Bottom 40 percent of Americans have a negative net income

Gabriel Black 

The bottom 40 percent of households in the United States have an average net pre-tax income of negative $11,660 a year, according to a new report by Reuters.

The report, “Poorer Americans Buckling as US Economy Booms,” published July 23 and written by lead author Jonathan Spicer, exposes how life really is for most Americans in the midst of the supposedly booming economy. While the official unemployment rate is low and growth rates are rising, the reality is that the working class is stretched to its limit, relying heavily on borrowing and working two or more low-wage jobs to survive.

The report’s data shows that the bottom two quintiles of households make, on average, $11,587 and $29,414 a year in pre-tax income, respectively. Their expenses, meanwhile, are $26,144 and $38,187, respectively. This means that the bottom quintile has an average net loss of $14,557 a year and the next quintile a loss of $8,773, prior to taxes.

How is it that the bottom 40 percent of households are losing, on average, well over $10,000 every year?

The data covers students, who are taking on student debt, and recipients of food stamps and federal benefits, who may receive small sums to help pay for expenses. However, the bottom 40 percent of households is overwhelmingly composed of low-wage workers, who, despite their immense sacrifices, are unable to cover the basic cost of living.

The next 20 percent, the middle quintile of the country, is not faring well, either. With an average pre-tax income of $51,379, it is able to achieve a net income of only $2,836 before taxes. A family making $50,000 a year in 2017 would have to pay $3,448 in federal income tax, plus state and FICA taxes. This means that even the middle 20 percent of the population is unable to save money and is, on average, taking on some form of debt.

This growing burden of debt on the bottom 60 percent of the population is expressed in the sharp drop in the US personal savings rate over the past three years, declining from 6 percent in 2015 to between 2.5 and 3 percent in the past few months. Likewise, the rate of credit cards becoming seriously delinquent rose from 3.5 percent in 2016 to 4.7 percent in March 2018. Subprime auto loan delinquencies are now higher than what they were at the height of the financial crisis.

This data from Reuters exposes the real character of the post-2008 “economic recovery.” It is a recovery for the rich at the expense of the living standards of the majority of working people. While the stock market has surged to astronomical heights, and the wealth of the millionaires and billionaires has surged alongside it, the majority of the American people are substantially worse off than they were prior to the financial crisis.

This is no accident.

The post-2008 recovery, led first by Barack Obama and now overseen by Donald Trump, was based on slashing the wages and living standards of the working class to extract more profit for the capitalists. Starting with the autoworkers and spreading to every major section of workers in the country, employers demanded “sacrifices” that they, and the unions, promised would be made up after the recovery.

The “recovery,” however, has arrived, and none of the sacrifices workers made are being paid back. Instead, it is the ultra-rich that are cashing in. This year will see a record level of share buybacks and divided payments, exceeding $1 trillion. These parasitic financial measures, which take money out of investment in new jobs, research and infrastructure, allow people like Safra Catz, CEO of Oracle, to pocket $250 million in a single year.

Data from Reuters shows that while the bottom 60 percent of the population generally saw its expenses outpace its income between 2012 and 2017, the income of the top 20 percent increasingly outpaced its expenses over this same period. On average, the top 20 percent of the population makes $188,676 and spends $112,846. This layer makes more money than all of the other income quintiles combined.

The amount the top 20 percent of the population is able to save each year ($75,831) is more than six times the average income of the bottom quintile and more than two-and-a-half times the income of the next quintile. Within the top 20 percent, there is immense social differentiation, its low end composed of workers in decent-paying professions and its high end composed of millionaires and billionaires.

The report notes that the surge in debt and general economic precariousness of the bottom half of the population threaten to trigger a new financial crisis. The authors write: “As many of the most vulnerable workers sink deeper into the red, the nearly decade-long economic expansion may be more vulnerable to a further spike in gasoline prices or an escalation of trade conflicts.”

The authors call attention to how, historically, US consumption growth is dominated by the top 40 percent of earners. However, in the past few years, the bottom 60 percent of earners has accounted for the majority of consumption as it ran down its savings. Consumption makes up for over 70 percent of all economic activity in the United States and plays a critical role in economic growth.

In the past few years, the United States has been wracked by opioid addiction, increasing suicide rates and declining life expectancy. The fundamental cause of this immense and growing social crisis is the impoverishment of the working class, the broad mass of the people.

President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers states that the war on poverty is “largely over.” This is obviously a lie.

The Trump administration and before it the Obama administration have been fighting a war. But, it is not against poverty. They have been fighting a class war to impoverish the working population in order to further enrich the financial oligarchy that they represent.

The working class, however, is ready for a counter-offensive. Heralded by the teachers’ strikes earlier this year in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona, workers are prepared to enter into struggle to take back the wealth they have created and gain control of their workplaces.

Facebook censorship targets the left

Andre Damon

One year ago, workers and young people throughout the world were horrified by a neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Nazis held torch-lit marches, chanting “Jews will not replace us,” gave the Nazi salute, flew flags with swastikas, and marched in Ku Klux Klan uniforms. One of the fascists rammed a car into a counter-demonstration, murdering one woman and injuring 35 others.

Earlier this year, the organizers of the August 12, 2017 Charlottesville rally, known as “Unite the Right,” announced a plan to hold another demonstration on its anniversary, this time in Washington D.C. In response, over a dozen left-wing organizations and dozens of prominent individuals, including Whistleblower Chelsea Manning, called a counter-protest on the same day.

As part of a campaign to block what it called “divisive,” “violent,” and “extremist” activity, Facebook, working in conjunction with US intelligence agencies, announced Tuesday that it had blocked not the Nazi rally, but an event page for the demonstration protesting it.

Facebook justified its action by declaring that the counter-protest was set up by a group that showed signs of “inauthentic activity,” a claim that it backed up with neither details nor evidence.

The No Unite the Right 2 – DC rally removed by Facebook

The statements accompanying Facebook’s action make clear that the blocking of the counter-demonstration is a deliberate effort to repress and criminalize left-wing political views, setting a far-reaching and dangerous precedent.

Facebook’s blog post announcing the blocking of the event, together with 32 other accounts, cited an analysis by the Atlantic Council think-tank noting that all the accounts targeted by Facebook were left-wing, including accounts opposing police violence, attacks on immigrants, and the Trump administration’s promotion of fascist groups.

The Atlantic Council’s report said the pages shut down by Facebook targeted “the left of the political spectrum,” and “sought to promote divisions and set Americans against one another.”

The accounts promoted “protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. President Donald Trump’s tax plan” and “protests against Trump’s Muslim ban.”

Both Facebook’s post and the Atlantic Council report are filled with Orwellian and authoritarian language. Who is Facebook to determine what constitutes “inauthentic activity,” a term so broad as to be capable of including anything? And who gave Facebook the right to shutdown pages that “promote divisions,” as if such divisions do not already exist, with no need of being “promoted,” in a society characterized by historically unparalleled levels of social inequality?

These themes were continued in a hearing by the Senate Intelligence Committee Wednesday featuring testimony from “security” companies and think-tanks closely aligned with the US intelligence agencies.

Renee DiResta is Director of Research at New Knowledge, a consultancy firm that claims to protect the reputations of businesses from what it calls “suspicious communities.”

DiResta said “malign narratives” have “existed for a very long time,” but in “today’s influence operations” the “propaganda is shared by our friends, often in the form of highly effective, shareable, immediately graspable memes.”

“Disinformation, misinformation, and social media hoaxes have evolved from a nuisance into high-stakes information war,” she said.

With reference to “fake” ads run ahead of the 2016 election, she noted that the accounts promoted statements “targeting the left,” aiming “to paint Secretary Clinton in a negative light as compared to candidates Jill Stein or Senator Bernie Sanders.”

An event published by one of the groups taken down by facebook

She noted that such “Influence operations” are increasingly appealing to “ideological true believers” and “non-state extremists.” In other words, they are directed at people fed up with the capitalist system and looking for a socialist or left-wing alternative—the implication being that such conceptions are “extremist” and must be criminalized.

Another participant in the hearing, Graphika CEO John W. Kelly, said that “automated accounts” on the “extremes” of the political spectrum “produce as many as 25 to 30 times the number of messages per day” as “genuine political accounts across the mainstream.”

A definite narrative is being created, resurrecting American anti-Communism’s long tradition of labeling “outside agitators” as the source of “social disturbances.” Any political viewpoint critical of capitalism is to be labelled an “inauthentic influence operation” promoted by “extremists,” and therefore liable for suppression by the state and the technology monopolies.

In so doing, the factions of the state aligned with the Democratic Party and the intelligence agencies, who are locked in a bitter factional battle with Trump over issues related to foreign policy, find themselves in alliance with the White House against the emergence of left-wing political opposition. This has manifested itself, in this case, in an effort to target those protesting a fascist rally, and, by extension, the defense and legitimization of the fascists.

The moves to delegitimize and criminalize political opposition by all factions within the US political establishment must be understood in class terms. After decades of continuous upward redistribution of wealth, three people now control as much wealth as the bottom half of American society. Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, has a net worth of $143 billion.

This financial oligarchy, together with a broader periphery within the top 10 percent of income earners who have also been enriched by the boom in share values, see themselves besieged by an angry and hostile working class that is increasingly turning to socialist politics.

Amidst stagnating or declining real wages, endless cuts to health care and pensions and a string of major contracts expiring over the next several months, the stage is set for an eruption of militant labor struggles unlike anything seen since the sit-down strikes of the 1930s. The growth of the class struggle is increasingly pitting workers in direct conflict with the trade unions, which the ruling class has relied on for decades to suppress the class struggle and facilitate the redistribution of wealth to the rich.

Under these conditions, the ruling elite sees the criminalization and suppression of independent political opposition as a vital necessity in the defense and expansion of its social privileges. The creation of an apparatus of mass censorship by Facebook, Google, and Twitter is a vital weapon in the hands of the ruling elite in this life-and-death class struggle.

But the eruption of workers’ struggles that the oligarchy so fears also provides the only basis for defending fundamental democratic rights. In their coming struggles, workers will take up the demand for the free and open Internet and freedom of speech as part of a mass movement, in the United States and internationally, to overturn the capitalist system and establish a socialist society.

Chinese Sharp Power and Taiwan-India Relations

Tai-Wei Chen


Beijing has extended its 'sharp power' strategy to the Taiwan-India relationship. It is important to understand how Chinese sharp power is deployed against the Taiwan-India relationship, and for both countries to proactively initiate counter-measures to safeguard this critical bilateral link.

The concept of China's sharp power was ideated by a report, Sharp Power: Rising Authoritarian Influence, published by the US-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in early December 2017. According to it, sharp power involves three core methods: psychological operations, media manipulation, and legal warfare. This strategy is based on the asymmetry between a tightly controlled press and internet in China on the one hand, and an open society in its rivals on the other. Sharp power therefore weaponises the tools of soft power. In the Taiwan-India case, China is using the media to make India comply with a rigid 'One China' policy. Though each individual Indian concession is small and seemingly a public relations exercise, they add up to a deliberate Chinese strategy of using 'One China' to create a legal trap for India, even while China continues to undermine Indian sovereignty through similar means. Simultaneously this weakens India's ties with possible economic and security partners like Taiwan. 

Although Taiwan has no formal diplomatic relations with India, both countries have great opportunities for synergy. Taiwan's has a burgeoning hi-tech sector with a ready job market, and the country has a deep understanding of the Chinese military. India's need for job creation and search for greater knowledge of the Chinese military offer opportunities for a closer working relationship. Then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao initiated informal contact by establishing the India-Taipei Association. Since then, Taiwan and India have been consistently building contact. The two sides have signed many bilateral agreements on trade, investment, technology, education and culture. Current Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also advanced the relationship. The slow consolidation of relations between India and Taiwan can be traced back to 1995. Then BJP official (now prime minister) Modi visited Taiwan in 1999, and as chief minister of Gujarat in 2011 he hosted the largest Taiwanese delegation sent to India. However, while 'India first' is the cornerstone of Modi's foreign policy, it does not seem be the kind of hard-line patriotism that emphasises military hegemony and expansion, and is instead based on the idea of the “world as one family.”

Similarly in her first press conference after taking charge in 2014, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said at the time that if China wants India to recognise the 'One China' policy, then China should also respect the 'One India' policy. Although 'One India' does not currently have a clear definition, it contextually refers to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh whose control by India is disputed by China - the latter considers it to be 'South Tibet'. China appears to have violated the 'One India' principle by investing in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, promoted as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and sending troops to patrol with the Pakistani army. 

Indian strategists therefore seem to see India's Taiwan policy through the prism of these ongoing Chinese violations of an as yet nebulous 'One India' policy. This brings in the third aspect of sharp power discussed above: lawfare. In forcing India to accept the clearly defined 'One China' principle, while constantly undermining the ill-defined 'One India' principle, China uses asymmetry to legally entrap India into concessions it may not willing to reciprocate. Though India has not stopped developing relations with Taiwan because of China's pressure based on economic and other development needs, the question is, how far can such lawfare be taken towards completely undermining Taiwan-India relations? 

Indian Prime Minister Modi recently attended an informal summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Wuhan. The two sides agreed to strengthen cooperation and there was some concern in Taiwan that this would be at the cost of Taiwan. The recent commotion over Air India renaming Taiwan to 'Chinese Taipei' was seen as indicative of this. However, what is to note here is that India did not change the name to what China requested, i.e., "China, Taiwan" but to "Chinese Taipei," which would be a less than the desired result for China, even if it was a victory. Though insignificant by itself, it certainly damaged morale in Taiwan and the upward momentum of India-Taiwan ties.

The relationship however is fragile and both sides will need to take proactive measures to safeguard it. Indian policymakers must understand the nature of Chinese sharp power and how it has been played against India in the recent past. Taiwanese policymakers should understand the need to constantly showcase their relevance to India given the lack of formal channels. In particular, Taiwan should work to enhance the exchange of scholars, students and intelligence-sharing given that Chinese research is Taiwan's internationally acknowledged strength. In short, both countries must wake up to Chinese asymmetric strategies and insulate themselves from the effects of Chinese sharp power deployment. 

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf: Performance in the Provinces & Potential Challenges Ahead

Sarral Sharma


Amid reports and allegations of election rigging and other irregularities by the opposition political parties, Pakistan's cricketer-turned-politician and Chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, Imran Khan, emerged victorious in the highly controversial general election in Pakistan in July 2018. He will be crowned the next Wazir-e-Azam (prime minister) of Pakistan on 11 August.

Although the PTI emerged as the single largest party in the National Assembly (NA) with 115 seats of the total 270, it has not yet managed to achieve the majority figure of 136. Consequently, Khan will require support from other smaller parties and some independent candidates to form the new government. 

PTI's Performance in the Provinces 
PTI's electoral performance in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) provincial assemblies came as a bit of surprise. Its mandate in Punjab and Balochistan came on the lines of pre-poll projections. While PTI retained a comfortable majority in the KP assembly, it is currently making desperate efforts to form the government in Punjab and Balochistan with the help of other regional parties and independent candidates. In Sindh, PTI surprisingly replaced the Mutahhida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) and assumed the position of the second largest party. 

In the fierce battle for Punjab, ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) emerged as the single largest party, winning 129 seats of the total 295, with a slight edge over PTI's 123. Neither party managed to achieve the majority mark of 149. Clearly, the 28 independent candidates, the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) with seven seats, and other smaller parties will decide the outcome in Punjab. PTI made deep inroads in the Sharifs' home-turf in the 2018 election, winning majority seats in north and south Punjab, and made a significant dent in the central region. The south had already deserted the Sharifs after strong prompting by the military establishment; and the shrine-dominated central Punjab was convinced to abandon the PML-N over issues such as the Khatam-e-Nabuwat clause controversy. Furthermore, terror outfits such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ) were politically mainstreamed to cut into PML-N's right-wing votes in Punjab. Additionally, the widespread participation of the Sunni Barelvi outfit, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLY), in the 2018 election reduced the PML-N's chances of winning.

Factors responsible for such a mandate in Punjab include Khan's anti-corruption movement against the Sharifs; the military establishment's alleged role in arm-twisting the 'electables' in PTI's favour; and local governance issues in the province. Pakistan's military establishment might help PTI form the government in Sharif's bastion by pressurising the victorious independent candidates. That would be a severe jolt for the PML-N given how it is already voted out at the Centre. 

The PTI retained its majority in the KP provincial assembly with an overwhelming mandate. In the final tally, the party won 66 seats of the total 97, whereas the main opposition parties—the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal Pakistan (MMA), and the Awami National Party (ANP)—won merely 10 and five seats respectively. Despite several allegations of corruption, intra-party differences and other governance related shortcomings, PTI managed to win a popular mandate in a province infamous for its anti-incumbency pattern of voting. The ANP and other Pashtun parties could not capitalise on the recent Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), and the supposed anti-incumbency factor against PTI was clearly ruled out after the results. 

In the Sindh provincial assembly, PTI won 23 seats of the total 130, emerging second after the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) which won 73 seats. PTI thus replaced the MQM-P which won 16 seats. More importantly, in the polls to the National Assembly in Sindh, PTI dethroned MQM-P in its bastion, Karachi, by winning 14 NA seats of the total 21, compared to merely one seat they had won in the 2013 general elections. Factors such as the fragmented political representation of the Mohajir community; MQM-London Chief Altaf Hussain's call for election boycott; PTI candidates' local campaigning; and Khan's popularity could have worked in PTI's favour. PTI's performance in Sindh is a wake-up call for the ruling PPPP and an existential threat for MQM-P in future elections.

In Balochistan provincial assembly, PTI won only four seats of the total 51 but struck a post poll alliance with the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP)—the single largest party in Balochistan which won 15 seats—to form a coalition government in the province. BAP, which also won four NA seats, has promised to support PTI at the Centre. Interestingly, it has been alleged that both these parties were supported by the military establishment. Nonetheless, due to the fragmented mandate, it is still unclear as to who will form the government in Balochistan. Other smaller parties such as MMA, Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M), Balochistan National Party-Awami (BNP-A) and Hazara Democratic Party (HDP) have won nine, six, three and two seats respectively. Despite their ideological differences, these parties may join hands to claim majority in the provincial assembly. Moreover, four independent candidates who won too might play a deciding role in the coming days.

Challenges for the New Government
PTI ran a successful anti-corruption election campaign to dethrone the PML-N government in the 2018 election. Among other factors, Khan's popularity among the youth; his forward-looking vision of the 'naya (new) Pakistan'; and the alleged involvement of Pakistan's military establishment possibly led to Khan's victory. As he prepares to take charge as prime minister, he will need to go beyond election rhetoric to address Pakistan's domestic and foreign policy issues. 

On the political front, the PTI government's foremost challenge would be to prove its majority in the parliament, and more importantly, to sustain the coalition setup. Secondly, in September 2018, the new dispensation is scheduled to elect the country's new president in consultation with the opposition. Main opposition parties such as PML-N, PPP, MMA and ANP have already agreed to form a new political alliance in the NA to effectively counter the PTI-led government. The new government could face hurdles while passing crucial bills in the parliament due to such a coalition. However, Khan's proximity to the military establishment may work in his government's favour to pull the strings of the opposition parties in a crisis like situation, at least in the initial few months.

Furthermore, the country is facing a dire economic situation with shrinking foreign reserves, a free falling currency, and a gaping trade deficit. Khan's strategy to address these pressing issues will become clear only after the new cabinet is formed. In the current scenario, Pakistan may seek US$ 10-15 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, this might not come easy given how the IMF could demand in exchange an implementation of a reforms agenda that includes a privatisation programme and revamping of the tax infrastructure. Furthermore, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently warned that there is "no rationale" for a potential IMF bailout to pay off Chinese loans for Pakistan. In such a situation, Pakistan might have to seek more loans from China. 

In addition to domestic issues, Khan's government will face multi-pronged foreign policy challenges such as balancing relations with China and the US; addressing the Afghanistan issue; and maintaining the status quo with India while simultaneously attempting to make the Kashmir as core issue. Moreover, the new government will possibly have to take action against some Pakistan-based terror outfits to negotiate its exit from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 'grey list'. 

China will remain the first foreign policy priority for the new government. Islamabad will continue to rely on Beijing for diplomatic, economic and military support for the next five years. Khan has even envisioned following China's development model at a time when the Pakistan-US relationship is at a new low. Nonetheless, the new government in Islamabad will make efforts to reach out to the Trump administration. Still, contentious issues such as terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan's strategic reliance on China, and its "brotherly" relations with Iran could complicate matters. 

In South Asia, Khan's government may prioritise its relations with Afghanistan. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has already invited Khan to Afghanistan and the latter has reportedly accepted the invitation—suggesting that Khan will visit Kabul in his first foreign visit as prime minister. It is conceivable that the two leaders may work towards improving Afghanistan-Pakistan relations during the initial months of the new dispensation in Islamabad. On India, Khan will continue to follow the status quo and may not repeat his predecessor Nawaz Sharif's 'mistake' of 'cosying up' with New Delhi. Nevertheless, a meeting between Khan and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi could take place on the sidelines of a multilateral summit. 

Overall, parliamentary arithmetic could complicate matters for the new government. Decisions on contentious issues may be delayed as the opposition parties may raise questions about rigging allegations and other irregularities during the elections, both in parliament and on the streets. If that happens, it will be a deja vu moment for Imran Khan who initiated widespread protests in 2013, alleging rigging in 2013 general elections. Nevertheless, with the possible backing of the country's powerful military establishment, Khan might manage to tide over the opposition's attempts at least for the time being.

Africa London Nagasaki (ALN) Masters Scholarship for African Students 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 31st August 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible African Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa

To be taken at: Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki, Japan and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK

About Scholarship: The scholarship funds a candidate to undertake an MSc in a subject relevant to the control of infectious disease in Africa at either the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki, Japan or at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK.
Both residential and distance learning MSc courses are available at LSHTM. Candidates offered a course at the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki will be required to reside in Japan for the duration of the course.
Successful candidates are required to write a formal report on completion of their course.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Candidates applying for an Africa London Nagasaki (ALN) MSc scholarship must meet the following criteria.
LSHTM
Candidates applying for a Scholarship at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine must:

1. be of African nationality and normally be resident in sub-Saharan Africa,
2. be fluent in English. If the applicant’s first language is not English or if the studies at university have not been conducted wholly in the medium of English candidates must take and pass one of the approved internet-based tests (IELTS, TOEFL or a Pearson Test of English) (http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/prospectus/english.html). The standard of English needed to pass the tests is high and is in line with the level of English required by the UK Border Authority in order to issue a student visa.
3. have a first or upper second class BSc degree or equivalent from an established university in a relevant area of science (a medical degree is not essential),
4. usually have had at least two years’ prior research experience in an area relevant to the study of infectious diseases, and
5. have the support of the head of their institution for undertaking their chosen course.

TMGH
Candidates applying for a Scholarship at the School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki, must:

1. be of African nationality and normally be resident in sub-Saharan Africa,
2. be fluent in English,
3. have obtained an MB ChB or equivalent medical qualification from a recognised university,
4. have had at least two years of clinical experience following graduation,

How Many Funding Positions are available? Four or Five

What are the benefits? Up to a maximum award of US$50,000 each to cover tuition fees, travel and living expenses

How to Apply:

1. Identify an MSc course at either LSHTM or NEKKEN that you would like to study, but do not apply to the university.
2. Ensure you are eligible for the MSc course and ALN Scholarship. Please note NEKKEN applicants must have a medical qualification.
3. Register to create an account with ALN. You must have an account before you can apply.
4. Log in to download the application form. Complete and submit the application form by Saturday 12th September 2014. No supporting documentation is required at this stage.
5. Applications will be considered by a selection committee and four candidates will be offered Scholarships by mid February.
6. Successful candidates to apply for the MSc course at the specified university by 1 March.
7. Scholarship awardees that are given a place at university start their MSc course in September at LSHTM and October at NEKKEN.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: Africa London Nagasaki Scholarship Fund

The Ongoing Decline of British Power

Patrick Cockburn

The British government purports to be re-establishing the UK as an independent nation state by leaving the EU, but British power and ability to decide its own policies are continuing to ebb in the real world. The latest evidence of this is the decision by the Home Secretary Sajid Javid to give precedence to the US in putting on trial two alleged Isis members from London, who belonged to the notorious “Beatles” group in Syria that specialised in torturing and beheading their captives.

The humiliating admission by a country that it is incapable of dealing effectively and legally with its worst criminals is normally made by states like Colombia and Mexico, which extradite drug lords to the US. Their governments are implicitly confessing that they are too feeble and corrupt to punish their most powerful lawbreakers.

The British authorities are encouraging the Syrian Kurds holding El Shafee Elsheik and Alexanda Kotey to extradite them to the US rather than Britain. The declared motive for this is that there is a better chance of a speedy trial and exemplary sentence before a US court than in a British one, though the record in the US since 9/11 makes this a dubious argument.

What does come across is that Britain is in a messy situation regarding Isis prisoners and the return of jihadis to UK, with which it is unable to cope. The decision is now being reviewed by a judge in the UK.

As with Mexico and Colombia, the overall impression left by Javid’s actions is one of weakness and incapacity.

First, he made the baffling and unexplained decision to drop the usual British condition that the UK would provide evidence and intelligence for a trial only if the death penalty was ruled out. Moreover, he not only abandoned the longheld British principle of opposing state executions but did so in secret, suggesting the government knew all too well the significance of its change of policy.

The simplest explanation for not seeking a “death penalty assurance” from the US is that Theresa May, Javid and Boris Johnson, foreign secretary when the decision was made, saw the “Beatles” as a political hot potato.

They would be squeezed between those who demand that Elsheik and Kotey be punished with extreme rigour, and those who believe that the worst way to respond to Isis is to be lured into some form of lynch law. It is possible that the Trump administration unofficially insisted that Britain step back from its open opposition to the death penalty.

An alternative solution would be to hand over the two accused men to the International Criminal Court in the Hague – the only real objection to this being that the US refuses to recognise the court and the British priority in the age of Brexit is, above all else, to keep onside with Washington.

Isis benefits from the imbroglio over these Beatles because its atrocities have always aimed at instilling fear, but at the same time provoking an over-reaction by those it targets. This strategy worked well for al-Qaeda after 9/11 when US judicial credibility was damaged beyond repair in the eyes of the world by rendition, waterboarding, imprisonment without trial at Guantanamo and ritualised mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

At every stage in the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, successive British governments have made unforced errors. They never seem to grasp the nature of these civil wars and how difficult it is to give a fair trial to anybody caught up in them because anybody detained on the vaguest suspicion may be sent to prison, tortured into a confession and summarily executed.

I was in Taji, a Sunni Arab area north of Baghdad in June this year, a place which used to be an Isis stronghold. A farmer told me that several of his neighbours have not made the hour-long journey to Baghdad for 10 years because they are frightened of being detained at government checkpoints, imprisoned and forced into false confessions.

The same fears are pervasive in Syrian government areas. Several years ago, I was talking to Sunni Arab refugees living in a school in the partly ruined city of Homs, where fighting was particularly intense. I said that it must be dangerous for any man of military age to move on the roads.

This was greeted with bitter laughter from the older men who said they were in just as much danger as their younger relatives.

Often the only way to get out of prison is not proof of innocence, but a bribe to the right officials. This is expensive and does not always work because the bribe-takers do not necessarily deliver on their promises. Iraqis and Syrians commonly believe that those most likely to buy their way out of prison are Isis militants who can come up with large sums of money and are too dangerous to be short-changed by officials they have bribed.

After the capture of Mosul, the de facto Isis capital in Iraq, in 2017, local people told me they were aghast at seeing former Isis officials back on their streets after a short detention. They claimed that this was because of the wholesale bribery of Baghdad government security forces.

Iraqi soldiers in the front line were equally cynical and concluded that there was no point sending live prisoners back to Baghdad so they executed them on the spot.

The Beatles are more famous because they killed and mistreated Westerners, but otherwise they were no different from other cruel and murderous Isis gangs. It is claimed that one reason they could not be tried in Britain is that information from the intelligence agencies could not be used without compromising sources. This might be true but whenever secret intelligence from government agencies has been revealed by public inquiries over the past 15 years, it has turned out to be far shakier and less compelling than originally claimed.

Knowing who really was in Isis and what they did there is impossible in countries where torture is pervasive and false confessions the norm. The time to have dealt with British jihadis and the tens of thousands of other fanatical foreign fighters was several years ago when they were freely crossing the Turkish border into Syria.

But the British government and its allies showed little concern because the priority then was forcing regime change in Damascus, an aim shared by the jihadis.

Sajid Javid pretends that the principle of government opposition to the death penalty will only be set aside in this single exceptional case, though principles that can be discarded so easily at convenient moments automatically cease to be principles.

The controversy over the legal fate of the “Beatles” underlines once again the truth of Cicero’s saying that “the laws are silent in times of war”.

The Great Indian Talent Conundrum

Ashish Kumar Singh & Praloy Majumder

A study done by Korn Ferry said that India is projected to have a skilled labour surplus of 245 million workers by 2030, mainly on the back of “vast supply of working age citizens”, even as most of the developed and developing economies are expected to grapple with talent crunch at that time. There is expected to have a talent deficit of 85.2 million workers by 2030 across 20 major developed and developing economies, which could result in USD 8.453 trillion in unrealised annual revenue by 2030. India is the only country expected to have a surplus of around 245.3 million highly skilled financial and business services labour force by 2030, as per the study. This talent surplus will be most visible in the financial services, technology, media, and telecommunications.

Over the last few years, the job market has changed in several aspects, the level of education has improved drastically however not bringing the required changes in the curriculum which can could have prepared an individual to be qualified enough to be part of the active workforce.

The India Skills Report, prepared by human resources company PeopleStrong and industry lobby Confederation of Indian Industry, calls this the Great Indian Talent Conundrum, which could swiftly transport us from the stage of reaping the demographic dividend to facing a demographic disaster. According to the report, India would need 700 million skilled workers by 2022 to meet the demands of a growing economy. The government has a target of skill-train 500 million people, nearly the combined population of the 28-nation European Union, by 2022. However, going by the current pace, India is likely to fall far short of the target. It has a capacity to train a maximum of eight to 10 million every year. More precisely, since April 2011, departments and ministries of the central government have cumulatively trained just 17.39 million and have missed the target in two of the last three years, according to official data.

Nowadays, since the industries have become more demanding and profit-oriented so they only hire experienced professionals. They don’t provide the training period to the freshers which they need. So, this actually means that the freshers nowadays should be skilled rather than qualified.

The situation is even worse when it comes to rural youth. This is due to the fact that their cultural capital, access to information and medium of instruction varies quite a lot from the urban youth. This affects their performance in continuation of education and in the job market. Employability of Graduates continues to remain weak in our country. India has more than 700 universities, more than 35000 colleges and NASSCOM report says that each year over three million graduates and postgraduates are added to the Indian workforce but only 10-15 % regular graduates are considered employable by the Industry. So on one side, the present curriculum needs to change to make each qualified youth as employable on the other side, there is an urgent need to develop curriculum for entrepreneurship development. The second aspect is especially true as such, generating a huge number of jobs is also quite difficult.

India produces over one million engineers and management graduates every year. However, not even a third of them find meaningful employment. Apart from graduates from the elite Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management and a handful of other similar top institutes, the rest struggle to place their students. So, it comes as no surprise that India’s labour productivity is $10,080 a year, compared with $107,551 in the US and $23,888 in Brazil, according to a background note prepared this year by the labour ministry.

Scaling of productivity levels would require the development of human capital and entrepreneurship, technological advancement and innovation, along with enabling macroeconomic policies, infrastructure, and concerted action. Those who seek to enter the labour market must realize that competence, attitude and an inquisitive mind are critical for the survival and these are often missing. There is a gap between demand and supply of the right kind of people. In the last few years, there was a lot of talk about skilled manpower, but the real problem will arise from now onwards. The government policy is now favourable, the manufacturing sector is set to grow and companies have expansion plans. But the availability of enough right talent is still debatable.

Communication/proficiency has not been part of the curriculum in many places. The power to convey our thoughts to others is amongst one of the most important aspects that govern our success in relationships, throughout our life. In the world of work, clarity in communication and articulation contributes to our success. Hence, Language and communication play a vital role in whatever we do. When rural youngsters come to cities for higher education, the biggest problem they face is of communication. Whether it is Hindi or English, they feel at a loss while communication. Even the urban students face a major problem in effective communication. It has been felt consistently that younger students often lose on great opportunities just because they are not articulate enough. The fact is that we can be a better person and create a better society if we know exactly how to express ourselves. There is an underlying objective of improving language skills in the age of quick and abbreviated communication.

English is considered as “Global language” which has been used worldwide in diverse sectors such as business, politics, international relations, culture and entertainment. With the faster globalization of Indian economy, it comes as no surprise that recruiters are increasingly focusing on English language skills of candidates. Whether seeking a government job, or a job in the corporate sector possessing helps to keep the step ahead in the competition.

It has been seen that students even after completing their post-graduation are not meant to fit for jobs. They are expected to be employable rather than just educated. They lack the skills, which in today’s fast-growing industries and companies are looking for. If we think that skill training is just for poor school dropouts, then we are making the cardinal mistake of downgrading the dignity of labour. It should be for everyone with a singular objective of enhancing efficiencies.

It is important to ensure the availability of formal vocational education for the large portion of Indian population to avoid poor working conditions, low-income levels and joblessness delaying economic development. The increase in its working-age population is necessary but not sufficient condition for India to sustain its economic growth. India needs to create enough jobs and train its workers for those jobs, otherwise, this demographic dividend may turn into a liability./  demographic disaster.

One of the major drawbacks of our curriculum is that the current method of teaching does not develop self-confidence in a structured manner. Due to the excess supply of human population, the competition is extremely high for the quality of jobs in India. Under such a scenario, self-confidence would make the differentiating factor for many aspiring job seeker to convert an interview into a real job. The revised curriculum must cover this aspect.

In 2004-05, only 28 million of India’s 257 million job-seeking population in the age group of 15-29 received any form of vocational training. And, only 9 million of these 28 million received formal vocational training from training institutes; the others acquired skills informally from their preceding generation or other household members. As on 2004-05, only 78 million of the 257 million youth were qualified in the secondary level – 10th grade or above. Only 23 percent of these qualified youth held at least a diploma or a graduate degree. Even within this minority of graduate youth, a large proportion remained unemployed. During the economic upturn in the past decade, unemployment was the highest for diploma and certificate holders, followed closely by graduates and postgraduates.  This implies that, despite sufficient educational qualification, the workforce does not have skills that are required by the job market.

Although India will have the world’s largest pool of working-age people by 2030, if the current trend in labour participation continues, only 539 million out of 962 million people of working age would be working by 2030. In the absence of any significant reforms in school and higher education, the quality of India’s labour force would remain below par. CRISIL Research’s study on India’s education services industry, August 2010, points out, rather disturbingly, that although engineer turnout from India’s institutes will almost double over 2011 to 2015 – from 0.37 million to 0.65 million engineers, their employability will diminish further. As a result, most industries, including IT services, will face a talent bottleneck. With sectors that require a highly-skilled workforce – financial services, IT/ITeS, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals – set to expand briskly over the next decade,. India’s transition to a knowledge-based economy would require a new generation of educated and skilled workforce.

We believe that leadership is everybody’s business. Every person is born with leadership potential and provided she/he receives the suitable training and opportunity, can be molded into an effective leader. Therefore, effective leadership is the result of opportunity, training, and experience. Every person can be a leader at her/his own labor/ occupation but only those who cultivate the qualities will ever become truly effective leaders.

It is well known that proficiency in language can make a student a better competitor in the job market also. Any initiative towards the enhancement of skills, therefore, shall work on different aspects. Soft skills such as communications, personality development, interview skills etc. shall be an essential part of it. Secondly, special emphasis shall be given to youths preferably higher secondary and graduate students. India as a country with an increasing number of youths can get a huge advantage by providing them with such skills. The third variable is to prepare youths to pass the government services exams. Passing a competitive exam is not just about a few months or years’ preparations. It also has to do with the social and cultural capital of individuals. Having said that when students become part of a community, which is not just providing them with necessary skills but also present there for their moral support, it is comparatively easier to pass these hurdles. Also, with such training available to a huge pool of workforce it would be easier to select the better candidates for those jobs.

Indian education system is going through several changes- from following the banking approach of education to being more market-oriented. Skills are in much demand in whatever field a student chooses, but it is yet to reach to them. The process of providing skills to youths for turning them into professionals should be done from the very beginning of the education itself. It’s a continuous process. And if it’s not being done from the starting then training sessions and practical knowledge can be given in colleges for the development of the skills needed to get the humongous number of youths placed successfully. So far, the development of skills has been driven by the requirements of the market. Much progress has been made with significant help from the private sector, it clearly continued to be a supply-driven system. It needs a paradigm shift now to focus on industry. This will make the system demand driven and close the skills mismatch. The structural changes in the Indian Vocational Education and Training system are clearly now visible.

A vast number of qualified workers, who are a correct fit, on paper, for knowledge-based jobs, would continue to remain unemployed. This suggests that skill shortage relates, in part, to a scarcity of people with the required skills, experience and quality of education. Skill shortage would also persist in jobs requiring vocational skills. Opportunities in infrastructure, construction, mining, and health care have increased the demand for vocationally-trained workers. As formal vocational training has not been widespread, skilled workers to meet the rising demand from these sectors are likely to remain in short supply.  Enough manpower, but not job-worthy. Several studies by industry federations and consultancies have found that of the 12 million people entering the labour market every year, nearly 75% are not job-ready.

In India, parents and educational institutions enforce upon students by the traditional perception where formal education leads to graduation to finding a secure job. It needs to change sooner than later. The education and training and education should be provided to the students in a manner that they realise their aptitude and learn skills required to work as employees as well as employers. The efforts made by the government and industry to address these issues are significant, but it will need a consistent and more meticulous approach to gain a competitive advantage over the surplus manpower we have. With the focus on creating more jobs, nurturing entrepreneurship and the-lab-to-land connect, it would be possible to not let the talent surplus making India a country of jobless growth and unemployment.

India’s Emerging Role in the Indo-Pacific: Rise of Sub-imperialism?

 K M Seethi

Is India sliding itself into the world capitalist centre as a ‘sub-imperialist’ country fulfilling the ‘responsibilities’ of the imperialist core? Going beyond the conventional Leninist conceptualisation, India, an emerging economy with a credo of neoliberal aspirations and militarism, appears to be exercising a particular form of imperialism over its partners in the Global South, by fulfilling the role of a sub-imperialist agent in the increased coordination between the imperial forces. The latest in the series of such engagements could be seen in India’s incorporation into the ‘grand strategy’ of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region. Here the conventional economic theory of imperialism could be effectively supplemented by concepts which take into account ‘imperialism by delegation.’

The Indo-Pacific Business Forum held in Washington recently witnessed this coronation ceremony—of elevating India’s status to “Tier-1’ of the ‘Strategic Trade Authorization’ (STA) regime. The Trump Administration already acknowledged that the American investment in the Indo-Pacific region “is good for America, good for business, and good for the world.” The Administration announced “$113.5 million in immediate funding to seed new strategic initiatives in the Indo-Pacific region.” Announcing “a range of new economic cooperation efforts with Japan, Australia, India, and Mongolia,” the Department of Commerce “granted Strategic Trade Authorization Tier 1 status to India, enabling American companies to export more high-technology items under a streamlined license exception” (US, White House 2018).

It was the Secretary State Michael R. Pompeo—while addressing the Business Forum to launch the “economic and commercial pillars” of the Trump Administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy—who emphasized “the critical role of the U.S. private sector in ensuring a sustainable, financially responsible economic future for the Indo-Pacific.” Pompeo also announced strengthened support for important regional institutions in the Indo-Pacific, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and U.S.-ASEAN Connect, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and the Lower Mekong Initiative, along with a first-ever contribution to the Indian Ocean Rim Association (US, Department of State 2018b).

Following Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross’s participation in the Indo-Pacific Business Forum, the Department of Commerce announced its plan “to dedicate  its upcoming flagship events” to Indo-Pacific themes which included “Trade Winds: India” which  will take place in New Delhi in 2019. It will be a conference and trade mission to India and other surrounding countries where “U.S. exporters will meet with decision makers on opportunities they have learned.” Ross also announced that “India’s status as a Major Defense Partner will allow it to receive more U.S. high technology and military items without individual export licenses.  India will be moved into Tier-1 of the Department of Commerce’s Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) license exception. STA Tier-1 treatment, comparable to NATO allies, will expand the scope of exports subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) that can be made to India without individual licenses.” This regulatory change is expected to “enhance the bilateral defense trade relationship and result in a greater volume of U.S. exports to India.  Over the last seven years, approximately $9.7 billion worth of licensed exports to India may now eligible for export under this license exception” (Ibid).

In effect, India’s status as a major defense/strategic partner would lead to its becoming a junior partner of the US imperialism, comparable to its NATO allies. This obviously reflects India’s membership in three of the four multilateral export control regimes, as well the development of its national export control system. The American companies can now more efficiently export a much wider range of products to Indian high technology and military customers.  India’s new status will benefit U.S. manufacturers immensely, while continuing to fulfill the ‘strategic responsibilities’ of Washington in the Indo-Pacific region.

India welcomed the announcement about the Trump administration’s “decision to move India into Tier-1 of the Strategic Trade Authorization license exception.”  Hoping that the new step would further facilitate India-U.S. trade and technology collaboration in defence and high technology areas, the Ministry of External Affairs statement said that it was “a logical culmination to India’s designation as a Major Defense Partner of the U.S. and a reaffirmation of India’s impeccable record as a responsible member of the concerned multilateral export control regimes” (India, Ministry of External Affairs 2018b).

It may be noted that way back in June 2016, Washington had designated India as a “Major Defence Partner” with a view to enhancing defence trade and technology sharing with India to a level proportionate to that of its closest strategic partners and allies. India’s relations with the U.S have, over years, transformed into a ‘global strategic partnership’ based on “increasing convergence of interests on bilateral, regional and global issues.” The emphasis placed by India on a range of issues has facilitated the process to reinvigorate bilateral ties and enhance cooperation during the first two summits of Prime Minister Modi and President Obama in September 2014 and January 2015 respectively. The summit level joint statement issued in June 2016 called the India-U.S. relationship an “Enduring Global Partners in the 21st Century (India, Ministry of External Affairs 2017).

There were already more than 50 bilateral dialogue mechanisms between India and the U.S. The first two meetings of the Strategic and Commercial Dialogue were held in Washington DC in September 2015 and New Delhi in August 2016. This apex-level dialogue has added a commercial component to the traditional pillars of bilateral relations on which the erstwhile Strategic Dialogue of Foreign Ministers had focused (Ibid).  Defence-strategic partnership has emerged as a major pillar of India-U.S. relations with the signing of ‘New Framework for India-U.S. Defense Relations’ in 2005 and the resulting dynamics in defence trade, joint exercises, personnel exchanges, collaboration and cooperation in maritime security, and exchanges between each of the three services. The Defence Framework Agreement was also renewed for another decade in June 2015.

India participated in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise in July-August 2016 for the second time with an Indian Naval Frigate. Bilateral dialogue mechanisms in the field of defence include Defence Policy Group (DPG), Defence Joint Working Group (DJWG), Defence Procurement and Production Group (DPPG), Senior Technology Security Group (STSG), Joint Technical Group (JTG), Military Cooperation Group (MCG), and Service-to-Service Executive Steering Groups (ESGs).The agreements signed in recent years include Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Association (LEMOA) signed in August 2016, Fuel Exchange Agreement signed in November 2015,Technical Agreement (TA) on information sharing on White (merchant) Shipping signed in May 2016 and the Information Exchange Annexe (IEA) on Aircraft Carrier Technologies signed in June 2016 (India, Ministry of External Affairs 2017).

In 2017, the aggregate worth of defence acquisition from U.S. Defence had crossed over US$ 13 billion. The two countries also started a Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) with a view to  simplifying technology transfer policies and exploring possibilities of co-development and co-production to invest the defence relationship with strategic value. The DTTI Working Group and its Task Force are expected to “expeditiously evaluate and decide on unique projects and technologies which would have a transformative impact on bilateral defence relations and enhance India’s defence industry and military capabilities.” During Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the U.S. in June 2016, the U.S. recognised India as a ‘Major Defence Partner,’ which committed Washington “to facilitate technology sharing with India to a level commensurate with that of its closest allies and partners, and industry collaboration for defence co-production and co-development” (India, Ministry of External Affairs 2017). The latest one taken at the Indo-Pacific Business forum is a continuation of this process of India’s incorporation into the American grand strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, rechristened as ‘Indo-Pacific’ with a view to containing China and Russia.

Plausibly, the new partnership is a clear indication that Modi’s talk about ‘strategic autonomy’ is a travesty of facts and his characterization of the “free, open, prosperous and inclusive Indo-Pacific Region” at the Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore (India, Ministry of External Affairs 2018a) is nothing but a threshold-magic of sub-imperialism. The US had already decided to recast its strategic interests in the Pacific Rim by reshaping the geopolitical layout put in place by the Obama administration—‘rebalancing.’ The ‘rebalance’—initially called ‘pivot’—implied that Washington would play an activist role in the ‘Asia-Pacific’ region–strengthening diplomatic ties, promoting a regional free trade agreement, and bolstering military and strategic relations with many Asian clients (US, White House 2014). However, during President Trump visit to the region in November 2017, he insisted on having a different strategic layout of the “free and open Indo-Pacific” (US, White House 2017a)—with a view to offsetting the Obama formulation. The politico-security implications of this ‘shift’ of emphasis have been explained by the Trump administration in the document National Security Strategy of the United States, December 2017 (USNSS 2017). The USNSS 2017 is more explicit in its anxieties on China and Russia:

China and Russia want to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests. China seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the reaches of its state-driven economic model, and reorder the region in its favor. Russia seeks to restore its great power status and establish spheres of influence near its borders. The intentions of both nations are not necessarily fixed. ..For decades, U.S. policy was rooted in the belief that support for China’s rise and for its integration into the post-war international order would liberalize China. Contrary to our hopes, China expanded its power at the expense of the sovereignty of others. China gathers and exploits data on an unrivaled scale and spreads features of its authoritarian system, including corruption and the use of surveillance. It is building the most capable and well-funded military in the world, after our own….Russia aims to weaken U.S. influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners. Russia views the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and European Union (EU) as threats. Russia is investing in new military capabilities, including nuclear systems that remain the most significant existential threat to the United States… (US, White House 2017b: 25).

In a few weeks time, the Trump Administration underscored the role of India in the emerging US strategy in the Indo-Pacific. On 2 April 2018, Alex N. Wong, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs said: The term ‘Indo-Pacific’ “acknowledges the historical reality and the current-day reality that South Asia, and in particular India, plays a key role in the Pacific and in East Asia and in Southeast Asia. That’s been true for thousands of years and it’s true today.” It is “in our interest, the U.S. interest, as well as the interests of the region, that India play an increasingly weighty role in the region. India is a nation that is invested in a free and open order. It is a democracy. It is a nation that can bookend and anchor the free and open order in the Indo-Pacific region, and it’s our policy to ensure that India does play that role, does become over time a more influential player in the region.”  “India for sure has the capability and potential to play a more – a more weighty role. But the role is on all fronts, whether it’s security, economic and diplomatic” (US, Department of State 2018a).

The recognition at the Indo-Pacific forum that India’s role is commensurate with the status of America’s NATO allies is obviously an indication that the ‘strategic autonomy’ that the Prime Minister Modi has been talking about is a diplomatic chimera to masquerade the new equations in global power configurations where India has already become a delegated sub-imperialist power. The forthcoming 2+2 dialogues between the foreign and defence ministers of India and the U.S will witness the increasing accommodation of the American interests in the Indo-Pacific region.