICUs. The AAP notes that, among those ages 1 to 19 years, the incidence of prescription opioid poisonings nearly doubled between 1997 and 2012, with the greatest increase occurring among children between the ages of one and four. This increase was accompanied, the authors point out, by an increase in adult deaths from opioid overdose.

The report concludes by pointing out that “the rate of hospitalization and PICU admission for pediatric opioid ingestions is increasing.” Furthermore, it asserts, measures taken to reduce opioid abuse among adults “have not curtailed the incidence of pediatric opioid ingestions, and additional efforts are needed to reduce preventable opioid exposure in children.”

The AAP’s preliminary findings support the report released by the CDC this month which found that emergency department treatments for opioid overdose increased by 30 percent between July of 2016 and September of 2017. Increases occurred among both men and women among all age groups during this period, with the greatest rise—36 percent—seen among adults ages 35-54. The CDC also found that those who required emergency department care for opioid use were likely to overdose again at some point.

Urban centers witnessed the highest percentage rise in opioid overdoses, with an increase of 54 percent. Rural areas did not see the same rate of increase, but still saw a 21 percent increase in overdoses. The Midwest, which has fallen prey to sustained deindustrialization and prolonged joblessness over the past decade, saw the most startling rate of increase in overdoses at 70 percent.

In response to its findings, the CDC has outlined steps to address the rising incidence of overdose. Among its suggestions are allowing emergency department care providers to give overdose victims naloxone for future emergencies, equipping states with tools to address opioid use disorder (OUD), increasing funding for non-addictive pain management treatments, greater coordination between mental health providers and emergency care providers, and the creation of harm reduction programs.

These suggestions in and of themselves indicate that the opioid crisis will continue unabated over the next period. Community mental health care systems are virtually nonexistent in economically depressed areas. The price of Naloxone, an effective opioid antagonist, has risen sharply in step with the overdose mortality rate, as pharmaceutical companies seek to profit from the national emergency.

At the same time, the Trump administration has targeted scientific research for funding cuts and the CDC itself has had its funding slashed. Moreover, right-wing politicians, especially those in areas most profoundly affected by the opioid crisis, have framed the pandemic as a moral issue which can be resolved through law and order. These politicians do not merely ignore the social issues that contribute to opioid use—they act to dismantle the social infrastructure that would forestall and interrupt opioid use.

Just prior to releasing its report on pediatric opioid poisoning, the AAP released a separate report in response to a sharp rise of pediatric depression and suicides in recent years. The group now advises that all children ages 12 and above receive yearly depression screenings as part of their wellness visits with physicians. They also outline steps to take to create safety plans for severely depressed children that would limit their access to firearms and dangerous drugs in their homes, and ensure that they receive psychiatric treatment. Taken alongside the recent reports on opioid overdoses, this makes it clear that the social crisis in America is continuing to take a devastating toll, including in its very youngest members.

Trade conflict heats up

Nick Beams

The Trump administration is expected to announce today how it will apply the tariffs on steel and aluminium outlined last week. While a full-scale global trade war has yet to break out, the major powers are manoeuvring for an impending conflict.

Yesterday, European Union Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said the EU would take the case to the World Trade Organisation and work with others if Trump went ahead. The EU, she confirmed, has drawn up a list of products that would be subject to tariffs to the tune of €2.83 billion if the US proceeds. The targets could include certain types of bourbon, and food products such as peanut butter, cranberries and orange juice, as well as Harley Davidson motorbikes.

Malmström said she was reluctant to use the term “trade war” and the EU did not “want this to go out of proportion.” But she added: “[W]e need to take certain measures if this [happens]. It risks a serious blow to the European economy and to our workers.”

The European powers hope to be excluded on the basis that they are strategic allies of the US, so the “national security” grounds on which Trump announced the measures do not apply to them.

However, this argument, which was advanced by the now former head of Trump’s National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, who resigned on Tuesday, is not cutting much ice as the “America First” economic nationalists assume greater control in the White House.

Trump used a press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven on Tuesday to single out the EU for attack. “The European Union has been particularly tough on the United States,” he said. “They make it almost impossible for the United States to do business with them. And yet they send their cars and everything else …”

This was a clear threat that if the EU responds to the steel and aluminium tariffs, then the US will hit back with moves against cars.

Canada—the largest exporter of steel to the US—and Mexico have also called for exemptions from the tariff plan. The Trump administration said any such exclusion depended on the two countries bowing to US demands in the ongoing renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC yesterday there was a mechanism for a “carve out” of countries from the tariffs. But that would only apply to the extent that the US was “successful” in renegotiating NAFTA.

In a television interview yesterday, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross tried to sound a conciliatory note. “We’re not trying to blow up the world,” he said. “There’s no intention of that.”

Yet the administration’s actions have very definite global consequences, as the US Chamber of Commerce, one of the country’s largest business lobby groups, noted.

“The US Chamber is very concerned about the increasing prospects of trade war, which would put at risk the economic momentum achieved through the administration’s tax and regulatory reforms,” an official statement declared. “We urge the administration to take this risk seriously and specifically to refrain from imposing new world-wide tariffs on steel and aluminium.”

The US actions have caused consternation in ruling political and financial circles around the world. Reserve Bank of Australia governor Philip Lowe attacked the Trump measures and warned that escalation and retaliation would produce a “very big shock for the world economy.”

Lowe said the moves were “highly regrettable and bad policy” but were manageable for the world economy, provided they were confined to two industries. He expressed the hope that other countries would “just sit still and do nothing,” saying: “That’s the hardest thing to do in some cases, because there’s a political imperative in some countries to kind of respond to what is seen as an unjust action.”

An emerging theme from opposition in the United States is not a repudiation of trade war as such, but concerns that the Trump administration has used a blunt instrument that hits US strategic allies rather than the real opponent, China.

In the Wall Street Journal, Greg Ip noted that the US was not the only country with a chip on its shoulder about trade. There were “countless others” when it came to China.

“For President Donald Trump, this could be an opportunity to lead a coalition against China’s predatory trade behaviour. Instead, he is threatening trade war with the countries that would make up such a coalition, over commodities that are much less vital to the US economy and national security than the sectors threatened by China’s expropriation of intellectual property.”

This approach was reflected in a letter from 107 House Republicans sent to Trump yesterday, expressing “deep concern” about the prospect of broad global tariffs on steel and aluminium.

Warning of “unintended negative consequences” for the US economy, the letter said: “We support your resolve to address distortions caused by China’s unfair practices, and we are committed to acting with you and our trading partners on meaningful and effective action.”

Last August, the office of the US Trade Representative launched an investigation under Section 301 of the 1974 US Trade Act to determine whether Chinese actions in relation to technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation were unreasonable and detrimental to US interests.

The investigation’s report is expected within weeks. Under the legislation, the president has the power to retaliate for what are deemed to be unfair trade practices. A US investigation conducted last year claimed the annual loss to the US economy from counterfeited goods, pirated software and the theft of trade secrets was at least $225 billion and could go as high as $600 billion. It designated China as the main culprit.

Bloomberg reported that “under the most severe scenario being weighed, the US could impose tariffs on a wide range of Chinese imports from shoes and clothing to consumer electronics.” It cited two people “familiar with the matter” who spoke on condition of anonymity.

China has so far adopted a low-key approach to the steel and aluminium tariffs, largely because it is well down the list of countries that export the metals to the US. But it is almost certain to respond to measures under Section 301.

Signalling that his administration is gearing up for action, Trump declared in a Twitter post yesterday: “The US is acting swiftly on intellectual property theft. We cannot allow this to happen as it has for many years!”

Financial Times economics columnist Martin Wolf this week noted that Trump’s action on steel and aluminium was unlikely to be the last. It was “more likely to be the beginning of the end of the rules-governed multilateral trading order that the US itself created.”

This assessment is borne out by Cohn’s resignation after he had failed to at least moderate the measures. It is a sure sign that, whatever the final form of the steel and aluminium tariffs, their imposition signifies the start of a descent into global trade war on a scale not seen since the disastrous conflicts of the 1930s, which played a major role in creating the conditions for World War II.

Women Cyber Warriors and the Indian Military

Vijay Sakhuja

The stage is set for the entry of women as ‘cyber warriors’ in the Indian armed forces. The Indian Army chief noted in 2017 that plans were in place to employ women officers "in new cadres such as cyber" since the country faced "major cyber security threat from both state and non-state actors." The initiative is also seen as part of the Shekatkar Committee recommendations that "officers of the army education corps could also be used as cyber warriors as the branch is getting disbanded."

Women officers are not new to the Indian military; they have been part of the Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS) as medical officers. The Indian Military Nursing Services was first set up in 1888 under the British. Other military cadres were opened to women from the early 1990s, and they joined the legal, logistic and education branches. They were later also inducted in the aviation branch. The air force has now trained women officers as fighter pilots and one of them has recently joined a MiG-21 squadron. The navy will soon see women officers on-board warships, and the Indian Army is considering them for combat duties.

Several militaries across the world have employed women in both combat and non-combat military operations. In fact, women played a major role during World War II as non-combatants in hospitals, military ordnance factories, and as air traffic controllers, among others. Their role in signals intelligence, or code-breaking, is noteworthy, but lesser known.

World War II was a war of ‘encrypted signals’ in which the militaries used numerous code and cipher systems to ensure that their radio and telegraph communications were not intercepted, and "code-breaking came into its own as a way to eavesdrop on enemy plans." In the US, nearly 10,000 women were recruited - they constituted over half of the US code-breaking force. Many were college graduates who could not continue their education in mathematics and engineering, and code-breaking was a great opportunity to showcase their talents.

Notable among these was Ann Caracristi, the first female deputy director of the US National Security Agency, who had worked along with her chief, also a woman, to break a code that "enabled the United States military to pinpoint the location of Japanese troops." Likewise, Grace Hopper, who joined the navy during World War II and rose to the rank of a rear admiral, led a team that created the first computer language compiler, which resulted in the programming language, COBOL. In essence, the entry of women into communications and code-breaking had set aside the stereotype of ‘genius as a male trait’ prevalent during the 1940s.

Although programming was considered a secretarial job then - one of the primary reasons why it was more acceptable to recruit women - information technology, computer science, and communications technologies as disciplines of study have since come into their own. The number of women entering this largely male dominated industry is now slowly increasing.

Globally, businesses and government agencies consider gender diversity in their cyber security talent pool as not only beneficial from a public image perspective, but an important driver of innovation, which lies at the heart of any competitive market enterprise. Information technology giants such as Google, IBM, and Facebook are taking the lead to induct women to "fill cyber security positions because the companies realise diverse teams can better identify and neutralise threats." Further, diversity can help address the "masculinisation of computer programming."

Technical skills are central to the overall mission of cyber security and today, nearly 11 per cent of the global cyber security workforce is women. Besides, demand for cyber security professionals has far outpaced supply. This will also result in "women to serve as mentors for new and upcoming cyber security specialists." In the US, the National Cybersecurity Institute has set up the Initiative for Women in Cybersecurity aimed at raising awareness and transforming traditional images of gender, and to open more opportunities in the field for women.

In China, a young new pedigree of cyber warriors who have taken upon themselves to protect national pride against any criticism has emerged. For instance, 'Little Pink' and the '50 cent gang' are aggressive online commentators whose task is to praise the country and to "guard China against even the remotest hint of criticism." Apparently, they are supported by the government.

The Indian armed forces initiative to induct women as cyber warriors is praiseworthy. It helps narrow the gender gap and address the persisting image of the armed forces as an all-male domain. In this context, it is fair to consider women officers of the Indian military cyber security force as pioneers, similar to how women excelled in path-breaking innovations in signals intelligence or code-breaking during World War II.