( see enlargement )


( see enlargement )

Authors of research papers and articles on global issues for this month

Haider Abbas, Pema Choden Bhutia, Professor Francis A Boyle, Juna Colo Castillo, Philip A Farruggio, Beatrice Fihn, Ankit Goyal, Amulya Anita Gurumurthy, Taj Hashmi, Robert Hunziker (3), Kaustubh Jain, Jay Janson, Bishaldeep Kakati, Dr Binoy Kampmark, Ankit Kumar, Dr S Jatin Kumar, KS Lakshmi Naraayan, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bobby Ramakant, Anurag Ratan, Anjali Roy, K Sahadevan, Dr. Leo Semashko, Sartaj Singh, Siddharth Singh, Preeti Tej Singh.

Haider Abbas, India Caught Between US And China-Russia Duel in India
Pema Choden Bhutia, EIA: Environment Impact Assessment
Professor Francis A Boyle, Hiroshima 75: The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence!
Juna Colo Castillo, Quédate en casa, Restez à la maison, Fique em casa, Stay at home, Resta a casa, Оставайся дома
Philip A Farruggio, Something In the Air
Beatrice Fihn, Citizens of the Earth! The Anti-Nuclear Manifesto for the salvation of humanity from the all-consuming suicidal/genocidal nuclear fire.
Ankit Goyal, Small Steps and Future Course: Answering the ‘How’
Amulya Anita Gurumurthy, The Capitalism Virus — Etymology of an Epidemic
Taj Hashmi, Intimidating China is One Thing, Overpowering It, An Absurd Dream!
Robert Hunziker, The World on Fire
Robert Hunziker, Freakish Arctic Fires Alarmingly Intensify
Robert Hunziker, Thawing Arctic Permafrost
Kaustubh Jain A nuclear-free world is crucial for sustainable development in India
Jay Janson, People Worldwide Will Soon Demand Americans Stop Planing Nuclear War Endangering Us All!
Bishaldeep Kakati, EIA 2020: Why is it so perilous?
Dr Binoy Kampmark, Climate Change Litigation: The Australian Government Gets Sued
Ankit Kumar, A nuclear-free world is crucial for sustainable development in India
Dr S Jatin Kumar, India-China Border Conflict: Need For A change In Attitude Of Indian Polity in India
KS Lakshmi Naraayan, A nuclear-free world is crucial for sustainable development in India
Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia becomes first country to authorize COVID-19 vaccine.
Bobby Ramakant, For a better world, our lifestyle must be based on as less resources as possible
Anjali Roy, A nuclear-free world is crucial for sustainable development in India
Anurag Ratan, A nuclear-free world is crucial for sustainable development in India
K Sahadevan, Capitalist Philanthropy: A Means of Circumventing the State?
Dr. Leo Semashko, Citizens of the Earth! The Anti-Nuclear Manifesto for the salvation of humanity from the all-consuming suicidal/genocidal nuclear fire.
Sartaj Singh, A nuclear-free world is crucial for sustainable development in India
Siddharth Singh, The Problematic Story of Draft EIA Notification 2020 in Environmental Protection
Preeti Tej Singh, Mother Earth

Articles and papers from authors

 

Day data received	Theme or issue	Read article or paper
August 8, 2020	Russia becomes first country to authorize COVID-19 vaccine. by Russian President Vladimir Putin Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting with members of the government via a teleconference after announcing the approval of a coronavirus vaccine that has yet to complete Phase 3 trials. (Alexey Nikolsky/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images) President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that Russia had become the first country in the world to grant regulatory approval to a coronavirus vaccine, after less than two months of human testing, a move hailed by Moscow as evidence of its scientific prowess. The vaccine, developed by the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, still has to complete final trials, raising serious concerns among some scientific experts about the speed of its approval, but Russian business conglomerate Sistema has said it expects to put it into mass production by the end of the year. Russian health workers treating COVID-19 patients will be offered the chance of volunteering to be vaccinated in the coming weeks, a source told Reuters last month. Regulatory approval paves the way for the mass inoculation of the Russian population and authorities hope it will allow the economy, which has been battered by fallout from the virus, to return to full capacity. Russia has recorded nearly 15,000 COVID-19 deaths, with more than 890,000 confirmed cases, according to tracking by Johns Hopkins University. Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund, hailed the development as a historic "Sputnik moment," comparable to the Soviet Union's 1957 launch of Sputnik 1, the world's first satellite. The vaccine will be marketed under the name 'Sputnik V' on foreign markets, he said. As we all know our way of life eating at restaurants visiting relatives young anal sending your children to school without fear can only really happen once there's a Covert vaccine here in the United States government has launched. Operation warp speed some of the biggest drug makers have been working feverishly to find a safe treatment. But how to assist too fast Russia has declared they are the first in the world to approve of vaccine couldn't even claims it is on daughter took it. Experts here though are skeptical calling the trial too small and too short but what if it really works what's next in panel has the dramatic development. Tonight bush claiming a major victory brutal world. It was the federal it. This federal wolf everybody just goes to benefiting and in the hoping newest. Not really sure of social component to receive a professionally he did do was look. Dmitry have had the Russian government thumbed back the vaccine told us the confidence it books. Even though there have been completed phase three trials its efficiency and invest that congress all the people developed immunity. Many scientists in Russia and around the world say it simply hasn't been properly tested with less in the hundreds of people actually receiving the vaccine so by law. Russia choosing to go ahead before completing that crucial final phase three trial that is used to show the vaccine will work safely in large population. The Nittany Lion to 2000 people for that final step which is just getting under way. Compare that to the tens of thousands nothing tested with vaccines being developed by Modano. Liza and Oxford which a further along in trials didn't Russia. Russians say their backs him was created so quickly because it's based on the previously developed Russian absolutely vaccine welcome this and the mechanics out warts. In used as a result clinical if I think mean people will be the Russians a doubling in the back seat sputnik. Tribute to the Soviets era when Russia launched a successful orbital satellites in 1957. It now being used to town run a successful once more in this courtroom even though Russia will start to administer the vaccine to millions. Does some backlash. A Russian association the pharmaceutical companies published an open letter this week. Appealing for Russia to delay. US health experts. All want nova. The two parties (%expletive) he's reaction exclusively with National Geographic. Hole. That the Russians actually definitively prove that the vaccine is safe and that I seriously doubt that they've done. People say why aren't the Americans doing that. Well because we have a way of doing in this country that we care about safety and we care about. And in panel joins us now so in what is the Russian government gonna start rolling out this vaccine and will they track how it works as more people use it. I would look this is a really interesting thing is certain irony just starting the phase three trials now with read about pastry this is the crucial stage the done the all expo approaches there rule involved in. Heavy phase three testing of the moment involving tens of thousands of people the Russians Rooney just about starting to do that now even though they kind of declared victory that they've already go to vaccine they're saying there's gonna roll attach a key Frontline workers accept. Medics and teaches. Possibly by the end of this month. But large scale mass vaccination rush and they say will begin in October. And panel thanks so much.	Read
2020	Quédate en casa, Restez à la maison, Fique em casa, Stay at home, Resta a casa, Оставайся дома by Juna Colo Castillo, Ambassadeur de la Paix, Argentine Gabrielle Simond Le Cercle Universel des Ambassadeurs de la Paix Président Fondateur : Mr Jean Paul NOUCHI Secrétaire Generale : Mme Gabrielle SIMOND https://philapaix.com/accueil/pourquoi-philapaix/ le-cercle-universel-des-ambassadeurs-de-la-paix/ Quédate en casa Escucha el coro, de ocho mil millones de almas te lo piden, y este otro más grande aún de tus padhermanos, tíos y vecinos. En el drama del mundo tu papel es cuidar un arma mortal llamada prudencia. Mañana, es decir, cuando vuelva el mañana, cruzaremos el otro lado de la felicidad, las calles donde nos esperan limpio los abrazos. Iremos a los parques y estarán las sonrisas en proyectos del aire. Habrá una luz sedienta, gorriones en las ventanas, para entrar donde estés. Quédate en casa, con la harina del amor haciendo el pan del porvenir. Reescribiendo la historia de tu familia, con todas las fábulas de una breve mirada.Te cuento como cambió el cuento; un día despertamos y nos dimos cuenta que existen los vecinos, no volvió a caer el mismo muro, pero el dolor horizontó las penas, desnudó las miserias humanas, esas que se guardan en cofres de oro. Puso de rodillas los imperios y nos tiene frente al espejo con muchas interrogantes. Y hasta es posible las estadísticas dejen de ser una matemática, para ser una herida.Porque duele la bomba atómica del hambre que mata cada día, 22 dos mil niños. Y un calmante de indiferencia. 1300 millones de personas en pobreza extrema, en tanto, menos del uno por ciento tiene la riqueza. Y un calmante de indiferencia. Ay, que uno sólo de ellos, dice Oxman tiene lo suficiente para combatir la pobreza del mundo. con un solo presupuesto militar de las grandes y ahora diminutas potencias se saciaría el hambre. Pero hay un calmante de indiferencia. Cien millones de inocencia infantiles que piden pan y agua, y una sola indiferencia El dolor moverá nuestra sangre, cauterizará el egoísmo, revivirá el espíritu. Si daño la tierra, daño el sustento de mis descendientes, hace siglos lo reflexionaron los indios piel roja, milmillones de peces, aves, animales silvestres, delfines, las flores del agua han vuelto a perfumar. Quédate en casa para que aplaudamos, juntos, puesto de pie, con ensordecedor y delirante aplausos, comojamás lo recibieron: Messi, cristiano, Juan Luis Guerra, ni Elton John, a esos héroes que curan. A los héroes que cuidan y a los miles anónimos solidarios. Quédate en casa se avecina una nueva primavera de amistad con la tierra y es posible,aunque parezca inverosímil mirarnos a los ojos con una nueva gracia. Quédate en casa para ir a la vendimia de nueva utopía. Restez à la maison Écoutez le refrain, huit milliards d'âmes vous demandent de le faire, et celui-ci encore plus grand que les frères, les oncles et les voisins de votre père. Dans le drame du monde, votre rôle est de prendre soin d'une arme mortelle appelée prudence. Demain, c'est-à-dire, quand demain reviendra, nous traverserons l'autre côté du bonheur, les rues où les câlins nous attendent propres. Nous irons dans les parcs et il y aura des sourires sur les projets aériens. Il y aura une lumière assoiffée, des moineaux dans les fenêtres, pour entrer là où vous êtes. Restez à la maison, avec la farine de l'amour qui fait le pain de l'avenir. Réécrire l'histoire de votre famille, avec toutes les fables d'un bref regard, je vous raconte comment l'histoire a changé; Un jour, nous nous sommes réveillés et nous nous sommes rendu compte que les voisins existaient, le même mur n'est pas tombé à nouveau, mais la douleur a l'horizon des sanctions, a exposé les misères humaines, celles qui sont gardées dans des coffres dorés. Il a mis les empires à genoux et nous a mis devant le miroir avec de nombreuses questions. Et il est même possible que la statistique cesse d'être une mathématique, une blessure. Parce que la bombe atomique de la faim qui tue 22 000 enfants fait mal chaque jour. Et un analgésique d'indifférence. 1,3 milliard de personnes en situation d'extrême pauvreté, quant à elles, moins d'un pour cent en ont la richesse. Et un analgésique d'indifférence. Oh, qu'un seul d'entre eux, dit Oxman, a assez pour lutter contre la pauvreté dans le monde. Avec un budget militaire unique des grandes puissances désormais minuscules, la faim serait satisfaite. Mais il y a un apaisement de l'indifférence. Cent millions d'innocents d'enfance qui demandent du pain et de l'eau, et une seule indifférence La douleur fera bouger notre sang, cautérisera l'égoïsme, ravivera l'esprit. Si j'endommage la terre, j'endommage les moyens de subsistance de mes descendants, il y a des siècles se reflétaient les Indiens à la peau rouge, des milliards de poissons, d'oiseaux, d'animaux sauvages, de dauphins, les fleurs de l'eau se sont encore parfumées. Restez à la maison pour que nous applaudissions, debout, avec des applaudissements assourdissants et délirants, car ils ne l'ont jamais reçu: Messi, Christian, Juan Luis Guerra ou Elton John, ces héros qui guérissent. Aux héros attentionnés et aux milliers de solidarité anonyme. Restez à la maison, un nouveau printemps d'amitié avec la terre arrive et c'est possible, bien qu'il semble peu plausible de se regarder dans les yeux avec une nouvelle grâce. Restez à la maison pour aller à la vendange d'une nouvelle utopie. Fique em casa   Ouça o refrão, oito bilhões de almas estão pedindo para você fazer isso, e é ainda maior que os irmãos, tios e vizinhos de seu pai. No drama do mundo, seu papel é cuidar de uma arma mortal chamada cautela. Amanhã, ou seja, quando o amanhã voltar, atravessaremos o outro lado da felicidade, as ruas onde abraços nos esperam limpos. Iremos aos parques e haverá sorrisos nos projetos aéreos. Haverá uma luz sedenta, pardais nas janelas, para entrar onde você está. Fique em casa com a farinha do amor que faz o pão do futuro. Reescreva a história de sua família, com todas as fábulas de relance, digo como a história mudou; Um dia, acordamos e percebemos que os vizinhos existiam, o mesmo muro não caiu novamente, mas a dor no horizonte das sanções expôs as misérias humanas, aquelas que são mantidas em baús de ouro. Ele trouxe impérios de joelhos e nos colocou na frente do espelho com muitas perguntas. E é até possível que as estatísticas deixem de ser uma matemática, uma lesão. Porque a bomba atômica da fome que mata 22.000 crianças, machuca todos os dias. E um analgésico da indiferença. 1,3 bilhão de pessoas em extrema pobreza, enquanto isso, menos de um por cento tem a riqueza. E um analgésico da indiferença. Oh, que apenas um deles, diz Oxman, tem o suficiente para combater a pobreza global. Com um único orçamento militar das pequenas potências, a fome seria satisfeita. Mas há um calmante da indiferença. Cem milhões de crianças inocentes que exigem pão e água e uma indiferença A dor move nosso sangue, cauteriza o egoísmo, revive o espírito. Se danifico a terra, danifico os meios de subsistência de meus descendentes, séculos atrás refletiam os índios de pele vermelha, bilhões de peixes, pássaros, animais selvagens, golfinhos, as flores da água ainda são perfumadas. Fique em casa para que possamos aplaudir, de pé, com aplausos ensurdecedores e delirantes, porque eles nunca o receberam: Messi, Christian, Juan Luis Guerra ou Elton John, esses heróis que curam. Aos heróis carinhosos e aos milhares de solidariedade anônima. Fique em casa, uma nova primavera de amizade com a terra está chegando e é possível, embora pareça implausível olhar um para o outro com nova graça. Fique em casa para ir à colheita de uma nova utopia.     Stay at home   Listen to the refrain, eight billion souls are asking you to do it, and it is even bigger than your father's brothers, uncles and neighbors. In the drama of the world, your role is to take care of a deadly weapon called caution. Tomorrow, that is to say, when tomorrow returns, we will cross the other side of happiness, the streets where hugs await us clean. We will go to the parks and there will be smiles on the aerial projects. There will be a thirsty light, sparrows in the windows, to enter where you are. Stay at home with the flour of love that makes the bread of the future. Rewrite the history of your family, with all the fables at a glance, I tell you how the story has changed; One day, we woke up and realized that the neighbors existed, the same wall did not fall again, but the pain on the horizon of sanctions, exposed the human miseries, those which are kept in golden chests. He brought empires to his knees and put us in front of the mirror with many questions. And it is even possible that statistics ceases to be a mathematics, an injury. Because the atomic hunger bomb that kills 22,000 children hurts every day. And a pain reliever of indifference. 1.3 billion people in extreme poverty, meanwhile, less than one percent have the wealth. And a pain reliever of indifference. Oh, that only one of them, says Oxman, has enough to fight global poverty. With a single military budget from the now tiny powers, hunger would be satisfied. But there is a calming of indifference. One hundred million innocent children who demand bread and water, and one indifference Pain will move our blood, cauterize selfishness, revive the spirit. If I damage the earth, I damage the livelihoods of my descendants, centuries ago reflected the red-skinned Indians, billions of fish, birds, wild animals, dolphins, water flowers are still scented. Stay at home so that we can applaud, standing, with deafening and delirious applause, because they never received it: Messi, Christian, Juan Luis Guerra or Elton John, these heroes who heal. To the caring heroes and to the thousands of anonymous solidarity. Stay at home, a new spring of friendship with the earth is coming and it is possible, although it seems implausible to look each other in the eyes with new grace. Stay at home to go to the harvest of a new utopia.   Resta a casa   Ascolta il ritornello, otto miliardi di anime ti stanno chiedendo di farlo, ed è persino più grande dei fratelli, degli zii e dei vicini di tuo padre. Nel dramma del mondo, il tuo ruolo è quello di prenderti cura di un'arma mortale chiamata cautela. Domani, vale a dire, quando tornerà domani, attraverseremo l'altro lato della felicità, le strade dove gli abbracci ci aspettano puliti. Andremo nei parchi e ci saranno sorrisi sui progetti aerei. Ci sarà una luce assetata, passeri nelle finestre, per entrare dove sei. Resta a casa con la farina d'amore che rende il pane del futuro. Riscrivi la storia della tua famiglia, con tutte le favole a colpo d'occhio, ti dico come è cambiata la storia; Un giorno, ci siamo svegliati e ci siamo resi conto che esistevano i vicini, lo stesso muro non è caduto di nuovo, ma il dolore all'orizzonte delle sanzioni, ha rivelato le miserie umane, quelle che sono tenute dentro forzieri d'oro. Mise in ginocchio gli imperi e ci mise davanti allo specchio con molte domande. Ed è anche possibile che le statistiche cessino di essere una matematica, un infortunio. Perché la bomba atomica della fame che uccide 22.000 bambini fa male ogni giorno. E un antidolorifico dell'indifferenza. 1,3 miliardi di persone in estrema povertà, nel frattempo, meno dell'uno per cento ha la ricchezza. E un antidolorifico dell'indifferenza. Oh, quello solo uno di loro, dice Oxman, ha abbastanza per combattere la povertà globale. Con un unico budget militare dai poteri ora piccoli, la fame sarebbe soddisfatta. Ma c'è un calmante di indifferenza. Cento milioni di bambini innocenti che richiedono pane e acqua e un'indifferenza Il dolore sposta il nostro sangue, cauterizza l'egoismo, ravviva lo spirito. Se danneggio la terra, danneggio i mezzi di sussistenza dei miei discendenti, secoli fa riflettevano gli indiani dalla pelle rossa, miliardi di pesci, uccelli, animali selvatici, delfini, i fiori d'acqua sono ancora profumati. Resta a casa in modo che possiamo applaudire, in piedi, con applausi assordanti e deliranti, perché non l'hanno mai ricevuto: Messi, Christian, Juan Luis Guerra o Elton John, questi eroi che guariscono. Agli eroi premurosi e alle migliaia di anonime solidarietà. Resta a casa, sta arrivando una nuova fonte di amicizia con la terra ed è possibile, anche se sembra improbabile guardarsi negli occhi con nuova grazia. Resta a casa per andare alla raccolta di una nuova utopia. Оставайся дома   Послушайте рефрен, восемь миллиардов душ просят вас сделать это, и это даже больше, чем братья, дяди и соседи вашего отца. В мировой драме ваша задача - позаботиться о смертоносном оружии, называемом осторожностью. Завтра, то есть, когда завтра вернется, мы пересечем другую сторону счастья, улицы, где нас ждут чистые объятия. Мы пойдем в парки, и там будут улыбаться на воздушных проектах. Там будет жаждущий свет, воробьи в окнах, чтобы войти, где вы находитесь. Оставайтесь дома с мукой любви, которая делает хлеб будущего. Перепишите историю вашей семьи, с учетом всех басен, я расскажу вам, как изменилась история; Однажды мы проснулись и поняли, что соседи существуют, одна и та же стена снова не рухнула, но боль на горизонте санкций выявила человеческие страдания, те, которые держатся в золотые сундуки. Он поставил империи на колени и поставил нас перед зеркалом со многими вопросами. И даже возможно, что статистика перестает быть математикой, травмой. Потому что атомная бомба голода, которая убивает 22 000 детей, болит каждый день. И обезболивающее от безразличия. 1,3 миллиарда человек в условиях крайней нищеты, тем не менее, менее одного процента имеют богатство. И обезболивающее от безразличия. О, этого только одного из них, говорит Оксман, достаточно для борьбы с глобальной бедностью. С одним военным бюджетом от крошечных держав голод был бы удовлетворен. Но есть спокойствие безразличия. Сто миллионов невинных детей, которые требуют хлеба и воды, и одно безразличие Боль будет двигать нашей кровью, прижигать эгоизм, оживлять дух. Если я повреждаю землю, я повреждаю средства к существованию моих потомков, много веков назад отразились краснокожие индейцы, миллиарды рыб, птиц, диких животных, дельфинов, водяные цветы еще душистые. Оставайтесь дома, чтобы мы могли аплодировать, стоя, с оглушительными аплодисментами, потому что они так и не получили его: Месси, Кристиан, Хуан Луис Герра или Элтон Джон, эти герои, которые исцеляют. Заботливым героям и тысячам анонимной солидарности. Оставайтесь дома, наступает новая весна дружбы с землей, и это возможно, хотя кажется невероятным смотреть друг другу в глаза с новой грацией. Оставайтесь дома, чтобы отправиться на уборку новой утопии.	Read
August 12, 2020	Something In the Air by Philip A Farruggio, in World, countercurrents.org. A 1969 song written and sung by John ‘ Speedy ‘ Keen of the group Thunderclap Newman fits too well today… much too well: Call out the instigators Because there’s something in the air We’ve got to get together sooner or later Because the revolution’s here and you know it’s right And you know that it’s right We’ve got to get it together We’ve got to get it together now Lock up the streets and houses Because there’s something in the air We’ve got to get it together sooner or later Because the revolution’s here and you know it’s right And you know that it’s right We have to get it together We have to get it together now…. The song also mentions guns and ammo, but this writer is of that non violent Gandhian vein. The important thing about this 51 year old song is that it echoes perfectly NOW! The revolution it refers to can today become similar to the one Mohandas Gandhi organized and led in British ruled India over 100 years ago. Working stiffs, in this twilight time of Amerikan empire darkened further by a pandemic, can begin to peacefully non cooperate with the current Military Industrial Empire. How? Well, as a tidbit, teachers nationwide should refuse to get back into doing what most of them love until Uncle Sam and Uncle Gov provide the safety mechanisms needed. And isn’t it time that our friends and neighbors start taking this virus a little more seriously? I mean, even if the ‘ hoaxers’ were correct and this was just a more potent version of a seasonal Flu, shouldn’t they take the necessary precautions anyway, i.e.: social distancing, facemasks inside public places, constant hand cleansing? The real mission for all us working stiffs is to ‘ Speak truth to power’. We need to call out the greedy, self centered hypocrites who run government and business. Imagine if working stiffs nationwide take the advice of the IWW ( International Workers of the World AKA The Wobblies) of 100 years ago and stand together as ‘ One Big Union’? Gandhi called for a ‘ National Day of Prayer’ and all work and communications stopped cold for that day. The police, transit and sanitation unions in many US cities have used the old ‘ Out with the flu’ sick days when the city would not grant their wage and benefit demands. This goes for any type of employment that greatly touches the general public. No violence, just peaceful NON COOPERATION. Sympathy strikes have been outlawed by the empire to strangle any type of success on a grand scale. Yet, if the teachers let it be known that their colleagues are all coming down with bad colds, let us say the week before schools are to open… Well, see what will be done. The wolves currently in power in DC will have no choice but to do something to make the schools and their teachers and students safer or…. the general public will demand such action. Why? Well, parents who are now employed will have to have the schools open or they won’t be able to go to work, as they cannot leave the little ones home alone. Let’s face it: We live in an empire that has less than 1 percent of its citizens controlling the rest of our lives, economically, militarily and educationally. The Super Rich made out like bandits after the 2008 Subprime debacle. They swarmed in, like the vultures they are, bought up foreclosed and underwater housing for peanuts, and then transformed tens of millions of them into rentals. As far as ‘ affordable ‘ home ownership, here is the skinny on that: If a young couple, in any urban area, especially larger cities, is not earning a total of $ 200 k a year, they can never afford to buy within that city. A relative of mine, mid 30s along with her fiancé, together earning $ 120 k a year in Seattle, would have to move 2 hours outside of town in order to afford a home, the prices are that outrageous! What we need is twofold. First off, we need nonprofit community owned mortgage banks ( subsidized by Uncle Sam), charging overhead, and holding onto the paper until the mortgage expires. However low mortgage rates are now, the new community owned banks would charge Less than half the current rates. Imagine how many current renters would be able to actually own their own abode. As far as absentee landlords, if the localities (again with the help of Uncle Sam through forgivable loans ) bought up private landlord owned rental housing using eminent domain, the tenants would be paying most likely at 50% the current rents. Plus, if the community then held 10% of each month’s rent in escrow for the tenant, that money could be used in future by the tenant towards a down payment to actually buy the apartment or home. That really would be MAGA, Mr. Trump and crew. To this writer it is morally reprehensible that we have perhaps 1/4 of 1 % of our citizens earning mega millions. When Henry Paulson was appointed by W Bush to become Treasury Secretary, he retired from his CEO chair at Goldman Sachs. Guess what his last year’s compensation was? Remember, this is the same Hank Paulson who stood in front of the cameras after the Subprime crash of ‘ 08 with sad wet eyes. He was terribly troubled by the massive layoffs and defaulting Wall Street shark tank investment houses. Perhaps ole Hank could have dipped into the $ 500 million compensation package he was gifted and offered to help out a few laid off families. He didn’t. He set the stage for the Bush gang and then the Obama Scam to bail out the very ones who contributed to the horror. Mnunchin and Ross, Trump’s Treasury and Commerce heads, are two of the skunks who made out after the smoke cleared in ’09, just as a matter of record. One wonders if all those ‘ Trump Thumpers’ that got hurt then, or are being squeezed now from their family abodes, really know who in the hell they supported ( and will support again) ? The tragedy of foolishness… repeated? We need to nurture private small businesses and take over the rest of corporate Amerika. Socialism is really the only solution to this dilemma. Capitalism is NOT freedom! Matter of fact, we don’t even have a capitalist system like the one Adam Smith referenced centuries ago. We are knee deep in this corporate empire’s **** , and it has been peddling it to the suckers since perhaps day one of our republic. After all, the Founding Fathers as they are referred to, were just super rich white males, many as slaveholders. The only ‘ Liberty’ they wanted was transferring from one autocratic culture ( England ) to their own new one in the colonies. Enough of that already! Change is needed… ASAP! Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘ It’s the Empire… Stupid ‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at paf1222@bellsouth.net.	Read
August 12, 2020	Freakish Arctic Fires Alarmingly Intensify by Robert Hunziker, in Climate Change, countercurrents.org. NASA satellite images of fires in eastern Siberia depict an inferno of monstrous proportions, nothing in modern history compares. And, as of July, it’s intensifying. Should people be concerned? Answer: Yes, and double yes. According to Mark Parrington, a senior scientist at the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts: “What has been surprising is the rapid increase in the scale and intensity of the fires through July, largely driven by a large cluster of active fires in the northern Sakha Republic.” (Source: Kasha Patel, NASA/NOAA Satellites Observe Surprisingly Rapid Increase in Scale and Intensity of Fires in Siberia, SciTechDaily, August 9, 2020) The problem: “Abnormally warm temperatures have spawned an intense fire season in the eastern Siberian this summer,” Ibid. Is this global warming on steroids? For further color on “the problem”: As of June 23rd, a SciTechDaily headline read: “Meteorologists Shocked as Heat and Fire Scorches Siberia.” At last count, meteorologists are hard-core scientists with vast exposure to disaster scenarios, not easily “shocked.” As it happens, the very region of the planet that’s famous for the coldest temps of all time is now recording Miami-type summer temps like 100°F. Due to this unheard-of, unprecedented state of affairs, should this real-time, happening now, catastrophic scenario be included in U.S. presidential NSA briefings? No, the president doesn’t read. Then, should NSA verbalize the catastrophe to the president? Y0u’ve gotta be kidding and risk being fired! All of above is a powerful unconditional signal, especially for the Paris ’15 commitment group, excluding the USA, that global warming is rampaging, running amuck. Maybe the Paris ’15 assemble needs to reassemble for an emergency ad hoc meeting to take a tally of how well individual nation/states are handling their voluntary commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because the planet’s scorecard is looking like a big fat F. And while at it, maybe check in with Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service and NASA on recent CO2 and CH4 spewing into the atmosphere. Brace yourself. We now have direct evidence of how important it is to cut fossil fuel emissions to zero, as soon as yesterday. Here’s more about this mind-blowing threat to the well-being of the world: (1) Arctic fires in Russia in June and July alone released “more CO2 than any complete fire season” since records have been kept and more CO2 than all of Scandinavia, happening in only two months time. That’s beyond shocking, and it represents country-wide-scale CO2 emissions emitted by nature itself now competing head-on with every aspect of Paris ’15. (2) The fires are double trouble as one half of the fires are on peatlands, which, once started, can burn almost forever if the heat is intense enough (which it is) emitting both CO2 and CH4 in unheralded competition with the dictates of Paris ’15. “Peat fires can burn longer than forest fires and release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.” (Source: Kasha Patel, NASA/NOAA Satellites Observe Surprisingly Rapid Increase in Scale and Intensity of Fires in Siberia, SciTechDaily, August 9, 2020) “The destruction of peat by fire is troubling for so many reasons,’ said Dorothy Peteet of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. ‘As the fires burn off the top layers of peat, the permafrost depth may deepen, further oxidizing the underlying peat,” Ibid. Oh by the way, only recently it was reported that the amount of carbon stored in northern peatlands is double previous estimates. (Source: Jonathan Nichols, et al, Holocene Ecohydrological Variability on the East Coast of Kamchtka, Frontiers in Earth Science, May 15, 2019) It goes without saying that raging firestorms in a heat-induced global warming environment that releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than several countries combined darkens the epithet “Black Swan” almost beyond recognition. But, is it really a Black Swan? Well, no, it is not a Black Swan because human-generated (anthropogenic) carbon emissions, like exhaust from fossil-fueled SUV engines, have been on a tear, especially since the turn of the new century (doubling on a per annum basis) blanketing the atmosphere (holding in heat), thus causing extraordinary readings of heat in the upper latitudes. So, yes, more fires were expected, no Black Swan. But, the intensity of the fires hands down, no doubt about it, easily meets that criterion. Therefore, yes, it is a Black Swan, as the intensity is so overwhelmingly powerful that nobody could have possibly expected it to happen this way, and therein lies the risk to the “great hope” of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to minimize global temperatures to 2°C above baseline, or all hell breaks loose. Get serious! It’s already breaking loose! Robert Hunziker, MA, economic history DePaul University, awarded membership in Pi Gamma Mu International Academic Honor Society in Social Sciences is a freelance writer and environmental journalist who has over 200 articles published, including several translated into foreign languages, appearing in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He has been interviewed on numerous FM radio programs, as well as television.	Read
July 24, 2020	Climate Change Litigation: The Australian Government Gets Sued by Dr Binoy Kampmark, in Climate Change, countercurrents.org. “It’s time the government told the public about the impact climate change will have on our future and the economy.” Katta O’Donnell, The Guardian, Jul 24, 2020 While coronavirus ravages life, dominates policy and clouds debate, that other pressing issue of addressing climate change has moved into a more modest gear.  That has not prevented some bubbling activity from taking place on the matter of litigation.  While climate change law suits remain in their swaddling clothes, some shape is discernible.  In countries where fossil fuels remain sovereign, legal actions have focused on restricting or preventing the approval of projects and holding companies accountable on environmental risks associated with their activities. Short of the bare fisted force of legal action, people’s tribunals, community bodies and petitions have tended to urge change in the field, drawing attention to the predations of climate change policies.  In December 2005, for instance, Sheila Watt-Cloutier filed a petition on behalf of the Inuit with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights claiming that US climate change policy had breached their human rights.  As she stated at the time, “A declaration from the commission may not be enforceable, but it has great moral value…. Protecting human rights is ground occupied by both reasonable governments and civil society.” In April 2019, the Australian legal firm Corrs, with unintended punning, predicted a “third wave” of climate change litigation.  “In that wave, investors will seek to recover their losses from directors, auditors and advisers who have not confronted climate change risks.”  Communities affected by the vicissitudes of climate change would also “litigate to try to force action by government and the largest emitters, and to seek damages from those they think might be held responsible for contribution, inaction, and obfuscation.” In December 2019, a galvanic jolt passed through the field of ecological justice with a ruling by the Netherlands’ highest court in Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands.  The Dutch Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court affirming the original decision that the government cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 (compared to 1990 levels).  While the Dutch State did not disagree with the threat posed by climate change, their argument rested on the primacy of political decision making: it was up to political representatives to decide on the levels of reduction. In their judgment approving judicial scrutiny of such governmental actions, the justices noted that inadequate action in addressing climate change posed a “risk of irreversible changes to the worldwide ecosystems and liveability our planet” with a “serious risk that the current generation of citizens will be confronted with loss of life and/or a disruption to family life… that the State has a duty to protect against.”  The European Convention of Human Rights reaffirmed the State’s obligation “to protect the life and the right to private and family life of its residents”. The ruling gave Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, enough to suggest that “a clear path forward for concerned individuals in Europe – and around the world – to undertake climate litigation in order to protect human rights” had been made.  “The potentially devastating effects of unchecked sea rise, heat waves, uncontrollable forest fires, hurricanes and other growing emergencies must spur us all to demand courage and decisiveness by Governments everywhere in responding to these threats.” As of January 2020, the number of climate change cases filed was recorded at 1,444.  A climate change litigation update furnished by Norton Rose Fulbright noted in February this year that suits had “been filed in 33 countries, in addition to cases brought in regional or international courts and commissions.  The vast majority of these cases continue to be commenced in the United States (US), followed by Australia, United Kingdom, European Union, New Zealand, Canada and Spain.” On July 22, university student Katta O’Donnell filed a civil action in the Australian Federal Court that may find itself in the same league as Urgenda, albeit with a somewhat more corporate flavour.  She wished, in her words, to put the government “on trial for misconduct”.  The action makes the dangers of climate change, and a state’s obligation to inform investors of those dangers, a central theme.  “At all material times,” the action observes, “there has existed a significant likelihood that the climate is changing, and will continue to change, as the result of anthropogenic influences.”  To that end, “Australia is materially exposed and susceptible” to the risks posed by climate change. Such risks loom large for the investor – in this case, the investor who seeks to trade in government bonds, a market in Australia worth A$700 billion.  Such considerations “can have a serious material impact on a decision by an investor to invest in Sovereign bonds and on the value of Sovereign bonds.”  In lending money to the government, investors were entitled to be appraised of these risks, being “material to [their] decision to trade in exchange-Australian government bonds (e-AGBs)”.  In “failing to disclose climate change risks to investors,” claim O’Donnell’s lawyers, “the Commonwealth of Australia is accused of breaching its duty of disclosure and misleading and deceiving investors.”  The requisite standard of care and diligence was therefore not met.  “The standard is equivalent to the legal standard imposed on company directors in Australia.” The current Australian government, overly friendly to the fossil fuel sector, filled with barely closeted climate change denialists, will find O’Donnell’s action troubling.  The voter turned demanding investor is a truly threatening prospect. Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com	Read
July 24, 2020	For a better world, our lifestyle must be based on as less resources as possible by Bobby Ramakant , in Counter Solutions, countercurrents.org. Senior activist Medha Patkar launched a youth led, Towards A Better World campaign, in an online session where several youth leaders of Fridays For Future (a global movement led by Greta Thunberg) and other youth activists took part. We must change our life, lifestyle and sources of livelihood for a sustainable and just development, said Medha Patkar. “People should commit to at least one thing they will do to make this world a better place” appealed Dr Sandeep Pandey, Magsaysay Awardee and Vice President of Socialist Party (India). Dr Pandey is also a key inspiration that has motivated the young people to step forward and launch this campaign. This newly launched campaign is aimed to encourage everyone to take individual actions to “Be The Change” and make this world a better place. “If you want to make a positive impact on the world and make the world a better place, we urge you to take positive steps that you find worthwhile. Kindly consider committing to Be The Change that you want to incorporate in yourself or have already incorporated. This will help to concretize your personal journey and inspire similar changes in others” said Abhay Jain, who is a graduate of Indian Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India and aspiring fair-trade entrepreneur. Founder-editor of The Public and noted socialist, Anand Vardhan Singh, said that although COVID-19 pandemic is perceived as a threat, but environment is not. Environment crisis has been brewing since long – but even then climate emergency is not getting the due attention it warrants to save our planet. He shared a quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “Nature works unceasingly according to her own laws, but man violates them constantly.” Ariadne Papatheodorou, 16 years old climate activist from Fridays For Future movement in Greece said “We as teenagers have to act because global leaders are ignoring the call for urgency over and over again – and because we want to have a future which includes gender equality, human rights and climate change.” She also raised the concern for immigrants and refugees. Ayesha Imtiaz, a 16 years old climate activist from Fridays for Future in Pakistan shared how the plight of indigenous peoples impacted by pollution had motivated her to step forward and act upon climate crisis. “Pollution also contributes to climate change and spread of diseases. We all need to unite – rather than thinking as a country we need to think as a planet – we are the ones who are causing the problem for our mother Earth and it is our responsibility to change it. Every individual has a power to bring in a change. We should fight climate change together” said Ayesha. Kingsley Odogwu from Fridays For Future in Nigeria shared how the government had initially used a terror law to shut down the website of Fridays For Future but later revoked the order. “It is the step in right direction as it was an attack against our future.” Zeno from Youth For Climate in France called for restarting the economy with climate measures in it. “We [rich nations] are in large part responsible for it [climate crisis] and our leaders refuse to see that. That is why we need to work and that is what motivates us.” Shelani Palihawadana, Sri Lanka’s youth activist on disability and gender rights, said that the island nation is among the top ocean polluters in terms of releasing plastic. Among the most respected development justice activists, Medha Patkar, said that even though everyone agrees “climate change is a big issue internationally” but our governments are not acting on the climate emergency. “Governments are supposed to be fulfilling their duty towards the environment, socio-cultural diversity, as well as unity, equity and justice (as per our constitution). These values form the framework for not just our lives but also the governance in this country” reminded Medha Patkar. There can never be any dichotomy between environment and development. “A present leader said in the parliament that people have to choose between environment or development” said Medha Patkar. “Environment is not just ozone or coal – as it really consists of all sources of livelihood as well as is also the life support.” As it is the humanity which owns the land, water, forests, minerals, air, and other natural resources, so the people must protect them too – as we cannot just depend on the governments alone to protect it, said Medha. “The youth has to fight against killing, destruction and exploitation of nature, as same cannot be compensated, and losses are such that these are not necessarily quantifiable – as they are qualitative, and damage is irreversible. This happens when the rivers are polluted, groundwater is extracted to an extent that aquifers are also emptied, when glaciers are coming down, and even the agriculture land is being diverted and food security is lost” she added. Production by masses and not mass production Medha Patkar reminded the young people about Gandhiji’s message “my life is my message.” She said: “Gandhiji showed us a path of simplicity that would give us a different kind of prosperity which is essential for just and sustainable development. Gandhian economy is the real socialist, sustainable, and equity-based economy. When we want to address the problem of employment, we realize that it could only be through production by masses and not mass production. So, the change must be in everything – in life, lifestyle, and sources of livelihood. If we follow the Gandhian path then the lifestyle changes will again be based upon his conclusions, that the Earth has enough to fulfil every one’s need but no one’s greed. And hence our lifestyle needs to be based on as minimum resources as possible.” She was speaking from the Narmada valley and said: “I have seen how Adiwasi lifestyle has tried to save the forest, river, and land in the valley of Narmada and they have saved the living beings as well. So, when they fought this battle it was not just for themselves (not only for getting rehabilitated) but also to save the river valley resources because without forest the river cannot flow. And without the river flowing the sea cannot be stopped from coming in. The sea ingress has come into the Narmada up to 50-80 km in past years. We must realize that how badly these development projects are damaging the natural resources. People’s struggle is also a constructive work and a positive statement of what they value.” Swayam Nirbhar Gaon is must for Atma Nirbhar Bharat “If we have to go for Atma Nirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) it cannot just be a slogan as we have to have a Swayam Nirbhar Gaon (self-reliant village). Urban communities have already polluted the air – it is not the poor as they pollute the least, but it is the urban rich or elites who pollute it and then shift urban poor into slums in these areas” rightly said Medha Patkar. Noted ecologist Dr Lubna Sarwath who is also the Telangana General Secretary of Socialist Party (India) said that “young people want their world leaders to see the crisis as a crisis. But leaders are failing to see the crisis as a crisis.” She called upon the young to act upon to save the right to water which is the elixir of life. “We must ensure that every water body is not polluted in our vicinity. Ground aquifers should not be polluted.” A discussion led by Mallika Bhanot and moderated by Gurumoorthy Mathrubootham was held on environmentally destructive Char Dham highways project in Himalayas connecting Gangotri, Yamunotri, Kedarnath and Badrinath on which Chairman of a High Powered Committee appointed by Supreme Court, Ravi Chopra, has given a report with which majority of the members of committee, presumably under the influence of BJP government, do not agree, was also held. Bobby Ramakant – CNS (Citizen News Service)	Read
August 2, 2020	Small Steps and Future Course: Answering the ‘How’ by Ankit Goyal, in Climate Change, countercurrents.org. The recently launched ‘Towards a Better World’ campaign by Medha Patkar, conceived by Eco-Socialism Front and in the online presence of half a dozen activists from different countries representing Fridays for Future campaign of Greta Thunberg advocates taking small steps to achieve a more equitable society. It talks about contributing to economic, political and societal change through a personal commitment, but it has not been clearly articulated how this is to be done. I am taking this liberty of trying to touch on the aspect of how one ought to go about fulfilling this objective. When I try to write about how, it raises many possibilities, which seem interrelated and interwoven. They all involve identifying an injustice, raising the issue, and taking an honest, conscious, and watchful step towards its eradication. In this way, one can take strides towards realizing an equitable society. It is as simple as that, or is it? Small Steps and Identifying Injustice Small steps are essential to raising a particular “consciousness” in individuals. When Mahatma Gandhi organized the Dandi March and made salt, it was just not to oppose the salt tax, it was to demonstrate defiance against every injustice imposed by colonial rule. It successfully created a ripple effect, which made people aware of the injustices and how they could be addressed. When people realized that they are being oppressed and stifled, they volunteered and mobilized to fight against their oppressor and the root causes of the injustice being done to them. Similarly, small steps like saying no to plastic bags can be instrumental in raising the environmental consciousness of individuals. Plastic is a perfect example of unabated capitalism gone wrong. You create a product which no one needs in the first place. Then you deny and ignore the malicious aftermath it can lead to. When the problem becomes difficult to deal with, you seek concessions from the government, asking for taxpayers’ money to deal with a mess you yourself are responsible for; money which could have been invested in public transport, green technology or healthcare instead. There is nothing more liberating than identifying an injustice and making it one’s life purpose to resolve it. Plastic, with its detrimental impact on land, air, water, and marine life can give individuals that purpose to help raise environmental consciousness. Our voices must be raised against unplanned development and inessential products. Reducing plastic usage to the extent possible is one way of doing so. Small Steps and Reparations I have not even mentioned the amount of carbon spewed in the atmosphere during the production and then disposal of plastics (among other things), leading to climate change and global warming, to cyclones like Sandy and Nisarga, rise in sea levels, unprecedented droughts and floods and the loss of crops, life and property. This process is exposing the prevailing inequalities in society, where an economically and socially persecuted fraction bears the brunt for someone else’s mistake. Many environmentally-conscious bodies, people, research, and advocacy groups, and nations have realised this injustice and have been striving to create an equitable society. This became the foundation stone for the formation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. For the first time, developed nations were made aware of the environmental impact they have been instrumental in creating since the industrial revolution. They were urged to cut back on emissions to limit the increase in global temperature. If they were not able to, they would have to pay for the excess emissions (the cap and trade agreements of the Kyoto Protocol 1997). But nothing concrete followed thereafter. In hindsight, one can see that the carbon markets are highly sensitive to global recession (which occurred in 2008 and 2020) and as a result, the little progress made got lost in the winds of austerity. It was only in the year 2009 in CoP15 (Copenhagen) that the developed nations pledged to mobilize 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to help developing nations like India adapt to climate change. This was a first welcome stride towards the reparation that rich nations owe developing nations, for their historical emissions. The pledge was reaffirmed in the 2015 Paris agreement. But the withdrawal of the US and Australia from the Paris Agreement has seriously curtailed our progress towards more concrete climate action, towards the redistribution of wealth through reparation, towards an equitable society. As a developing nation, India needs funds for its transition into a green and sustainable economy and the onus of this should fall on the culprits (developed nations, their oil and gas, mining sector and power sectors) and not on the taxpayers of poor and developing nations. Therefore, our voices have to be raised to demand reparations. Small steps like using a bicycle, or taking public transport can help limit carbon emissions. They can also help people recognise the urgency of the problem of climate change and personally experience being part of its solution in a small way. This could motivate them to learn more about the issue and participate in and advocate for solutions like reparation at the systemic level as well. Small Steps and Development Farmers and indigenous groups are dependent on nature for their livelihood and sustenance. They rely on forest produce, fisheries and agriculture. Encroachment or degradation of land and rivers in the name of development through the construction of dams, wildlife conservation sites, mining etc. cause them to lose their native land and their occupation. It displaces them and puts them at the mercy of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. The present draft of the Forest Amendment Act (2019) is designed to facilitate such outcomes. Therefore, to ensure that the interest of vulnerable communities is protected their needs must be vociferously put before the government.  A movement for planting saplings can raise the environmental consciousness of many people with regard to preserving nature’s precious ecosystems. This could lead to broader support for an existing movement for the protection of a forest or a river ecology, which can help prevent the displacement of indigenous people from their lands and protect their livelihoods. To conclude, no matter how small a step is, it can lead to a big change – a revolution, provided small strides are taken in a well-defined objective – an equitable society. To demonstrate that all this is not merely conjecture but is actually relevant and prevalent, I present a case study about how a nation’s economic and political situation has been gravely affected by unabated environmental degradation, and how the consumers’ right to refusal has put pressure on the government to fall back on to the right course – the course of sustainable development. Brazil – a case study The tropical Amazon forest sprawls over many nations of South America, but the majority of it is contained within Brazil (almost 60%) and is home to around 400 indigenous tribes. Deforestation has been prevalent for a long time, but it has generally been controlled and somewhat essential for the people’s subsistence. Simultaneously forest conservation activities have been undertaken and the indigenous communities have been left mostly undisturbed. But things went downhill after January 1, 2019, when Jair Messias Bolsonaro won Brazil’s presidential election. Like a true right-wing conservative leader, he followed in the footsteps of his contemporaries – the abusive Trump and the short-sighted Modi (with his proposed EIA draft and Forest Amendment Act 2019 draft). What followed next was a blatant disregard for climate change. Bolsonaro’s government called it a hoax and a communist agenda. Funding of the government bodies responsible for protecting forests was either reduced or frozen owing to his anti-environmental, anti-indigenous and anti-NGO stance. There was gruesome ecocide – forests were razed to pave way for farms, extractive industries, ranches, dams and hydroelectric projects. The illegal loggers and farmers saw an opportunity in this misery and began encroaching razed land. This brought them in direct conflict with the native and vulnerable indigenous groups.  Apart from the recurring seasonal fires, there are mysterious fires that are still blazing in the Amazon forest as I am writing this article, the frequency and impact of which have increased significantly since Bolsonaro took office. According to an environmental tabloid Mongabay, “The 12-month deforestation rate in the Brazilian Amazon has risen 96% since President Jair Bolsonaro took office, and the extent of deforestation over the past year is the highest recorded since INPE, Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research, started releasing monthly statistics in 2007.” The director of INPE Ricardo Galvao, when he made his government aware of the data, was sacked the same evening. In short, everything seemed doomed for the Amazon and its natives. The government has clearly taken an anti-indigenous stance and left the indigenous people and the forest at the mercy of encroachers. But what happened next was completely unprecedented. Personally, it was quite enlightening and reinstated my faith in mass action movements. When the news of this sordid situation reached the environmentally-conscious European consumers, they immediately turned away from products imported from Brazil. Their outcry was: “If the cattle are fattened on illegally deforested land, then we don’t want its beef. If the timber is procured via illegal chopping of the trees, then we don’t want its timber.” It was vociferous enough to reach the ears of concerned corporations. The European organizations then threatened the Brazil government of divestment, if the deforestation and land grabbing situation were not ameliorated. According to Statecraft, “A group of 29 companies, the vast majority of which are European, sent a joint letter to Brazilian ambassadors in their respective countries in which they threaten to divest from beef producers, grains traders, and government bonds if the Brazilian government does not adequately commit to tackling deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. The companies, which include Legal & General Investment Management Ltd, Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Asset Management, and NN Investment Partners, hold a combined total of over $3.75 trillion in assets. The letter has been sent to the Brazilian embassies in Norway, Sweden, France, Denmark, Netherlands, the United States (US), and the United Kingdom (UK).” The soaring deforestation rate is becoming the basis for the rejection of the ratification of a $19 trillion European-Mercusor deal. French President Emmanuel Macron has also suspended negotiations with the EU-Mercosur bloc citing that they are not willing to make any trade agreement with countries that do not respect the Paris Agreement. The situation has put pressure on the Brazilian administration to take adequate steps to curtail the deforestation menace. Whether it will lead to fruition is still to be seen. But one thing I can reaffirm with complete honesty that no matter how small an action is (like boycotting a product) it has potential to create a ripple effect (like divestment) that brings about emancipation from injustice (environmental degradation). Ankit Goyal writes on environmental and social issues. He is co-convenor of Eco-Socialism Front. E-mail: ankitgoyal_009@yahoo.com	Read
July 24, 2020	Thawing Arctic Permafrost by Robert Hunziker, in Climate Change, countercurrents.org. It’s no surprise that first prize, or the blue ribbon, for exceeding 2°C above baseline goes to the Arctic with permafrost that covers 25% of the Northern Hemisphere. Recognition is long overdue, as it’s been totally neglected far too long by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This crucial nugget of knowledge comes by way of a recent virtual science session (1:27 in length) sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and can be watched in its entirety on YouTube at: The webcast is entitled: Thawing Arctic Permafrost: Regional and Global Impacts, hosted by John P. Holdren, Teresa & John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. The timing couldn’t be better. The Arctic Circle has been very newsworthy. As such, people must be wondering what to make of the disturbing news that’s unsettling, to an extreme. According to Euronews, as of July 14th: “The extreme north and beyond the Arctic Circle has this year registered record temperatures. On June 20, the meteorological service of Russia recorded a peak of 38°C in Verkhoyansk, the highest recorded temperature since records began in the late nineteenth century.” “This is contributing to the rapid melting of permafrost, the region’s frozen ground, on which are built many industrial construction sites and buildings, many for mining hydrocarbons,” Ibid. “The melting of the poles that act as temperature controls for atmospheric currents has consequences for the entire climate,” Ibid. Decidedly, what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. According to Professor Holdren: “Temperatures across the Arctic are increasing 2 to 3 times faster than the global average… The Arctic will continue to be the leading edge of climate change.” The first speaker on the virtual webcast was Dr. Susan M. Natali, Associate Scientist and Arctic Program Director, Woods Hole Research Center, an Arctic ecologist focusing on the ecosystem and carbon cycling consequences of permafrost thaw. According to Dr. Natali, the Arctic temperature anomaly is already 2°C warmer than the long-term average. The consequences include sea ice loss, melting of Greenland ice sheets, and permafrost thaw. Permafrost thaw is monitored by boreholes drilled at depths of 20 meters (66 feet) throughout the Arctic. Thus, measured temperature changes avoid seasonal dynamics. These deep permafrost temperatures, in some instances, have been measured for up to 40 years. Results: Permafrost temps are markedly warming across the board, regardless of season. Of note, Northern Hemisphere permafrost contains 1100-1500 billion tonnes of carbon in the form of ancient organic matter. For comparison purposes, this is twice the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere, and it is three times as much carbon as in the world’s forest biomass. An obvious implication of Dr. Natali’s statements is humanity is playing with fire in a very big way by allowing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (cars, planes, and trains, etc.) to run wild, increasing by the month, by the year, by the decade with absolutely no end in sight, none whatsoever. At some point in time all of those billions of tonnes of carbon stored in frozen permafrost will start breaking lose beyond normal background rates and humanity will find its goose cooked, maybe well done. According to Natali, permafrost carbon emissions are not included in the IPCC’s global carbon budget that targets 2°C or below, preferably below 1.5°C. Well, maybe a suddenly overheated Arctic will bring on an eventual recalculation of how the IPCC looks at and calculates the carbon budget. Better late than never. And, here’s the distressing part (one of many): Fieldwork by scientists proved that permafrost is already a “net emitter of CO2,” this after thousands of years as a “carbon sink,” but no longer! As such, thousands of years of one of the largest carbon sinks on Earth erased by recklessness of human-generated over-heating ecosystems. Not only that, according to Natali, permafrost thaw alone is equivalent to ~25% of the IPCC’s allowable emissions to stay below 1.5°C. Yet, the IPCC does not include permafrost in its carbon budget, meaning there’s a very nasty surprise down the line for the rah-rah climate mitigation crowd. The second virtual speaker was Katey Walter Anthony, Aquatic Ecosystem Ecologist and Professor, Water and Environmental Research Center, University of Alaska/Fairbanks. Dr. Anthony has done fieldwork throughout Russia with a lot of work in Siberia (a hothouse nowadays). Her research focuses on thermokarst, lake formation, and greenhouse gas methane. Per Dr. Anthony, current climate models in the world do not include carbon emissions from thermokarst lakes. Yet, they’re plentiful with millions of thermokarst lakes expanding and releasing methane all across the Arctic. Not only that but permafrost soils contain 1500 gigatons of carbon, which according to Dr. Anthony, equates to 150 years of fossil fuel emissions under present conditions. Imagine turning lose a sizeable fraction of that carbon. Once again, nation/states’ carbon emission mitigation plans are dead certain to come up real short of professed goals. Field tests on thermokarst lakes are conducted by lowering a bubble trap into the water to trap microbial methane seeps as the methane bubbles year round. Bubble traps exist in over 300 lakes throughout the Arctic. It was 14,000 years ago, as the climate warmed, when permafrost thermokarst lakes flared up on the landscape, bringing 4°C warming over a period of 8,000 years. Nowadays, according to Dr. Anthony, a similar 4°C warming will likely occur over only 80 years in sharp contrast to 8,000 years in the paleoclimate record. Obviously, without her stating as such, it implies a climate system that’s on turbo charger training-wheels, real big ones. “We are standing at the threshold of abrupt change in permafrost carbon emissions.” (Anthony) Mercy! And, all of those mitigation plans by 195 nations, but did they ever really get off the ground? The truth is emissions relentlessly climb upwards, ad nauseam. Thus, questioning who’s seriously watching the store? John Holdren wrapped up the virtual session: We’re probably looking at 80 to 100 gigatons of carbon released from permafrost over this century. In turn, this takes a big bite out of the global carbon budget. According to Dr. Holdren, that prospect is in addition to a global temperature increase, to date, of 1.1°C to 1.2°C above baseline. Permafrost, which is not included in the global carbon budget by the IPCC, could add 25% to 40%. That’s an enormous problem that lends itself to big trouble down the line. What’s a nation in the throes of carbon emission mitigation plans to do? Nevertheless, Dr. Holdren, who co-chaired Obama’s President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, says it is still possible to mitigate enough to hold temps to 2°C. But at a cost of ~3% of world GDP. Ahem! He further nearly apologetically suggested that the hit to civilization for failure to mitigate would far exceed that cost, which happens to be 3% of $85T or a whopping $2.55T (that’s trillions). Hello, anybody still out there? Meanwhile, after years of handwringing and gushing teardrops of green sympathizers, the world is still 80% dependent upon fossil fuels, a fact revealed by Dr. Holdren at the close of his presentation. That’s very troubling. That’s the same 80% as 50 years ago and a clear signal of absolute failure by governments around the world and a resounding failure by the IPCC to fully implement/organize/promote its heavenly Paris ’15 plans to save the planet. It’s disgraceful! As for final questions/thoughts via the virtual webcast: According to Dr. Anthony: The East Siberian Arctic Sea is a place where “we’ve seen really large numbers of CH4 release.” The following was not discussed in the webcast: Temperatures were recently 30-34C (86-93F) in the East Siberian Arctic Sea (ESAS) region, which region is equivalent in size to Germany France Gr Br Italy and Japan combined and with 75% of the area in 50-80m, shallow waters, allowing quick and easy CH4 release from the subsea permafrost without oxidation. Drilling by other scientists has discovered enormous quantities of frozen methane, and noticeable thinning of the subsea permafrost. Trusted sources that closely follow CH4 emissions in the ESAS region are of the opinion: “It may be out of control.” But, it’s important to note that’s anecdotal information. Also, disconcertingly, the heaviest season for methane release into the atmosphere has only just begun. Making matters even worse, at the Top of the World, Arctic Ocean sea surface temperatures, which this time of year are typically 0.3°C (32°F) were recently 12°C (54°F). That’s downright spooky! Postscript: Scientists have identified the first active methane gas leak in Antarctica, announced July 22nd, discovered by researchers led by Andrew Thurber/Oregon State University, who commented: “I find it incredibly concerning.” (Source: Andrew R. Thurber, et al, Riddles in the Cold: Antarctic Endemism and Microbial Succession Impact Methane Cycling in the Southern Ocean, The Royal Society, July 22, 2020). Speechless! Robert Hunziker, MA, economic history DePaul University, awarded membership in Pi Gamma Mu International Academic Honor Society in Social Sciences is a freelance writer and environmental journalist who has over 200 articles published, including several translated into foreign languages, appearing in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He has been interviewed on numerous FM radio programs, as well as television.	Read
July 28, 2020	Intimidating China is One Thing, Overpowering It, An Absurd Dream! by Taj Hashmi, in World,m countercurrents.org. At the end of the Cold War in 1990, we all heaved a big sigh of relief, as the two superpowers didn’t destroy themselves and the world! What was seemingly “inevitable” – the Third World War – didn’t take place. Despite having some major military conflicts and proxy wars between the Western and Communist blocs – the Korean, Vietnam, Cambodian, and Afghan Wars – both Washington and Moscow restrained themselves from going all the way to a total, decisive war against each other. In the above backdrop, is it too much to assume that the Sino-Indian Cold War will go the old way? Possibly “no” is the most appropriate answer! China will possibly get away with what it wants from India in Ladakh, and further south, India’s Arunachal Pradesh, if not any other territory eventually! Can we hope the escalating tension between the two nuclear-armed nations, their friends and surrogates will tread the path of détente, and eventually to durable peace? Unfortunately, we are getting mixed signals! Hence the questions, if the US and its surrogates want to punish China; or they just want to intimidate the superpower by verbal threats and naval exercises in its backwater! Actually, the US and their Indo-Pacific and North Atlantic allies have been very nervous about the “impending rise” of China as the most powerful nation on earth, militarily and economically. However, they can do very little or nothing about it! Early this month, two US aircraft carriers, the USS Nimitz – the largest in the world – and the USS Ronald Reagan, conducted joint operations to demonstrate “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea, as if that has become an issue between China and any Indo-Pacific littoral nation, or countries well-beyond the vast region! Indian warships, including destroyers, frigates and submarines as well as aircraft from both the Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC) and the Eastern Naval Command (ENC) headquartered at Visakhapatnam took part in the exercise. While the PASSEX (passing exercise) between the US and Indian navies were impressive, so was the Chinese mega naval air force live-fire drill in the South China Sea, in the wake of the PASSEX. In a way, the PASSEX was an attempt to intimidate China, a warning to hands-off Ladakh and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea! By the way, the exercise was first of its kind since 2012. Meanwhile, the US has been persistently challenging Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea. There couldn’t be another more sensible explanation to the purpose of the recent joint Indo-US naval exercise in the Indian Ocean, than what an analyst has put in the following manner: “While the US keeps pricking Beijing in the South China Sea …. With China being the common adversary, India and the US are conducting joint naval drills, thus sending a loud and clear message to Beijing – a possible military alliance between Washington and New Delhi against China”. Yet another analyst believes, “where territorial disputes have flared between China and its smaller neighbors, the United States has rejected China’s territorial claims as ‘unlawful’.” I believe that the US, which until recently used to be the “only superpower” in the world, has – not-so-subtly – challenged China’s territorial claims across the Himalayas. And that, the escalating border dispute between China and India will push New Delhi to build closer strategic ties with Washington, and eventually with Australia and Japan. This, however, will be an end in itself! “So what!” could be the shortest and most appropriate appraisal of the whole thing, military exercises, and closer strategic ties between India and the US, and India and the latter’s surrogates in the Indo-Pacific region. There’re reasons to believe that these exercises and military pacts, à la NATO, Warsaw Pact, CENTO, SEATO, and their likes during the Cold War years will be ONLY remembered as human endeavors to deescalate tensions between superpowers, not as military pacts to invade each other! Thus all these military exercises and alliances (existing and emerging ones) won’t play any decisive role in determining China’s future course of action across the Himalayas or in the South China Sea, let alone cow China into “behaving” in accordance with how the US, India, Japan, Australia and their allies define the expression vis-a-vis China’s territorial claims and designs in Asia. We may learn important lessons from the history of the Cold War, especially with regard to the usefulness/uselessness of military alliances and exercises. They didn’t work at every front. Despite NATO, SEATO, and CENTO, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Afghanistan, among others, defied US hegemony and fought against US/Western interests and won. Didn’t China annex parts of its disputed territory from India in 1962? All the pro-Western military pacts and all their military exercises failed to intimidate or retrain China from what it wanted to do. The West with all its nukes didn’t dare to invade a non-nuclear, poor, and famine-stricken China in 1962. What the US and its allies couldn’t do against China of 1962, why on earth anybody should even pay any heed to proposed US-led new military alliances and the latest Indo-US military exercise in the Indian Ocean as deterrents to Chinese designs? China today is the second most powerful nation, economically and militarily. While the US spends more than $600 billion on defense, China spends more than $200 billion on its armed forces. Not a paltry amount on the PPP basis! While China continues pressuring India at the LAC across the Himalayas, claiming far more “Indian” territories than ever before, there’s no reason to believe China will stop at Ladakh! What the British bequeathed to India in 1947, didn’t belong to what’s India today, in its entirety. As tiny Nepal has historical claims over chunks of Indian territories in Bihar, West Bengal and elsewhere in northeastern India, so has China legitimate, historical claims of “Indian” territories too. So, irrespective of what the US and its surrogates say about China, and threaten the newly emerging superpower, calling it an “aggressor and expansionist” doesn’t matter at the end of the day. China will get away with what it wants to, out of India. It’s only a question of time! One, however, believes that NO attempt to encircle, let alone intimidate and overpower China would work. China no longer solely depends on the Strait of Malacca for its imported oil to reach its Harbors in the South China Sea. It has Russia, a big oil producer, in good terms in the North. Gwadar port in the Arabian Sea in friendly Pakistan is linked to China via the Karakorum Highway. And, why on earth Japan and Australia, and most importantly the US, let alone Vietnam, would confront China militarily? None of these countries are even indirectly facing any Chinese aggressive design. And all of them have been trading with China. Trading partners don’t fight each other. Since ALL wars were/are TRADE WARS, including the Crusades, destabilizing China economically wouldn’t only adversely affect the country, but all its trading partners, including the US, India, Japan, and Australia. Meanwhile, even if China decides to settle its border disputes with India, even with full military force, the countries which from time to time display their arsenal, would never use them! The US and its Indo-Pacific allies would challenge China militarily only at the cost of great economic loss by snapping all economic/ trading ties with China, which would be mutually destructive. And any such confrontation would lead to the free flow of nuclear-armed ICBMs from land and sea. And the “friends of India” would go for the Third World War for the sake of Ladakh or Arunachal Pradesh in India! I don’t think so. Meanwhile, China is developing a powerful military base in Pakistan. China is also making headway – out of all the places to an Indian surrogate state – into Bangladesh. It has already got Nepal on its side! So, those who think the US and its allies in the East or West will be able to intimidate China can’t be taken seriously. Then again, possibly intimidating China is one thing, but overpowering it militarily or economically requires altogether a different ball game for Washington and its allies. Meanwhile, India doesn’t matter at all, either militarily or economically, to China vis-à-vis its not-so-hidden designs across the Himalayas! Taj Hashmi holds a Ph.D. in Modern South Asian History; is a Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society; author of several books, including Global Jihad and America (SAGE, 2014); and retired Professor of Security Studies at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS), Honolulu, Hawaii.	Read
July 28, 2020	India Caught Between US And China-Russia Duel in India by Haider Abbas, countercurrents.org. The events unfolding in terms of military deployment and military exercises by US in South China sea are a  clear sign that any small spark is to lead to triggering a war between US and China as US is slated for its elections where Trump wants to hone a point to US citizens that in order to contain China all the Americans need is a more and more aggressive Trump.  US has already stationed two of its aircraft carriers in South China sea, Ronald Reagan and Nimitz, since July 4, 2020 1 , which are engaged into reconnaissance inside the boundary of  China. China which had been keeping a keen eye on its south sea, since from quite a few years, as US provocations are not that new, in one of its nationalistic, which US calls as a state newspaper, Global Times, had in its editorial called US a ‘Paper-Tiger’ on July 13, 2016 2 , and has now called US as an ‘Alpha-Wolf’ on July 12, 2020, four years hence, as US has now started to fully-arm Japan against China regarding which China has called for Russia to jointly-work for the challenge thrown by US.  ‘The US State Department on July 9, 2020 had  approved a planned purchase by Japan of 105 F-35 joint strike fighters, including 63 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing aircraft, plus 42 F-35B short takeoff and landing variants. They’re worth US$23 billion. If Japan moves the deal forward, it will become the largest operator of this type of joint strike fighter outside of the US with a total of 147 F-35s. Japan thinks it faces pressure from China and Russia in the Asia-Pacific region as both Beijing and Moscow have developed a more advanced fourth and fifth generation fighter jets. It is a normal choice for Tokyo to purchase F-35s to offset its disadvantage’. In the same editorial China referred US as not a tiger – neither a real one nor a paper one. A tiger doesn’t call for help in a fight. But Washington is a wolf. Wolves always go hunt in group. And as an alpha wolf, it is leading a so-called international coalition with wolf pack tactics’. 3  It may be known that F-35 is a stealth-fighter and the same bombers were used by Israel against Iran to bomb its nuclear  facility on July 3, 2020 as they had remained undetected 4 . US as a mark of intelligence-gathering is engaged into its tactics all across the whole of South China sea, and Russia in keeping to its promise, on July 11, 2020, intercepted a US reconnaissance spy aircraft which flew over the sea of Japan or what can also be called as international-waters or airspace, and was said to have been close to China’s border5, and as  it was heading towards the Russian airspace, the Russian Sukhoi Su-35S and MiG-31 BM intercepted it mid-air and identified it as RC-135 strategic reconnaissance aircraft of the US Air Force, which made a retreat to move out of Russian airspace 6.  The aircraft is said to be one of the very powerful US assets as its range service ceiling is more than 5000 kms 7  and Russia informed China about the same making China go on a high alert,  and also, with a plain reminder to US that Russia and China are comrade-in-arms. This F-35 is what is ‘most-sought-after’ intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft and China, in a move to balance Rafael Jets supplied to India 8, has decided to supply its counter-balance to Pakistan its J-31 fighter jet 9  . The Chinese version is also cost effective as it costs 70 million USD, in comparison to F-35 of US which costs 79 million USD and Rafael for 77 million USD. 10 US has however, for long accused China to have stolen its technology to make J-31 and the latest accusation has come from US former national security advisor John Bolton on September 2, 2019 11. China in yet another move has put an embargo on Lockheed Martin, the gargantuan American defense contractor to sell arms to Taiwan 12.  It also needs a mention here that more than five years back in 2015, with reference of Edward Snowden, a former US national security agency contractor, The Diplomat , had broken the story that China had whisked-away the US technology to help make its version of its fifth-generation F-35 13.  Russia too had been into praises for the Chinese effort as Vladimir Barkovsky, chief of the Russian MiG aircraft design bureau, praised the J-31 as a “well done indigenous design”  on May 22, 2014 14 , giving a fillip  to China’s ambitious aviation industry. There are already reports that US offer for its F-35 jets to India may be on the cards provided India cancels its S-400 strategic air-defense system with Russia 15 and also to counter Pakistan in the race to achieve stealth fighter jets. India is now quite sucked into the duel between US on one side and China-Russia on the other as India had long abandoned the Soviet Bloc and has been into naval-exercises with US, Australia etc in South Chiba sea since around a decade, hence, US now finds it more complacent to blackmail India to its liking. It hasn’t been that long when during the COVID-19 outbreak US had threatened India over the supply of Hydroxycholoroquine on April 7, 202016 ,  when India had shown some dilly-dally into supplying it to US, and with sanctions on May 21, 2020 if India goes ahead to buy S-400 from Russia 17 ,    and now on July 16, 2020, India’s prominent security expert Sumit Ganguly, has written in Foreign Policy 18 , a premier US magazine, that in order to fight China US wants India to forget Russia. This is because of the fact that in the immediate aftermath of the Galwan Valley attack of June 15, 2020, in which India lost 20 of its soldiers to China, Indian defense minister Rajnath Singh had visited Moscow and inked a 2.4 billion USD arms deal with Russia, in extension, to what India had already struck for S-400 with Russia last year on November 15, 2019 19. This purported proposal from US has come, in-between an undeniable fact, that 60 percent of arms arsenal of India is either of Soviet or Russian made . ‘Not surprisingly, India remains reliant on Russia for spare parts and upgrades for a disproportionate segment of its armory’, said the article. India therefore has been given a message that the dual ‘Love’ which Trump espouses for China and India alike 20, can thus be re-assuaged if India forgoes Russia, which is too much of a hard task as procuring world-class- weaponry from Russia is pretty much easier than from US where it is subject to Congress scrutiny, and moreover, India has been for around 50 years remained with Soviets, but then, Russia, since the break of Soviet Union, has not shown any inclination to work as a bulwark against China, as what was once vouched by Kremlin in the pre-Gorbachev days.  Plus, adding to it, Russia in the past decade or so had been adrift with Afghan Taliban who are India’s nemesis.  But then, Russia, also has no doubt, helped India into defusing the volatile situation arising with China in the past few months. India surely has invested too much with US as voices from inside India about India’s nightmare of a two-front war with Pakistan and China as yet to wake-up US 21  are coming hard and clear, but on the contrary John Bolton has already warned India that Trump would not back India in case of a war with China 22 .  Thus, the overall situation has landed India in a real catch-22 position as leaving Russia,  at this juncture at the behest of US,  will also obviously make Russia slide completely towards Pakistan as it has been China in the background which helped Pakistan start to construct its liaison with Russia.  Taking advantage of India in such an insolvable quandary, US is definitely going to throttle down our throat the Lockheed Martin products i.e. F-35. The writer is a former UP State Information Commissioner. He is also a lawyer based in Lucknow.   References : 1-https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/us/politics/south-china-sea-aircraft-carrier.html 2- https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/994129.shtml 3-https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1194297.shtml 4-https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-israeli-cyberattack-caused-iran-nuclear-site-fire-f35s-hit-missile-base/ 5-https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1308433/China-WW3-fears-US-spy-plane-Russia-attack-fighter-jets-Trump-Putin-Xi-latest 6-https://tass.com/defense/1177331 7-https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/boeing-rc135/ 8-https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/first-lot-of-rafale-fighter-jets-for-india-flies-out-of-france/story-fCd383YCDy8xEgP8dQZoFP.html 9-http://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=1617 10-https://intallaght.ie/in-response-to-the-french-raphael-and-the-american-f-35-china-built-the-j31-fighter-jet/ 11-https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3025403/john-bolton-accuses-china-stealing-f-35-technology-make-stealth 12-https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-sanctions-lockheed-martin-over-taiwan-arms-sales-but-impact-is-minimal/2020/07/14/3658b412-c5b7-11ea-a825-8722004e4150_story.html 13-https://thediplomat.com/2015/01/new-snowden-documents-reveal-chinese-behind-f-35-hack/ 14-https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/new-chinese-5th-generation-fighter-jet-j31-performs-more-flight-tests/ 15-https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/united-states-f-35-combat-aircraft-lockheed-martin-offer-to-india 16-https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/would-be-surprised-if-india-doesnt-allow-export-of-hydroxychloroquine-to-us-trump/article31276161.ece 17-https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/us-again-threatens-india-with-sanctions-for-buying-s-400-missiles-from-russia/ar-BB14oQLj 18https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/16/india-fighting-china-means-forgetting-russia/ 19-https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/russia-plans-to-deliver-s-400-missile-systems-to-india-on-schedule-putin/articleshow/72072474.cms?from=mdr 20-https://www.deccanchronicle.com/world/america/170720/i-love-the-people-of-india-and-i-love-the-people-of-china-trump.html 21- https://www.hudson.org/research/16237-the-u-s-hasn-t-woken-up-to-india-s-nightmare-of-a-two-front-war-with-china-and-pakistan 22- Trump may not back India against China in case of conflict, says former US NSA John Bolton to WION	Read
July 29, 2020	The Capitalism Virus — Etymology of an Epidemic in India. by Amulya Anita Gurumurthy, Information Clearing House, Five months into the pandemic, it is evident that the government is in denial. The political rhetoric is harking back a failed status quoism, with grand delusions of recovery. Rather than call for a complete reset and reconfiguration of the prevailing order, the Indian government’s approach to tackling the pandemic betrays an overwhelming faith in business-as-usual. The economic fallouts of the pandemic have prompted several questions. What does the response to COVID-19 say about the state’s vision for the economy, in general? What does it reveal about the material basis of policy, and the interests that state actions invariably promote? The steady state of crisis capitalism “Unless the government takes proactive measures, we are falling off a cliff,” warned Jayati Ghosh, two months into the crisis, and today, it seems that the government’s actions have done everything to accelerate this fall. The pandemic, however, is merely the spark that lit the powder keg. Underlying its origins are structural causes of the capitalist neo-liberal order. In addressing COVID-19, the Government of India has acted entirely in cahoots with big capital, reposing unflinching faith in the illusory equilibrium driven ostensibly by market forces. This, even as the pandemic has revealed the deep fault-lines that go back to a broken system. The economic crises that nation states are witnessing is a function of the pre-COVID capitalist order. The massive unemployment, disruptions in supply chains and soaring debt are not produced by the pandemic; they are directly attributable to the crisis-prone nature intrinsic to capitalism. As Harvey argues, the approach adopted by the government in addressing any crisis, dictates the nature of the next. The flexible monetary policy measures employed to rectify the 2008 financial crisis enabled the capitalist class to borrow at nearly zero percent interest rates, creating inflationary pressures in the economy. Prices in stock markets surged far above their real economic values, while simultaneously inequality burgeoned. The pandemic was the proverbial straw of an unsustainable economic order, an expression of the inherent vulnerabilities of the system. The effect of this current crisis however, is going to be far more acute than previous recessions, given the combined collapse in supply and demand. Shortage of raw materials is likely to result in cost push inflation. Supply chains are already being disrupted by the shut down of factories and increasing unemployment. Escalating economic inequality and decreasing consumption on the other hand are adversely impacting aggregate demand. Goldman Sachs estimates that India will experience its gravest recession yet. Coronacapitalism – mutations of the status quo Originally, the year 2020 was projected to witness a decline in poverty, with 14 million individuals rising above the poverty line. But the pandemic has set us back ruinously; the revised figure hypothesises that a lower limit of 8.8 million additional individuals will find themselves in working poverty. With respect to India, the 6.1 % unemployment figure from 2017-18, the highest in 45 years, seems like good news in comparison to what we can now expect. By the end of April 2020, 140 million workers had lost their jobs, and 27% of the workforce had been rendered unemployed. The central government’s deliberate policy of non-intervention to support workers in the informal economy has enlarged the reserve army of labour. It has ensured that wages are depressed, and the working population, kept in check. Strengthening the interests of the bourgeoisie at the peril of the proletariat, the government’s response to the pandemic dangerously, albeit unsurprisingly, embraces yet again, the heady logic of capital. In the initial days, when the lockdown led to a cascading impact on the economy, with real estate, aviation, tourism and micro, small and medium enterprises bearing the brunt of the recession, the Confederation of Indian Industry met with the labour minister, Santosh Gangwar, insisting that the government orders workers to resume production. They further argued that in the event that workers refuse to return to the workplace, they should be held liable under the Industrial Disputes Act. In Karnataka, after consulting the cement lobby (anxious about an imminent demand shock), Chief Minister, Yediyurappa, cancelled trains that were to transport migrants back to their villages. Evidently, when it is labour alone that adds value to the production process, capitalists in collusion with the government are eager to go to any lengths to deprive workers of the right to withdraw their labour power, even when in duress. This marks a return to corvee labour or forced labour, which characterises feudal societies. The pandemic has simply and starkly dispelled the smokescreen of capitalist ideology, underlining how rather than the inventiveness and organisational capabilities of capitalist entrepreneurs, it is labour that is required for the production of commodities and extraction of surplus. The humanitarian crisis wrought by the pandemic has been exacerbated by the government’s callous economic decisions. Research conducted by SWAN in April 2020 indicated that 92% of migrant labourers had not received rations from the government. India is slated to join some of the world’s poorest countries adding to the projected numbers of hunger deaths owing to the pandemic. The government is yet to universalise the public distribution system, though the Food Corporation of India’s godowns hold 98 million tonnes of wheat and rice. Instead, it has sought to covert the surplus grain to ethanol, in order to blend it with petrol. A central question of economics is regarding the distribution of scarce resources. Given this, the government’s policy measures have resulted in allocative inefficiency, with the interests of the working population being summarily dismissed. As, Sanjeev Sharma, a taxi driver, said in the early days of the virus, “Some people will die of the virus. The rest of us will die of hunger”. Nivedita Menon has coined the term ‘Coronacapitalism’ to refer to how in the course of the pandemic, the state has entirely been subordinated to the interests of the bourgeoisie. The economic package announced by the Modi government attests to this, with deregulation and pro-free market reforms being implemented in all sectors of the economy. Agricultural markets have been opened up, with the removal of laws governing the prices and stocks of produce. This will lead to greater centralisation of capital, with powerful traders establishing monopolies and foreign companies crushing local farmers. Additionally, Madhya Pradesh, Assam and Gujarat have amended labour laws, eroding the paltry protection workers possessed. These labour reforms deny workers the right to toilet breaks, ventilation, protective equipment, weekly holidays and disallow the formation of trade unions. The bourgeoisie, it seems, has waged a class war against the proletariat, denying them of their basic entitlements in order to increase the rate of accumulation. The government’s assumption that capital will flock to India due to its weak labour laws is empirically flawed. Foreign investment exiting China has largely flown into Vietnam and Thailand; countries which have more robust labour laws. As economists critical of the neo-liberal paradigm argue, the Indian government should have adopted a Keynesian model and implemented expansionary fiscal policies. Rather than adopting a policy of decisive intervention, the government’s response to the crisis has been dictated by the whims of capital. How inequalities have shaped the cartography of COVID In a society that is deeply stratified, the adverse socio-economic outcomes of the pandemic are bound to disproportionately affect marginalised social groups. Women workers are more likely to be dismissed and to suffer pay cuts. Women constitute the reserve army, forced out of labour markets during periods of economic slowdown. Like gender, caste too is relevant in tracing the contours of the crisis. The leisure industry was instrumental in pumping demand into the economy post the 2008 financial crisis, thereby salvaging capitalism. However, today, the norm of social distancing is leading to ‘COVID Brahminism’, institutionalising caste hierarchies and legitimising practices of untouchability through registers of hygiene. Restaurant businesses – desperate as they are – want to win back consumers through bio-surveillance of delivery boys and kitchen staff. Your home-delivered pizza bill now has details of body temperatures of workers, a perverse state of transparency that applies to those condemned to everyday struggle by our class-caste structures. The development divides of the world mean that some countries are going to be affected by the pandemic far more severely than others. The United States can restore its own economy, as the sole holder of the world’s reserve currency. Developed nations are also able to adopt sizeable fiscal packages, with Japan spending 20% of its GDP in addressing the crisis. On the other hand, developing nations are confronted by depreciation, capital flight and falling remittances. Significantly, their ability to adopt expansionary measures is circumscribed due to their fear of exclusion from the international market. Thus, contrary to assumptions that the virus doesn’t discriminate, the economic fallout of the pandemic manifests in a profoundly unequal manner. The COVID crisis has lifted the curtains, revealing the exploitative underpinnings of the current socio-economic order. It is a wake up call for an alternate economic system that is equitable and caters to the interests of the working class rather than to the minuscule section that owns the means of production. Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures, and capital’s impulse to colonise must be reined in boldly and unequivocally. A blatantly class collaborationist line of government policy is bound to push the dispossessed majority off the cliff, with the capitalist class rejoicing in the bountiful panorama of renewed accumulation. Amulya Anita Gurumurthy is a student of law	Read
July 29, 2020	Mother Earth by Preeti Tej Singh, in Arts/Literature, countercurrents.org. once i used to be complete one whole there were no parts of me but now i am mincemeat you have done this to me since millennia you are ripping me apart pulling me to shreds scratching my body with lines and cutting me into bits bits you proudly call your own but, strangely each time after you cut out a portion and gave me a new name somebody else wanted a bit of his own now i am all bloodied and butchered by you my children piece by piece you have dismembered me but  after all this you still kill each other firing across fences and borders you call your portions sovereign states but in this whole business of property and possession there are no tears for your mother you are still at it perhaps one day it will all stop but will  there be left anything of me   Preeti Tej Singh has written two books of poetry. The first was called ‘I’ . The second book is called Simantini (Boundless). She blogs at  www.samvednasabkeliye.blogspot.com	Read
August 4, 2020	Capitalist Philanthropy: A Means of Circumventing the State? by K Sahadevan , countercurrents.org. On March 13, 2019, Azim Premji, Chairman of Wipro Limited and the third richest man in India (according to the Hurun India Rich List1) made an unusual announcement. The announcement was that he would set aside Rs 53,000 crore of his wealth for philanthropy. As a signatory to “Giving Pledge,” the philanthropic project started by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, Mr. Premji also stated that he would spend about 73% of his stocks on charity works. This would be around 1,45,000 crore rupees ($ 21bn), making it one of the largest donations to charities made by a single person in history. “Azim Premji’s generosity knows no bounds. I salute his awesome philanthropy with deep respect and admiration”2 remarked Kiran Majumdar Shah, the owner of Biocon Enterprises, another member of the Billionaires Club of India, praised Azim Premji for his generosity. In an interview with Anil Dharkar, a leading journalist and writer, Mr. Premji says, “being rich did not thrill me”3. This interview gives us glimpses of Azim Premji’s character where Dharkar portrays him as someone who “owns only a second-hand Mercedes E-Class car,”“travels only in cattle class,” and “not even owning a yacht.” Although no similar patterns can be seen in Azim Premji’s acts of charity, studies show that philanthropy is on the rise among the elite class in India. Smarnita Shetty, Founder Director, Indian Development Review, says that the number of super-rich entering philanthropic activities is increasing in India, even though it is relatively small compared to the growth in the number of super-rich in the country4. According to the 2018 Hurun India Philanthropy List, the number of people who have spent over Rs 10 crore on charity work is estimated to be around 39. Hurun India reveals that Shiv Nadar of HCL spent 770 crores for education, and Reliance Industries Mukesh Ambani gave away 437 crores for education and rural development and Piramal Enterprises owner Ajay Piramal spent Rs 200 crore on health and education5. Before we analyse the politics of philanthropic capitalism, which is spreading all over the world, we have to understand the Western models of the charity foundations started by big corporates. We see natural disasters and epidemics being used as an opportunity to implement corporate philanthropy and governments and democratic institutions relinquishing their responsibilities and relying on charitable foundations. In this context, it is essential to understand what the pitfalls behind corporate philanthropy are. More than a decade ago, in August 2010, the global IT giant Bill Gates and American investor Warren Buffett formed the international philanthropic venture ‘Giving Pledge.’ The Giving Pledge was designed to make the richest people in the world commit to spending a large portion of their wealth on social services. According to the official website of Giving Pledge, 210 people from 23 countries have signed this project by 20206. In addition to Bill-Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett, the world’s richest people include Mark Zuckerberg-Priscilla Chan, David Rockefeller, Lawrence Ellison, Michael Bloomberg, Azim Premji,  Nandan-Rohini Nilakeni and PNC Menon has also part of this pledge. The Giving Pledge covers a wide range of areas, including poverty alleviation, education, health, women’s empowerment, and environmental protection. Bill Gates, the chief organizer of the Global Philanthropic Project, explains,“It’s about building a great tradition of human love that will ultimately make the world a better place.” The global super-rich spends their wealth on social services through various private charitable foundations. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-BMGF, formed by Bill Gates, the Education Foundation of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan, the Buffett Foundation of Warren Buffett, Bloomberg Philanthropy of Michael Bloomberg and Azim Premji Foundation of Azim Premji are a few examples of this private philanthropic foundation. On December 2, 2015, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced on his Facebook page that he would set aside 99% of his company’s share for social work. The Mark-Priscilla couple donated about $ 45 billion to the charity fund. In a joint letter to their daughter Max on her birthday, they wrote: “Like all parents, we want you to grow up in a world better than ours today.”They explain by clarifying their social responsibility; “we believe all lives have equal value, and that includes the many more people who will live in future generations than alive today. Our society has an obligation to invest now to improve the lives of all those coming into this world, not just those already here”. Zuckerberg and Chan raise a number of questions that society raises in general through this letter; “ Can you learn and experience 100 times more than we do today? Can our generation cure disease so you live much longer and healthier lives? Can we connect the world, so you have access to every idea, person, and opportunity? Can we harness more clean energy so you can invent things we can’t conceive of today while protecting the environment? Can we cultivate entrepreneurship, so you can build any business and solve any challenge to grow peace and prosperity?” He finds answers to questions in his own actions; “If our generation makes the right investments, the answer to each of these questions can be yes — and hopefully within your lifetime”7. Like almost all wealthy philanthropists, Zuckerberg finds education as a way to “make the world a better place” and went on to name his charity ‘Education Foundation’. It can be seen that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, founded by Bill Gates, the new incarnation of philanthropic capitalism, has focused more on the health sector, especially in the promotion of Vaccinations. Historical and ideological premises of charity The etymology of the word charity reveals that it originated in the Christian scriptures and that the concept of charity developed with the advent of private property. The word charity derived from the Latin word caritas and entered into a wide range of literary and moral discourses in the middle of the eighteenth century. It is interesting to note that the ‘European Enclosure Act (1773)’ was enacted in England around the same period. Charles Avila explains that views on private property and charity can be found in early Christian texts. Avila more accurately described the primitive logic of American ethos when he said,  “If I am my own, and my labor belongs to me, then what I make is mine”8. Avila concludes that this is a logic that drives anything, including land, to become private property. It shows the attitude of the proprietary class that the social distress that arise through the emergence of private property can be solved and dealt with by charitable means. This reveals the inextricable link between the concentration of private wealth and charity. During the Industrial Revolution, big business groups proved that religious and moral consciousness could be exploited for their interests. They were always careful to hide their encroachments on public resources behind the veil of philanthropy. They spread to various parts of the world through charitable activities to establish their vested interests. As in modern times, their ever-present theme has been ‘poverty alleviation’ and ‘education.’ Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie were three of the most important industrial families in the 1920s who had the strongest involvement in philanthropic activities. These three institutions have invested billions of dollars in the name of charity with the world’s largest universities and policy-making/research institutions. Robert Arnov explains that there were three basic ideas behind the charitable activities of large corporations;  (1) to create public opinion in favor of liberal nationalism and strong national governments, (2)form an elite group to cultivate American interests in institutions in different countries, and (3)intervene in the nation-states for the democratic reforms needed to shape a global order and thereby spread neo-liberal reforms9. From the very beginning, they sought to strengthen the spread of ideas in line with their economic and political interests by finding education and cultural activities and securing these goals through research institutions. While pursuing such goals, they were committed to establishing a ‘hierarchical logic of organization’ (Castells, 1994) in such a way as to maintain a sustainable social order that did not question the power of the elite. Given the breadth of activities that philanthropic foundations engage in, such as social change in support of democracy, liberal governance, and the empowerment of the oppressed, can be seen to lead people with the impression that they are making adequate interventions to lead society to a completely different world order. Charitable foundations enter without hesitation into the wide openings of democracy where the governments and political leaders are reluctant or afraid to penetrate. For this reason, they have always been able to maintain an image of ‘the Almighty to whom we pray for good luck’. Through such interventions, the invisible hands of philanthropic capitalism have been able to maintain their influence in society forever. They succeed in dealing equally with the revolutionary left, the extreme right and religious orthodoxy. At all times, the foundations, which are defined as the exercise of power by the value of wealth, social status, and duration of official positions, are silently and meticulously vigilant in defending the interests and privileges of the elite. In the broadest sense, the charity foundations exercise its powers in support of scholarly activities — research and policy-making — that legitimize the ‘status quo. ’Its main function will be to divert attention from all discussions of the concentration of wealth and power for  systemic change. It would be nice to think about how they make it happen. The elite class is well aware that the most effective way to influence society is to gain cultural hegemony rather than the direct exercise of power. They know that cultural hegemony could be established by motivating people to ask the wrong questions and create a community that complains about symptoms without looking for the right sources of social influence. They have been successful in using this strategy most effectively at all times. John D. Rockefeller Sr., the world’s greatest philanthropist, answers the question of ‘Why not create a system where workers receive their share directly?’, “I will be glad to see that the workers are gradually becoming the owners of the same company you are referring to. I am happy to dedicate my assets, in whole or in part, to enter and maintain contact with workers in industrial enterprises”10. We have to remember that this conversation took place almost a century ago. The fact is that not a single stake in Rockefeller’s company has been made available to its employees to date. Rockefeller set up a large charity, thereby distributing his assets and his successors are still pursuing it. Even though big corporates and religious institutions spend billions on charitable activities, they do not allow the people who deserve their help to come in even in the shadow of their power structure. A careful analysis of the research activities in the universities and the topics they deal with exposes the spread of cultural hegemony in society. It diverts or isolates everything that challenges elite privileges and its power structure. By supporting the mild criticisms that do not touch the roots of the system, this ‘compassionate forms’ of capitalism can act as the guardians of democracy and eliminate the challenges posed by the inequitable social structure. One of the greatest explorations of capitalism ever was on producing new ideas in a way that would not harm their economic interests. They achieved this by training young people to look at the various social strata that exist in society as natural and by diverting young people to research activities that promote innovative thinking. Mason Gaffney discusses  this in his book The Corruption of Economics as follows, “Look at the funding methods in the field of sociological research in various universities around the world at the end of the 19th century. The programs at the universities were designed to prevent any thought that would criticize industrial capitalism, especially in the field of economics” (Gaffney, 1994)11. The Elite class recognized that higher educational institutions and the cultural capital held by the intelligentsia associated with them were the best means of achieving cultural hegemony. Leading sociologist Indrajith Parmar points out that, all foundations act as intermediaries between economic capital and the cultural capital produced by the intelligentsia12. David Schwartz explains the strategic influence of philanthropic foundations on the construction of cultural capital: “the power to establish a new discipline and methodology is not a simple contribution to scientific progress, but always a political ploy to establish, restore, strengthen, protect, or reverse the structure of determining hegemony13. New economic powers, with distinct structures of the large industrial corporations that grew up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the powerful IT-based enterprises after the 1980s, can see identifying themselves as the new forms of philanthropic capitalism. Various sources reveal that Microsoft founder Bill Gates, hailed as the personification of philanthropic capitalism, has spent about $ 46.8 billion on charity through his ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’ since its inception (2000). Gates, one of the main organizers of the philanthropic venture Giving Pledge, has reportedly distributed billions of dollars worth of shares of his own firm.  The new generation of philanthropists, including Gates and Zuckerberg, consider charity to be the best tool for social change and spend billions on poverty alleviation, disease eradication, education and the empowerment of the downtrodden. They are committed not to violate the basic rules of philanthropy, even when using foundations to divert their wealth to the community through actions that seem most effective and rational. It can be seen throughout these actions that they do not encourage anything that challenges their elite status or power structure. The strong influence of the elite ideology behind these activities at the individual level can be clearly seen. While these ‘IT overloads’ are cited as good examples of simple lives, they continue to push things in a way that does not detract from their power structure. Paul Schervish, an American sociologist, describes the philanthropic culture and their class character of the super-rich as ‘HyperAgency.’Schervish defines hyperagency “as the array of dispositions and capacities that enable individuals to relatively single-handedly produce the social outcomes they desire, as well as the conditions within which they and others exercise their agency”14. One can see that the hyperagency attitude deeply rooted in new high-tech philanthropists. The best example of this is the pledge given by the donors to the ‘Giving Pledge’ formed by Gates and Buffett. Every pledge is one that takes pride in the charitable work they are doing -education, public health, poverty alleviation, child labor eradication, etc.- and rejoices in the opportunity for such services! Governments and Philanthropic Foundations A look at the history of philanthropic foundations reveals that the first generation of large philanthropic ventures devised global action plans to protect their class interests and exerted influence in various national governments. The Ford Foundation, one of the earliest trinities of global philanthropic ventures, had become a decisive force in global politics in the middle of the twentieth century. The influence of the Ford Foundation’s interventions during the Cold War was evident. They later revealed that they had spent a significant share of their resources to meet communist challenges and helping democratic institutions. Theoretical and cultural capital construction, which is conducive to industrial development and market growth, was carried out in the most planned manner. As political regimes operated through the avenues of power, intimidation, and military force and often expelled themselves from history, the philanthropic foundations further strengthened their influence through the use of the ‘soft power,’ of ‘knowledge’ and ‘charity.’ When political parties were swept away by the voters for their wrong social interventions and decisions, no one could stop the philanthropic foundations from using their wealth to make social changes as they please. This is because philanthropist foundations do not become visible forms of power and they exclude themselves from their obligations to answer to society or democratic systems. Yet we see the invisible hands of philanthropic capitalism gripping society more tightly. One of the most important recipes in the liberalization reforms was the call for the withdrawal of national governments from the social welfare sphere and the cessation of various subsidies. With the new millennium, governments have been making drastic cuts to welfare programs in the areas of women and child welfare, poverty alleviation, education and public health. It has become common seen today that the philanthropic capitalism vigorously entered in the welfare sector, which is neglected by national governments. National governments are also making efforts to completely abdicate their responsibilities by adopting the legislative measures necessary for philanthropic capitalism to operate in the social welfare sector.  On April 1, 2014, India became the first country to legally mandate corporate social responsibility. The new rules in Section 135 of India’s Companies Act make it mandatory for companies of a certain turnover and profitability to spend two percent of their average net profit for the past three years on CSR. But another recent piece of legislation has not been widely discussed.  It is pertinent to recall that in the budget session of 2016-17, the then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley repealed the Wealth Tax Act of 1957 and exempted the affluent from tax on wealth. On the one hand, government spending in the social welfare sector is declining, while on the other, figures show that there is an increase in the use of private funds in the social sector under corporate social responsibility. This is stated in the Annual Report of the Sustainable Development Goals 2030. The Sustainable Development Goals are 17 goals ranging from poverty alleviation, health, gender equality, access to clean water and environmental protection. The India Philanthropy Report 2019 indicates that the private funding for this increased by 15% from 2014 to 2018, while the increase in public funding was only 10 %15. (In terms of the amount spent, the government itself is still the largest player, however, it is expected that private entrepreneurs will overcome this in the near future.) It would be better to look at local examples to understand how the ideologies emanated by philanthropic foundations operating by the corporates are gaining public acceptance and how they extend to the grassroots of society. Plachimada is an excellent example of the uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources that should benefit the entire population of an area and its future generations. The Coca-Cola Company, which had to close down due to the legendary struggle of the local people, is being welcomed back to Plachimada in the name of corporate social responsibility. There is another example of corporates penetration in democratic platforms and implement parallel governance with the backing of CSR. The Kizhakambalam panchayat in Ernakulam district has become the first corporate governing town in India shows the apolitical nature of Kerala society. This is the result of the degeneration of mainstream political parties, which have lost ideological convictions and political tools, into mere executors of corporate ideology. There are numerous examples around us, of NGOs, charities and religious institutions easily entering into areas where political movements and the state are reluctant to enter and strengthen their influence. Growth of Philanthropic Capitalism and Social Inequalities It can be seen that the main areas in which they have been involved since the birth of philanthropic capitalism are ‘poverty alleviation’ and ‘reduction of social inequality.’ The amount spent on poverty alleviation and other welfare sectors is staggering. But it is not hard to see that there is an inextricable link between the growth of philanthropic organizations and the growth of social inequality around the world. In India itself, for example, social inequality is on the rise at a time when the number of the super-rich is on the rise. It is undeniable that as the concentration of wealth becomes stronger on the one hand, so does the level of inequality on the other. Statistics show that this phenomenon is exacerbated in ‘emerging economies’ such as Brazil, India and China. According to economist Thomas Piketty, “people are increasingly aware that the influence of billionaires has grown to proportions that are worrisome for democratic institutions, which are also threatened by the rise of inequality and “populism” (Piketty, 715, 2020). But in the name of the charity they are doing, Piketty asserts, “all criticism is forgotten: their quasi-monopolistic behavior is ignored as are the legal and tax breaks they are granted and the public resources they appropriate”16. Throughout history, we have seen many examples of philanthropic foundations avoiding democratic systems and leading to their bankruptcy in poor countries. The situation today is that policy decisions open up the possibility of plundering public resources and amassing wealth for big companies and forcing people to accept the charities of the same companies. Governments are actually subsidizing the charity work  by announcing freebies and tax holidays for the super-rich at  the expense of the poor. Political leaders are encouraging people to applaud philanthropic capitalism by hiding this reality. It is important to understand that changes within political leadership are the main reasons for this. An examination of the economic and social relations of the people’s representatives in India reveals that the political leadership has become an elite group with no understanding of the basic problems of the people or the extent of social inequality. According to a report released by the Association for Democratic Reforms on May 28, 2019, 90% of the elected representatives in the Indian Parliament are millionaires. The report indicates that 265 out of 301 representatives of the Bharatiya Janata Party, 43 out of 51 members of the Congress and a large percentage of members of other parties are millionaires. These figures give an answer as to why elite interests are protected in policy-making and legislation. We can see that, from large corporate entities to small businesses and individuals becoming powerful tools for maintaining status-quo. They are the executors of elite morality and supremacy and divert or trivialize all questions that arise against the system and cultural hegemony. It should also be remembered that these patriarchal dramas are celebrated in the very democratic arenas established by the people through long struggles and sufferings. The stagnation of democracy, it faces today, cannot be overcome without defending the reactionary patronage of the elite and the cultural and intellectual values they espouse. K.Sahadevan is an environmentalist from Kerala. He has been writing on Energy, Economics and Environment past few decades. He has authored half a dozen books on different topics and a regular contributor of Various Journals and Newspapers. References Hurun Rich List India, https://www.hurunindia.net/hurun-india-rich-list-2019 Kiran Mazumdar Shaw on Azim Premji,	Read
October 3, 2018	People Worldwide Will Soon Demand Americans Stop Planing Nuclear War Endangering Us All! by Jay Janson , in World, countercurrents.org. “We are moving in the direction of a multipolar world,” UN Secretary-General. China is again the world’s greatest economic power as it was through most of human history. As USA loses its economic hegemony it  will eventually lose the power to shut people up by threat of imposing crippling economic sanctions. A wave of voices across the world will tell USA to stand down from its threatening nuclear war and nuclear winter. How strange that no one has been demanding Americans explain why they are preparing & planing for war, nuclear war, with Russia and China, when the detonating of nuclear weapons would endanger everyone in the world, even possibly end all life on Earth. Associated Press, July 27, 2017, “The US Pacific Fleet commander said on Thursday he would launch a nuclear strike against China next week if President Donald Trump ordered it, and warned against the military ever shifting its allegiance from its commander in chief.“ (Interestingly, China has never threatened the USA, but the Chinese never forget an American army sacked Beijing in 1900, killing a lot of Chinese and before 1949, US Military and financial aid to the Nationalists fighting against the Chinese Revolution caused a greater loss of life that would have happened otherwise.) In the threatening parlance of arrogant USA exceptionalism, American military officials frequently warn on prime time telecasting by satellite with world wide reach, ‘All options are on the table!’ read ‘The lives of all of us are on the table.’ Life on Earth is at the discretion of pompous soulless American government officials acting as directed by a powerfully wealthy elite of speculative investors intent on maximum capital acquisition outside the boundaries of law, mercy and sanity. Washington’s threats against Russia and China came into the open in January when it published a new National Security Strategy, dropping the pretense that it was waging a “war on terror” and naming Russia and China as targets. Presenting the document, US Defense Secretary James Mattis branded Russia and China as “revisionist powers” threatening a US-led world order and said “great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of US national security.” Amid NATO threats, Russia launches largest war games since World War II in World, by Alex Lantier, CounterCurrents, Kerala, India https://countercurrents.org/2018/09/01/ amid-nato-threats-russia-launches-largest-war-games-since-world-war-ii/ Russia launches biggest war games since Cold War with more than 300,000 troops. Thousands of Chinese and Mongolian service personnel will also be involved in the Vostok 2018 drills, set to include “massive” mock airstrikes and the testing of cruise missile defense systems. September 11, 2018, The Independent, UK “This new exercise goes beyond what may be useful for prestige purposes. It involves 30 percent of Russian active duty military & must be costly at a time when Russia’s defence budget is under strain. This only makes sense if large-scale war is viewed as a high probability contingency.” François Heisbourg, London International Institute for Strategic Studies Given what we know about the expected deadly effect of nuclear war on the planet and all life on Earth, it would seem that a good amount of people everywhere would have come to realize the horrific danger to themselves, their loved ones, all fellow human beings, even animals and plants. There should be millions demanding that Americans respect the rest of us and our planetary home, and end all plans and preparations for nuclear war, and explain why a war with Russia and China is even contemplated. “Public ignorance and apathy is a concern for survival of the specie” ‘Public ignorance and apathy is a concern for survival of the specie,’ warns former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, in his forward to nuclear physicist Micho Kaku’s To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon’s Secret War Plans.[Can be read on Internet at  data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">https://books.google.com/books/about/ To_Win_a_Nuclear_War.html?id=yOP2v_vy2GIC&printsec=frontcover& source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false The authors of this book, both university physicists, document how the nuclear policy of the U.S.A. has not been one of deterrence as publicly stated, but rather has been one of threatening the use of nuclear weapons. This policy has been widely documented elsewhere. Attorney Clark, who has spent half a century defending nations and individuals attacked by the Western powers wrote that public ignorance and apathy is “as much a concern for survival of the specie as the unthinkable power to destroy the world wielded by a few men in a mindless manner”. “A single Trident II submarine can inflict more death than all prior wars in history. Twenty-four missiles, launched while submerged, each with seventeen independently targeted, maneuverable nuclear warheads five times more powerful than the atom bomb that destroyed Nagasaki, can travel 5,000 or more nautical miles to strike within 300 feet of 408 predetermined targets. Nuclear winter might follow even if no other weapons are used.” “No nation or individual can be allowed to have the power to destroy the world!” wrote Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Sounds logical, but Americans insist that they, being exceptional, are above all laws and courts (and logic), much the same as the Nazis claimed the Germanic peoples were a ‘master race,’ destined to rule ruthlessly over most other peoples, as do Americans today. The Nazis for a while had the strongest military force in the world (thanks to US corporate investment and joint venturing). Americans have had the greatest military in the history of the world since the Soviets, with American help, destroyed the Nazi military which invaded Russia (as Wall Street had desired, facilitated and expected). By 1991, the Soviet Union had more or less self-destructed trying to match the much wealthier USA in an arms race. It didn’t take more than a few years before superpower USA began to cite the new Russian Federation as its adversary, a nuclear weapons armed adversary. (Like the Chinese, Russians have never threatened the USA and never forgot that in 1918, the US had invaded Russia with two armies, killing its citizens trying to overthrow the newly proclaimed Soviet Russian government. What does the world hear from the current US President and commander-in-chief of the heavily nuclear armed USA? Trump Plans for Nuclear Arsenal Require $1.2 Trillion, Congressional Review States, New York Times, 10/31/2017 President Donald Trump has said he will expand and update the US nuclear arsenal in “far, far in excess of anybody else,”“We’re going to have the strongest military we’ve ever had by far,” Mr Trump told reporters. He added that he would increase the country’s arsenals of “virtually every weapon,” including a “brand new nuclear force”. The Independent, UK, 2/12/2018 Your author, dumbfounded that no persistent widely notable voice has arisen from anywhere on the planet in demand that Americans back down from indirectly threatening the whole world with possible partial or complete annihilation, is pained to put forth the following supposition: It would appear that basically no voices demanding sanity arise for the overwhelmingly deceptive propaganda power of CIA controlled Western satellite-reach-powered mainstream media inculcating quiet acceptance of the status quo ‘protection’ of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), a doctrine of US military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. The acceptance of, and trust in, a frightening hair trigger status quo seems to be holding, recent wildly super insane talk of the possibility of a first strike victory, notwithstanding. This is our present planetary predicament, but no situation, especially absurd situations, last forever. People asleep eventually wake up, of course not always in time, as in the cases of the First and Second World Wars, whose preparations went on in front of everyone’s noses and mesmerized silent acquiescence. As the insanity of preparing for nuclear war against Russia and China, just as before the USA threatened nuclear war against the Soviet Union and China, takes place before our eyes, the Americans and Europeans are losing their hegemonic control of world finances. While the great  majority of minds within the USA led colonial-neocolonial powered capitalist-imperialist hegemonic First World of nations of Caucasian population plus Japan, seem locked down in what social psychiatry terms ‘poverty of thought,’ minds within the economically and militarily plundered Third World and the Second World of nations practicing socialism like China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Eritrea and maybe soon El Salvador and Uruguay (Socialist Libya was destroyed) will tend to be opened outward. “We are moving in the direction of a multipolar world,” announced Secretary-General António Guterres in his trilingual address to the UN General Assembly just a few days ago on 25 September 2018. The economic rise of China and indeed the whole of what is condescending referred to as developing economies, which are growing at a faster rate than the economies of the developed nations of the First World, has been written about for more than a decade, e.g. The Economist Magazine in 2007[1]; e.g. When China Rules the World -The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order by Martin Jacques, 2009; e.g. Nobel Prize in Economics, Joseph Stiglitz referring to our present century as “The Chinese Century; “2014 was the last year in which the United States could claim to be the world’s largest economic power. China enters 2015 in the top position, where it will likely remain for a very long time, if not forever. In doing so, it returns to the position it held through most of human history.” Vanity Fair Magazine, January 2015 e.g. China Rising – Capitalist Roads Socialist Destinations, by Jeff Brown, 2015. Unless America’s insane investors in nuclear weapons manage to loose a planet destroying nuclear war first, American loss of economic hegemony will be followed by loss of its military hegemony. Bigger money buys bigger guns so to speak. When the Wall Street owned US government is no longer able to shut everyone up by threat of crippling economic sanctions, this author believes a wave of voices across the world will tell the USA to stand down from its threatening nuclear war and nuclear winter.  And eventually, when the long stifled cry for justice becomes a topic of conversation throughout the economically plundered world, ultra massive lawsuits will be generated and adjudicated in the courts of a reconstituted United Nations for compensation for tens of millions of unlawful deaths and injuries, indemnities of trillions of dollars for mega massive destruction of property and reparations for colossal theft of natural resources. Just wait and see. (Or maybe begin talking about these things with family and friends in advance of the inevitable, just to hurry things along.) And to remind everyone of the danger of Americans again using nuclear weapons, let us remember that the motive for the first and second US use of atomic bombs is now generally accepted to have been to intimate the Soviet Union, even though most of Russia’s cities lay in ruins with 28 million of it citizens dead as a result of the Second World War that had just ended. What insidious minded cabal of powerfully wealthy Americans pressured President Truman to order these two genocidal war crimes without consulting top generals and other key Americans? General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of  rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">United States Army Forces in the Far East, who was not consulted before the atom bombing and destroying of two Japanese cities, saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. “The war might have ended weeks earlier,” he said, “if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71. “Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary,” wrote Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380 “..the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” Newsweek, 11/11/63 “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.” previous US President Herbert Hoover. Army and Navy Journal after the Hiroshima bombing and before the Nagasaki bombing. Enough said. End Notes 1. Emerging vs developed economies Power shift Aug 4th 2011, by The Economist online (charts, graphs) REAL GDP in most rich economies is still below its level at the end of 2007. In contrast, emerging economies’ output has jumped by almost 20% over the same period. The rich world’s woes have clearly hastened the shift in global economic power towards the emerging markets. But exactly how big are emerging economies compared with the old developed world? This chart looks at a wide range of indicators: ” The combined output of the emerging world accounted for 38% of world GDP (at market exchange rates) in 2010, twice its share in 1990. If GDP is instead measured at purchasing-power parity, emerging economies overtook the developed world in 2008 and are likely to reach 54% of world GDP this year. They now account for over half of the global consumption of most commodities, world exports, and inflows of foreign direct investment. Emerging economies also account for 46% of world retail sales, 52% of all purchases of motor vehicles and 82% of mobile phone subscriptions. They still punch well below their weight in commerce and finance, but they are catching up fast. Almost a quarter of the Fortune Global 500 firms come from emerging markets; in 1995 it was only 4%. The chart below shows more detail of how the economic clout of emerging economies has risen over time: NOTE: Our definition of developed economies based on 1990 data: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/ emerging-vs-developed-economies Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents; has appeared on RT Moscow Weekend News: articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India and in the US by Dissident Voice, Global Research; Information Clearing House; Counter Currents, Minority Perspective, UK and others; now resides in NYC; First effort was a series of articles on deadly cultural pollution endangering seven areas of life emanating from Western corporate owned commercial media published in Hong Kong’s Window Magazine 1993; Howard Zinn lent his name to various projects of his; Weekly column, South China Morning Post, 1986-87; reviews for Ta Kung Bao; article China Daily, 1989. Is coordinator of the Howard Zinn co-founded King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign, and website historian of the Ramsey Clark co-founded Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now Campaign, which Dissident Voice supports with link at the end of each issue of its newsletter.	Read
August 8, 2020	A nuclear-free world is crucial for sustainable development in India by Anjali Roy, Ankit Kumar, Anurag Ratan, KS Lakshmi Naraayan, Kaustubh Jain and Sartaj Singh, countercurrents.org. “Most people are completely, blissfully ignorant about the situation, and those of us who believe in sustainable development are not able to do anything”, this is how Dr SP Udayakumar describes the current situation relating to nuclear power and its uses throughout the world. Dr Udayakumar is a writer and anti-nuclear activist from Tamil Nadu, India. He is the convener of the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), which has been at the forefront of the anti-nuclear struggle in Kudankulam, . He also co-founded the South Asian Community Center for Education and Research (SACCER). Nuclear power has proven to be more bane than boon He points out that the UN Security Council’s five permanent countries (the P5), which include China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States, along with Germany as the plus one, must be held accountable to the world about their use of nuclear power, as this source of power is very unstable and gives way to catastrophic results if misused or mishandled. Since a large number of countries are in possession of nuclear arms, a war even between two smaller countries can escalate into nuclear warfare. Even though the number of nuclear warheads might be lesser than what used to be a few decades ago, those that still exist have enough power to wipe out the earth several times over as nuclear technology has advanced multiple times than the warheads that were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Furthermore, existing nuclear sources require constant servicing and maintenance, taking a huge amount of human and financial resources. In the case of nuclear war, many have put forward the Deterrence theory which holds that nuclear weapons are intended to deter other countries from attacking with their nuclear weapons, through the promise of retaliation and possibly mutually assured destruction of the countries involved. However, this theory has been proved wrong to a great extent, one such example being the Kargil War between India and Pakistan in 1999, which happened despite both the countries being in possession of nuclear power. So, it would only make sense for the world to abandon the concept of nuclear power, and not just nuclear bombs, since the plutonium used in these bombs directly comes from the nuclear power plants. Aside from this, the nuclear energy produced by these bombs comes at a great cost to the environment which is seriously affected by its production and waste disposal, as well as the irreparable health damage to people who live around the zones near the plants. In popular parlance it is a common misconception that nuclear energy does not result in carbon dioxide (CO2) being released as a byproduct, as is the case in many fossil fuels, and also that it causes zero emissions. This has garnered the support of some advocates who tout nuclear power a popular choice for the future of clean energy. In fact, the Nuclear Energy Institute situated in Washington reports that there are 104 nuclear reactors in the United States which do not emit any carbon dioxide, and many studies have been done and expert opinions have been taken which suggest the same. However, most of these studies are sponsored by a company advocating for nuclear energy use, which also employs these experts. It would be simply unrealistic to believe that nuclear sources do not emit carbon dioxide, as every kilowatt-hour of nuclear energy is responsible for CO2 emissions. And while it is true that greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear sources are much lower than that produced by fossil fuel plants, it can also be argued the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear sources are more substantial in comparison. Dr Udaykumar has explained this whole situation very aptly with the help of an analogy of a plane with peaceful passengers and hijackers. He compares the citizens to the peaceful passengers of the plane which is hijacked and describes its hijackers as the nuclear technocrats and politicians of the real world. Dr Udaykumar is against the concept of the possession of nuclear weapons even as a measure of defense by the countries as that might result in a nuclear war between countries which in turn might have the potential to leave behind its traces for generations. The question here arises why is he against the whole idea of nuclear energy which includes nuclear power plants- a great source for producing electricity? The answer to this is reflected in one of his talks around the Kudankulam struggle, wherein he presented his concerns about the ill-effects and the industrial accidents that might occur- like the Bhopal Gas Tragedy or the very recent Visakhapatnam accident. He raised a voice against the Kudankulam nuclear power project. But this resistance was ultimately taken down by the govenment alleging false accusations on Dr Udaykumar and his supporters which however were never really proven. The accident was not the only thing he was concerned about. Setting up nuclear power plants also requires a tremendous amount of money- people’s money, which is being invested in the making of nuclear power plants on the coasts of India that would end up harming the people themselves. It would lead to the contamination and thermal pollution in the sea that will, in turn, affect the aquatic animals and seafood and endanger the food and nutrition security. Moreover the harmful effects arising out of the improper disposal of nuclear waste generated in the power plants, can linger on for a very long time. This very money can be used for mitigating many other problems that humanity/ world faces as a whole such as poverty, hunger, health inequity etc. The public’s hard-earned money which people pay as tax to the government needs to be invested in usable and effective manner rather than spending on nuclear arms and/or power plants. In the functioning of the nuclear power plants, there have been accidents which have led to huge loss of lives and property, and some have even impacted the well-being of future generations. One such accident was the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, that resulted in a partial meltdown of reactor number 2 of Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station. It was the most serious accident in US nuclear power plant history. On a scale of seven, it was rated a five as an ‘accident with wider consequences’. The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster in 1986 in Ukraine and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster in 2011 in Japan were rated at seven- the maximum severity on the International Nuclear Event Scale- and resulted in uncontrolled radioactive release into the environment, leading to not only huge loss of human lives but also in radioactive contamination of food and water supplies. Even in the rare event that throughout the life of the nuclear power plant, there is no accident, when it is decommissioned there is radiation leakage from the plant. In the indian context, there have been accidents at almost every Indian site of a nuclear power plant or uranium mining or dumping facility from Kudankulam to Jadugora. In many researches they have been termed as extreme as “Nuclear Graves of India”. What comes out of this insightful session of Dr Udaykumar is that the world is in need to reconsider the risks of nuclear power plants. A very obvious question that arises here is – if not nuclear power plants then what? Can other renewable sources of energy like wind and solar energy prove to be alternative resources for nuclear energy? We have to trust human innovation and focus on creating new sources of clean energy. Dr Udaykumar also said that the country needs to get united irrespective of the caste and religion. The country has to shift focus on better education, health, and other issues. When the country stands in unison, no power can hurt its people. This particular statement’s deepness and real strength should be understood which would go miles for that nation’s building. After all, arms don’t kill people, people do. Anjali Roy, Ankit Kumar, Anurag Ratan, KS Lakshmi Naraayan, Kaustubh Jain, Sartaj Singh (authors are students of Indian Institute of Management (IIM) in Indore, India and were part of the internship at CNS)	Read
August 8, 2020	India-China Border Conflict: Need For A change In Attitude Of Indian Polity in India by Dr S Jatin Kumar, countercurrents.org. The Galwan valley violent clash on June 15th in the eastern Ladakh borders of India and China, has triggered an emotionally charged situation in the country.  With the hike in military activity and occasional clashes occurring between two militaries in Pangong Tso (lake) area from May 5th this year, the peace and tranquillity at borders of India and China was disturbed. The casualties and loss of lives stirred the feelings of revenge and patriotic chauvinism. They were racked to heights, through media, news, rumours, official and unofficial press notes regarding Chinese incursions on Indian territory accusing transgressions into the areas of kugrang Nala, Gogra and north bank of Pangong lake etc., on 17th &18th May (the document with such accusations of aggression by China had been withdrawn officially now by Indian defence ministry).Such calculated misinformation and one sided half-truths submerged the reason and rhyme of proper perspective of the situation. Military officials, diplomats and leaders from both sides are engaged in a series of talks to diffuse the tension. So far by 5th August, five rounds of talks were held in two months period between the senior military commanders of India and China to ensure expeditious disengagement of troops from all the friction points along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The steps taken in this direction of de-escalation have eased the situation to some extent only and are of temporary nature. The present disengagement negotiations are also in a state of deadlock to unwind the situation and “present stand off is likely to be prolonged”. In this situation the persons and organisations advocating for India China friendship and a settlement of the long pending issues through dialogue of mutual understanding and agreement, are sought to be ostracised. But they have to sail against the present tide to create a sensible and congenial atmosphere that can pave a way for permanent peace and tranquillity between the two countries. The border dispute between the two countries is not new. It is rather a leftover of the history and a legacy inherited from the British colonial rule. During its reign the British imperialists unilaterally drew certain lines as per their advantage and convenience and declared them as defacto borders between the territorial entities. They even changed the lines periodically several times as per the ease and resistance faced by them during the long period of colonial hegemony. It is to be noted that the counterparts have not agreed wilfully for such settlements and declarations done by the brutal force of imperialism. After the establishment of Independent India in 1947 and Peoples Republic of China in 1949, there arose an opportunity and need to define the borders between the two countries with mutual consent, but no such agreements were arrived, in spite of several appeals and genuine trials by the Chinese side. Not only the borders, but the line of Actual control of land also became a point of contention in several sectors due to the difference of perception about this line. Whereas China sticks to the principle of confining the areas under its control in 1959 as LAC, India assumes all the territory inherited from the British (which is in dispute and not resolved between two sides) as its LAC. So, it is not real if Indian government repeatedly accuses of Chinese incursions in to Indian territory. It is refuted by China saying that they are confined and are working in their administrative areas only. Hence defining China as aggressor is far from reality and such blame game is intended obviously for some other purpose. There were several rounds of talks spread over decades, over 22 times, between the two countries at various levels of leaders, officials and diplomats; several mechanisms were developed to solve the border issue. Several times goodwill meetings were conducted but yet a solution is elusive. To arrive at a mutually agreeable solution one should adopt “give and take policy” “meet each other in halfway”, try to adjust and accommodate the opponent’s view point, respect the mutual core points and interests and foremost should have a political will and wish to resolve the conflict. More than the mechanisms, one should adopt a true rationalistic spirit with determination to prevent and avoid war, which is harmful to both sides. For this visionary political acumen, a realistic approach and consideration to ground realities must prevail. Hence,the Indian ruling class must revisit its approach, think out of the box for a reasonable solution and seek a way to curb the rivalry and live harmoniously as friendly neighbours. The policy of colonial rulers of aggression, occupying certain lands by might and accession by hook or crook are not acceptable in modern history. The forward marching of forces into disputed lands, building certain military dwellings, camps or patrolling posts in such areas cannot be treated as means of establishing sovereignty over a territory. Declaring such territories as non-negotiable will not lead to any solution. It is not justifiable to follow the footsteps of colonial rulers and insist on claim “every inch of land” accessed by them with ill intentions, unjustified methods of aggression, biased and unequal treaties, unilateral decisions. Walking in the shoes of the previous imperialist rulers only amounts to the intention of present Indian rulers to establish themselves as a regional lord and local hegemonistic force. As rulers of a modern India the present ruling dispensation has to shed away the colonial legacy, big brotherly attitude, and establish harmonious relations with all neighbouring countries including China, Nepal and Pakistan.  Such a friendly and cooperative attitude only can bring us the due reputation and regard from other countries. Responsible behaviour coupled with respecting the national dignity of other countries whether small or big, and not interfering in their internal affairs, can bring back India into a leading role in international sphere. By the sheer size of the country or expansionism or jingoism one cannot win over neighbours. Such hegemonistic attitude will not solve any problem with any country, leave alone China. It will not improve relations. Continuation of Forward policy of Nehruvian era in a new way, repeating that our territorial claims are non negotiable, or sticking to 1962 resolution that “Not an inch will be negotiated”-will not ease the stalemate situation in border issue. It is unjustifiable, and a hindrance to achieve a solution and is the root cause of unfruitful negotiations. Similar attitude was followed by Nehru-led India in late 1950s and 60s by manipulating geographical maps, moving forward into areas under dispute and those marked earlier as undefined, un-demarcated terrains, or regarded as no man’s lands. Such unilateral assertion of lands, badly provoked China and resulted in 1962 war. It would not be out of place to draw attention to a related report about that war. The Henderson Brooks – Bhagat Report (by a two-man committee with Lieutenant General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier PS Bhagat, commissioned by Indian government after the war), was “Marked ‘Top Secret’. It was a ‘Review of 1962 war’ It was not released officially due to the severe indictments it made on Indian polity and military. Despite persistent demands to release it, by experts, and despite RTI Act is not made public. It recorded all relevant materials of military aspects ( political issues were not under its per view) of the war. The report was extensively mentioned in the famous book India’s China War by Neville Maxwell. He was one of the few who had an opportunity to read the secret report. Based on it and many other authentic sources he published the book. If the report be released at least now the people will be educated to counter chauvinism. The report questions Nehru’s ‘Forward Policy’ by which the Indian army would move ahead of the 3000 km MacMohan Line separating India and China. Brooks says he does not know the background of the government’s decision because he does not have the minutes of the meeting where the forward policy was laid out. Nehru whose Forward Policy was a strategic blunder, died a broken man two years after the defeat of 1962 war. “General Henderson Brooks held practically the entire civil and military leadership responsible for plunging India into a war it was not prepared for… General Thapar says that the Chinese could retaliate to the forward policy in Ladakh and capture an army post in the Galwan valley and reach their 1960 claim line.”  (indiatoday.in, March 31, 2014, the guilty men of1962) Before outbreak of the 1962 war, China had proposed a peaceful settlement of border with an attitude of respecting each other’s national interests and aspirations. It was prepared for certain concessions, so as to adjust its claims in lieu of a broader and permanent settlement. It was prepared to forego its claim on the present-day Arunachal Pradesh (eastern sector) in case India ratifies Aksai chin (western sector) which was under their actual control as part of China. Such “package deal” was based on considering the ground reality of who was exercising the actual administrative control on a particular area. If such a practical, realistic proposal was accepted by India, it would have settled the issue and would have prevented undesirable, unwanted consequences which arose in latter days. Relentlessly China was proposing with Indian prime ministers Indira Gandhi, Rajeev Gandhi, Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and others, their intention to normalise relations, rebuild trust and cooperation, to settle the border issue once for all. The pendulum was moving to and fro but never the Indian rulers were determined for such a resolution. In spite of the border issue pending for decades, China had been pursuing a policy to improve the relations and develop all-round friendship with India including trade, commerce, and cultural fields. India too reciprocated to some extent. Thus, wide-ranging relations were developed with mutual agreement to maintain peace and tranquillity along the LAC, even while the settlement was kept pending. As a result, certain normalcy was established between the two countries and no bullet was fired at the Sino Indian borders for more than 45 years. In fact, both sides had several rounds of discussions on the basis of MUMA and MAMU (referring to mutual adjustment and mutual accommodation), and the principle of give and take. In 1950s also such an attitude was displayed by both sides for some time. Then as well as now, jingoist elements in the Indian polity and media, aided and abetted by imperialists (mainly USA and erstwhile Soviet Union) thwarted any possible solution. Indian leadership was found wanting in political will to resolve the problem once and for all, which would have facilitated the cause of peace and development. Even now it is not too late. All through this period the attitude of Indian government was being dictated by its subordinate relations with the so-called democratic countries of the west, USA in particular, and the then USSR. Political commentators even today feel that Indian rulers lost good opportunities of settling with China due to their poor vision, prejudices, lack of political will and miscalculations. It is proved that such an attitude of Indian rulers was the result of their subservience to hegemonistic designs of powerful imperialist forces and their own aspiration of evolving at least as a regional big brother. This dependence was one of the main obstacles in the way of friendship or settling with china. The Indian rulers could not achieve their goal of leading the Asian region. They were not treated as world leaders as they themselves were not independent. They developed a dependent socio-economic model serving the powerful lobby of western forces. They could neither achieve the development of the country nor improve standard of life of people, nor could muster the confidence or cooperation of neighbouring countries. Their approach was neither patriotic nor nationalistic in the real sense because their policies ultimately harmed India’s interests. Meanwhile China with its socialistic approach and independent policies  has utilised all the opportunities of globalisation opened to it by the capitalistic countries, on a win- win basis, followed a committed, energetic, independent policy and emerged not only  as the second largest economy in the world, but also  could remove poverty  in the most populous country in the shortest time. Naturally such a victorious country is viewed as a role model  and is accorded a central position on international stage. The success of socialism, with Chinese characteristics, has become an eye sore to the capitalist world. Under the leadership of USA, the warmongers and distracters of development are conniving to contain China economically and isolate it politically with a virtual declaration of war in trade and technological fields. Unfortunately, Indian government is joining hands as a junior partner in this strategy and wants to project herself as an international player. But with innovative measures like BRI, to build a community of common future to the mankind, China is extending a helping hand to the needy and striving to build a prosperous, peaceful and harmonious world. Hence Instead of being isolated, china is emerging as a leader of new world order. Anti-China tirade is being executed under the leadership of USA since long. The outburst of corona pandemic is yet another opportunity, they are politicising and trying to take advantage of. Right from origin of Covid virus to its pandemic extension, China is being un necessarily blamed. The failure of governments of many countries to contain the virus with appropriate timely steps, resorted to cover it up  by pointing to china. China herself had undergone much agony and with proper steps came out of the disaster of Covid disease. With the strength of its socialistic society, it has brought back the derailed economy and is extending an enormous aid to the world, helping the world economy and preventing its fall further. The counterpart capitalists are still motionless and unable to tie the strings. Their only active programme is to defame china and project it as a threat to the world. In the early phases of Covid-19, there was mutual cooperation between India and China. As neighbours and having age-old cultural and commercial ties with China, that was apt and expected. If such cooperation and fraternity has continued that would have benefited both the countries. Both being big economies it would have contributed to the international community also, in restructuring and rejuvenating the economy. But when the disease in India has extended and is out of control, the Indian government also changed its policy half way, fell in line with USA and chose a confrontation with China. At a time when all our resources should have been focused on tackling Covid and its effects on the economy, we are drawn into a confrontation with China. The US lobby is trying to use India as a stick to beat China and India is submitting herself to be used like that, which is against the interests of our people and  priorities of our country.   At least now India should re-evaluate its position, retrace its steps and help build a peaceful neighbourhood. Even when the government itself said there were differences in perception about the LAC,  or when PM Modi himself said in the all party meeting that there was no intrusion, they were  distorted by large sections of the Indian media, as also by jingoist elements in the ruling and opposition parties.  Even while fruitful talks were held and efforts made for de-escalation, the media played a negative role.  See the following media reporting. indianexpress.com July 7, 2020 published an analysis citing talks held in July. The analysis was based on official texts issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. It helps to see how Indian media distorts reality to promote jingoism. “July 5, 2020: The two Special Representatives (SRs) agreed that both sides should take guidance from the consensus of the leaders that maintenance of peace and tranquility in the India-China border areas was essential for the further development of our bilateral relations and that two sides should not allow differences to become disputes. China’s Minister said:  We hope India can work with China to guide public opinion in the right direction, keep and advance bilateral exchanges and cooperation, and avoid amplifying the differences and complicating matters so as to jointly uphold the big picture of China-India relations.” The media did not report this agreement properly. Rather they grossly distorted and misrepresented the talks. Obviously, the pro-US and anti-China lobbies are leading the media. The news and electronic media should exercise restraint and stop spreading biased, baseless, fictitious, false propaganda against China.  As a first step to indicate our preparedness for a mutually agreeable solution, the anti-china frenzied propaganda, comments of hatred must be stopped. The Wuhan informal summit in 2018, between Prime minister Modi and President Xi Jinping decided that ‘Differences be managed prudently”. Again, in Chennai meet in 2019 they expressed that “differences should not be allowed to turn into disputes”, and “herald a new phase of cooperation between the two countries”. The two leaders decided to designate 2020 as “year of friendship , Cultural exchanges and people to people exchanges to mark the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between India and China. The need for enhancing such ‘spirit’ and ‘connect’ has further increased in prevailing situation. Mutual cooperation, people to people exchanges, cultural and language training institutes should not be hampered. “We should not have any trade transactions with China as it is our enemy. India has to boycott the products made in China, disallow all the imports and investments from China. We have to strike China on the military bases at borders and also on their economic bases. By indulging in these dual responsibilities every citizen has to show his patriotic fervour”. Such is the present high-pitched media communication. This desire of some sections is the outcome of blind hatred and prejudice towards China. It is illogical, far from reality and is self-defeating, and suicidal to Indian economy. In the present post Globalisation period, principles, terms and conditions of international trade, ties with various economies, rules, regulations and agreements enforced by World Trade Organisation etc., have to be considered before taking any steps to delink trading ties with China. More so as India claims to uphold rules-based world order. Theatrical shows in streets of India cannot be translated to meaningful deeds in trade markets. The Indian government has explicitly announced certain steps for decoupling India China trade relations like desisting new imports, prohibiting certain Apps, capping down the direct investments (FDI) from China, restricting import of certain goods and disallowing goods in the name inferior quality or security threat. This is done citing the goal of building a self-reliant India (Aatmanirbhar Bharat). No Indian differs with the goal of a self- reliance. But will the above steps help the cause announced? It amounts to that India is kept open for exploitation by the West and their MNCs.  If China and its competitive products and services are kept out, will it not be a free reign of the MNCs to flourish at the cost of poor and middle-class Indian consumers and manufacturers? Experts warn, it is easier said than done to convert boycott rhetoric into reality, considering the fact that China is the second largest trading partner to India just next to USA. Severing relations with China at this stage serves only to address the emotions of certain pseudo patriots and is fraught with grave consequences to the Indian economy and people. To build a self-reliant Indian economy also, we have to take a lesson from Chinese who opened their markets and industries for foreign capital, only upon their agreement to the conditions laid down by China, meant for the utmost priority of their national development. Our rulers are spreading a red-carpet invitation to western capitalists on their terms forgoing Indian national interest. Imperialist plunder is the underlying principle of this trade. In the name of conflict, they are preventing and discriminating China which usually trades on more favourable terms to India. Their trade and foreign policies are based on equal terms, mutual benefit and a win-win situation to both sides. Developing trade and commerce with China will benefit the Indian economy more than when it is tied down to the capitalist economy which itself is facing a great crisis and depression, more so after the devastating corona pandemic. The Indian economy and its growth in this period are at its lowest ebb and needs a very nationalistic, constructive, well thought of plan to revive. China with a mightier economy can and should be utilised for our advantage rather than keeping it away. The science and technological development achieved by China can be made use of by India for developing its basic infrastructure, industries, foreign trade and resultant employment generation. Chinese technologies are a reliable and affordable alternative to costly western methods. Whether to perish under imperialist dead weight or to float with socialist China and flourish is the question now before Indian rulers. India must come out of the clutches of the imperialist and hegemonistic lobbies who for their advantage, design and impose their geopolitical strategies to create ever burning conflicts in different regions under various pretexts which cost a lot for poor and developing nations, including India. India should join the vast majority of countries and forces who stand for regional cooperation and world peace. It also should shed away its policy of regional bossism, and practise Panchasheel principles to gain friendship and support of the neighbours. On attaining peace with border countries, we can better concentrate on national development by diverting the huge amounts and allocations of defence budget (going up to 4-5 lakhs of crores of rupees every year) to welfare activities. It is not out of place to recall the Chinese ambassador in New Delhi who urges even now, that “ India and China should be partners rather than rivals, need peace rather  than confrontation, pursue win- win cooperation instead of zero sum game, build trust rather than suspicion and relations should move forwards rather than backwards”. He rightly questions “why should we fight against each other, that will only hurt those who are close to us and gladden the foes.” (Timesnownews.com, July 11th) Our prime minister rightly points out that the era of expansionism has ended and era of evolution (development) has started. The Indian people are demanding that such fabulous words be practised and create a peaceful relationship with other countries. Avoid jingoism, plan and execute methods for the benefit and welfare of people of India instead of spending on war heads, missiles and Rafaels and military satellites. Disputes and conflicts must be resolved through mutual concessions, create peace at borders, nurture fraternal relations with others and proceed in a way that leads to development domestically and peace globally. To strive on this path is the essence of real patriotism. The people of India are looking forward for such a future. It is the  rulers and polity of India who need to change their attitude and work for the interests of India and its people. (The author is national executive member of India China Friendship Association)	Read
July 31, 2020	EIA 2020: Why is it so perilous? by Bishaldeep Kakati , in Environmental Protection, countercurrents.org. Amidst the corona virus pandemic, the government of India (The Union ministry of environment, forest and climate change) unveiled the Environment Impact Assessment 2020 draft to the public in March 2020 seeking to replace the 2006 version of the law. The latest draft has already created a lot of hype amongst the concerned citizens, with many environmental activists and climate change experts opposing the provisions incorporated in the draft. However before we try analyzing the provisions contained in the draft, it is important for us to develop an idea about the concept of Environment Impact Assessment. Right after the Bhopal Gas disaster of 1986, the Indian Government realized that the Water ACT (1974) and the Air ACT (1981) were simply not enough to protect the entire environment. Hence the Indian Government came out with an umbrella legislation known as the Environment Protection ACT (1986), and under this ACT, India notified its first EIA norms in 1994. The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is basically a legal framework that regulates activities that utilize, access and also pollute natural resources. In fact, every development must go through the EIA process for obtaining environmental clearance. Although industries and establishments before being set up must go through the EIA process to safeguard the environment, but by offering some fake legal paper work, industries enjoy a range of de facto concessions exactly opposite to the main purpose of EIA. And these industries and establishments often enjoy de facto concessions mainly because of the faulty project reports of potential impact of an establishment upon the environment, that are often prepared by consultant agencies for a particular fee. In fact most of the times, these reports cannot be relied upon or thought to be accountable. The 1994 EIA notification was modified in 2006 and in order to incorporate the amendments and relevant court orders since 2006, the government thus redrafted the EIA again in 2020. The primary motive behind this process of redrafting was to make the EIA process more transparent and expedient, however there are certain provisions included in this new draft, that have forced people to oppose it. Hence it’s crucial for us to understand the disastrous impact that these provisions might have upon the environment, different communities of people, etc if these somehow turns out to be legally binding. The two significant changes that the draft tries to bring in are the post- facto clearance and the restriction on public participation. Speaking of post facto clearance, the honourable Supreme Court of India in an order stated that, “Environmental Law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto clearance. This would be contrary to both the precautionary principle as well as the need for sustainable development.” Further the 2020 EIA draft increases the government power and provides no remedy for the political and bureaucratic stronghold on the EIA process and thereby on industries. In fact, speaking of the second significant change that the draft tries to bring in is the notion of limiting public participation in safeguarding the environment. Generally projects based on defence and security is tagged as ‘strategic’, but the government gets to decide the ‘strategic’ tag for other projects as well. The draft 2020 says that no information ‘on such projects’ shall  be placed on public domain, which basically means a project can be deemed strategic without explaining the basic reasons behind it. The draft also provides a   long list of projects such as inland waterways, expansion of national highways which are to be exempted from public consultation and also exempts construction of industries and establishment up to 1,50,000 sq m. Shockingly, the provision to exempt construction up to 1,50,000 sq m was set aside by National Green Tribunal in December 2017. Moreover, with the provisions contained in this draft, projects that violate environment would be able to apply for clearance. And the horrifying fact is that if a developer files late application for EIA clearance, he would only have to pay penalty of Rs. 2000-10,000 per day for the period of delay and the disastrous impact of this provision can be felt only if we relate it by taking into consideration the example of an illegal coal mining activity going on for days and its subsequent impact upon the environment in comparison to the small amount of penalty that is required to be paid by the developer. However, the impact of the provisions of this draft would be more dangerous in case of North East India as compared to PAN India. This is because in the draft, border area is defined as, “area falling within 100 kilometers aerial distance from the line of Actual Control with bordering countries of India.” And this means it would cover the much of North East India, which is often regarded as the biodiversity hotspot. If we speak of Assam, we clearly remember how the Baghjan incident already took the lives of many, destroying both human lives and flora and fauna as well and the blowout was so dangerous that the entire area is still burning till today. In fact, the State Pollution Board of Assam had already reported that the oil plant had been operating for over 15 years without obtaining prior consent from the Board. So this is the real consequence of establishing a project or construction without proper clearance. Not only this, but also we cannot ignore the issue of illegal coal mining in Assam’s Dehing Patkai that of late raised a lot of eyebrows. So if this draft becomes a law, it would simply mean destruction of the environment without people being allowed to raise their voices. Furthermore, Oil India’s plan to drill closer to Assam’s Dibru Saikhowa National Park, which would be equally dangerous for both humans and flora and fauna might also get direct clearance if this draft somehow turns out to be a law. Therefore, this draft not only would destroy the environment, interests of different communities of people, but it also violates article 19(1) (a) and article 21 of the Indian Constitution. And if we have to prevent incidents like Baghjan blowout or the styrene gas leak of the LG Polymer Plant in Vishakhapatnam, then we have to take stern democratic actions against like draft and carry out those activities that can protect our biodiversity and the environment as a whole. Bishaldeep Kakati – Writer, Poet, Freelance Journalist, Direct Talks, Assistant General Secretary, North East Debaters Association And a Socio Political Commentator.	Read
August 2, 2020	The Problematic Story of Draft EIA Notification 2020 in Environmental Protection by Siddharth Singh, in Environmental Protection, countercurrents.org. Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is a regulatory process that aims to strike a balance between economic development and the environment. However, with the recent publication of Draft EIA Notification in March 2020, this balance has been disrupted. It allegedly strikes upon the foundations of the EIA process and emphasizes more on facilitating ease of doing business than the conservation of the environment. EIA was formally introduced in India through EIA Notification in 1994. Later it got replaced by the 2006 EIA Notification. Environment Impact Assessment is a process that allows the scrutiny of the potential adverse impacts of mining, industrial, real estate, thermal, hydropower, nuclear, infrastructure, and other projects on the environment. These developmental projects are required to obtain an Environment Clearance from the regulatory authority before they can proceed. This process generally involves scoping of the project, fair public participation, appraisal, and compliance with safeguards measures. Consequently, the final decision on a proposed project could result in acceptance, rejection, or acceptance with certain safeguards. Although the 2020 Draft EIA Notification aims to replace the 2006 Notification, the first generation issues are still relevant today. It is alleged by several academicians, former bureaucrats, civil societies that the Draft EIA Notification of 2020 issued by Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) attempts to dilute the Environmental Impact Assessment. In the last few months, there has been a vast reaction against the proposed Draft Notification on many grounds. Ex post facto clearance: Granting ex post facto environmental clearances to the projects after they have started working (polluting) is detrimental to the environment and could lead to irreversible degradation. Moreover, the polluters are subjected only to a nominal fine for their violation period that can easily be afforded by big corporate houses. Notably, the cost of compliance is significantly higher than the cost of non-compliance. It will allow a violation project to pollute the environment first and later obtain Environmental Clearance, thus leading the process of EIA to be futile. The recent Vizag gas leak case, occurred on 7th May 2020, of LG Polymers belongs to this category where it was operating without necessary clearances for more than two decades. It has claimed 11 lives, injured more than 1000 people, and caused immense destruction to the nearby flora and fauna. It shows how an industry working without EC could be dangerous for human health and the environment. With this draft notification, government is trying to institutionalize a norm that was an exception in 2017. Is it not essential that the government be cautious while drafting provisions that have been ruled contrary to the environmental law principles under different judicial orders? On 1st April 2020, Supreme Court has ordered in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Rohit Prajapati & Others that the concept of ex post facto environmental clearance is in derogation of the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence. Also, it stated that the notion of ex post facto clearance is contrary to both precautionary principles and sustainable development. Public Consultation: Public Consultation empowers the local affected persons and others who have a plausible stake in the environmental impact of the proposed project, to raise their concerns for or against the project. This social audit process is based on the principle of natural justice that further enhances transparency in the EIA. It should be fair and involve the maximum participation of the affected people. In Debadityo Sinha v Union of India and Save Mon Region Federation v Union of India, the National Green Tribunal had set aside the EC granted to the projects based on the inappropriate public consultation process. The Draft EIA Notification seeks to reduce and discourage public participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment. The EIA Notification exempts massive buildings and construction projects from the public consultation process that were required in the previous EIA Notification. It provides a long list of exemptions and lesser scrutiny. Under the Draft Notification, the availability period of the EIA Report before the public hearing has been reduced from 30 to 20 days without any justification. Delhi High Court in Utkarsh Mandal v Union of India emphasized the need to provide information 30 days before the public hearing process. The court highlighted that the affected persons should be fully informed about the proposed project that may cause environmental damage. The Gujrat High Court has noted in the Centre for Social Justice v Union of India that even 30 days is insufficient for this purpose and should be extended. It is no wonder that such a reduction of duration will hamper the whole public hearing process. Other problematic considerations of Draft EIA Notification: The Draft Notification excludes the role of affected parties, civil societies, and others from reporting the violation of the conditions of EC. Those cases reported by anyone other than project proponent or government authority will not be entertained. Also, earlier, the project proponent was required to submit a bi-annual compliance report, which has now been made annually in the present Draft. Now before moving further, it is essential to note that before the introduction of Draft EIA Notification, the status of Environment Impact Assessment was not much appreciable. EIA was struggling with several challenges, including necessary reforms in the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC); inadequate EIAs along with misinformation about the project; non-compliance with EC conditions existed for long in India; non-submission and inaccuracy of compliance reports; lack of adequate monitoring by officials; ignoring the role of local communities affected by the projects, and not engaging them to monitor the violation done by project proponents; EIA experienced bureaucratic delays and red-tapism that only allowed around 20% of the EC applications to be disposed of on time. Though the Courts and Tribunals have repeatedly emphasized to incorporate mechanisms that will strengthen the EIA process, it has still not successfully achieved environmental conservation goals. At this moment, a fundamental question must be raised: Would it not be appropriate if the 2020 Draft EIA Notification has emphasized more upon addressing its previous core challenges? Indeed, it would have strengthened the Environmental Impact Assessment for present and future developmental projects. Instead of resolving primary implementation challenges, the Draft aims to reduce the existing EIA regulation and encourage violations. The Draft Notification seeks to facilitate ease of doing business more than responding to environmental concerns. The crucial aspects of the Draft aim to by-pass the procedural delays and limit public scrutiny. Does it mean that EIA is considered as a hurdle in economic development? This old narrative draws inspiration from the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis. The proponents of this curve describe it as a situation where environmental degradation will happen to a certain point until when the country achieves a specific average income. After that, the economy will be invested back to restore ecological destruction. This theory might be relevant in some particular environmental issues like the treatment of air and water pollutants; however, it posses a significant limitation that ecological degradation is irreversible. Once the environmental damages like loss of biodiversity and submersion of coastal lands have occurred, there is no turning back. The importance of the environment is not an alien concept to Indian tradition. Practically speaking, this approach will not genuinely suit the interests of environmental concerns and instead deteriorate the situation for future generations. Thus, economic development cannot be done at the cost of the environment. This Draft Notification necessitates the need to re-visit the principle of sustainable development. The Supreme Court in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. case held that, “….Given the social and environmental impacts of industrial activity, environment compliance must not be seen as an obstacle to development but as a measure towards achieving sustainable development and inter-generational equity.” EIA is an opportunity to achieve sustainable development. Without an effective EIA, any project will face difficulty in proving its consistency with sustainable development. Notably, some issues under the EIA Draft Notification contradict the environmental laws and core legal principles. Thus, it is crucial to see that, if adopted, how far it can successfully undergo judicial scrutiny. Siddharth Singh is a research scholar at the Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, New Delhi.	Read
August 6, 2020	EIA: Environment Impact Assessment by Pema Choden Bhutia, in Environmental Protection, countercurrents.org. Urbanization and industrialization has taken over the world in the name of development , which lead to a rapid decline in our environmental treasure. In order to curtail this environmental depletion, the Government has introduced an assessment that controls the utilization, acquisition, and usage of natural resources by employing the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA). This assessment is mandatory for every development project to occur in the country where the project must satisfy the norms in order to obtain a license to initiate the project with minimal affect on the environment. From the first draft of 1994 and consequently modified 2006 draft, it was hard to get a clearance for the projects where the project will be called for public opinion, which delayed the start of a project. This draft was more rigid and oriented towards the conservation of the environment and maintaining a balance between the developmental projects and the environment. (Mazoomdaar, 2020). The current draft released by the government has started facing criticism all over the country due to its diverse miss objectification and not maintaining the actual reason why this assessment was established. In 2014 the UPA-II rule created conflicts in the country, where the developers and industrialists complained regarding the delay in clearance affecting the development projects. Considering this fact that, a long list of clearance norms made developers and companies started to shout out against the EIA rules. But the current draft appears to be in favor with the developers and industrialists. The crucial point making people angry is the non-involvement of the public in the project impact assessments. The new EIA draft highlighted several changes, in which the major new modifications like “Post fact clearance”, “Suo moto declaration of violation”, “Reduction in response period”, “Environment clearance validity extension”, and “strategic tags”. The first rule modification, Post fact clearance- this is to exclude people and activists to complain about the violation of EIA rules by the project and it also states that the public has no authority to raise slogans or any means of against the project. In which only the government itself assess the violation and deal with the company, this rule is like whatever happens to the environment and the people should not concern about it (Anathakrishnan, 2020). The second rule Suo moto declaration of violation- suggests the industrialists and big project holders surrender themselves upon violation of EIA rules and no public complaint will be considered in this regard. However, the government has declared that there will not be any justification given to the public on this act. This can be evaluated by the authority of EIA or any other Govt. bodies or if this violation found during the application process of the project. Thirdly the Reduction in response period- the public response on big project impact assessment has been reduced to 20 days from 30 days, as in this duration the people and activists need to assess, file complain if any issues found, and finalize the issues. This reduction in public response period made it ridiculous that no assessment could be done in 20 days, indirectly excluding people from the public assessment. The fourth rule, Environment clearance validity extension- the validity of a project has been extended for example the Mining project validity extended to 50 years where the previous period was 30 years and river valley projects got 10 years of extension. This discussion reflects that there will be no assessment in the next 50 years if the company got clearance once, and whatever the exploitation happens in these 50 years will not be considered.  In addition to this extension, the company need not submit the compliance report every six months rather it can be submitted once a year. There might be a possibility of irreversible reaction occurring during the project which affect the environment negatively. For this reason, the earlier EIA drafts required companies to submit the report every six months to avoid future disasters and renew the license. Finally, the fifth rule strategic tags- solely the Govt. will tag the companies with Strategic tags which includes projects such as Modernization, Irrigation, Defence and security, national highways, and area development projects and more. This means that no information will be provided to the public domain and it will be confidential and these projects will be exempted (category B) that is no entry for public participation. The main objective of EIA rule is to assess the impact of industrial and development projects on the environment in terms of social, economic, physical and cultural impact and to take measures to avoid these negative impacts. On the contrary the EIA draft is against the objective and favorable to the corporate and private bodies.  Unfortunately in the past years, the clearance rate of EIA is 87 % where out of 2,592 proposals 2,256 proposals got approved. The nationwide protests were carried out against the EIA draft declared by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change. Recently the High court of Delhi has extended the EIA public consultation period till August 11 (Jolly, 2020). In addition to the protest, more than 75 youth groups from Tamil Nadu including 1,951 teens signed a petition to withdraw the EIA draft (Lobo, 2020). These protests are reflecting the anger and disagreement with the EIA and suggesting Govt. to act on this situation and give preference to public involvement in the assessment. Pema Choden Bhutia is a Research Scholar at Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai. Email: pema@mids.ac.in References J, Mazoomdaar, (2020, July 28), Explained: Reading the draft Environment Impact Assessment norms, and finding the red flags, retrieved from https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/draft-environment-impact-assessment-norms-explained-6482324/ G, Anathakrishnan (2020, August 2) The Hindu Explains | What are the key changes in the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2020? retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/the-hindu-explains-what-are-the-key-changes-in-the-environment-impact-assessment-notification-2020/article32249807.ece S, Jolly, (2020, July 31)Draft EIA Notification 2020 Is Out of Sync With State Practices, International Law retrieved from  https://thewire.in/environment/draft-environment-impact-assessment-notification-international-law S, Lobo, (2020, August 3) Over 75 Tamil Nadu youth groups write to Centre against Environmental Impact Assessment 2020 draft, retrieved from  https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/over-75-tamil-nadu-youth-groups-write-to-centre-against-environmental-impact-assessment-2020-draft-1707416-2020-08-03	Read
July 29, 2020	The Capitalism Virus — Etymology of an Epidemic by Amulya Anita Gurumurthy, in India, countercurrents.org. Five months into the pandemic, it is evident that the government is in denial. The political rhetoric is harking back a failed status quoism, with grand delusions of recovery. Rather than call for a complete reset and reconfiguration of the prevailing order, the Indian government’s approach to tackling the pandemic betrays an overwhelming faith in business-as-usual. The economic fallouts of the pandemic have prompted several questions. What does the response to COVID-19 say about the state’s vision for the economy, in general? What does it reveal about the material basis of policy, and the interests that state actions invariably promote? The steady state of crisis capitalism “Unless the government takes proactive measures, we are falling off a cliff,” warned Jayati Ghosh, two months into the crisis, and today, it seems that the government’s actions have done everything to accelerate this fall. The pandemic, however, is merely the spark that lit the powder keg. Underlying its origins are structural causes of the capitalist neo-liberal order. In addressing COVID-19, the Government of India has acted entirely in cahoots with big capital, reposing unflinching faith in the illusory equilibrium driven ostensibly by market forces. This, even as the pandemic has revealed the deep fault-lines that go back to a broken system. The economic crises that nation states are witnessing is a function of the pre-COVID capitalist order. The massive unemployment, disruptions in supply chains and soaring debt are not produced by the pandemic; they are directly attributable to the crisis-prone nature intrinsic to capitalism. As Harvey argues, the approach adopted by the government in addressing any crisis, dictates the nature of the next. The flexible monetary policy measures employed to rectify the 2008 financial crisis enabled the capitalist class to borrow at nearly zero percent interest rates, creating inflationary pressures in the economy. Prices in stock markets surged far above their real economic values, while simultaneously inequality burgeoned. The pandemic was the proverbial straw of an unsustainable economic order, an expression of the inherent vulnerabilities of the system. The effect of this current crisis however, is going to be far more acute than previous recessions, given the combined collapse in supply and demand. Shortage of raw materials is likely to result in cost push inflation. Supply chains are already being disrupted by the shut down of factories and increasing unemployment. Escalating economic inequality and decreasing consumption on the other hand are adversely impacting aggregate demand. Goldman Sachs estimates that India will experience its gravest recession yet. Coronacapitalism – mutations of the status quo Originally, the year 2020 was projected to witness a decline in poverty, with 14 million individuals rising above the poverty line. But the pandemic has set us back ruinously; the revised figure hypothesises that a lower limit of 8.8 million additional individuals will find themselves in working poverty. With respect to India, the 6.1 % unemployment figure from 2017-18, the highest in 45 years, seems like good news in comparison to what we can now expect. By the end of April 2020, 140 million workers had lost their jobs, and 27% of the workforce had been rendered unemployed. The central government’s deliberate policy of non-intervention to support workers in the informal economy has enlarged the reserve army of labour. It has ensured that wages are depressed, and the working population, kept in check. Strengthening the interests of the bourgeoisie at the peril of the proletariat, the government’s response to the pandemic dangerously, albeit unsurprisingly, embraces yet again, the heady logic of capital. In the initial days, when the lockdown led to a cascading impact on the economy, with real estate, aviation, tourism and micro, small and medium enterprises bearing the brunt of the recession, the Confederation of Indian Industry met with the labour minister, Santosh Gangwar, insisting that the government orders workers to resume production. They further argued that in the event that workers refuse to return to the workplace, they should be held liable under the Industrial Disputes Act. In Karnataka, after consulting the cement lobby (anxious about an imminent demand shock), Chief Minister, Yediyurappa, cancelled trains that were to transport migrants back to their villages. Evidently, when it is labour alone that adds value to the production process, capitalists in collusion with the government are eager to go to any lengths to deprive workers of the right to withdraw their labour power, even when in duress. This marks a return to corvee labour or forced labour, which characterises feudal societies. The pandemic has simply and starkly dispelled the smokescreen of capitalist ideology, underlining how rather than the inventiveness and organisational capabilities of capitalist entrepreneurs, it is labour that is required for the production of commodities and extraction of surplus. The humanitarian crisis wrought by the pandemic has been exacerbated by the government’s callous economic decisions. Research conducted by SWAN in April 2020 indicated that 92% of migrant labourers had not received rations from the government. India is slated to join some of the world’s poorest countries adding to the projected numbers of hunger deaths owing to the pandemic. The government is yet to universalise the public distribution system, though the Food Corporation of India’s godowns hold 98 million tonnes of wheat and rice. Instead, it has sought to covert the surplus grain to ethanol, in order to blend it with petrol. A central question of economics is regarding the distribution of scarce resources. Given this, the government’s policy measures have resulted in allocative inefficiency, with the interests of the working population being summarily dismissed. As, Sanjeev Sharma, a taxi driver, said in the early days of the virus, “Some people will die of the virus. The rest of us will die of hunger”. Nivedita Menon has coined the term ‘Coronacapitalism’ to refer to how in the course of the pandemic, the state has entirely been subordinated to the interests of the bourgeoisie. The economic package announced by the Modi government attests to this, with deregulation and pro-free market reforms being implemented in all sectors of the economy. Agricultural markets have been opened up, with the removal of laws governing the prices and stocks of produce. This will lead to greater centralisation of capital, with powerful traders establishing monopolies and foreign companies crushing local farmers. Additionally, Madhya Pradesh, Assam and Gujarat have amended labour laws, eroding the paltry protection workers possessed. These labour reforms deny workers the right to toilet breaks, ventilation, protective equipment, weekly holidays and disallow the formation of trade unions. The bourgeoisie, it seems, has waged a class war against the proletariat, denying them of their basic entitlements in order to increase the rate of accumulation. The government’s assumption that capital will flock to India due to its weak labour laws is empirically flawed. Foreign investment exiting China has largely flown into Vietnam and Thailand; countries which have more robust labour laws. As economists critical of the neo-liberal paradigm argue, the Indian government should have adopted a Keynesian model and implemented expansionary fiscal policies. Rather than adopting a policy of decisive intervention, the government’s response to the crisis has been dictated by the whims of capital. How inequalities have shaped the cartography of COVID In a society that is deeply stratified, the adverse socio-economic outcomes of the pandemic are bound to disproportionately affect marginalised social groups. Women workers are more likely to be dismissed and to suffer pay cuts. Women constitute the reserve army, forced out of labour markets during periods of economic slowdown. Like gender, caste too is relevant in tracing the contours of the crisis. The leisure industry was instrumental in pumping demand into the economy post the 2008 financial crisis, thereby salvaging capitalism. However, today, the norm of social distancing is leading to ‘COVID Brahminism’, institutionalising caste hierarchies and legitimising practices of untouchability through registers of hygiene. Restaurant businesses – desperate as they are – want to win back consumers through bio-surveillance of delivery boys and kitchen staff. Your home-delivered pizza bill now has details of body temperatures of workers, a perverse state of transparency that applies to those condemned to everyday struggle by our class-caste structures. The development divides of the world mean that some countries are going to be affected by the pandemic far more severely than others. The United States can restore its own economy, as the sole holder of the world’s reserve currency. Developed nations are also able to adopt sizeable fiscal packages, with Japan spending 20% of its GDP in addressing the crisis. On the other hand, developing nations are confronted by depreciation, capital flight and falling remittances. Significantly, their ability to adopt expansionary measures is circumscribed due to their fear of exclusion from the international market. Thus, contrary to assumptions that the virus doesn’t discriminate, the economic fallout of the pandemic manifests in a profoundly unequal manner. The COVID crisis has lifted the curtains, revealing the exploitative underpinnings of the current socio-economic order. It is a wake up call for an alternate economic system that is equitable and caters to the interests of the working class rather than to the minuscule section that owns the means of production. Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures, and capital’s impulse to colonise must be reined in boldly and unequivocally. A blatantly class collaborationist line of government policy is bound to push the dispossessed majority off the cliff, with the capitalist class rejoicing in the bountiful panorama of renewed accumulation. Amulya Anita Gurumurthy is a student of law	Read
August 8, 2020	The World on Fire by Robert Hunziker, in Climate Change, countercurrents.org. Massive uncontrolled unprecedented wild fires are consuming portions of the Amazon rainforest and several regions of the Arctic. Somebody somewhere must be asking why all of a sudden in unison, all over creation, two of the planets largest ecosystems are going up in smoke. It’s eerily spine chilling. “Major fires have hit the Amazon and the Arctic for the second year in a row.” (Source: NewScientist, June 26, 2020) Where’s the world’s largest fire alarm when so desperately needed? Sure, all of mainstream press covers the fires and people hear about the fires and read about the fires. But that’s the end of any sort of impact because the sensationalism of reading about and hearing about massive fires thousands of miles away in vast wilderness areas doesn’t move the needle enough for people to express serious concern or even go so far as to panic. Maybe they should. These are not regular ole run of the mill fires. Rather, these are firestorms so powerful that they create their own wind systems and self-perpetuate. More to the point, the world is on a biblical fire alert that posits the Book of Revelations 16:8 smack dab into contemporary society, to wit: Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the Sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire, and men were scorched with great heat. For example, recent bushfires in Australia (2019) were not just unprecedented. They were “deadly catastrophic,” thus leaving some ecosystems “forever changed.” The conflagrations obliterated landscapes, not just patches of landscape but entire landscapes. Why obliteration? Climate change is the villain. It supercharged the wildfires by turning landscapes into tinder. As such, and contrary to political opinions by right-wing whacko nutcases, climate change does not constitute surreal events in thin air, rather, it’s power-packed hard-hitting damage to our “one and only” planet. It’s authentic. Australia’s wildfires convulsed above and beyond any known scale of normal fires, from which animals are usually able to escape. They didn’t. They couldn’t run fast enough! The fires took out entire landscapes, not patches of landscape that leave behind pockets of safety untouched for scampering animals. Nothing was left untouched by the hot lapping flames. The wildfires permanently crippled iconic habitats that make Australia an ecological wonder for all to behold. From loss of crucial plant life to decimation of species that serve as a meal for a higher species, the ripple effects remain unaccountable, extensively beyond human calculation. Now, two of the world’s largest, and most significant, ecosystems are on fire like never before, similar to Australia’s biblical fires of a year ago, as more, and more, precious natural resources suffer waves of obliteration. Of course, normal fires in the wild are healthy; however, these fires are anything but normal. They’re truly biblical in scale. “Six months of record-breaking temperatures have sparked massive fires in the Siberian Arctic this year. Great plumes of smoke were visible on satellite… temperatures more than 5°C above average over much of Siberia… A Met Office-led international study has concluded this period of exceptional weather would have been impossible had the world not been warmed by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. (Source: New Warning Over Climate Change From Siberian Arctic, BBC News, July 15, 2020) “What we’re seeing really is unprecedented… we’ve never seen the probability of a change of an event of more than 600 times. We’ve never seen a result like that, Professor Peter Stott, Met Office,” Ibid. “Looking at the geologic record, we don’t think we’ve ever seen CO2 levels this high in about 5 million years… We are in uncharted territory, Dr. Katharine Hendry,” Ibid. Meanwhile, bad vibes with strong undertones of contempt upend civilized society, as follows: America’s president Don Trump has tweeted 120 posts that variously poke fun at, and ridicule, climate change. Moreover, he has issued dozens of tweets claiming that “cold weather” disproves climate change. It should be noted that 62 million people voted for Trump in 2016 and many “live by his words.” At the same time, in the real world of the Amazon rainforest, Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research reported 6,803 fires in the Amazon in July 2020 alone, nearly 30% more than July 2019 when the Western world went bananas over the loss of rainforest due to human-set fires. When in fact fires are not a regular feature of rainforests. Now, environmentalists are going batty because August is traditionally the start of the human-generated fire season, but it already has a roaring head of steam. Not only that, but according to INPE data, the first six months of 2020 are already the worst on record for deforestation. Yes, “the worst on record.” Sure enough, the Amazon rainforest, similar to landscapes in Australia in 2019, is subjected to obliteration forces, and it’s not just deforestation as the root cause. Climate change has kicked into high gear all across the magnificent rainforest with devastating drought conditions galore! Excessive drought conditions, in part, originate early in the morning in garages around the world as fossil-fueled gasoline engines crank up, spewing out CO2, and the whir of a jet engine igniting, the blast of a diesel train engine cranking up, the murmur of a jet ski, ignition of hot coals for an electricity-generating plant, a furnace blast molding steel, all are the basis, the origin, of greenhouse gases that blanket the atmosphere, in turn, enhancing devastating severe droughts. According to a landmark Amazonian rainforest in-depth analysis: “Several studies indicate that the region has been suffering severe drought since the end of the last century, as in 1997/1998, 2005, 2010 and 2015. The intensity and frequency of these extreme drought episodes in the AB during the last years, approximately one episode every five years with a significant increase in the coverage area, is remarkable.” (Beatriz Nunes Garcia, et al, Extreme Drought Events Over the Amazon Basin: The Perspective from the Reconstruction of South American Hydroclimate, Departamento de Meteorologia, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Nov. 7, 2018) Back-to-back-to-back-to-back 100/yr. drought events, every 5 years, are not normal, meaning something somewhere is horribly wrong. After all, major ecosystems that profoundly influence all aspects of the planet’s health and well-being are burning, collapsing, melting like there’s no tomorrow. The message is clear. Along the way, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro feigns attempts to limit rainforest damage, but experts say the government’s response has been largely ineffective, more symbolic than real. In truth, he’s the primary driving force behind record-setting deforestation. Similar to Trump, on the world stage he’s a laughing stock and archenemy of the planet. According to NASA, this year’s dry season will be more prone to fires than last year’s record-setting affair. Moreover, according to NASA, warmer ocean surface temps in the North Atlantic (global heating at work) create conditions for more extreme drought in the Amazon, as excessive ocean heat brings on far-flung damage. Everything in nature is somehow connected. “The world on fire” is merely a prelude to a climate “gone berserk” disaster scenario that’s almost certain to eventually take civilization down to its knees, by all appearances sooner than mainstream science suggests, but frankly scientists don’t make such predictions. Yet, isn’t a climate gone berserk scenario already playing out in real time, e.g., in Siberia, in the Amazon, in Australia? Meanwhile, climate-related crises on a grand scale never before recorded throughout human history continue building to a crescendo, in earnest, right before society’s “eyes wide shut.” Postscript: Reports out of the London School of Economics claim one-half of the Arctic fires are peat soil, normally too wet and too cold to burn, but now burning because of powerful intense heat… peat soil is carbon-rich and can burn for months/years, emitting carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). (Source: Arctic Fires Released More Carbon in Two Months Than Scandinavia Will All Year, Grist, Aug. 4, 2020) Speechless, once again! Robert Hunziker, MA, economic history DePaul University, awarded membership in Pi Gamma Mu International Academic Honor Society in Social Sciences is a freelance writer and environmental journalist who has over 200 articles published, including several translated into foreign languages, appearing in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He has been interviewed on numerous FM radio programs, as well as television.	Read
August 3, 2020	Hiroshima 75: The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence! by Professor Francis A Boyle, in World, countercurrents.org. The human race stands on the verge of nuclear self-extinction as a species, and with it will die most, if not all, forms of intelligent life on the planet earth. Any attempt to dispel the ideology of nuclearism and its attendant myth propounding the legality of nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence must directly come to grips with the fact that the nuclear age was conceived in the original sins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined by the Nuremberg Charter of August 8, 1945, and violated several basic provisions of the Regulations annexed to Hague Convention No. 4 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907), the rules of customary international law set forth in the Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare (1923), and the United States War Department Field Manual 27-10, Rules of Land Warfare (1940). According to this Field Manual and the Nuremberg Principles, all civilian government officials and military officers who ordered or knowingly participated in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been lawfully punished as war criminals. The start of any progress toward resolving humankind’s nuclear predicament must come from the realization that nuclear weapons have never been legitimate instruments of state policy, but rather have always constituted illegitimate instrumentalities of internationally lawless and criminal behavior. THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS The use of nuclear weapons in combat was, and still is, absolutely prohibited under all circumstances by both conventional and customary international law: e.g., the Nuremberg Principles, the Hague Regulations of 1907, the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of 1977, etc. In addition, the use of nuclear weapons would also specifically violate several fundamental resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly that have repeatedly condemned the use of nuclear weapons as an international crime. Consequently, according to the Nuremberg Judgment, soldiers would be obliged to disobey egregiously illegal orders with respect to launching and waging a nuclear war. Second, all government officials and military officers who might nevertheless launch or wage a nuclear war would be personally responsible for the commission of Nuremberg crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and Protocol 1, and genocide, among other international crimes. Third, such individuals would not be entitled to the defenses of superior orders, act of state, tu quoque, self-defense, presidential authority, etc. Fourth, such individuals could thus be quite legitimately and most severely punished as war criminals, up to and including the imposition of the death penalty, without limitation of time. THE THREAT TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter of 1945 prohibits both the threat and the use of force except in cases of legitimate self-defense as recognized by article 51 thereof. But although the requirement of legitimate self-defense is a necessary precondition for the legality of any threat or use of force, it is certainly not sufficient. For the legality of any threat or use of force must also take into account the customary and conventional international laws of humanitarian armed conflict. Thereunder, the threat to use nuclear weapons (i.e., nuclear deterrence/terrorism) constitutes ongoing international criminal activity: namely, planning, preparation, solicitation and conspiracy to commit Nuremberg crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, Additional Protocol I of 1977, the Hague Regulations of 1907, and the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, inter alia. These are the so-called inchoate crimes that under the Nuremberg Principles constitute international crimes in their own right. The conclusion is inexorable that the design, research, testing, production, manufacture, fabrication, transportation, deployment, installation, maintenance, storing, stockpiling, sale, and purchase as well as the threat to use nuclear weapons together with all their essential accouterments are criminal under well-recognized principles of international law. Thus, those government decision-makers in all the nuclear weapons states with command responsibility for their nuclear weapons establishments are today subject to personal criminal responsibility under the Nuremberg Principles for this criminal practice of nuclear deterrence/terrorism that they have daily inflicted upon all states and peoples of the international community.. Here I wish to single out four components of the threat to use nuclear weapons that are especially reprehensible from an international law perspective: counter-ethnic targeting; counter-city targeting; first-strike weapons and contingency plans; and the first-use of nuclear weapons even to repel a conventional attack. THE CRIMINALITY OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND NUCLEAR DETERRENCE As can be determined in part from the preceding analysis, today’s nuclear weapons establishments as well as the entire system of nuclear deterrence/terrorism currently practiced by all the nuclear weapon states are criminal — not simply illegal, not simply immoral, but criminal under well established principles of international law. This simple idea of the criminality of nuclear weapons can be utilized to pierce through the ideology of nuclearism to which many citizens in the nuclear weapons states have succumbed. It is with this simple idea of the criminality of nuclear weapons that concerned citizens can proceed to comprehend the inherent illegitimacy and fundamental lawlessness of the policies that their governments pursue in their names with respect to the maintenance and further development of nuclear weapons systems. THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE/TERRORISM Humankind must abolish nuclear weapons before nuclear weapons abolish humankind. Nonetheless, a small number of governments in the world community continue to maintain nuclear weapons systems despite the rules of international criminal law to the contrary. This has led some international lawyers to argue quite tautologically and disingenuously that since there exist a few nuclear weapons states in the world community, therefore nuclear weapons must somehow not be criminal because otherwise these few states would not possess nuclear weapons systems. In other words, to use lawyers’ parlance, this minority state practice of nuclear deterrence/terrorism practiced by the great powers somehow negates the existence of a world opinio juris (i.e., sense of legal obligation) as to the criminality of nuclear weapons. There is a very simple response to that specious argument: Since when has a small gang of criminals — in this case, the nuclear weapons states — been able to determine what is legal or illegal for the rest of the community by means of their own criminal behavior? What right do these nuclear weapons states have to argue that by means of their own criminal behavior they have ipso facto made criminal acts legitimate? No civilized nation state would permit a small gang of criminal conspirators to pervert its domestic legal order in this manner. Moreover, both the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Tokyo Tribunal made it quite clear that a conspiratorial band of criminal states likewise has no right to opt out of the international legal order by means of invoking their own criminal behavior as the least common denominator of international deportment. Ex iniuria ius non oritur is a peremptory norm of customary international law. Right cannot grow out of injustice! To the contrary, the entire human race has been victimized by an international conspiracy of ongoing criminal activity carried out by the nuclear weapons states under the doctrine known as “nuclear deterrence,” which is really a euphemism for “nuclear terrorism.” This international criminal conspiracy of nuclear deterrence/terrorism currently practiced by the nuclear weapons states is no different from any other conspiracy by a criminal gang or band. They are the outlaws. So it is up to the rest of the international community to repress and dissolve this international criminal conspiracy as soon as possible. THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ANTI-NUCLEAR CIVIL RESISTANCE In light of the fact that nuclear weapons systems are prohibited, illegal, and criminal under all circumstances and for any reason, every person around the world possesses a basic human right to be free from this criminal practice of nuclear deterrence/terrorism and its concomitant specter of nuclear extinction. Thus, all human beings possess the basic right under international law to engage in non-violent civil resistance activities for the purpose of preventing, impeding, or terminating the ongoing commission of these international crimes. Every citizen of the world community has both the right and the duty to oppose the existence of nuclear weapons systems by whatever non-violent means are at his or her disposal. Otherwise, the human race will suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs, and the planet earth will become a radioactive wasteland. The time for preventive action is now! Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010).	Read
August 5, 2020	Citizens of the Earth! The Anti-Nuclear Manifesto for the salvation of humanity from the all-consuming suicidal/genocidal nuclear fire. by Dr. Leo Semashko and Beatrice Fihn,   Citizens of the Earth! We, ICAN/GHA, propose the Anti-Nuclear Manifesto for the salvation of humanity from the all-consuming suicidal/genocidal nuclear fire, first tested 75 years ago on peace civilians in Hiroshima/Nagasaki, 250 thousand of whom were easily alive burned in it. For 75 years, nuclear weapons, through the efforts of the traditional human reason, have been brought to such a degree of suicidal/genocidal perfection that now they are capable to burn all of humanity together with the planet easily and quickly, with a supersonic speed of their delivery to any planet point and to any corner of our common at home. The traditional mind for 75 years was only able to burn itself, but was powerless to save and preserve itself. Einstein understood and expressed this then, demanding "a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity wants to survive." For 75 years it has become clear that with traditional thinking humanity cannot survive. With it, humanity can only burn itself, starting since Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Even earlier, Gandhi found a way of thinking of the "greatest force of non-violence" by the spheres/spherons of humanity, which "is mightier than the mightiest [nuclear] weapon of destruction." But for traditional thinking was not 75 years enough to recognize and master the salutary, "substantially new thinking" by the spheres/spherons, which are the only ones that possess soft nuclear energy of the "greatest force of non-violence" within humanity. It is inaccessible to traditional thinking. Citizens of the Earth! The conclusion of our Manifesto is simple. If you/we want to survive by eliminating suicidal/genocidal all-consuming nuclear fire, you must rise to a "substantially new manner of thinking" by the Gandhian spheres/spherons. It was first systematically developed in the innovative cyber science Cyberspheronics in our Manifesto, as a result of intellectual searches and work for many decades. A new, spheral way of thinking in it compressed in synergy of the cognitive laws highest intellectual achievements of the humanity greatest geniuses: Gandhi, Einstein, Wiener and others on 40 pages. Its semantic space for the humanity survival is enclosed between its two centers/poles of synergy: the Nobel Appeal, which sets the strategic goals of survival, and the system of cognitive laws of Cyberspheronics that ensure their achievement in a new paradigm of thinking. There is no other paradigm of it. Therefore, there is no other modus of survival and other way out of the suicidal/genocidal nuclear deadlock in us, in humanity, except for a substantially new manner of thinking by the spheres/spherons of our Manifesto.  It was created by 25 co-authors from 14 countries and is based on hundreds of the co-authors’ works of previous years ... (It is in the attachment, 40 pages and is published on the website along with all responses: https://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=908). This is where our survival and salvation lies. To do this, we all need to understand, study, recognize and together, in solidarity and partnership, without confrontation, develop, improve and practically apply this saving manner of thinking. This is our conclusion and call to forever exclude any possibility of a repetition of the horrific tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki through 75 years! Yours sincerely,   Beatrice Fihn, ICAN Executive Director, Sweden, ICAN is Nobel Peace Laureate 2017, https://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=943  Email: admin@icanw.org    Leo Semashko, PhD, Philosopher, sociologist, cybernetician, peacemaker, GHA Founder and Honorary President, The ISA RC51 Sociocybernetics Honourary Lifetime Member, Initiator and Editor-in-Chief of the "Peace/Cyberspheronics Manifesto", Blog: https://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=253  Email: leo.semashko@gmail.com  Skype: leo.semahko Phone home: 7-812-597-6571 05-08-20	Read