Pollution in Europe has contributed to one of the worst droughts in India which has destroyed the lives of more than 130 million people, according to a new study. Researchers believe manufactured aerosols are to blame for the weakening of monsoon winds and rain in India over the past few decades.

Emissions from the northern hemisphere’s main industrial areas caused a staggering 40 per cent drop in rainfall in north west India in 2000, according to researchers from Imperial College London. Europe’s emissions alone caused levels of rainfall to fall by ten per cent in the same year.

Sulphur dioxide – produced mainly by coal-fired power plants – causes a number of harmful effects, such as acid rain, heart and lung diseases, and damage to plant growth. Now researchers at Imperial College London have calculated just how big an effect emissions of sulphur dioxide had on rainfall in India in 2000.

The north-west of India experienced a staggering drop in precipitation of about 40 per cent because of emissions from the northern hemisphere’s main industrial areas. Aerosols, which release sulphur dioxide and stay in the atmosphere for weeks, can both reflect and absorb solar radiation. They also affect cloud cover – and can make them brighter and suppress rainfall. Although they are produced naturally from sea salt spray and desert dust, man-made aerosols make up a major part of this pollution.

One of the researchers, Dr Apostolos Voulgarakis, of ICL’s Grantham Institute, said the study showed how emissions in one part of the world could have a significant effect on another – even if the pollution itself didn’t actually get there. Dr Voulgarakis said their research, along with other studies, showed the kind of problems that might result from attempts to use sulphur dioxide in a geo-engineering scheme.

“Geo-engineering has generally suggested to be problematic because of the knock-on effects it could have,” he said. “This research shows one of those reasons as it can affect rainfall quite dramatically.”

How does European air pollution affect the South Asian monsoon?

In a blog post researcher Dilshad Shawki from ICL’s Grantham Institute explains how understanding and predicting monsoon rainfall is of huge importance to those societies like India that have developed following its rhythms.

Aerosols are liquid and solid particles suspended in the atmosphere that have the ability to reflect or absorb solar radiation. They also influence clouds by making them brighter and even supressing rainfall. Aerosols can also occur naturally from sea salt spray and dust plumes driven by winds in desert regions, but synthetic aerosols make up a major part of global air pollution. Whether manufactured or natural, aerosols remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks, which makes their direct influence on the climate more localised. Interestingly though, local differences in temperature and pressure can influence circulation – and hence the climate – in areas far away from the emission source.

The South Asian monsoon’s interaction with aerosols has been studied extensively in recent years, with many researchers concluding that manufactured aerosols may be responsible for weakening the circulation of monsoon winds and precipitation in recent decades. These changes matter to people on the ground. In the second half of the twentieth century, drier conditions in central India have led to more frequent and intense droughts, and a devastating effect on crop yields.

Each summer the South Asian monsoon drenches the Indian subcontinent, as strong moisture-laden winds from the Indian Ocean deliver over 70% of the region’s annual rainfall in just 3 months. As such, the monsoon’s bountiful rain is crucial to the economy and to livelihoods in the region. In recent decades however, rising pollution levels and increases in global surface temperatures have influenced atmospheric circulation patterns in the tropics, in turn affecting monsoon rainfall patterns.

Villages Turning Into Ghost Towns

Hit hard by this man-made European drought villages in India are turning into Ghost Towns, chief among them is the Anantpur district of the South Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Last year, India saw its highest temperature on record – a sweltering 51 degrees Celsius (123.8F). Hundreds of farmers died as crops failed in more than 13 states. More and more farmers are gearing up to leave their villages and migrate to cities leaving the elderly and kids behind to use last traces of water while the able-bodied earn a fighting wage in the cities. With the economy collapsing over large swathes, people migrate as a last resort.

Thanks to deficit rainfall more farmers are gearing up to leave in the next two months. The few who remain survive by selling milk and doing odd jobs that fetch them not more than Rs 100 a day. This is not a case of just one state. Farmers across the country are facing similar situation. Recently in a dramatic move, 150 farmers from the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu protested at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar with skulls of fellow dead farmers who had allegedly committed suicide.

The drinking water ministry has asked 18 drought-prone states to utilise 25% of the Central budget available with them to mitigate drinking water crisis. While 13 states were identified last year as drought-prone, the ministry has assessed another five states as the ones facing drinking water scarcity this year.

While the entire nation is grappling with one of the deadliest droughts to hit the region deciphering the root causes of monsoon changes in the past and the various scenarios of monsoon change in the future will be an ongoing challenge for climate researchers.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on How Pollution in Europe is Creating Ghost Towns in India

Korea: Leading to War?

May 1st, 2017 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is deeply concerned that escalating tensions between North Korea and the United States of America could lead to war. This view was expressed at the end of the 30th ASEAN Leaders’ Summit in Manila on the 29th of April 2017.

Given the gravity of the situation, ASEAN could perhaps have been a little more proactive. It should have rejected any military solution and argued for a negotiated diplomatic settlement of the conflict. For negotiations to begin there will have to be some preliminary gestures from both sides. North Korea should suspend all nuclear and missile tests while the US and South Korea should halt their joint military exercises.

Though this idea was first suggested by the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, ASEAN should have put it forward as its own proposal. ASEAN should have gone further and offered to host talks among all the six principal actors in the conflict — North and South Korea, China, the US, Japan and Russia. A strong push by ASEAN for the immediate re-commencement of the six party talks at this juncture would have carried a lot of weight.

Image result for asean summit 2017

Southeast Asian Leaders during the 2017 ASEAN Summit in Manila

Unlike the first six party talks from 2003 to 2008 which made little progress the talks this time should go beyond North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme. It should address some of the underlying causes of the tension and friction in the region as a whole. For instance, North Korea began its nuclear testing and its missile firing as a response to the massive US- South Korean joint military exercises. This is why issues pertaining to US-South Korea military ties; the US military relationship with Japan; and the stationing of thousands of US military personnel in a number of bases in both South Korea and Japan cannot be divorced from North Korea’s military posturing.

What this means is that while the North Korean leadership’s belligerence has undoubtedly contributed to the current conflict, the US’s drive to maintain its hegemony over North East Asia has also exacerbated the situation. This hegemonic agenda — especially if it is viewed against the backdrop of the Korean War (1950-1953) — is directed against China and Russia which are both neighbours and allies of sorts of North Korea. Even after the end of the Cold War (1949-1989) the US has continued to see North Korea from a power perspective shaped to a great extent by the position of South Korea and Japan, on the one hand, and the presence of China and Russia, on the other.

If these fundamental issues are ignored, and all that one is focused upon is how to tame a recalcitrant state, the instability in North East Asia and the danger it poses to regional and global peace will persist. Hence the urgent need to hold comprehensive talks aimed at resolving the primary and secondary causes of the continuing conflict in the Korean Peninsula. The alternative to peace talks is war — a devastating war that will impact upon not only North East Asia but also the rest of the continent and indeed, the world.

The consequences of a second Korean war should be spelt out in detail by the media to those who wield power and authority in the US and the region. Since both the US and North Korea are nuclear armed, a nuclear exchange between them, according to the well-known journalist Eric Margolis with loads of experience in reporting from war zones,

“would expose a third of the world’s economy to nuclear contamination, not to mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.”

He goes on to argue that even a conventional US attack on North Korea

“will prove a daunting challenge. US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least US$10 billion, though I believe  such a war would cost four times that much today.” Margolis warns that, “North Korea is unlikely to be a pushover in a war. Even after US and South Korean forces occupy Pyongyang, the North has prepared for a long guerrilla war in the mountains that could last for decades. They have been practising for 30 years. Chaos in North Korea will invite Chinese military intervention …. Will Russia sit by quietly while the US blows apart North Korea? Does anyone in the White House know that North Korea borders Russia and is less than 200km from the key Russian port of Vladivostok?”

The urgency of convening talks cannot be overstated. It is not too late for ASEAN leaders and people to speak with one voice and plead with the six states to re-commence the six party talks immediately.

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

While the recent raft of Sino-Saudi trade agreements benefited Chinese soft power in protecting Xinjiang, and the Saudis by diversifying their economy, China’s slow intertwining with Saudi Arabia complements the Sino-Russian alliance. Primarily, its benefits could lead to a realistic threat to the petrodollar.

The Persian rival who showed the way

In 2012/2013, the US Treasury Department, under the Obama administration, initiated a raft of sanctions in an amateurish fashion against the Central Bank of Iran. As we were told, it was done to tire and bleed Iranian economic and social life enough to draw Tehran into negotiations concerning its nuclear programme. The argument of were they/weren’t they pursuing a weaponized nuclear program isn’t important; how the Iranians circumvented these sanctions is.

The sanctions were meant to be stifling, but the Iranians loosened this problematic liquidity noose by using all their banks that weren’t sanctioned, and sold rich Iranian oil to India. Of course, the Indians couldn’t pay Tehran directly. Neither could they pay bilaterally in rupees due to sanctions and infrastructure needed to trade in a bilateral currency. Instead, Iran requested that India pay in gold so India paid Turkey, the Middle East’s gold market, and Turkey gave Turkish gold to Iranian banks, which then swapped with the Central Bank of Iran.

Turkey, for its part, may soon be the gold payment intermediator across Asia, and is already nationalizing the sector with a demand for private confiscation occurring to support the Turkish economy, but this has scarcely been reported.

This clever evasion was known as the Iran-India-Turkey triangle. Iran was escaping the dominance of the US dollar and trading in real money, not a hegemonic fiat currency that was being printed hot-off-the-press all day. They were dealing in gold; not something that could be strangled through SWIFT and electrons traded on a screen easily. A simple intermediator and precious metals could break Obama’s heralded “crippling” sanctions.

Iran ideologically, as well as practically, wants nothing to do with the US dollar but rather it wants to be free of monetary pressures by the US on its domestic policies. The effectiveness of this evasion was a preview to what countries like China, Russia, and to a lesser extent India and South Korea, have all been trying to do: increase their independence from the US dollar. The Iranian gold triangle showed successful independence from US dollar reliance.

The Chinese usurpers and their yellow metal

Fast forward to March 2017; the Russian Central Bank opened its first overseas office in Beijing as an early step in phasing in a gold-backed standard of trade. This would be done by finalizing the issuance of the first federal loan bonds denominated in Chinese yuan and to allow gold imports from Russia.

The Chinese government wishes to internationalize the yuan, and conduct trade in yuan as it has been doing, and is beginning to increase trade with Russia. They’ve been taking these steps with bilateral trading, native trading systems and so on. However, when Russia and China agreed on their bilateral US$400 billion pipeline deal, China wished to, and did, pay for the pipeline with yuan treasury bonds, and then later for Russian oil in yuan.

This evasion of, and unprecedented breakaway from, the reign of the US dollar monetary system is taking many forms, but one of the most threatening is the Russians trading Chinese yuan for gold. The Russians are already taking Chinese yuan, made from the sales of their oil to China, back to the Shanghai Gold Exchange to then buy gold with yuan-denominated gold futures contracts – basically a barter system or trade.

The Chinese are hoping that by starting to assimilate the yuan futures contract for oil, facilitating the payment of oil in yuan, the hedging of which will be done in Shanghai, it will allow the yuan to be perceived as a primary currency for trading oil. The world’s top importer (China) and exporter (Russia) are taking steps to convert payments into gold. This is known. So, who would be the greatest asset to lure into trading oil for yuan? The Saudis, of course.

All the Chinese need is for the Saudis to sell China oil in exchange for yuan. If the House of Saud decides to pursue that exchange, the Gulf petro-monarchies will follow suit, and then Nigeria, and so on. This will fundamentally threaten the petrodollar.

Now the argument is that if China does this it will put a slam on Chinese exports, but China is undergoing an intentional metamorphosis from a producer and exporter to a service and consumer economy of internal products. Look to China’s technology sector, e-commerce sector, and other domestic sectors that will provide a large market for sustainable service and growth.

A second argument against this train of thought is that maybe China doesn’t want the yuan to be a world reserve currency but just have a strong currency; a gold-backed yuan currency. Having a gold trade note may not hurt Chinese exports as it transforms its economy and its future exports.

Beijing may also have thought that if Saudi Arabia is persuaded to trade in yuan or gold-backed yuan, etc, South Korea and Japan may follow suit, as both have been looking to detach from the US dollar.

China and Iran were the first to initiate bypassing the dollar, followed by Russia circumventing the SWIFT system and then India beginning to move away from the US dollar and starting bilateral trade deals. China and Japan made moves to trade directly, as did Japan with India, bypassing the dollar.

The use of alternative payment systems like gold, yuan, rupees, rubles and other monies, fiat and not, to evade the potential of sanctions and seizures of the US dollar, or its decline, are seen as favorable.

What decline?

Well, we can look at the historic East-West cycle, the baby-boom demographic in the West, the growing inequality in the wealth distribution cycle, the ratio of household debt as a percentage of disposable income, and for you history buffs, the Kondratiev wave are all peaking and are descending into a deflationary wave.

Wait, what?

Okay, all of those mentioned cycles are economic swings of wealth. Everything is pointing towards a declining West and a rising East. But we can equally blame central bankers’ quantitative easing policies of printing to prosperity. The idea is a falsity that also has only benefited the wealthier classes, and can’t beat back cyclical pressure. A shift in world monetary systems is occurring.

The Chinese economy has begun an economic restructuring and focus on domestic production and services. The Trump administration thinks weakening the US dollar will help American exports and likewise respectfully grow the US economy (or “grow” within the confines of the current monetary system). However, the overvalued dollar has subsidized the cherished “American standard of living,” and any weakening will now have detrimental effects.

The US needs to also restructure its economy to one that is based on production. It can no longer continue to run a debt-serviced economy that imports all goods it doesn’t produce. It’s unsustainable, and the continuous mistake of many. The wealth of the world is shifting eastwards.

The petrodollar is the last vestige of that “American standard of living” middle America cherishes, and if the gold trade bonds fly and yuan changes hands as the oil flows, the US is going to get a shock when Saudi Arabia likes the look of red paper as much as green, or worse yet, yellow metal, a lot of which is moving east.

Andrew Brennan is a dual Irish/American citizen who was educated in Ireland. He holds two Master of Arts degrees from the National University of Ireland, Galway. Andrew has previous experience in radio, research, and domestic television, and also currently contributes to Forbes and The Global Times.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Petrodollar Faces Growing Threat From the East. Payments in Gold Across Asia

The Threat of Nuclear War, North Korea or the United States?

April 28th, 2017 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

This article first published in July 2013 is the transcript of my keynote address at the 60th anniversary commemoration of the end of the Korean war, Seoul, South Korea, July 26, 2013. 

North Korea is not a threat to global security. The threat of nuclear war largely emanates from the US under the doctrine of pre-emptive nuclear war (self-defense) against both nuclear and non-nuclear states.

This article provides an indepth understanding of both the historical background as well as the nature of US nuclear doctrine.

It is important to address the recent threats of the Trump administration against North Korea in a broader context. 

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the unspoken victim of US military aggression, has been incessantly portrayed as a war mongering nation, a menace to the American Homeland and a  “threat to World peace”. These stylized accusations have become part of a media consensus.

These continuous threats and actions of latent aggression directed against the DPRK should also be understood as part of the broader US military agenda in East Asia, directed against both China and Russia.

Michel Chossudovsky, April 28, 2017

*      *      *

While the Western media portrays North Korea’s nuclear weapons program as a threat to Global Security, it fails to acknowledge that the US has being threatening North Korea with a nuclear attack for more than half a century.

On July 27, 2013, Armistice Day, Koreans in the North and the South will be commemorating the end of the Korean war (1950-53). Unknown to the broader public, the US had envisaged the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea at the very outset of the Korean War in 1950. In the immediate wake of the war, the US deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea for use on a pre-emptive basis against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in violation of the July 1953 Armistice Agreement. 


  Michel Chossudovsky’s keynote address at the 60th anniversary commemoration of the end of the Korean war, Seoul, South Korea, July 26, 2013 

“The Hiroshima Doctrine” applied to North Korea

US nuclear doctrine pertaining to Korea was established following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, which were largely directed against civilians.

The strategic objective of a nuclear attack under the “Hiroshima doctrine” was to trigger a “massive casualty producing event” resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. The objective was to terrorize an entire nation, as a means of military conquest. Military targets were not the main objective: the notion of “collateral damage” was used as a justification for the mass killing of civilians, under the official pretence that Hiroshima was “a military base” and that civilians were not the target.

In the words of President Harry Truman:

“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. … This weapon is to be used against Japan … [We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. …  The target will be a purely military one… It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.” (President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945)

“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..” (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).

[Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman’s radio speech to the Nation]

Nobody within the upper echelons of the US government and military believed that Hiroshima was a military base, Truman was lying to himself and to the American public. To this day the use of nuclear weapons against Japan is justified as a necessary cost for bringing the war to an end and ultimately “saving lives”.

US Nuclear Weapons Stockpiled and Deployed in South Korea

Barely a few years after the end of the Korean War, the US initiated its deployment of nuclear warheads in South Korea. This deployment in Uijongbu and Anyang-Ni had been envisaged as early as 1956.

It is worth noting that the US decision to bring nuclear warheads to South Korea was in blatant violation of  Paragraph 13(d) of the Armistice Agreement which prohibited the warring factions from introducing new weapons into Korea.

The actual deployment of nuclear warheads started in January 1958, four and a half years after the end of the Korean War, “with the introduction of five nuclear weapon systems: the Honest John surface-to-surface missile, the Matador cruise missile, the Atomic-Demolition Munition (ADM) nuclear landmine, and the 280-mm gun and 8-inch (203mm) howitzer.” (See The nuclear information project: US Nuclear Weapons in Korea)

The Davy Crockett projectile was deployed in South Korea between July 1962 and June 1968. The warhead had selective yields up to 0.25 kilotons. The projectile weighed only 34.5 kg (76 lbs). Nuclear bombs for fighter bombers arrived in March 1958, followed by three surface-to-surface missile systems (Lacrosse, Davy Crockett, and Sergeant) between July 1960 and September 1963. The dual-mission Nike Hercules anti-air and surface-to-surface missile arrived in January 1961, and finally the 155-mm Howitzer arrived in October 1964. At the peak of this build-up, nearly 950 warheads were deployed in South Korea.

Four of the weapon types only remained deployed for a few years, while the others stayed for decades. The 8-inch Howitzer stayed until late 1991, the only weapon to be deployed throughout the entire 33-year period of U.S. nuclear weapons deployment to South Korea. The other weapons that stayed till the end were the air delivered bombs (several different bomb types were deployed over the years, ending with the B61) and the 155-mm Howitzer nuclear artillery. (Ibid)

Officially the US deployment of nuclear weapons in South Korea lasted for 33 years. The deployment was targeted against North Korea as well as China and the Soviet Union.

This composite image shows the LGM-30G Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) (L) and the LG-118A Peacekeeper missile(R). (AFP Photo/US DoD)

This composite image shows the LGM-30G Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) (L) and the LG-118A Peacekeeper missile(R). (AFP Photo/US DoD)

South Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program

Concurrent and in coordination with the US deployment of nuclear warheads in South Korea, the ROK had initiated its own nuclear weapons program in the early 1970s. The official story is that the US exerted pressure on Seoul to abandon their nuclear weapons program and “sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in April 1975 before it had produced any fissile material.” (Daniel A. Pinkston, “South Korea’s Nuclear Experiments,” CNS Research Story, 9 November 2004, http://cns.miis.edu.]

The ROK’s nuclear initiative was from the outset in the early 1970s under the supervision of the US and was developed as a component part of the US deployment of nuclear weapons, with a view to threatening North Korea.

Moreover, while this program was officially ended in 1978, the US promoted scientific expertise as well as training of the ROK military in the use of nuclear weapons. And bear in mind: under the ROK-US CFC agreement, all operational units of the ROK are under joint command headed by a US General. This means that all the military facilities and bases established by the Korean military are de facto joint facilities. There are a total of 27 US military facilities in the ROK (See List of United States Army installations in South Korea – Wikipedia)

The Planning of Nuclear Attacks against North Korea from the Continental US and from Strategic US Submarines

According to military sources, the removal of US nuclear weapons from South Korea was initiated in the mid 1970s. It was completed in 1991:

The nuclear weapons storage site at Osan Air base was deactivated in late 1977. This reduction continued over the following years and resulted in the number of nuclear weapons in South Korea dropping from some 540 in 1976 to approximately 150 artillery shells and bombs in 1985. By the time of the Presidential Nuclear Initiative in 1991, roughly 100 warheads remained, all of which had been withdrawn by December 1991. (The nuclear information project: withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from South Korea)

According to official statements, the US withdrew its nuclear weapons from South Korea in December 1991.

This withdrawal from Korea did not in any way modify the US threat of nuclear war directed against the DPRK. On the contrary: it was tied to changes in US military strategy with regard to the deployment of nuclear warheads. Major North Korean cities were to be targeted with nuclear warheads from US continental locations and from US strategic submarines (SSBN)  rather than military facilities in South Korea:

After the withdrawal of [US] nuclear weapons from South Korea in December 1991, the 4th Fighter Wing at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base has been tasked with nuclear strike planning against North Korea. Since then, strike planning against North Korea with non-strategic nuclear weapons has been the responsibility of fighter wings based in the continental United States. One of these is the 4th Fighter Wing at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina. …

“We simulated fighting a war in Korea, using a Korean scenario. … The scenario…simulated a decision by the National Command Authority about considering using nuclear weapons….We identified aircraft, crews, and [weapon] loaders to load up tactical nuclear weapons onto our aircraft….

With a capability to strike targets in less than 15 minutes, the Trident D5 sea-launched ballistic missile is a “mission critical system” for U.S. Forces Korea. Ballistic Missile Submarines and Long-Range Bombers

In addition to non-strategic air delivered bombs, sea-launched ballistic missiles onboard strategic Ohio-class submarines (SSBNs) patrolling in the Pacific appear also to have a mission against North Korea. A DOD General Inspector report from 1998 listed the Trident system as a “mission critical system” identified by U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea as “being of particular importance to them.”

Although the primary mission of the Trident system is directed against targets in Russia and China, a D5 missile launched in a low-trajectory flight provides a unique very short notice (12-13 minutes) strike capability against time-critical targets in North Korea. No other U.S. nuclear weapon system can get a warhead on target that fast. Two-three SSBNs are on “hard alert” in the Pacific at any given time, holding Russian, Chinese and North Korean targets at risk from designated patrol areas.

Long-range strategic bombers may also be assigned a nuclear strike role against North Korea although little specific is known. An Air Force map (see below) suggests a B-2 strike role against North Korea. As the designated carrier of the B61-11 earth penetrating nuclear bomb, the B-2 is a strong candidate for potential nuclear strike missions against North Korean deeply buried underground facilities.

As the designated carrier of the B61-11 earth penetrating nuclear bomb [with an explosive capacity between one third and six times a Hiroshima bomb] and a possible future Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, the B-2 stealth bomber could have an important role against targets in North Korea. Recent upgrades enable planning of a new B-2 nuclear strike mission in less than 8 hours. (Ibid)

“Although the South Korean government at the time confirmed the withdrawal, U.S. affirmations were not as clear. As a result, rumors persisted for a long time — particularly in North and South Korea — that nuclear weapons remained in South Korea. Yet the withdrawal was confirmed by Pacific Command in 1998 in a declassified portion of the CINCPAC Command History for 1991.” (The nuclear information project: withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from South Korea, emphasis added))

The Bush Administration’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review: Pre-emptive Nuclear War

The Bush administration in its 2001 Nuclear Posture Review established the contours of a new post 9/11 “pre-emptive” nuclear war doctrine, namely that nuclear weapons could be used as an instrument of “self-defense” against non-nuclear states

“Requirements for U.S. nuclear strike capabilities” directed against North Korea were established as part of  a Global Strike mission under the helm of  US Strategic Command Headquarters in Omaha Nebraska, the so-called CONPLAN 8022, which was directed against a number of “rogue states” including North Korea as well as China and Russia.

On November 18, 2005, the new Space and Global Strike command became operational at STRATCOM after passing testing in a nuclear war exercise involving North Korea.

Current U.S. Nuclear strike planning against North Korea appears to serve three roles: The first is a vaguely defined traditional deterrence role intended to influence North Korean behavior prior to hostilities.

This role was broadened somewhat by the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review to not only deter but also dissuade North Korea from pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

Why, after five decades of confronting North Korea with nuclear weapons, the Bush administration believes that additional nuclear capabilities will somehow dissuade North Korea from pursuing weapons of mass destruction [nuclear weapons program] is a mystery. (Ibid, emphasis added)

Who is the Threat? North Korea or the United States?

The asymmetry of nuclear weapons capabilities between the US and the DPRK must be emphasised. According to ArmsControl.org (April 2013) the United States:

“possesses 5,113 nuclear warheads, including tactical, strategic, and non-deployed weapons.”

According to the latest official New START declaration, out of more than 5113 nuclear weapons,

“the US deploys 1,654 strategic nuclear warheads on 792 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers…” ArmsControl.org (April 2013).

Moreover, according to The Federation of American Scientists the U.S. possesses 500 tactical nuclear warheads. (ArmsControl.org April 2013)

In contrast  the DPRK, according to the same source:

 “has separated enough plutonium for roughly 4-8 nuclear warheads. North Korea unveiled a centrifuge facility in 2010, buts ability to produce highly-enriched uranium for weapons remains unclear.”

According to expert opinion:

“there is no evidence that North Korea has the means to lob a nuclear-armed missile at the United States or anyone else. So far, it has produced several atomic bombs and tested them, but it lacks the fuel and the technology to miniaturize a nuke and place it on a missile” ( North Korea: What’s really happening – Salon.com April 5, 2013)

According to Siegfried Hecker, one of America’s pre-eminent nuclear scientists:

“Despite its recent threats, North Korea does not yet have much of a nuclear arsenal because it lacks fissile materials and has limited nuclear testing experience,” (Ibid)

The threat of nuclear war does not emanate from the DPRK but from the US and its allies.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the unspoken victim of US military aggression, has been incessantly portrayed as a war mongering nation, a menace to the American Homeland and a  “threat to World peace”. These stylized accusations have become part of a media consensus.

Meanwhile, Washington is now implementing a $32 billion refurbishing of strategic nuclear weapons as well as a revamping of its tactical nuclear weapons, which according to a 2002 Senate decision “are harmless to the surrounding civilian population.”

These continuous threats and actions of latent aggression directed against the DPRK should also be understood as part of the broader US military agenda in East Asia, directed against China and Russia.

It is important that people across the land, in the US, Western countries, come to realize that the United States rather than North Korea or Iran is a threat to global security.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on The Threat of Nuclear War, North Korea or the United States?

Ice and Busts: The Lost War on Drugs in Australia

April 21st, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

It was hard to tell whether Australia’s Federal Police authorities, along with their Victorian colleagues, were gloating at their latest effort. Thrilled at the unearthing of a stash of methamphetamine, a form of it colloquially known as ice, trumpeted as the “biggest seizure” in Australian history, there was a sense of achievement. They had gotten one up on the drugs gangs, inflicting a blow to the narcotics trade. Celebrate!

Such celebrations, however, are misplaced. For one, they seemed to follow similar celebrations in February, when $1 billion worth of liquid methamphetamine, concealed in gel push-up bra inserts, were uncovered.[1]

Do these seizures suggest that the police and various enforcement authorities are gaining the upper hand, or perhaps foot dragging before ever enterprising and novel ways of adding to the narcotics market? 

Image result for methamphetamines

A stash of 903 kg of methamphetamines is certainly a remarkable quantity, secreted in boxes of wooden floorboards in an inconspicuous part of east Melbourne. “We located 70 boxes of floorboards,” chirped AFP assistant commissioner Neil Gaughan. In each of them “was concealed between the floorboards two kilograms of methamphetamine.” 

But this suggests that there might well be much more, a drugs economy that is thriving in a hot house of high demand. Even Justice Minister Michael Keenan has conceded this point, noting that Australia has become one of the most lucrative markets for drug trade in the western world.

Tones of scolding severity duly follow when the phenomenon of drugs consumption is examined, notably among the researchers most interested in those habits of gradual yet mesmerising decay.

“There is no doubt Australia has a culture, especially among our young people, which does not see the taking of illicit substances or binge drinking as particularly detrimental to the health,” claimed Professor Harvey Whiteford of the University of Queensland in 2013.[2]

The police also annotate such findings with their suspicions about the inner drug devil in many an Australian. As Detective Chief Superintendent Mick Smith of the New South Wales Drug Squad’s Chemical Operation Unit claims with a Presbyterian fury, “1.3 million people in Australia have tried ice. Some of your friends and members of your family would have to have tried ice.”[3]  The horror, the horror.

Last month, researchers released findings after examining, somewhat unglamorously, wastewater across 51 sites only to find that methylamphetamine was the most consumed illicit drug in the country. It topped the premier league table of items, beating a range of other contenders such as heroin and cocaine.

Image result for ice drugs australiaFor such reasons, this is a battle, if not a poorly described war, that is unwinnable against basic human wishes and market demand. Experimentation and temptation is all, and the world of testing is becoming more diverse than ever. Law and medical authorities are desperate to stifle the interest, and are failing. The central problem is the nagging obsession with drugs as a matter of law and order.

Those participating in the market know this better than anybody else. Even Gaughan concedes with detectable admiration that the methods of novelty in this case on the part of the drug traders were considerable. (One has to beef up the opposition to show your own efforts are worthwhile.)

“You can appreciate the concealment method used in this particular activity is quite complex, quite unique. It wasn’t something we had seen previously.” 

The sentiment is often noted.

The battle against drugs was lost in the United States at enormous cost, becoming a continental affair of devastating consequences to security and welfare. Other countries, lagging in efforts to legalise certain drugs and attempts to control the narcotics market, find themselves at the losing end. Warring against desire and instinct eventually unravels. The cartels, and those connected with the prison industrial complex, profit. 

It is precisely for such reasons that Portugal decriminalised the use of all drugs, whatever their rank of severity, in 2001. The result? Portugal has 3 drug overdose deaths for every million citizens. The EU average, by way of contrast, is 17.3 per million.[4]

In Australia, a few politicians have decided to shift the emphasis. The Greens leader, Senator Richard Di Natale, himself a former drugs and alcohol doctor, convinced his party in 2016 to abandon absolute opposition to the legalisation of illicit drugs.

“It’s time we recognise this as a health problem not a law and order one. We have to have an open, honest conversation about this and stop pretending we’re winning this war.”

Whether it is the heavy hand of the law, or some clumsy variant of it, the campaign against drugs is simply going the way of those who cash in on it, a vast sprawl of vested interests. In the end, the very existence of the police and the enforcement complex thrives on such spectacles, on the illusion of safety and security. As this happens, sickness prevails as the money runs out the door.

In the meantime, lawyers and members of the public will be treated to the picture of overly enthusiastic ministers and police commissioners keen to get the message across that arrests are taking place and drugs seized with dedicated efficiency. During such a process, the rule of law is bound to take a battering, not least of all the presumption of innocence. Grainy images of various suspected figures are already doing the rounds through the papers. 

The ministers traffic in votes and illusions, and finding drugs provides a false incentive for both. What is needed, as The Age editorial surmised in November last year, is a policy “in favour of a harm minimisation strategy based on decriminalisation, regulation and education.”[5] Paramilitary approaches should be ditched, and resources channeled into health. Portugal, not the United States, should be seen as the model here.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMITUniversity, Melbourne.  Email: [email protected]

NOTES

[1]http://www.smh.com.au/national/ice-worth-1-billion-seized-in-joint-crime-group-operation-20160215-gmu4nz.html

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/29/drugs-health-australia-youth-culturehttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/29/drugs-health-australia-youth-culture

[3]http://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/tv/2017/02/06/ice-wars-abc/

[4]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

[5]http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/the-war-on-drugs-has-failed-and-australia-must-change-its-policies-20161129-gszwmj.html

  • Posted in Asian @as
  • Comments Off on Ice and Busts: The Lost War on Drugs in Australia

Article first published on Global Research on March 13, 2017

“And you know, we have this mad guy [Kim Jong-un], I guess he’s mad, either he’s mad or he’s a genius, one or the other, but he’s actually more unstable, even than his father, …” (Donald Trump, August 2016 during election campaign)

What was indelible about it [the Korean War of 1950-53] was the extraordinary destructiveness of the United States’ air campaigns against North Korea, from the widespread and continuous use of firebombing (mainly with napalm), to threats to use nuclear and chemical weapons, and the destruction of huge North Korean dams in the final stages of the war. …. (Bruce Cumings)

Trump believes that Kim Jong-un is crazy. Take him out.

The U.S. media concurs: the DPRK is a threat to US national security requiring a preemptive first strike THAAD missile attack in the name of “self defense”.

Who’s crazy? Kim or Trump? Never mind if it unleashes war with China and Russia.

Screenshot CNN

According to the Heritage Foundation:

“The rogue regime in North Korea poses one of the most dangerous threats to U.S. national security interests. Pyongyang presents a multifaceted military threat to peace and stability in Asia as well as a global proliferation risk.

Pyongyang responds by saying that the US (including 29,000 troops stationed in South Korea) constitutes a threat to the DPRK’s  national security, and they must defend themselves.

America, a threat to their national security?

They have no right to self defense.

The North Koreans are absolutely nuts.

Or are they?

General Curtis LeMay who coordinated the bombing raids against North Korea during the Korean War (1950-53) acknowledged that:

We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, someway or another, and some in South Korea too.… Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — twenty percent of the population of Korea as direct casualties of war, or from starvation and exposure?  Strategic Air Warfare: An Interview with Generals (1988)

But it was all for a good cause, killing to preserve democracy.

The territories North of the thirty-eighth parallel were subjected to extensive carpet bombing and fire-bombing using napalm, which resulted in the destruction of seventy-eight cities and thousands of villages. As a result, almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed.

According to U.S. Major General William F. Dean:

“most of the North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wastelands”.

According to award winning author and Vietnam war veteran Brian Willson:

“It is now believed that the population north of the imposed thirty-eighth Parallel lost nearly a third its population of eight to nine million people during the thirty-seven-month-long “hot” war, 1950-53, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerence of another.”

Forget about crazy rogue leaders.

Put yourself in the shoes of North Koreans, they’re fellow human beings.

Every single family in North Korea has lost a loved one during the Korean war. Ask them: who is the threat to “Their National Security”. And its not over.  The DPRK has been threatened with a US nuclear attack for more than sixty years.

Imagine what would happen if a foreign power had attacked America, all major cities had been destroyed and 20 percent of the US population killed. How would you feel?

That’s what happened to North Korea.

Spread American democracy. Kill the Communists.

Who’s the threat to Global Security, North Korea or the United States?

Trump is just as crazy as Kim Jong-un.

Moreover he doesn’t have an understanding of 20th Century history, nor is he able to comprehend the unspoken consequences of a first strike US led nuclear attack.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads. The architects of US foreign policy are insane.

In the words of Stephen Lendman, Trump wants to ignite Korean War 2.0, which inevitably would lead to military escalation beyond the Korean peninsula.

Pyongyang in rubble (1953)

This is not The Trump Tower in New York, it’s Pyongyang. Is this what Trump wants to destroy? Again?

Pyongyang rebuilt today


A chapter entitled

The Threat of Nuclear War, North Korea or the United States?

is contained in Michel Chossudovsky’s book entitled The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity

“While the Western media portrays North Korea’s nuclear weapons program as a threat to Global Security, it fails to acknowledge that the U.S. has being threatening North Korea with a nuclear attack for more than half a century.

Unknown to the broader public, the U.S. had envisaged the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea at the very outset of the Korean War in 1950. In the immediate wake of the war, the U.S. deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea for use on a pre-emptive basis against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in violation of the July 1953 Armistice Agreement.”

To order the Michel Chossudovsky’s book directly from Global Research click image.

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.

REVIEWS:

“Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the most realistic of all foreign policy commentators. He is a model of integrity in analysis, his book provides an honest appraisal of the extreme danger that U.S. hegemonic neoconservatism poses to life on earth.”

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury

““The Globalization of War” comprises war on two fronts: those countries that can either be “bought” or destabilized. In other cases, insurrection, riots and wars are used to solicit U.S. military intervention. Michel Chossudovsky’s book is a must read for anyone who prefers peace and hope to perpetual war, death, dislocation and despair.”

Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of National Defence

“Michel Chossudovsky describes globalization as a hegemonic weapon that empowers the financial elites and enslaves 99 percent of the world’s population.

“The Globalization of War” is diplomatic dynamite – and the fuse is burning rapidly.”

Michael Carmichael, President, the Planetary Movement

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on North Korea Threatens America. They’re Coming, They’re Going to Blow Us Up

The Vietnamese perspective is rarely found in English language books about the Vietnam War, especially regarding the CIA’s “liaison” relationship with South Vietnamese police and security officials. Which is why I considered myself very fortunate when I was introduced to Lê Xuân Nhuận.

Nhuận’s Wikipedia bio provides a comprehensive account of his life and accomplishments. He is a noted poet and author of three Vietnamese language books about his experiences as a “Special Police” officer. Two of the books are currently available. The first, The Police Plan (Cảnh-Sát-Hóa) (2002) tells of his service as Director Security and Counter-Intelligence in Region II from 1960 to 1973 and focuses on his corruption investigations within the provinces and capital cities in the region. Nhuận’s second memoir, Biến-Loạn Miền Trung (2012) focuses on his service as Director of Security and Counter-Intelligence in Region I from 1973 to 1975. It reveals more about his personal life, and why he protested the militarist system that doomed democracy in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).

Captured by the North Vietnamese in 1975, Nhuận spent more than twelve years in a re-education camp and five years under house arrest before emigrating to America in 1992. And yet, despite 20 years of war and 17 years of internment, he remains an optimistic and engaging individual whose extraordinary life and accomplishments have inspired me and advanced my understanding of the war.

Nhuận also has an irreverent streak that is rare among police and military veterans in the Vietnamese exile community. Although a dedicated anti-communist, he was a maverick who opposed all the political regimes in Vietnam: what he describes as “France’s colonialism, Emperor Bảo Đại’s feudalism, President Ngô Đình Diệm’s dictatorship, and President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu’s stratocracy (government by military forces).”

Educated in Huế (the old capital and cultural center of Central Vietnam) where his first poems were published, Nhuận as a young man worked as a journalist for two newspapers. His interests were literary – he created the “Xây-Dựng” group composed of well-known poets and writers – but he was politically active too, and in 1949 he was jailed for writing a novel criticizing the French and Emperor Bảo Đại.

His fated involvement with Americans began in mid-1954 while he was serving in the French-controlled Vietnamese army as a war correspondent, psychological warfare lecturer, and Chief of the Voice of the Army in Central Vietnam. At this critical juncture, which was prior to the partition of Vietnam, he met Thompson A. Grunwald, a young, enthusiastic, crew-cut American.

“Tom was the first American to come to Huế as Director of the US Information Service,” Nhuận recalled.

Grunwald had an office, a library, and a room for showing propaganda films. He organized the first Vietnamese-American Association, and advised and equipped Vietnam’s Information Services. As de facto chief of the US consulate in Central Vietnam, Grunwald also had extensive contacts with most of the top government officials and military officers.

“Tom helped me organize an English course on Radio Huế,” Nhuận continued. “It was the first ever English radio program in Vietnam. He gave me a manual tape-recorder and batteries to use when I went with the commanding generals to the units to record what was said for radio broadcasts and to publish in military magazines and papers. I appeared with him in many public events.”

Nhuận left the military in 1956 and joined the Huế city police force, but he and Grunwald continued to collaborate; they showed propaganda films inside police stations and to the public, taught English to policemen and women, and sent English language lessons to listeners and students across the country. Nhuận introduced Grunwald to influential people and helped him collect information for the Thế Giới Tự Do (Free World) magazine. Grunwald in turn introduced Nhuận to the US military officers who came to his Voice of the Army readings.

“Tom picked up any Americans who happened to be in Huế to participate in my English course,” Nhuận added. The USIS films were showed to the public too, on Saturday evenings, at the square next to the Huế police office.

“Tom left some years later,” Nhuận said, “and became the first Chief of Vietnam Desk at the Radio Voice of America and organized the first VOA’s English course by radio for Vietnamese listeners in Vietnam. Here in California, I met Tom again, and we had family tours and dinners together some years ago.”

The Ubiquitous American

After the partition of Vietnam, the US military assistance advisory group (MAAG) in the capital city of Sài Gòn focused on modernizing the Republic of Vietnam’s Armed Forces (RVNAF). The CIA, meanwhile, dealt with the civilian branches of government, especially the security police and intelligence services.

For example, the CIA organized and trained the Vietnamese Special Forces, the Lực Lượng Đặc Biệt (LLDB) to conduct paramilitary intelligence operations in North Vietnam, Laos, and Kampuchea. The LLDB, notably, reported directly to the Presidential Survey Office, not the RVNAF. In their role as a “palace guard”, they “were always available for special details dreamed up by President Diệm and his brother Nhu.” Those “special” details involved “terrorism against political opponents.”1

“There was also a presidential intelligence service, the Office of Political and Social Research (SEPES) directed by Dr. Trần Kim Tuyến,” Nhuận recalled, “which was also a hammer used by President Ngô Đình Diệm against his domestic political opponents.”

President Diệm and his brothers Nhu (the political boss in Southern Vietnam) and Cẩn (the boss in Central Vietnam) were obsessed with protecting the Catholic Ngô regime. To that end, they staffed the government and military with loyal members of their Cân Lao (Personalist Labor) Party, which promoted the idea that people owed allegiance to a charismatic leader rather than a party or ideology. To enforce loyalty to President Diệm, SEPES chief Tuyến created a vast intelligence network of Catholic emigres and beholden Can Lao cadres to control and influence all levels of the administration. Tuyến likewise used the Military Security Service (An-Ninh Quân-Đội) to monitor the many unhappy military officers who were plotting coups.

To finance this ubiquitous security apparatus, and thus control the political environment in South Vietnam, Tuyến in 1958 started importing a steady supply of Laotian opium using Corsican airlines and a faction of the South Vietnamese air force. All of this was done with tacit CIA approval.

Indeed, the Americans were determined to protect the Ngô regime at any cost. To that end, the Michigan State University Group (MSUG) was sent to Sài Gòn in 1955 to manage a massive “technical assistance” program that focused on four areas: public information, public administration, finance and economics, and police and security services. Over the ensuing seven years, MSUG’s Police Administration Division would spend 15 million dollars beefing up the Government of Vietnam’s (GVN) array of internal security programs. 2

MSUG recruited primarily from the existing French colonial police forces: the Gendarme (Hiến Binh) which operated in rural areas; and the Sûreté, composed of plainclothesmen handling investigations, customs, immigration, and revenue. MSUG combined the Sûreté with the municipal police (uniformed police in 22 autonomous cities and Sài Gòn) into a General Directorate of Police and Security Services (Tổng Nha Cảnh-Sát Công-An) within the Ministry of the Interior.

The police (Ty Cảnh-Sát) and security services (Ty Công-An) were separate commands and functioned autonomously in the provinces and cities until 1962, when they were combined into the National Police (Cảnh-Sát Quốc-Gia). As Nhuận explained,

“the Tình-Báo (Intelligence), Công-An (Security or Public Safety) and Cảnh-Sát Đặc-Biệt (Special Police) services always existed and were particularly important.”

Most MSUG police advisers were former state troopers or big city detectives, but the five men who trained and advised the plain-clothed Special Police were undercover CIA officers hidden within MSUG’s Internal Security Section. Under Raymond Babineau, this CIA team worked at Special Police headquarters inside the National Police Command headquarters at 258 Võ Tánh Street.

The Võ Tánh facility also housed the infamous National Police/Special Police Interrogation Center, which as author Graham Greene wrote in The Quiet American, “seemed to smell of urine and injustice.”

The Special Police always had a reputation for brutality. General Edward Lansdale, who managed the CIA’s nascent “covert action” programs in South Vietnam, was highly critical of Babineau’s team. In his autobiography, Lansdale recalled that in 1956,

“several families appeared at my house one morning to tell me about the arrest at midnight of their men-folk, all of whom were political figures. The arrests had a strange aspect to them, having come when the city was asleep and being made by heavily armed men who were identified as `special police’.”3

The Americans were aware that the Ngô regime used the Special Police to suppress its domestic political opponents. But they did nothing to stop the abuses, because the Special Police produced the essential “Vietcong order of battle” (Bản Trận Liệt) that mapped out the organizational structure and membership of the burgeoning Communist-led insurgency. Suppressing communism was America’s top priority, and the Special Police were viewed as the best means to accomplish this goal. Consequently, the Special Police received the lion’s share of US technical aid, while the most promising Special Police officers were trained by CIA and FBI personnel at the International Police Academy at Georgetown University.

Doug Valentine is an American journalist and author of one novel, TDY, and five works of historical non-fiction: The Hotel Tacloban, The Phoenix Program, The Strength of the Wolf (winner of the Choice Academic Library Award), The Strength of the Pack, and most recently, The CIA as Organized Crime. His articles have appeared regularly in CounterPunch, ConsortiumNews, and elsewhere. Portions of his research materials are archived at the National Security Archive (both a Vietnam Collection and a separate Drug Enforcement Collection), Texas Tech University’s Vietnam Center, and John Jay College. He provided expert testimony at the King v Jowers trial on the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination at the request of the King family.

NOTES

1 Keven M. Generous, “Vietnam: The Secret War” (1985), p. 94.

2 Warren Hinckle, Robert Scheer and Sol Stern, “University on the Make”, Ramparts, April 1966.

3 Edward Geary Lansdale, In the Midst of Wars (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), p. 340.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Vietnam War: The Life and Times of a South Vietnamese Special Police Officer

Introduction

This essay was the last major published work by Hayashi Kyoko, who died on February 19, 2017, at the age of 86. Born in Nagasaki on August 28, 1930, Hayashi spent most of her childhood in Shanghai, until she returned to Nagasaki with her mother and sisters, in the spring of 1945. On August 9, she was working as a student recruit at the Mitsubishi Munitions Factory. Her story “Ritual of Death” (Matsuri no ba, literally “The Place of the Festival”), a searing account of her experiences that day and during subsequent months and years, won her the Akutagawa Prize in 1975. Her next work, a short story collection, Cut Glass, Blown Glass (Gyaman biidoro 1978), was selected to receive the Geijutsu-senshō-mombudaijin-shinjin-shō, a prestigious literary award by the Ministry of Education. Hayashi, however, refused this award on the grounds that, as a hibakusha, she could not accept an award from the Japanese government so long as it maintained the stubborn refusal to acknowledge the effect of internal exposure to radiation—a perspective that is made abundantly clear in the present work. Despite a relatively late debut, Hayashi was a prolific writer whose eight volume collected works was published in 2005.

Hayashi Kyoko

The “Rui” of the title appears for the first time in Hayashi’s From Trinity to Trinity (Torinitii kara torinitii e; English translations by Kyoko Selden, Asia-Pacific Journal and Eiko Otake, Station Hill Press), an autobiographical account of Hayashi’s October 1999 trip to the Trinity Site at Los Alamos in New Mexico, where the first atomic bomb was tested. The night before she was to make the trek to Ground Zero, Hayashi saw the news on television that a nuclear criticality accident that had occurred at Tōkai mura in Ibaragi Prefecture (Hayashi would later deal with the aftermath of this accident in a story called “Harvest,” Shūkaku, the subject of Justin Aukema’s Asia-Pacific Journal article “A Problem for all Humanity”). Unable to sleep, she sat down to write her first long letter to Rui. We learn that Rui is a child psychologist, somewhat younger than Hayashi, whom she addresses as “Big Sis,” and apparently has a husband who is hospitalized, perhaps suffering from dementia. As the scholar and critic Kuroko Kazuo has pointed out, however, the name Rui, written in the katakana phonetic script, brings to mind the Japanese word jinrui, or humanity. Having taken upon herself the role of chronicler of the hibakusha experience at the start of her literary career, Hayashi is speaking not only to her friend, but to all humanity.

***

It’s been ages since I wrote you that letter from New Mexico. Now that I’m back in Japan, we mostly talk on the phone. I’m still living near the coast, in a town with a view of Mt. Fuji.

In my last letter—the one from New Mexico—I asked you about Georgia O’Keefe, the artist who loved the New Mexican landscape. I especially wanted to know your thoughts on her paintings of black crosses. All the crosses have their backs turned to the sun. I see O’Keefe’s pain in them, as if she were seeking atonement from some god. Perhaps she was feeling in her own body the pain of the New Mexican desert, chosen as the site of the first A-bomb test, and was begging the natural world for forgiveness. Since the Great East Japan earthquake, I’ve been rereading the letter you wrote me in response.

As you know, New Mexico is the location of the Trinity Site, which on July 16, 1945 became the world’s first atomic bomb testing ground. I went there to see Ground Zero. Knowing how I feel as a Nagasaki hibakusha (A-bomb survivor), you wrote, “Focusing on the color black, obsidian has been mined throughout Mexico and the Southwest since ancient times; in fact, the Aztecs, whose culture flourished in the Mexican highlands, believed in a sort of ‘obsidian religion.’” You also wrote that “because it was used to make arrowheads, hunting knives and sacrificial knives, obsidian tools had always been strongly connected to death, so maybe the black cross came out of changes that took place under Spanish (Catholic) influence. This is just a theory though—I could be wrong.” I found this sweeping historical interpretation exciting, because it brought back the feeling of the desert the Aztecs had such awe for, baked and hardened by the blinding sun.

In answer to my second question you wrote:

“You say that on August 9, the moment you saw the blinding flash of the A-bomb, you found yourself ‘subconsciously’ crawling under a desk. Your ‘subconscious’ is certainly hard to fathom, although some specialists claim that there is a concept of transcendental function that doesn’t include the concept of continuity.” You ended the letter in your usual playful tone: “The subconscious is at work in love, too, wouldn’t you say, Big Sis?”

Your explanation was much too difficult for a single-celled being like me, but that last line made me laugh so hard it didn’t really matter. It reminded me of something positively heroic you did just after you got married, about fifty years ago.

You caught your husband eyeing another woman—just a glance—and took the bottle of wine he’d been saving up and poured every last drop over his head.

Looking back, remembering those days when we were young, determined to do things we knew were impossible, brings tears to my eyes. I’m so frustrated, Rui. This is going to be a long, maybe endless, letter.

I went to New Mexico in the fall of 1999. The land there in the Southwest is red desert mixed with gypsum sand. Just a single white highway running through sand, unmarked by the wind, an expanse so wide you can see the earth curve. In front of a car travelling faster than a mile a minute the land goes on forever. Fine sand covers the earth; what I saw on the way to Trinity must have been densely packed and very hard. The dawn sunlight was dry, with sharp points of light reflecting off the windshield.

The mesas that had seemed so far away suddenly loomed near on the left side of the car. They look like vaulting boxes for giants.

Mesas are a tableland commonly seen in New Mexico; rain, wind, and sunlight take eons to carve out the earth, then smooth it over. The tops are perfectly flat, as if a mountain had had its head chopped off. Are they what’s left of the mountain ranges that run through Colorado? The flat tops shone in the sunlight. Their sheer sides are the same red as the surrounding desert; standing erect, they look as if they’d been plunked down in the middle of the wasteland. Rocks that have come loose and rolled down the sides are piled up at the base of the mesas. Like the stones along the riverbank in the land of the dead, piled up by children who have committed the sin of dying before their parents. The rocks leave holes the size of a fist in the mesas’ sides. I got scared.

Rui. It was such an immense drama of earth and sky. I was in the middle of it; what frightened me was that time, the absolute ruler, was showing me the slow yet definite process of destruction that quietly holds the earth and the mesas prisoner.

Perhaps the Great East Japan Earthquake was what turned this destruction in the natural world I thought was eternal into a sign that everything I’d believed in was now crumbling before my eyes.

After we’d passed the mesas, we came to a reservation where Indians have lived since they were driven off their ancestral land. Red and yellow tricolor flags and long banners were flying; I almost expected to hear circus music. Because crops won’t grow here—nor will anything green, for that matter—those in power put on a festive display, hoping to make the Indians’ new “home” look like paradise. Well, at least they have all the sun and sky anyone could hope for.

Tribal elders used to look up at the sky on a clear day and murmur, “This is a good day to die.” For a moment, I dreamed of sheer bliss, leaning against the red slope of a mesa, wrapped in light without a trace of shadow, my eyes closed, waiting to die. But soaking up the bright, cheerful rays of the sun is a pleasure reserved for the living.

To live.

Up until now, my existence has been focused on nothing more or less than staying alive. Not in the affirmative sense, though, of trying to enjoy life. I have continually put all my effort into escaping from death. I grew up in Shanghai, but the war sent me across the East China Sea to my homeland. We escaped by boat, with only what we could carry. We had to get away quickly, so, leaving my father in Shanghai, my mother, my sisters and I went by ourselves. Our third-class cabin was near the bottom of the boat, where the groan of the engine shook our beds. There was one round window made of thick reinforced glass. We looked up, watching the waves batter against it. The sea was always rough. When war starts, the East China Sea bares its saw-shaped teeth.

When a convoy carrying the remains of thousands of soldiers who had died in battle in the Chinese interior set off from Huishan Wharf with a loud, low blast, white waves roiled even the Huangpu River, normally as placid as our landlord’s mother, Laotaipo. As children, we went to the dock to see the ships off, and stood there watching them, whispering, “The souls of Japanese soldiers who killed and were killed are pressed up against the souls of their enemies who killed and were killed, and they’re angry.”

It’s been more than sixty years since then. Once again the East China Sea is boiling. The news reports a controversy over a tiny island; ships flying bright red flags are apparently gathering in the East China Sea. Kublai Khan is here again!

With only information from the news to go on, I got the heavy World Atlas down from the shelf to look up the island in question. I had no trouble finding Iki and Tsushima Islands, which were invaded by the Mongols during the thirteenth century. Takeshima Island was also on the map, so tiny the tip of a pen would cover it. With my finger, I traced a route past Iki and Tsushima, then through the narrow Sea of Japan and out into the East China Sea. The waters were unfriendly, the color of a dead face, but when we passed through them on one of the ferries that travelled between Kyushu and Shanghai, schools of tan dolphins would swim around the prow and jump, dive deep beneath the waves, then jump again. The area around islands too small to be on any map was rich fishing ground. There are other resources, underground. Those small boats with the red flags were apparently fishing boats. Were they a threat? A threat is a trap—let’s wait for the Wind of the Gods (kamikaze).

In my forties, I got more and more confused. According to Confucius, the age of forty means “freedom from vacillation.” As human beings are good, upon reaching the age of forty they are supposed to “know the true path and never stray from it.” The “true path” is the one every person should follow. Going deeper and deeper into what this means, you reach the essence—life. Life itself should be the core of your thoughts.

Rui, you told me in your last letter that “waiting for rebirth, death is nestled in the mother’s womb; the mother represents the subconscious.” As you are a child psychologist, what you’re referring to here is probably “the Great Mother,” but on a more personal level, my own mother was certainly a strong, honest woman. “You must never tell a lie,” she always used to say, along with “I don’t listen to tattletales.” She raised us according to these principles of ancient wisdom she’d picked up by hearsay. We’ve stuck to her rules all our lives. Occasionally I did tell a lie, or tell on one of my sisters after we’d gotten into a fight. “I can’t hear you,” my mother would say, or if she was in the kitchen washing the dishes, she would pinch my lip in her wet fingers and say, “Is this the mouth that’s been spouting lies?” I owe a lot to the pain I felt then—it gave me whatever sense of judgment I have now.

Thanks to my mother, my sisters and I grew up to be decent human beings; the only blot on our family register is my DIVORCE. The Japanese word for “divorce” was not in my mother’s vocabulary. But as the world changes, more and more I wonder about that sense of judgment I grew up with, borrowed from the ancients. Is all that really true? I ask myself. For one thing, I’ve begun to think that perhaps human beings are not essentially good after all. Acts of virtue take considerable effort. Doing evil, on the other hand, requires none; it seems to come naturally. My own acts of good and evil, though accompanied by a twinge of pain, don’t amount to much—I’m really quite timid. When I manage to pull off a slightly nasty stunt, I even feel a rather refreshing sense of accomplishment.

Perhaps human nature—or my own, at any rate—is essentially bad. When I developed an ego, perhaps good and evil got switched around. Now it seems that “anything goes.” Someone as ordinary as I am is bound to be influenced.

Recently something happened to increase my sense of doubt. It was the Great East Japan Earthquake. And the explosion of the nuclear reactor at the No. 1 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. The explosion was followed by a meltdown, in which the spent fuel rods collapsed and collected in the bottom of the furnace.

Image result for Hiroshima

“There was something on the news about a belt-down,” someone proud of her sharp ears told me. A “belt-down” would simply mean that someone’s trousers had fallen down. A meltdown is what must never be—a nuclear disaster. Having suffered from nuclear attack as a student recruit on August 9, 1945, I understand the basic principles behind the fires burning in nuclear power plants and the energy that produces the flash of an atomic bomb. Japan, my native country, has been attacked twice: a Uranium-235 bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and a Plutonium-239 bomb on Nagasaki. This is the only country—until now—to have had atomic bombs dropped on it. As a nation whose people were forced to stand at the threshold of the atomic age, we should have a better grasp of the basics of atomic energy and atomic weapons than people in other countries. We should be more sensitive to danger, and to safety. Just to make sure, I read up on the basic structure of atomic bombs. Not enough to tell me how to actually make one, though—after all, it was only a Japanese dictionary.

“When the material used to make an atomic bomb is Uranium-235, critical mass—in other words, the amount necessary in order to produce a nuclear chain reaction—is 10.5 kilograms. (Rui, that night when I wrote to you from the hotel in New Mexico, a criticality accident had happened at Tokai Village. I was utterly bowled over when they said on the news that officials were consulting American experts about how to deal with it.) Subcritical amounts of Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 are formed into several lumps; when these are momentarily joined together, a nuclear reaction will take place and an explosion will occur.”

In his book The Terror of Plutonium, Takagi Jinzaburō writes:

“The general principle behind nuclear energy is really quite simple. Using uranium as fuel, the heat released when Uranium-235 starts a nuclear chain reaction is changed into energy: the heat produces steam which starts the turbine rolling, from which we get electricity.”

The relation between the two is perfectly clear. How long have the hibakusha suffered, both in body and mind, from the effects of the radiation and radioactive material released by the A-bombs? This is also perfectly clear. We’ve had plenty of hibakusha, and plenty of time to learn.

But my hopes have been betrayed. The politicians who represent this country, the experts involved with the nuclear power plants, the entrepreneurs—their awareness of radioactivity and human beings is so shallow. So light. The grasp of what really happened at Fukushima as reported on the news, the analysis of it, and opinions about it were all so very shabby. With their (undoubtedly) high level of intelligence, people in both the public and private sectors skillfully use loaded words to blind us to the truth. Rui, I’m so tired of it all. I just want them to stop lying. Even if what’s happening at Fukushima is worse than we could imagine, I want accurate information about it. From that information we can judge for ourselves, and do what we have to do.

Foisting the responsibility off onto the natural world, with its earthquake and tsunami, they’ve created a new concept they call “beyond expectations,” and even claim that the huge amount of radioactivity released into the air poses “no immediate danger to human health.” Ordinary people are not that stupid. This is a lifelong problem for the people of Fukushima, and for everyone who has been exposed to radiation through nuclear power plants. What, then, is their intention in adding that qualifier “immediate”?

Image result for nagasakiThe explosions in those nuclear reactors are a disaster caused by technology growing into a monster human beings can no longer control—this, too, we know well. It was not a natural disaster. It was an accident we should have expected.

There is neither good nor evil in what nature does. The reddish-brown waters of the Rio Grande I saw in the middle of the desert will overflow after a hard rain falls, turning into a flood that sweeps people and whole towns away. But that is not the river’s intention. It simply flows.

There was a power failure after the earthquake, but by the next morning, the lights were back on. I sat in front of the television all day, watching the overhead footage of the eastern shoreline, unable to believe what I was seeing. The intricate shoreline that borders the northeastern shore of Japan like delicate lace had turned into a mountain of debris. Helicopters flew incessantly overhead, dipping down towards the south. Nature destroys without mercy. This was surely an event “beyond the expectations” of human prophecy.

Evacuation began in the areas affected by radiation leaking from the crippled nuclear power plant. Desperate mothers, holding their children. Should they go, or stay? Whole families, wondering what they should do. Leaving fields full of ripening vegetables, abandoning the chickens and cows they had cared for, they ran. “Escape, go now while you can,” I whispered to the teary-eyed mothers on the TV screen. “There’s nothing to do but run.” Those deeply involved in the power plant casually go on about the events having been “beyond all expectations,” but it isn’t easy to abandon a place where you’ve built a life for yourself. Even so, there’s nothing to do but escape. Get away, as soon as possible. The reality of what is now happening at Fukushima is a catastrophe that will affect your whole lives, the lives of adults, and of young children growing up.

We hibakusha, members of a new race born in the twentieth century, hoping to be its only members, have spoken, written, and lived our experiences. Nevertheless, the twenty-first century has produced more hibakusha. In this country, the only one to have had atomic bombs dropped on it.

I hear the government is trying to resuscitate the land by removing the surface that has been contaminated by radiation. Exactly how far down do they think the “surface” goes? You can’t just remove the covering, like getting rid of an old rug in the children’s room.

One day, I heard a government official explaining how radiation affects the human body. He used the phrase “internal exposure to radiation.”

Rui, I stared at the face of that official on my TV screen. So they’ve known about it all along—the effect of “internal exposure” on the human body.

Since I was exposed to radiation from the A-bomb on August 9 1945, this is the first time I have heard a government official in a responsible position use the phrase “internal exposure.” They knew about it, but they never mentioned it in public. Since August 6 and August 9, how many of my classmates have died of “A-bomb disease” brought on by years of “internal exposure” to radiation? To be acknowledged as suffering from “A-bomb disease,” one first must apply to the government. The application is usually refused. A-bomb disease is unrelated to exposure to radiation, they might say. Or that the relation is unclear. Almost all of my friends who died had their applications refused on these grounds. What did their postwar lives mean?

Rui, when we talked on the phone you mentioned something Goethe wrote when he was about eighty years old, about the need to love and affirm life. But I can’t do that now. My spirit is all dried out, and I don’t really care anymore. As I announced to a friend of mine whom I’ll call Ms. W, I’ve cut myself off from real life since March 11.

It’s been more than a year since then. Feeling like an empty shell, I let my eyes wander vaguely over my bookshelf. Will any of these books be my salvation?

Just after the war, we had a physics teacher, a young woman who asked us, all in one breath, “What is truth? What is virtue? What is beauty?” Her high-minded philosophical questions meant nothing to us new hibakusha. “Is there life after death, Miss?” asked a girl who wanted to be a novelist like Yoshiya Nobuko. Now, over eighty years old, I am searching for answers to those old classroom questions in the writings of those who came before. I can’t go on like this—it’s just too miserable. When I turned forty, the age that’s supposed to be “free from vacillation,” I hoped that when I joined my parents in death, I would do so as the pure young girl I once was, who could see the difference between good and evil so clearly.

Rui, you say that the mother represents the subconscious, which is why we want to return to the womb. But now I’m confused even about that; I’m no longer sure what I’ll go back to.

I scan my disorderly bookshelf—The Analects of Confucius, the Bible, Ooka Shohei’s Taken Captive. To a withered soul, Confucius and the Bible offer only empty platitudes. Even the raw good and evil of soldiers facing death, described in Taken Captive, seems noble to me compared to what the nuclear meltdown exposed about the people behind it.

A Casebook of Murder is a book I don’t remember buying. I’ve written comments in the margin in red, so I must have read it. I open it to a page I’ve marked with a post-it. “Through suffering human beings create civilization…” I marked this passage in red. Back when I was young and foolish. Is the author saying we should go looking for suffering and anguish? No need for that—they’ll come soon enough anyway. People who can create something out of anguish and pain must be made of finer stuff to begin with, like Goethe.

I catch sight of a black spine with On Stupidity in big white letters. Having it spelled out for me this way makes me want to know more about stupidity. At this point, I don’t think of myself as stupid. Which means I’m rather stupid. I take the book down from the shelf, and open the hard cover. The author, Horst Geyer, was born in Germany in 1907. There’s a sketch of his life beneath his photograph. It’s the face of a gentleman, smiling, but with sharp eyes. He was a neurologist, educated at six different universities. While serving as the head of a university department of neurology, he was drafted

That must have been around the same time I was escaping across the East China Sea with my mother and sisters.

Geyer died suddenly in 1958 of liver disease. He was only 51, too young to die. I think he probably studied too much. I also wonder what he saw at the front in Europe. Human madness, perhaps, far beyond what you can learn in a neurology classroom. There are plenty of things in this world we’d be better off not seeing.

On Stupidity is divided into three parts: Part I, The Stupidity of Low Intelligence; Part II, The Stupidity of Normal Intelligence; Part III, The Stupidity of High Intelligence. Part III I can cross out right away, which means that either Part I or Part II must apply to me. But which one?

There’s a sort of preface, a general guide to stupidity. “The stupid activities which now control our world.” To clarify the difference between stupidity itself and people who do stupid things, I quote from the text:

“With trembling fingers, I now take up my pen. For I am about to reveal a phenomenon that has extremely complicated origins yet limitless influence that allows it to control the entire world. As long as human beings, the protagonists of this fascinating phenomenon, continue to dominate the world, its power seems unlikely to wane. This phenomenon is stupidity.”

In other words, stupidity is stupidity, written in Gothic script, and because I am one of “the protagonists of this fascinating phenomenon [who] continue to dominate the world,” I needn’t worry about my own confusion. But before determining my own degree of stupidity, out of curiosity, I began to read “Part I, The Stupidity of Low Intelligence.” It was great fun. The foolishness of his protagonists (or the models they were based on) was very witty at times; I found myself joining with the author, laughing at them. “You’re really stupid. You shouldn’t think so much.” Geyer’s writing is inspired.

“A certain editor was told that a fortune-telling column he ran was sheer idiocy. ‘Newspapers and magazines shouldn’t insult their readers’ intelligence this way!’ someone complained. The editor just shrugged, saying, ‘I tried to discontinue it, but I got so many letters of protest, and so many people threatened to cancel their subscriptions that I had to keep it in.’”

Get rid of the fortune teller? No wonder he got so many threats. When I open the morning paper the first things I look for are the horoscope and the TV section. On days when it says everything will go well for people with my star sign, I feel great. Health consumes about 99 per cent of the attention of people like me, who are getting really old. It absolutely disgusts me to find a comment like, “…your current love affair will come to nothing.” I realize that whoever writes the horoscope has no way of telling a reader’s age or general outlook, but I have no need for advice like this. There’s no sense in making predictions about my love life.

Rui, has there been any change in your husband, resting in that nursing home overlooking the sea? Even if he’s hardly aware of what’s going on around him, he must remember your face. “I really miss him,” you said sweetly, your voice sounding just like when you were young. “It’s hard,” you said. Old age is cruel. Love and sorrow make it even harder.

Back to the subject at hand. “Why are the salaries of movie actors so much higher than what philosophers and thinkers like Kant and Goethe could ever earn?” Geyer asks, then goes on to list the names of some international stars from the 1950s, along with the astronomical sums they got for appearing in movies. In contrast, “For his Critique of Judgment, Immanuel Kant received 700 Thalers, 16 Gottingen sausages, and 2 pounds of snuff.” The difference amazes him, yet since Kant’s book belongs to the world of the intellect, naturally only a few people can understand the sophisticated principles of his thought, so in accordance with the logic of On Stupidity, he concludes that the difference in payment is “merely a sign of the frightening power of consumerism among the ignorant masses.” As one who belongs to those ignorant masses, I object to this explanation. Sadly enough, the ignorant masses want to become a little bit cleverer, so they, too, buy books by Kant. Isn’t it the way work and manual labor are valued in society that’s to blame, rather than “the thinking of the ignorant masses, who turn too easily to consumption” (by this does he mean entertainment?). Intellectuals probably can’t understand the sheer effort people like us put into reading a very difficult book. Physically, it’s hard work. Reading something you can’t understand puts mental pressure on you. Behind all this is knowledge. Knowledge is virtue; it releases your soul. Therefore, it is free. Should society really be expected to place a monetary value on noble souls? The physical labor and exhaustion of the ignorant masses is exchanged for money, while financial reward is withheld from Kant—isn’t that more like it?

I now see that I belong with either the people in Part I or Part II. Yet since I was able to laugh at the protagonists of “Part I, The Stupidity of Low Intelligence,” I allowed myself to advance one rank, to “Part II, The Stupidity of Normal Intelligence.” Just to make sure, I started to read this part, and found I couldn’t even chuckle. The foolishness of these protagonists was neither interesting nor funny. I couldn’t even understand them.

Stupidity with the qualifier “normal” is something like a “seasonal” dish in a restaurant. It sells because it’s only available in a certain season, but it’s the label that makes it “seasonal.” People of normal intelligence are stupid in a normal way; in a way that’s just average. So what about highly intelligent people? Is their stupidity the sort we can laugh at, or not? The reason I have been so depressed for over a year now seems to be that I belong in Part II; that I am an average, serious, not very interesting person.

Three countries—let’s call them A, B, and C—now claim sovereignty over a small island in the East China Sea. Two of these three countries share common roots. If A were to give up the dispute, would B and C then plunge into a bloody family quarrel? Apparently they’ve started blasting each other with sea water from hoses to keep trespassers out. There’s plenty of sea water. For the sake of peace, perhaps we should wait for a divine wind to solve this dispute.

But I was writing about the earthquake. The way the ground shook that day was terrifying.

It was the afternoon of a day when the spring sunshine feels warm on your skin. A taxi driver told me the sky was covered with tiny patches of mackerel cloud that day. Mackerel clouds normally appear in the clear blue skies of autumn. Is the earth suffering from stress, mixing up its seasons? I was talking on the phone. Mr. Y, an editor from Tokyo, had called to discuss an interview. I had never met him, but he’d sent me a letter to tell me what he had in mind. He had read my novels, most of which are about the experiences of hibakusha, and he had several questions. “What does living the long years after August 6, or August 9, 1945, mean to the hibakusha?” he wrote. “It seems to me that what really confronts the hibakusha is not so much the experience of that moment on August 6 or August 9 as all those long years that have come after it. When I read Ritual of Death, and then From Trinity to Trinity, both of which are strongly autobiographical, I wondered what the experience of a hibakusha means at each point in post-war time; what has changed and what has remained the same.” His questions got to the heart of August 6 and August 9, which we hibakusha have continued to talk about. I had an immense feeling of relief. I was eager to have a long talk with him. And then it happened. As if to sweep my legs out from under me, the floor started to shake, up and down with strong, irregular movements. The cord attached to the receiver in my hand swayed violently. The television in front of me, the frames of the pictures on the wall, my parents’ memorial tablets, every piece of furniture in the room was being shaken every which way. This was no ordinary earthquake. Do you feel it in Tokyo? I asked cautiously. Yes, Tokyo’s shaking too. We both fell silent.

This is awful. I’m going to hang up now. I put down the receiver. The doorway. I stumbled as I ran. It was only a short distance down the hall, but the violent, chaotic vibrations under my feet made it seem like walking on a hammock. I ran out into the street. The tops of the telephone poles were rotating like compasses gone awry. Concrete poles bent like bows. The exact time, I later learned, was Friday, March 11, 2:46 p.m.

Rui, you told me that at that moment the sea in front of your house drew back from the coast. For the first time in your life you saw the seabed; jagged boulders and what looked like a reef of volcanic rock appeared from beneath the sea.

The electricity went off. I was not prepared for a natural disaster, so I didn’t have a radio that works on batteries. I got no news. Casually assuming the epicenter must be somewhere nearby, I fixed my supper before the sun set beyond the sea, lit a rosoku I must have bought in New Mexico for about $12.50 and had a bath. I went to bed thinking that this was kind of fun, like camping. Let me correct myself. It was a candle I lit, not a rosoku. A candle the color of desert sand with red mesas, a blue sky with one condor flying—a candle made from a wine glass with a sand painting on it.

I didn’t know what had happened to the Japanese archipelago until I saw the news on television the next morning. Even though I had lived through the earthquake, during those same moments.

The earthquake was massive, magnitude 9. I had a moment of despair, as I wondered how Japan could ever recover from such devastation, with a whole section of the northern coastline turned into a huge pile of debris.

The tsunami that affected nearly half of the Japanese archipelago, from the north all the way down to the Shonan coast where I live, was over thirty meters high. A wall of water like a mesa. As I try to express what the disaster was like, I feel the frustration of knowing that human emotions enter into all our words. I want words that can express things as accurately as chemical symbols.

As I watched the mounting figures of the dead and missing, the destruction of cities and the sea gone mad, what went through my mind was Nagasaki on August 9, where I escaped, barefoot. The atomic bomb that exploded in the sky about 503 or 504 meters above Matsuyama-chō vaporized houses and small factories throughout the Urakami district in a blinding flash of light.

In A Record of the Disasters at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it says,

“Immediately after the explosion, perhaps within one millionth of a second, the temperature at the point of detonation reaches several million degrees centigrade; 0.1 milliseconds (one ten-thousandth of a second) after that, an isothermal ball of fire with a radius of 15 meters and a temperature of 30,000 degrees forms. At this time the temperature within the ball of fire is constant.”

The Mitsubishi Ohashi Munitions Factory where I worked as a student recruit was 1.3 kilometers from the epicenter; the factory was destroyed and I was trapped under the wreckage. In this huge industrial complex, said to be the biggest in Asia, I had been assigned to the only wooden structure, little more than a shack. Blinding light spewed from the fireball in all directions, and the shack must have lain somewhere among those rays. Apparently, it took about five or six minutes for the fire to reach us.

Image result for nagasaki

The events leading up to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are on display in the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque. There is a photograph with “Count Down to Nagasaki” written across it in large letters. As the hands of the clock measuring the time until the Nagasaki attack ticked off the seconds, we were completely unaware that a 4.5 ton atomic bomb nicknamed Fatman was hanging over our heads, its round body shaking back and forth as it fell. At the moment of impact, I didn’t see the flash or hear the blast of wind. Time passed silently during the … minute? … two minutes? … just a few seconds? it took me to crawl out of the shack. For one ten-thousandth of that very short time, according to your theory, Rui, I was in “subconscious time that has no continuity.” I myself believe it was “an air-pocket hidden beneath the continuous, conscious time we call the everyday. I had fallen into a sort of picot in time.”

At the time, the existence of the atomic bomb had not been made public. I crossed the Urakami River behind the factory and ran up the slope of Mt. Konpira, escaping toward the epicenter. On the slope of terraced fields, the farm houses, the tomatoes, eggplants, and other summer vegetables had all disappeared; naked people, even the remaining rags of their clothing charred, lay on the ground. I couldn’t tell men from women. Treading carefully so as not to step on them I made my way to the end of the field; when I reached Matsuyama-chō, the epicenter, it was past 2:00 in the afternoon. In a second, the flash and the several million degrees of heat it brought transformed the people and their town into vapor, and under the sky with two burning suns, one natural and the other manmade, the town disappeared. A field of red earth without even a trace of smoke spread out below my eyes.

Rui, do people’s hearts forget how to react to a town that leaves nothing behind to remember it by? In comparison, there is something cruel, merciless about the sight of the Sanriku region, where everyday life was transformed into ruins. For that mountain of debris was the “hope” people had spent years building.

Rui. You once said of Ōki, the protagonist of one of my stories, “I respect her for the life she chose.” Well, Ōki is now gone, too—Ōki, who gave everything she had to teaching the children on Nagasaki’s outlying islands. About a year before she died, she sent me a woodblock print of Mother Theresa, about the size of a postcard. On close examination, I realized she must have cut it out of some magazine. She had put it in a small frame and sent it without a letter or even a note. The edges were a little wavy, showing the marks of the scissors, and, wondering what she’d been thinking as she cut out this picture of Mother Theresa with her head bowed in prayer, I sat alone on the day I heard she’d died, drinking a cup of the sake I use for cooking in her memory. She’d been on dialysis, and I don’t know how many times scalpels had cut into her flesh.

These are the lives hibakusha have led since August 6 and August 9. We have lived while sewing together our sundered flesh. Is there no compassion for us?

The cause of death of my friends, who suffered from so many different illnesses, and of all the hibakusha, is “A-bomb disease.” To hibakusha, this is just common sense. Had they been acknowledged as suffering from “A-bomb disease,” my friends might have been better prepared to accept the hardships they’d encountered in their lives, and die in peace.

Hearing the words “internal exposure to radiation” coming from the mouths of people who had denied over and over again that such a thing even existed was a greater shock than exposure to the A-bomb itself. Our country has betrayed us. And now, after the nuclear disaster at Fukushima they’re once again showing us how little they think of human life. They won’t even make it clear who was responsible. I poured out my anger at these people who refuse to learn from experience in a letter to A, a calm, rational friend of mine. A is also a hibakusha, now spending her last years on an island to the south. Four or five months later the telephone rang. It was B, a classmate of mine.

“It’s happened,” she said, dispensing with the usual greetings. “A boy from Fukushima got a nosebleed.” It was so sudden I wasn’t sure what she was getting at first. Then she added, “My A-bomb disease started with a nose bleed.”

Image result for nagasakiA-bomb disease starts with bleeding from the nose and gums. This, too, is common sense for hibakusha. I, too, was well aware of that. I apologized, remembering how dull and listless I’d felt, how heavy my head and my arms, drooping from my shoulders, had felt. I was too weak to sit up straight. Severe bouts of watery diarrhea, infected sores on the arms and legs—I, too, had these symptoms, common among hibakusha. My nose didn’t bleed, though, nor did my hair fall out. B’s nosebleed was the start of a long illness; she went into Kyushu University Hospital, so she was absent from school for some time. Even though we were both hibakusha, I didn’t immediately understand B’s concern for the health of children in Fukushima.

“Bon was in the Kyushu U hospital, too, after she had nosebleeds and her hair fell out,” said B. Bon was her nickname for a friend she’d known since kindergarten. Both were bright enough to be assigned to work in a section where they needed to use a slide rule, and ended up buried under the ruins of a splendid modern factory with concrete and glass walls. Knocked unconscious, B came to when water started dripping on her forehead from above. She stayed at Bon’s side until she too regained consciousness, and they escaped together. After that, both of them were in and out of the hospital.

Bon died at 48, leaving a husband and daughter behind. On the day of her funeral, her coffin was carried down the concrete steps of the apartment where she’d lived on the shoulders of her classmates living in the Tokyo area. The procession was led by her homeroom teacher, a Japanese teacher who had come from Nagasaki for the funeral. But B, who was closer to her than anyone, was not there that morning. When I asked her why, she said she didn’t feel the need, since she and Bon had said their final goodbyes the night before she died. Ever since the day they had escaped together, hand in hand, they must have savored each meeting as though it would be their last.

“Sure hope these kids don’t turn out like us,” B said. As she now lives in a prefecture near the remains of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, I told her I hoped she would tell her neighbors, especially mothers with small children, about A-bomb disease, what happens from the onset of the first symptoms until recovery. Information was circulating every day by word of mouth; “They keep saying there’s no immediate health risk, but radiation can’t be dismissed so simply,” B said. “Even so, I’m keeping my mouth shut.” Many of our classmates don’t tell anyone they are hibakusha. But B’s reason for keeping her silence was different. “If hibakusha speak up now,” she said, “they’ll be accused of alarmist rumor-mongering.” I had to admit she was right. Watching the agony of Fukushima mothers on TV, I thought any number of times of going there and telling them about the symptoms I suffered from after August 9. Knowing it probably wouldn’t be much use to them, I thought of telling them about how my mother steeped lizard’s-tail and persimmon leaves in hot water to soak the sores on my legs and arms in. Rui. This must sound barbaric to you. But for the A-bomb, a product of the most advanced scientific knowledge, there was no effective cure.

The only thing I can say for certain is, “Get away from there as soon as you can.” Even if the amount of radiation is lower than the level the Japanese government has deemed safe, the radiation produced by a nuclear accident is added to what we absorb from the natural environment—an added amount we don’t need. Yet up until now, both B and I have kept our mouths shut. Someone will say, “But look, you’re over eighty now, and you’re still alive,” and we’re afraid of being held up as living proof that “radiation is safe.” (Reaching the age of eighty is considered auspicious in Japan; the celebratory word meaning “eighty years of age” is written with Chinese characters for “umbrella” and “good fortune,” but our lucky umbrellas are broken.)

Rui. I’m tired now. I think I’ll take a break now, and make myself a cup of tea—the kind you like, made from leaves sold on the street in India.

I have a pamphlet with a brown cover that I got at the Trinity Site, entitled Trinity Site 1945-1995. It has a list of things they want you to keep in mind when you enter the area of the first A-bomb test. It says, for instance, “The level of radiation inside the fence is low. On a one-hour tour, you will be exposed to about 0.5—1 milli-roentgen. American adults absorb an average of 90 milli-roentgen per year. According to the Department of Energy, we absorb 35—50 milli-roentgen from the sun, and 30—35 from food. Whether to enter the site or not is your decision.” It says the amount of radiation inside the fence is low, but standing at ground zero for an hour, you absorb an extra 0.5—1 milli-roentgen above the everyday amount. Even if you don’t stand in that wasteland for a whole day, you will be exposed to 24 milli-roentgens. Compared to the 90 milli-roentgens Americans are exposed in the course of every year, this is not a small amount. Should you risk it, or turn back? That is for you to decide.

They confront you honestly with the facts, and expect each person to act on his or her own responsibility. America is a country of adults. I respect that. During the twentieth century, we lived in fear of radiation from an atomic bomb. In the twenty-first century, the threat of radiation will come from accidents at nuclear power plants.

Rui. I have a suggestion. If nuclear power plants are restarted, the names of those responsible for deciding to restart them should be published so that they can be held responsible for every criticality accident. Responsibility will not be subject to a statute of limitations. Is there some way to make this a law? And one more thing. The Japanese government or some other responsible organization should make “Hibakusha Health Certificates” available to all hibakusha exposed to radiation from accidents at nuclear power plants.

A, my rational friend from a southern island, finally sent me the answer I’d been waiting for.

“I laughed when I read your letter. So after the A-bomb it’s nuclear power? You’ve got time on your hands. And you’re always right.

My husband left me. How am I going to live out my old age? Now it’s your turn to laugh at me.”

When I’d finished reading her postcard, I picked up the telephone. My hand was trembling. I remembered my ex-husband sighing, ‘You’re a packhorse—born in the year of the horse.’ He was good at jabs like that. But a horse is a horse. All horses act directly—whip them and they run.

A’s phone number was so long I pushed the wrong buttons several times. As I did so, I began to wonder what, exactly, upset me so much that my hands were shaking. I put down the receiver. When you’re angry, slowly count to ten before opening your mouth—another bit of advice from my ex-husband. He also said, “You’re a bona fide A-bomb collector. But the tragedy of the war didn’t begin and end with the A-bomb, you know.”

He’s right. In my long life, there’s been nothing I’ve poured my enthusiasm into like the bomb.

“Can’t you try placing the tragedy of the atomic bomb in a special category, all by itself?” I asked him. Hiding his objections behind a charming smile, he replied, “If you think I should, I’ll give it a try.”

I now realize that it was the first thing A had written, “I laughed when I read your letter,” that made me tremble with anger.

In the Foreword to On Stupidity, Geyer writes, “There nothing as stupid as making something serious and important the object of ridicule.” With that sentence in a corner of my brain I pondered A’s “laughter” until it overlapped with my ex’s teasing remark about me being a “bona fide A-bomb collector,” and then all the covers of the novels I’ve published flashed through my mind like fireworks. My self-respect short-circuited. Where does the self-respect of all those novels come from? From the pretext that the atomic bomb belongs in a special category, because it affects all human life—even its origins?

I am strong enough to have escaped the atomic flash, and to have survived until now. After all that, there’s no need for me to be so upset about a little teasing. I can think of various ways to explain it, but I know the real reason for my anger. I’m angry at having been exposed as the Emperor with No Clothes. You know the one—the fat old naked king from the picture books. A crown studded with red and green jewels on his head, he stands in front of the crowd with his chest thrown out. He’s the only one who doesn’t know he’s naked. He’s ridiculous because he thinks he’s dressed in rich attire. I am not a king, fat from gorging on rich food, but I have always worn a gossamer-thin cape of pride over my bony body. Because I am a hibakusha, because the dropping of the A-bombs was such an important event in human history, I have to talk about it, to plead my case. There is nothing false about this. “There is nothing sadder than a death that remains hidden,” said Lu Xun, a Chinese writer I greatly respect, mourning a friend who was killed in a student demonstration. Can anyone laugh about that? Of course not. “So after the A-bomb it’s nuclear power?” When A wrote that, she was laughing at me. Because I didn’t realize how ridiculous I was, standing naked in front of all those people.

I, who am “always right,” thinking I’m such a good girl.

I started to laugh.

I called A on the phone. I could hear it ringing on the other end. I wanted to find out why her husband left her. We’d have a good laugh about it together. And then, refreshed, I would put the phone down. No matter how awful things are, people can still laugh.

But Rui, before I tell you about our phone call, there’s a passage from The Terror of Plutonium I’d like to share with you, about how nuclear power grew out of the success of the atomic bombings. This quote is from the chapter “Guided Technology.”

“During the Manhattan Project (the project to produce an atomic bomb, which began on August 13, 1942), the safety of workers, effects on the environment, and the implications of the ‘atom’ for society in general were almost totally ignored. Although some research was done on the influence of plutonium on the human body, safety concerns were purely secondary; if necessary, extreme measures were taken, even injecting plutonium directly into the body.”

Image result for nuclear plant japan

Compared to the purpose of the Manhattan Project, which was “to produce a bomb with the greatest possible destructive power, things like economic concerns, and the safety of workers and the environment were of little importance.” Technologically speaking, the Manhattan Project’s goal was “…easy to reach. When it came to nuclear power, however, it was a completely different story. This time, the technology had to be used to make people happy. This was utterly different from developing a weapon designed to kill people. Unfortunately, the people who applied the nuclear technology inherited from the Manhattan Project to the development of nuclear energy forgot this extremely important difference, and proceeded according to the mindset of the Manhattan Project.”

In conclusion, Takagi writes, “Against this historical background, we are now faced with many difficult problems that far outweigh the benefits we have gotten from the ‘atom.’” And this is why nuclear power plants are said to have “jumped the gun” so to speak—they built them first and thought about the consequences later.

A year and a half or so after the accident—if memory serves—a video of a conversation between officials at the power plant in Fukushima and men from Tepco (The Tokyo Electric Power Company) was shown on TV. The conversation had taken place immediately after the accident, when the fuel in the reactor’s core had started to melt. In order to prevent the worst possible outcome, a complete meltdown, Tepco ordered that the second and third reactors be doused with water. The reactors were dry.

“Do that and the whole thing will explode!” came the desperate cries from Fukushima.

“It’s going to explode anyway,” the Tepco officials shouted angrily.

In August 2012, it was announced that Professor Yamanaka Nobuya of Kyoto University had won the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology. At his press conference, Professor Yamanaka emphasized the need for progress in technology to be matched by advancement in ethical issues, and expressed his concern that ethics was falling far behind. I think this observation is pure gold, more valuable than the Nobel Prize.

The phone rang a long time before A finally answered. “What’s up?” she asked brightly in the Nagasaki dialect. In an effort to dispel the awkwardness I still felt after being told I’m “always right,” I decided to respond in kind. The more serious you try to be, the more comical life is—A had brilliantly succeeded in stripping me naked. “No sign of your husband coming home?” I asked. “Well, maybe it wasn’t me he left so much as the secular world,” she said, slipping into an odd Kansai accent. “A Buddhist pilgrimage with a woman in tow—not bad, eh?” Her husband was from the Kansai area, the western part of Japan.

“Radiation, nuclear power plants—none of that matters to me anymore,” she went on. “I’m too upset to worry about what’s going on in the world. But what really gets me down is that the woman he ran off with is downright ugly.”

“Then you win, on looks anyway,” I said, trying to comfort her.

“What do you mean?” she shot back. “If she’d been pretty at least my pride wouldn’t be so hurt.” She sighed. “Imagine—the man I was married to, setting up housekeeping with another woman, right under my nose. How could he?”

“It’s easy, believe me,” I said, laughing at her naivety.

“Guess you’re right.” We laughed together and put the matter to rest. It was hardly a brilliant conclusion. We decided that neither my pride, which led me to tremble with anger when I was laughed at, nor A’s, hurt by the ugliness of her ex-husband’s mistress, amounted to much. But setting that aside, how many more years would we live? I wanted something to shake me out of my despair. Salvation came in the form of a book sent to me by my friend S.

Image result for atomic bomb japanCommand the Morning, by Pearl Buck. The blurb on the cover says, “THE A-BOMB FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THOSE WHO DROPPED IT. DID THEY REALLY HAVE TO?!” Have you read it, Rui? Pearl Buck is the author of The Good Earth. She spent her youth in China. That’s enough for me to feel some affinity with her; besides, she wrote this novel about the A-bomb from the side that dropped it.

S sent me a letter along with the book. He’d broken his right wrist, so the letter was typed on a word-processor. She’s like the director of a play, he says, with plenty of things to say about the world we’re living in now.

“People who feel nothing and understand nothing,” he writes, “lack the intelligence and character to take the measure of the human heart, and are therefore not qualified to be politicians. We’re living through a nightmare now, a sort of SF world where conventional types convinced that they can reconstruct the human race just by following data input into a computer are the only ones who can survive in politics, but fortunately, those of us who lived through the last war aren’t going to let them have their way. Even if it means dragging ourselves we’ll keep moving, raising our voices to plead for a world where our grandchildren can live in safety…”

I felt a flicker of warmth in my heart. But about Command the Morning, published in 1959 by John Day, an American publisher. The Japanese translation came out in July 2007 from Komichi Shobo. “Why was this American bestseller not published in Japan?” the cover asks. I leafed through the pages. After reading the first four or five, I closed the book. Partly because it’s so long—412 pages—but more because I was seized with a burning desire to write something of my own. As a writer, I still have some pride and combative spirit. I now see I’ve scrawled on the last page: “I will wait to read this until I have written about my feelings since Fukushima: X day X month, 2012.” The mediocre tend to steal from others.

Pearl Buck won the Pulitzer Prize for The Good Earth, and later, in 1938, the Nobel Prize for Literature. Following the announcement of the Nobel for Medicine and Physiology I mentioned before, on October 11 we learned that the Chinese writer Mo Yan had won the Nobel for Literature. Born in Shandong, he is 57 years old. I applauded the news, happy that a Chinese had won the prize. Shandong Province borders on the Yellow Sea; looking at the map, it seems to be a lush, green agricultural area. Qingdao is at the tip of the Shandong Peninsula.

Near the end of the war, late in February 1945, my mother, my sisters and I travelled by boat back to Japan, hugging the coast along Jiangsu and Shandong Provinces. From the East China Sea the boat entered the Yellow Sea, stopping offshore at Qingdao. We waited for the sun to go down before continuing our journey. We took the long way around. With the war practically over, torpedoes filled these two seas as coral eggs might have during the spawning season. Enemy submarines also lurked beneath the surface. Boats could only travel by night. The clear azure sea off Qingdao gleamed in the morning sun; we could see the tips of the oars of small boats that rowed out to sell food to the ferries. The offshore area must have been frozen. We could see sheets of ice floating across the water. The scene was so calm it made us forget we were escaping. Mo Yan’s home is beyond that sea. I hear he writes about the lives of Chinese farmers at the mercy of war. Critics have said Mo’s Nobel shows the growing importance of Asia in the world. Couldn’t they just have said he won on his own merits?

Kant says that peace is a cessation of all hostilities. In war, someone is always hostile toward someone else. All we could do was escape.

All those fishing boats now gathered in the East China Sea say they’re only trying to make a living. And the Wind of the Gods (kamikaze) has yet to blow.

The nuclear accident at Fukushima made the natural disaster in eastern Japan extremely complicated. The problem is the disposal of the debris. Houses once carried out to sea by the tsunami were swept back onto the shore, leaving mountains of rubble. The problem is that these ruins may well be contaminated with radiation. Radioactive material that flowed out into the sky, the sea, and the earth infected the ruins as well. The sheer amount is mind-boggling. Since there’s too much debris to be disposed of in the area, it’s been decided that it will be dispersed, sent to other places. But where, and when, and by whom was this decision made? How did they select the cities and prefectures where the debris is to be sent? And will it be buried as is, or burned first, and the ashes buried? “After burning, between 99.9 and 100 percent of radioactive material can be filtered out of the ashes,” the government assures us. But we stopped trusting them long ago. If contaminated material is burned, radiation will be released into the air through smoke and steam. No matter what the amount, these are “ashes of death.” This is not a problem of sharing the pain of a natural disaster, or of repaying debts, or of that traditional Japanese value system, “moral obligation and humane feelings.”

“There’s talk of sending debris to Nagasaki,” I was suddenly told, “are you for or against?” This was the first time I’d heard about it. After giving the matter some thought, I said, “I’d rather not answer.”

Rui. As soon as I was asked the question, my own answer flashed into my mind. It was the phrase “sacred ground.” That surprised even me. I saw the dead and suffering hibakusha in Urakami on August 9—even now they are lying under Urakami, under the city of Nagasaki. As I ran past, they asked for medicine, or water. I’m sure that minutes later, many of them were dead.

Rui. None of them said, “Kill me.” And now we’re going to pile a twenty-first century nuclear disaster on top of them? I can’t stand it.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are sites of human suffering. I don’t mean peasant uprisings, or the persecution of Christians. The flesh and blood of all Nagasaki’s citizens, both living and dead, permeates that land. It is sacred ground, a place where all human beings can think about the importance of life, enshrined in O’Keefe’s black crosses with their backs to the sun, and reflect on their sins.

Let me tell you about the dream I had that night. There was a wide open space, apparently the Peace Park in Urakami. The steel frame of a building, bent out of shape and red with rust—one of the Fukushima reactors—had been hauled into the space and was being reconstructed there. When the work was completed, through the bent steel girders, now free of radiation, I could see the huge statue now in the Peace Park, the man pointing to the earth and sky. I applauded the new and old memorials, spanning two centuries of humankind and the atom. Remorse and repentance. The lesson carved on the memorial: “We shall not repeat this evil.” Not a bad idea for me to come up with in a dream.

The proposal to distribute the Fukushima debris to Nagasaki and Sasebo was rejected by both cities, I hear.

In July, the usual heavy, humid heat began to settle over the Japanese archipelago. Will the people living in temporary housing with corrugated tin roofs be able to stand the heat? And will those who lived in now badly contaminated areas ever be able to return home?

On the morning of July 16, 2012 I was sitting at the kitchen table having a late breakfast. There was going to be a demonstration against nuclear power in Yoyogi Park, starting around noon. On TV, I watched the demonstrators stroll along a treeless path through the park. Young fathers in jeans, holding three- or four-year-old children by the hand. Mothers cradling babies in carriers. Middle-aged women in hats. Carrying handmade flags and signs with anti-nuclear slogans, they moved toward the grassy field on a hill near the park entrance. As I chewed a hard crust of French bread, my heart pounded, in a slightly irregular rhythm. Mothers and fathers crouched with their children on the slope, waiting for the opening ceremony to begin.

The phone rang. It was my friend O. She lives in New York, and teaches at an American university, but comes back to Japan now and then to take care of her mother. “I’m going to Yoyogi Park now,” she said. “That’s great—take care,” I replied. “I’m meeting a friend at the entrance at noon, and we’re going to the demo,” she added. I warned her not to collapse from heat stroke. “I’ll be off now,” she said after a pause, and then hung up. She understood how depressed I’d been since Fukushima, so she didn’t urge me to come along. But I knew why she’d called.

The phone rang again. It was A, who asked “Aren’t you going?” She sounded surprised. “I’m watching the demonstration on TV now,” she went on. “Those people in Yoyogi Park—I really think that’s the will of the people. I’d like to go but it’s too far… Seems like my husband’s gone for good. I just can’t get over it.” She hung up, too.

I looked at the clock. It was 9:30. “So after the A-bomb it’s nuclear power?” she’d chided me on that postcard, but A hadn’t forgotten after all. To both A and O, this was something that really mattered. My heart beat faster as I got up from my chair. If I left right away and hurried to the station, I’d make it in time. There was an express that went straight to Shinjuku.

At Yoyogi Park Station, the platform was crowded with men and women in casual dress. Though I’m not familiar with the area, I knew that by following these people, I’d eventually get to the park. The sky was wide and clear, so light it was almost white. It was so crowded people’s shoulders were touching. I noticed lots of young couples with children. Some groups had banners with the name of some neighborhood association or children’s club. After working myself up enough to come Yoyogi, I was now wilting in sunlight that scorched my skin. Moving away from the crowd, I found some shade by the side of the road where I could take a breather.

An old man who looked about my age was wiping the sweat off his forehead with a handkerchief, leaning on a cane. He’d had an operation, he told me, and though still in rehab, he’d gotten his doctor’s permission to take part in this demonstration. “Don’t overdo it,” I said. To my rather mundane comment, he replied, “I wanted to do at least one good thing, something to leave behind when I go. I want this country to be safe for my grandchildren.” There were lots of people like us, here on their own. Maybe that’s why it was so easy to talk to other demonstrators. A young mother carrying a three- or four-month-old baby nodded to the old man, saying, “We’ll walk all the way for you,” before she was swallowed by the crowd. As I watched her small, delicate figure disappear, I felt ashamed of my own lack of courage. As S, who sent me Pearl Buck’s Command the Morning said, even if it means dragging ourselves, those of us who lived through the last war have to keep moving, raising our voices to plead for a safe world for our grandchildren. If we don’t, we won’t be able to face our friends who’ve died.

Rui. I don’t think I’ve ever felt such simple, honest concern for life as I did from the people I met between the station and the park that day. More than sixty years after the war’s end, the people have finally made their choice. We who lived through the war have definitely passed the baton on to the next generation. I was deeply moved. Seventy or eighty thousand—some reports said as many as 170,000 people gathered in Yoyogi Park that day. But whether it was 100,000 or 200,000, or just one thousand—those were our voices, raised for the happiness of our children and grandchildren, and for the country they live in.

When I got home, I called A to tell her I’d gone to Yoyogi Park. “Did you march?” she asked. “No,” I replied.

“Well, at least you went, and that means a lot.” She sounded excited.

Rui. The uncertainty I’ve felt since the Great East Japan Earthquake, all that confusion, is over. I’m starting over, from Yoyogi Park, humbled, with nothing but the life I was given on that hill at Urakami. All I have to do now is live honestly for whatever time is left me. “But it does matter,” Ms. W said, genuinely angry at how wishy-washy I’d become after the earthquake. Her words will give me support. And on my last day, I’ll cry out loud, “Aah, ah, ah, ah,” pouring my heart out to the world as I leave it, and have done with it.

Rui. One last question. Do you affirm your own life?

This essay was published in the April issue of Gunzo, 2013, pp. 8-27.

***

To Hayashi Kyoko: in Memoriam

From Eiko Otake

You were pronounced dead on Feb 19, 2017. Soon your bones and ashes will perhaps be brought to a grave according to Japanese custom. But the birth of a baby takes nearly nine months, and for some people years of effort, waiting, and doubts were required before conception. So a death, too, cannot happen at one moment. The death of a person one knows deeply takes a long time to complete, perhaps never in one’s lifetime.

Hayashi-san, your words, voice and gestures, are so deeply imprinted in me that you will keep both living and dying while my thinking lasts. You might laugh at me, but you knew this would be the case. Because of what I learned from your writing and from our long conversations, I have thought, worked and lived differently.

As you remember, I began studying atomic bomb literature in 2002, and soon discovered your writing. We met, talked, and corresponded (I love your handwriting!), and I began to teach your work. I wrote about you and, with your encouragement, translated and published From Trinity To Trinity. You always enjoyed learning what and how my students discussed your work and what your words provoked in them. I translated and shared with you the letters they wrote to you. After hours of talking in a café, we sat in the computer room of a community center in your town and watched the students’ final projects that referred to your works. It was a thrill for me to present a lecture with you in Japan about how younger people can learn from the experiences of long ago. After the Fukushima meltdown our talk intensified, both of us so angry at TEPCO, the years of Government policies, and corporate greed that led to the disaster. When I first visited Fukushima in August 2011, you asked me, “Now you want to be a hibakusha too?” I am still thinking about that question.

It was Hayashi-san to whom William Johnston and I first showed the photographs we created in Fukushima. We went directly to your home in Zushi. On the train I selected ten pictures to show you. I was nervous. Looking at our photos for a long time, you said, “Because you are in these pictures, I look at each scene much longer than otherwise. I then see more details. I see each photograph, wondering why Otake-san is here, how you decided to place your body here.” Your words (reported in Bill’s essay in The Asia-Pacific Journal), have kept Bill and me going. We went back to Fukushima two more times and produced photo exhibitions. When I was at a loss with what to do after being invited to perform with the Hiroshima Panels (created by Iri and Toshi Maruki) in New York, you said, “Bodies I saw on August 9th in Nagasaki had no outlines. You might explore that in your dancing.” I am still thinking about that kind of body.

Image result for hayashi kyoko

Regrettably I could not talk to you after you were hospitalized with back pain. Last fall, I was named as artist-in-residence at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, the largest cathedral in the world. I am an outsider dancing in this enormous place. Some might think I am a gargoyle that wears strange clothes and moves in awkward ways. Still, I am making friends with tourists, visitors and security guards. I have many stories that would make you laugh. For the past 6 months, the Cathedral exhibited A Body in Fukushima, a selection of collaborative photographic works with Bill.

On March 11 this year, I produced a four-hour event titled Remembering Fukushima: Art and Conversations at the Cathedral. I told you about the 24-hour event and exhibition I presented on March 11 last year at St. Mark’s Church in downtown Manhattan. 2016 was the fifth anniversary of the Fukushima disasters. Being in the same place at the same time for the same purpose was a powerful and bonding experience. I thought that if no one commemorates the sixth anniversary, nothing may happen until the 10th year.

So, once again I wanted to offer an occasion in which audience and participants could gain knowledge, experience art, and reflect on the meanings of Fukushima. I wanted to create a new experience, a particular time and space, whose memory would make people feel closer to Fukushima. To young people who do not have the same memories that we do, we cannot ask them not to forget. But we can create a new experience: we can stand together and want to remember. We can then resist our forgetfulness.

You told me how you marked your life after 1945 with the annual August 9 memorial. Every year you feel that day approaching and remember all the people who died. For days before and in hours prior to the memorial you count time feeling tense. You continue to realize “They were still alive” until finally 11:02AM, the time the Nagasaki atomic bomb exploded, is minutes away. You realize they would be killed in the next 3 then 2 then 1 minute. Finally it is 11:02; they die and you become a hibakusha. As a Japanese I grew up seeing the Hiroshima Memorial on TV (The Nagasaki memorial was not nationally broadcast in my youth.). But until I met you, I had not really thought of a person at the memorial, re-living the time moving to 11:02.on August 9, 1945.

The March 11 event at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine provided many ways to commemorate Fukushima, in words, in poetry, in song, in video, in instrumental music and dance, and by inviting audience members to place cranes on stage in a communal ritual of remembrance.

People of Fukushima were present through their poems and videos that also conveyed the mountains and sea of Fukushima. DonChristian Jones and I performed a duet to end the event. I was deeply grateful to all who participated.

On March 11, I could no longer call you to give this report, but the hundreds of people who were there heard about you. I announced your physical death, and dedicated this year’s March 11th event to you. Many of my students and audience members who had read your work learned about your death. And others learned to think about Fukushima from your perspective.

Holding our Trinity book, I continued my speech;

Early in our friendship, overwhelmed by your stories, I said what many people might say to Atomic Bomb victims, “I can’t even imagine.” You looked at me eye to eye, and said, “Are you that stupid? Do you need to experience the A-bomb and radiation sickness to understand what being a hibakuhas means?”

Since then I have prohibited myself and my students from uttering this phrase, I CAN’T EVEN IMAGINE.” Instead, I ask, how can we imagine other people’s experience? How can we make the distance between here and there malleable?

Those of you, who have never experienced Hayashi’s work, please imagine a 14-year-old girl in 1945 in Nagasaki, who was exposed to the atomic bombing near the epicenter. She suffered acute radiation sickness, and even after regaining her strength, feared that her child would be affected by radiation.

Thirty years after the war, she began to write about her own and other people’s experiences of the atomic bomb. Fifty-four years after the war, Hayashi visited Trinity site in the New Mexico desert, where the atomic bomb was tested before being exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Please imagine this 69-year-old woman standing in New Mexico in 1999, realizing that the first atomic bomb victims were the plains and hills there.

Imagine how she felt watching the Fukushima nuclear plants explode in 2011.

Hayashi lamented to me, “It is as if we, the atomic bomb survivors did not exist. It is as if the experiences of the atomic bomb survivors have never counted for anything. While so many friends died because of the atomic bombings and suffered from radiation, Japan as a nation never learned anything about radiation.” I am heart broken.

Japan often claims to be the only nation to have experienced the atomic bomb. But it was not Japan the nation but the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were exposed to the atomic bombing. And now, the people of Fukushima are the ones who have been exposed to high level radiation and cannot return home or farm their land.

Hayashi wrote in the Trinity book,

Nature is not all gentle but it is never malicious. A river may swallow towns and carry people away, but it has no good or bad intentions.

It was not the tsunami but the self-interest and negligence of people that caused long lasting damage in Fukushima. Hayashi recognized and announced that every nuclear explosion is first and foremost an environmental disaster caused by humans.

Hayashi spoke quietly, but in 2013 she wrote,

On my last day, I’ll cry aloud, “Aah, ah, ah, ah,” pouring my heart out to the world as I leave it, and have done with it.

Hayashi-san, you often told me and wrote that when as a child you saw a dead body floating down Shanghai’s Huangpu River, you felt a sense of that person’s death, but people killed in the atomic bombing were deprived of their own deaths. Hayashi-san, I said this “Aah, ah, ah, ah,” loudly, and imagined you died your own death. I remember your telling me by phone before you wrote this essay. “I want to die crying out loud Aah, ah, ah, ah…,The character for this cry is not the one with three water drops(泣く)but with two big open mouths (哭く). Do you get it?”

Thank you Hayashi-san for all of your work, provocations and friendship. As an artist, you were incredibly eloquent and unafraid. Thank you for inspiring many young people with whom I have shared your work. I will continue to do so. Though I can no longer hear your new stories, I will continue to imagine your last, very loud cry. If your cry ever becomes faint, I will join you in crying.

Margaret Mitsutani has translated many of your best works. I hope soon there will be a book in English of your collected works so your voice will reside in many more people’s minds. Margaret, I, and many more readers to come are all the RUI to whom you wrote in this essay. Hayashi-san, thank you for your letter addressed to all of us.

Yours truly,

Eiko Otake

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on To Rui, Once Again: Nagasaki Hibakusha (A-Bomb Survivor),

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is often now cited by the remaining band of optimists in Washington as a safe pair of hands, limiting the influence of the foreign policy manias permeating the White House. Unfortunately for both the United States and the rest of the world, Tillerson’s public comments during his mid-March visits to Japan, South Korea and China show the precise opposite by threatening China with U.S. encouragement of acquisition of nuclear weapons by Japan and South Korea. Faced with American risk-taking on this order, at a time of mounting tensions in the Asia-Pacific, Australia and other nations in the region require an independent foreign policy focused on sanity about nuclear weapons.

On March 19, Erin McPike of the Independent Journalism Review, the one journalist allowed on Tillerson’s plane for the East Asia tour, conducted a wide-ranging 30 minute interview as they headed for Beijing from Seoul. Tillerson’s main talking point was the Trump administration’s view of the need for China to rein in North Korea on nuclear weapons: as the presidential tweeter put it

‘They [North Korea] have been “playing” the United States for years. China has done little to help!’

With Tillerson stressing that U.S. ‘strategic patience’ with the DPRK is over, and that ‘all options are on the table’, McPike asked if he still maintained his Senate confirmation hearing position that Japan and South Korea do not need nuclear weapons. Tillerson’s reply was stunning:

EM: You told Fox yesterday that “nothing is off the table” with respect to the nuclearization of the Korean peninsula. In your confirmation hearing, you kind of said that South Korea and Japan don’t need to have nuclear weapons. Has your view changed, given the urgency of the situation with North Korea, particularly because Japan could finalize development of a nuclear weapon rather quickly if they needed to?

RT: No, it has not, nor has the policy of the United States changed. Our objective is a denuclearized Korean peninsula. A denuclearized Korean peninsula negates any thought or need for Japan to have nuclear weapons. We say all options are on the table, but we cannot predict the future. So we do think it’s important that everyone in the region has a clear understanding that circumstances could evolve to the point that for mutual deterrence reasons, we might have to consider that. But as I said yesterday, there are a lot of … there’s a lot of steps and a lot of distance between now and a time that we would have to make a decision like that.’

The implication of those two sentences was clear. Tillerson was delivering the sharpest of warnings to China:

either rein in North Korea, or face your worst strategic nightmare as we give our approval to our allies in Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons.

Such a signal operates on two assumptions, one about China and the DPRK, and another about United States interests in East Asian allied nuclear proliferation. Neither is sound. Firstly, the U.S. assumes that China has the means to persuade the DPRK to stop its missile and nuclear weapons programs. For more than a year it has been clear that the Kim Jong-un regime is seething about China’s now frequent and substantial criticisms of North Korean nuclear provocations as it moves along the weapons learning curve. China does have a few options remaining, but all risk regime change in nuclear-armed North Korea – either slowly by applying draconian energy and economic sanctions or quickly by direct intervention – with high risk of war with North Korea both ways.

Secondly, there has been a stream of U.S policy thinking stretching back at least to the Bush administration that assumes that a world with a nuclear-armed Japan and South Korea would be more threatening to China than to the United States. To be sure, the first part of that assumption is correct – China would have to completely rethink its strategic posture towards all of East Asia. It would have to face a greatly heightened risk of nuclear war on the neighbouring Korean peninsula – also a matter of some interest to the United States.

Korean news reporting on North Korean ballistic missile testing, February 2017

A nuclear-armed Japan may come about through reluctant U.S. acceptance of a nationalist Japanese government mimicking De Gaulle’s removal of France from NATO in the 1960s, while still remaining generally aligned with ‘the West’. Or it may be the result, as Tillerson seems to envisage, of Japan being encouraged by the United States to become, as Richard Armitage advocated, ‘the Great Britain of East Asia’ – presumably in part thinking of Britain as a hyper-loyal client nuclear state, dependent on the U.S. for its missiles. This would envisage Japan as a loyal and still subordinate partner, a second tier, or at least third tier nuclear- armed state – presumably with a high level of ‘conventional weapons militarization’. This is not a thought much welcomed in Seoul, and Japanese and South Korean nuclearization will be separated only by an historical nanosecond, with Taiwan equally facing a future-defining choice about nuclear weapons development.

In this fantasy of U.S. East Asian nuclear hegemony reborn, all this would be accompanied by a U.S.-led East Asian version of NATO, linked in the south to Australia, and in the wilder shores of late imperial dreaming of an ‘alliance of democracies’, to a U.S.-aligned India. What could possibly go wrong?

But in the longer run, apart from the direct risks of such an event for the U.S. itself, its East Asian alliance network, now in its seventh decade, founded on Japanese and Korean acceptance of U.S. nuclear primacy and a U.S. nuclear umbrella, would change dramatically, bringing with it, for better or worse, the end of U.S. hegemony in East and Southeast Asia. Whether occurring on a Gaullist or British model, the foundations of Korean and Japanese relations with the United States would be irrevocably altered. Even leaving aside the obvious questions about the DPRK, in the event of a nuclearized Japan and South Korea, clearly the mathematical risks of nuclear war initiated in East Asia would be very much greater than even the current risks of India-Pakistan nuclear conflict. Regional nuclear security planning would be woven with multiple valences of possible perceived nuclear threats. The calculus of China-U.S. nuclear relations immediately becomes much more complex, with China facing two new potential threats, nominally at least coordinating with the U.S., in addition to the older concerns about India and Russia. For the United States, a nuclear-armed, fully ‘normalized’ Japan would never be the undoubted loyal lapdog of by then likely post-United Kingdom Little England. And the calculations of a nuclear-armed South Korea and Japan about each other would start and finish in historically-conditioned suspicion.

At a global level, the U.S. opening the door to Japanese and Korean nuclear weapons could not fail to encourage a cascade of regional races to nuclear weapons, not only in the Western Pacific but in the Middle East, in Latin America, and quite possibly in Africa. The risks of regional nuclear war, with all its now thoroughly documented catastrophic environmental and climate consequences, would be both manifold and far higher than at present.

For Australia, the ever compliant ally of the United States, there has never been a more stark choice: Is the Turnbull government willing to sit on its hands as its dominant ally not only allows but actually encourages Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear bombs? Does Foreign Minister Julie Bishop imagine that Trumpian brinkmanship increases Australian security? Does she somehow think that the already-gathering band of advocates of Australian nuclear weapons will not become more influential? And does she think that none of this will encourage now still fringe Indonesian figures who may long for a reprise of Soekarnoist dreams of a nuclear Nusantara? It is critical that Australia see the Tillerson threat as a wake-up call to the complete failure of its own nuclear disarmament policy, and seize the chance to initiate a more independent foreign policy.

All of this is happening at the same time as the United Nations commences an historically unprecedented attempt to create a ‘legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination’. The global nuclear ban treaty initiative, led by the non-nuclear weapons states (Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa) and global civil society organisations no longer willing to wait for the nuclear weapons states to fulfil their long dishonoured Non-Proliferation Treaty pledge to negotiate nuclear disarmament in good faith, aims above all to stigmatize all aspects of nuclear weapons and through a process of delegitimizing policies — supported by the nuclear weapons states and their allies alike — and challenge the discursive hegemony of the fiction of nuclear deterrence.

After instructing its NATO allies to boycott the nuclear ban treaty negotiations, the United States has reportedly placed extraordinary pressure on a divided Japanese Cabinet to ensure that it falls into line. Australia, the most complacent of U.S. allies, required no such pressure. Remarkably, every country in South East Asia and every Pacific island country is participating in the talks and supporting the proposal, leaving US allies Japan, Korea and Australia in isolation.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is held hostage doubly to both the adventurism of the Trump administration and to the threat to planetary survival from the nine nuclear-armed states. As Tim Wright of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons wrote in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,

‘Recent threats of a new nuclear arms race and ongoing programs to replace old nuclear warheads with ever-deadlier ones cause much damage to the NPT, as does the ill-considered boycott of the forthcoming UN negotiations.’

The Trump-Tillerson threat of a nuclear-armed Japan and South Korea is the clearest possible message that the U.S. is abandoning even the fig leaf of non-proliferation policy, and that the road to nuclear abolition, hard and long as it may be, is the only viable path.

  • Posted in Asian @as
  • Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Japanese and South Korean Nuclear Threat to China: A Tipping Point in East Asia?

Suzuki Yūichi (56) was born to a farming family in Namie, Fukushima in 1960. Namie was one of the areas most devastated by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, as well as the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011. Besides 565 deaths from the earthquake/tsunami, because the town was located within the 20 kilometer exclusion zone around the damaged nuclear power plant, the entire town was evacuated on March 12.

The government of Namie continued to operate in Nihonmatsu-city 39 kilometers from Namie. At the time of the nuclear accident, Mr. Suzuki was working in the Citizens’ Affairs Division of Namie and was immediately assigned to the Disaster Management Division established to assist citizens in finding missing family members, locating temporary housing, and evacuating families. Suzuki was subsequently responsible for decontamination efforts, return policies, and establishing clinics for prospective returnees. In the summer and the winter of 2016, I visited Namie with my colleagues Professor Yoshihiro Amaya of Niigata University and Yoh Kawano, a PhD candidate at UCLA, to interview Mr. Suzuki.

Mr. Suzuki contends that the majority of former residents of Namie are unlikely to return to the town even after the Japanese government lifts the restriction on residency in certain areas on March 31, 2017. Many families have already settled in new villages, towns and cities in and outside Fukushima and continue to fear internal radioactive exposure and other dangers associated with decommissioning the damaged reactors. As a city official who led decontamination efforts and return policy,

Suzuki remains skeptical of Japanese government programs for “reconstruction” or “revival” of the affected areas. He anticipates that the area will become a “no man’s land” after the elderly returnees pass away. Namie’s population was 21,400 at the time of the nuclear accident. He estimates that 10 percent or less will return. The interview is an important testament to the ongoing rift and dissonance between Tokyo and Fukushima over the policies and slogans of “reconstruction” and “return”. K.H.

Suzuki Yūichi, Photo by Kawano Yoh

***

Hirano: Mr. Suzuki, thank you for agreeing to do this interview. You have been promoting decontamination work as a town official until recently since the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

It is said that even after decontamination is completed, the radiation level will rise again. Do you think that “residents’ return (kikan, 帰還)” and “reconstruction (fukkō, 復興)” are possible under such conditions? For example, through experimental planting of rice and vegetables, the possibility of reviving agriculture has been explored in Namie. How many people do you think plan to return here to resume agriculture?

Suzuki: I used to work in the decontamination control division, and as far as I know from what I learned there, once decontamination work is completed, radiation levels should not return to the high levels prior to decontamination effort. However, I have heard various doctors voicing concerns about whether the dose rates, even after decontamination, have actually dropped to safe levels, so I personally feel uncertain about this although I am not a specialist in the field.1

I believe, however, that as long as radiation levels stay below 0.2 – 0.3 microsieverts per hour in Namie, there may not be much difference between the evacuation areas and Namie. In fact, in Nihonmatsu, where my family and I are now living, the radiation level is 0.2 or 0.1 and many people are living there.

Hirano: Some people claim that decontamination is not very effective.

Some evacuees from Namie currently living in my hometown in Ibaraki prefecture made a one-day trip to Namie last October, and were joined by a group of professors from Ibaraki University, who have been collecting and monitoring data on radiation doses in that area. They sampled soil in the area around one of the evacuees’ houses, which had been declared decontaminated. In some areas the level had dropped to the national and international standard (1 millisieverts per year or 0.23 microsieverts per hour), but in the backyard and in a forest area just behind the house, the radiation level was actually extremely high.2

The Japanese government has announced that it is lifting evacuation orders in the green and
orange zones on March 31, 2017. This image is taken from the website of Fukushima Prefecture.

Suzuki: It seems that it has not yet been completely decontaminated . Well, I have to say, we can’t decontaminate forest areas. That would require cutting down all the trees and then scraping up all the topsoil. Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to see any effect. But as far as areas around houses are concerned, all the soil has been stripped away, so the radiation level has dropped significantly. For example, my parents’ house is in a so-called “zone in preparation for lifting the evacuation order.” At first the radiation level was 3.0 microsieverts per hour, but after decontamination, it has dropped to less than 0.5.

Hirano: I see. But the entire contaminated region in Fukushima is richly forested– it’s all surrounded by forest, not just Namie. If it is impossible to decontaminate forest areas, it means that radioactive material could easily blow in from the forest, causing radiation levels to increase in decontaminated areas. Some residents say that the radiation level has in fact risen since the decontamination. So does it mean that decontamination is effective only in urban areas where there are few forests? In other words, there is a gap between places where decontamination has been working well and places where it has not.

Suzuki: It is okay in areas where the soil has been properly stripped away, but nobody has done anything in mountain areas behind homes(urayama, 裏山). We town officials have been asking the Ministry of the Environment to decontaminate such areas properly as well, since they are not just nameless wooded hills. Rather, they are Satoyama (里山), wooded areas surrounding people’s homes that are a part of their everyday lives. We’ve said that if we don’t decontaminate those areas we wouldn’t be able to bring people back home.

Houses in wooded areas (satoyama) are not decontaminated. Radiation levels remain high and residents are not allowed to return.

However, if we cut all of the trees down in order to decontaminate, we will lose water retention capacity, which could result in a natural disaster. So that’s another reason we can’t clean up mountains and forests. We have considered just asking people to stay away from forest areas. If you take a radiation dosimeter and find 0.2 in your garden and then that same dosimeter indicates 1.0 in another place higher up, you will have to acknowledge that you have a hotspot and stay away from it. People will have to make those judgments as they go about their lives.

Hirano: It sounds psychologically stressful, doesn’t it? We have to live our lives constantly telling ourselves it is okay here, but not there.

Suzuki: I know what you mean, but that is all we can do to deal with the Satoyama areas. And then there are rivers. Before the nuclear accident, we used to go to a river to pick up pebbles or take our kids there to play in the water, but the Ministry of the Environment doesn’t deal with rivers so they decided not to decontaminate rivers. They have not done anything to remove radiation from them. I’m talking rivers that have a levee on either side. Their reasoning probably is that once a river is flooded, it will be contaminated again. That is my guess. But rivers are also a part of everyday life, so we have been asking that they be properly decontaminated as well, but…

Hirano: Do they have a plan in place?

Suzuki: Probably not. I don’t think so.

Hirano: Well, so is your town planning to prepare for residents who return, such as setting up public signs for high radiation areas to warn people not to come close to those areas? Or is it something like ‘let’s leave it up to people’s “common sense” once they return home’?

Suzuki: I think it will likely be left up to their common sense. That’s why I believe it is necessary that schools give children radiation awareness training, so that they can learn how to avoid internal radiation exposure by measuring doses of what they eat, or they can learn to stay away from dangerous places where they live. Now, this is not limited to only Fukushima, but should apply to people throughout Japan.

Hirano: In other words, from now on this kind of so-called self-responsibility will become an essential part of life in Fukushima, won’t it? Later I would like to return to this topic and ask about education on the risks of nuclear power plants, and external and internal radiation exposure.

But I would like to ask you a little more about the “return policy”. When I interviewed you last summer, you mentioned that under the return policy probably less than 10% of residents would come back. Has your estimate changed?

Suzuki: No. It is about the same. Regarding the estimate, we briefly had a program called “special case overnight stay” (tokurei shukuhaku, 特例宿泊) to allow former residents to stay in Namie during the month of September for 26 days. The only participants after all were elderly couples and some single guys, who really wished to return. That was about it.

Namie town center. Decontamination work has been completed and the streets have been cleaned up. However, it is expected that most shops will not reopen. I saw about a dozen people preparing to move back during my visit to Namie in the winter of 2016.

Also we have begun a program called “preparatory overnight stay” (junbi shukuhaku, 準備宿泊) since November, which allows residents who notify us to stay in evacuation areas until the evacuation orders are permanently lifted. It is still going on, but the only participants in the program have been elderly couples. We have set up a temporary emergency clinic, but only the elderly couples, who participated in both programs, the special case overnight stay and the preparatory overnight stay, visit the clinic when they’re feeling sick.

We are building a medical facility now that will be opened once the evacuation order is lifted in Namie, but it will provide nothing beyond primary and secondary medical care, so we won’t have an actual inpatient facility. It means that anyone who needs to be admitted to a hospital, will have to go to a neighboring town, but these hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of doctors and nurses, so I am doubtful that they will be able to accept outside patients any time soon.

In my opinion, if you remain wherever you’ve evacuated to, you can always be admitted to a hospital and receive necessary medical care. I always tell people to think about these things before they decide to return home. The clinic doctor also explains this to his patients, but elderly couples really want to come back to Namie. The doctor believes they should individually decide. I ask them, “so after you return to Namie, what are you going to do if you feel sick and need to be hospitalized? You won’t have a place to go.” They say, ”I will go to a hospital in so-and-so town.” Then I ask, “what if they can’t admit you there? Even after you are discharged from a hospital, where are you going?” “I am going to a nursing home.”

But in reality, even the nursing homes are understaffed and unable to accept new patients. There are facilities, but there isn’t enough staff to run a facility and give adequate care.

When I ask what they are going to do, they have no concrete answers. They just have a vague idea about going there and maybe being admitted to a hospital. They just want to come back home. That is their strongest feeling. It seems that they just don’t want to stay where they have been since evacuation. That was the case of an elderly couple I dealt with recently.

Hirano: Had they been living in temporary housing for quite a while then?3

Suzuki: Yes. Also lack of employment opportunities for a generation of breadwinners is another reason why I think that less than 10% of evacuees will come back. In addition, many have children attending school in the places they evacuated to, so it is not possible to think about returning.

I had my children with me when the evacuation order came, and I ended up sending them to school in the town where we settled. As you know, I did it not because they wanted to change schools but because they had to. It is possible for my children to graduate from the schools they are currently attending. No matter how much you say that it’s safe, that it’s okay to go back, parents need to think about the considerable burden placed on children by switching schools, as this poses another risk to children.

Also it’s been almost six years since we were forced to leave our town. The reality is that children no longer have friends from Namie. This is the same with my children. All of their friends are the ones they met after we evacuated to Nihonmatsu, and once they go to high school, they only hang out with friends from their high school. At the time of the evacuation, one of my children was a 4th grader in elementary school, but she does not see any of her classmates from that time. She has no connection with other children from Namie. Even if you move back here, you will need to find a job, but there will be no employment other than reconstruction-related work.

Hirano: While we’re on that subject, would you say something about lifting the evacuation orders? I understand this applies only to limited areas of the town and not to the entire town.

Suzuki: Yes, the town is divided into three areas, the “zone in preparation for lifting the evacuation order,” “restricted residence area,” and “difficult-to-return zone.” This is divided according to radiation levels, and according to the government report submitted to the town, there are plans to lift evacuation orders in the first two zones sometime in March 2017. As for the third zone, the difficult-to-return zone, no plan has been announced.

Hirano: Does it mean that residents who have a house or property in the town except for the difficult-to-return zone, are allowed to return if they wish?

Suzuki: Yes, that is right.

Hirano: But as you mentioned earlier, even in the areas designated safe to return, various facilities, which returnees will need to restart their lives, are not in place yet, so they are likely to face multiple hardships. But if they choose to return no matter what, the municipal government will support them. Is this the current situation?

Suzuki: Yes. We have been working to restore infrastructure to its pre-earthquake and tsunami state. Concerning the water supply goes, restoration work is nearly complete, and the sewer system has been restored in areas where the evacuation orders are expected to be lifted to the point that we can operate, although I can’t say it is 100% yet.

Concerning infrastructure, a few businesses such as commercial and medical facilities, the post office, and a banking facility have resumed operation. One financial institution opened a branch office in Namie sometime last year, however it’s not as though everyone uses that one bank, so I don’t know what to say about that.

Hirano: A moment ago Mr. Kawano and I stopped by the temporary shopping arcade, which is set up next to the town hall. It houses 11 stores now, and we spoke with some of the owners. They are truly concerned about the prospects for their businesses. They believe that only a few will come back to town and that they won’t be able to sustain their businesses.

Right now they keep their stores open experimentally with financial support from the local government, but they know that the support won’t last forever. They seem to be struggling with the long-term prospects for their businesses. I wonder what the point of this trial exercise is without a prospect for the future.

Suzuki: Well, more than a trial exercise, it is rather to show people that there are at least places to buy food, hardware, daily commodities, dry cleaning. It is to show that we have a place to at least get basic necessities, though these stores are very small.

The prosperity of these stores will probably depend on how many people eventually move back. I don’t think evacuees will bother coming here all the way from where they are currently staying to go shopping. But when you drop in at Namie, as long as there is a convenience store, you can get almost everything, except for hardware. They have drinks, food, first-aid kits, laundry detergent and even cigarettes and some little luxury items. There are also some small restaurants, and I heard that they are the top-selling businesses. And the Lawson convenience store in the temporary shopping arcade carries a bit of fresh food.

I have a feeling that even the participants of the preparation stay program brought a lot of food with them when they came back. So among the 11 stores in the temporary arcade, I heard that only the restaurants have been successful. Instead of buying food and cooking, people will get a box lunch from a convenience store or order meals for home delivery. It seems that this is the current situation.

Kawano: The store owners at the shopping arcade I spoke to also said that considering the lack of enthusiasm for the movement to return in town, it is hard to believe that the evacuation orders will be lifted sometime in March here in Namie.

Suzuki: Yeah. We have some estimates that 500 or 1,000 residents might move back, but even if they do come back, they are likely to feel that they are the only ones or the only families living in Namie since they can’t expect to have many neighbors around them. Especially at night, you usually see lights on in every house by 7pm or 8pm, but you won’t be able to see that. So if you have next-door neighbors on both sides when you return, you might feel as if you’ve finally returned to your hometown, but the reality is that with people evacuated to locations all over the country, it is not easy to coordinate your return with other families.

The best way might be to move into public housing built for evacuees or disaster recovery public housing. All of the units might not be filled, but you would have some other families living in the same complex, so it might feel more reassuring.

But I don’t think it will be that easy. In fact, it has been a year since neighboring towns, such as Hirono-machi, Naraha-machi, and Odaka-ku of Minami Sōma, lifted their evacuation orders, but most evacuees who have returned are elderly people.4 Some of them have been encouraging others to return, something like “oh, so and so is back, so we should return, too.” Watching how those other towns are going, I feel it might be possible for some evacuees from Namie to decide to return home encouraged by their pioneering neighbors.

It is also true, however, that while such efforts are being made, some elderly evacuees will probably pass away in 10 or 15 years. Elementary or junior high school students at the time of evacuation will be almost in their 30s, won’t they? Namie will be just a place for a little bit of memory and nostalgia, “oh, I remember there used to be a house I used to live in when I was little,” but no more, no less. That’s why it will be extremely difficult to bring people back to town after all these years. I am not surprised at all if places like Namie-machi or Odaka-ku will become a “no man’s land” 20 or 30 years later.

Hirano: In Odaka-ku, where decontamination work has been completed, some farmers have begun experimentally planting a few crops and exploring the possibility of reviving agriculture. How many farmers are really thinking about returning to restart agriculture? How likely are they to be able to sell their rice or other crops once they prove to be free of radioactive substances? Also does the government have any plans to support these farmers?

Suzuki: In order to eliminate harmful rumors (fūhyō higai, 風評被害) against produce from Fukushima, the governor has been disseminating information about safety of food from Fukushima to the whole country. Our mayor has also been promoting safety of our produce by taking rice grown here to the Ministry of the Environment for testing.5

But the farmers participating in this test planting are all elderly people. After all, there are few young farmers in Namie, and the majority of people engaged in agriculture here are older people. Before the accident, their adult children used to help in the field as part-time farmers, but they had to abandon their fields due to the evacuation, and as a result they have ended up losing their connection with agriculture.

I believe those who want to come back and resume agriculture now will be mostly retired people, the elderly, so I am not sure how long they will be able to continue with agriculture considering they won’t have help from the younger generations. Even the younger people I am talking about here, who might consider returning to engage in agriculture, will probably be in their 50s, so I would say most farmers will be 75 or older.

Hirano: So it sounds like even if the experimental planting succeeds, these farmers are not actually pursuing an operation to make a living. Like the elderly couples you mentioned earlier, these farmers really want to return home and as long as they can grow enough to feed themselves, they will be happy.

Suzuki: That’s what I think. They feel terrible about leaving the land they inherited from their ancestors unattended for such a long time. The decontamination work has been completed, and all the weeds in their fields have been pulled. Now that their land is back to normal again, they probably want to at least cultivate it and harvest crops they can eat in the land their ancestors passed on to them.

Nemoto Sachiko and Kōichi run organic farms in Odaka of Minami Sōma. They moved back to their home as soon as the government took Odaka off the designated hazard zone in April 2012. The Nemoto family has been farming land here since the early 17th century. Kōichi has been working with researchers at Niigata University to grow rice and vegetables since 2012 and his crops have been confirmed free of radiation. Their neighbors and friends have not returned, and they think that they will not return. Photos by Yoh Kawano.

Of course, I cannot say for sure that they have no intention of earning income by selling their produce. I am sure it will make them happy if they can do so, but I don’t think that it will be a high priority in their mind right now.

Speaking of rice produced through test planting, as long as it is certified to be safe, it is can be sold in the market. It is true that the rice is tested on a bag-by-bag basis to ensure the radioactive cesium level does not exceed the limit, and the contaminated soil has been treated with zeolite. The deep plowing method has also been applied to the soil so that the upper layer soil can be replaced with a lower layer.

In my opinion, however, some radioactive substances still remain in the soil. It means it is possible that there are still some risks of farmers being exposed to radiation in their fields. Right now there is no technique that has been established to remove zeolite from the soil. The best way would be to scrape off the soil completely, but this would also remove the compost, which would probably affect soil fertility and crop growth. In fact, rice yields have decreased considerably compared to before the accident. So I guess we need to figure out how to deal with these problems associated agricultural land in the future.

Amaya: I believe it is very important to establish control measures to minimize radiation exposure to farmers.

Suzuki: I also think the government needs to properly communicate the risks, educating farmers about the risks caused by radiation instead of giving them a go-ahead based only on whether or not radioactive substances are detected in their produce. For example, before the accident it was not uncommon for them to roll up their trousers and enter a rice paddy barefooted if they needed to fix some small thing. But now they need to be advised to avoid doing so because radioactive substances may still remain in the soil. Although the level of airborne radioactivity has been reduced, it does not mean the substances have been completely removed. The radioactive compounds have been buried deeper in the soil by deep plowing and also remain with zeolites in the soil.

Amaya: What zeolite does is absorb radioactive cesium in the soil, so it makes crops less likely to absorb cesium, but as long as zeolites stay in the soil, radioactive substances will remain in the soil as well.

Hirano: Is there any way to remove zeolites from the soil?

Amaya: As far as I know, there is no way to remove zeolites that have absorbed radioactive cesium from the soil selectively or efficiently at low cost.

Hirano: The only option is to leave them in the soil.

Amaya: Some researchers have been trying to develop technology to remove radioactive cesium from zeolites. In fact, it is possible in principle to dissociate cesium absorbed into zeolites with acid, but you would need a lot of equipment to treat a large amount of soil, and a facility to store radioactive cesium. The cost for all of this might pose a big problem. Also during the process of dissociation, mineral nutrients in the soil are likely to be removed, so it might also become a problem when it comes to growing crops.

Hirano: That means that we have to remove all the soil, doesn’t it? It sounds like it may be extremely difficult to revitalize agriculture, which had been the mainstay of Fukushima.

Suzuki: Well, it won’t be easy for sure. First of all, we need to figure out how to solve the problem of manpower. I think we can recruit people, but as I have mentioned before, those who are interested in engaging in agriculture and actually have the agricultural skills to do it are mostly elderly people in their late 60s and 70s. It will be hard for them to remain active for the next 10 or 20 years. So the future of agriculture is an open question. I don’t think it will be easy to revive it.

Hirano: Namie has wonderful mountains and ocean, and before the nuclear accident, it was known as a place where you could harvest not only rice but any food you want. It used to be surrounded by rich, beautiful nature.

According to surveys of city dwellers before the accident, Fukushima was always one of the most ideal places to move to enjoy the country life in retirement. In your view, what had most attracted people to Namie before the disaster?

Suzuki: Well, to put it briefly, a lot of it is the rustic atmosphere. Namie is not really urban, but it’s not just a narrow-minded backwoods town, either. We have traditional crafts like Obori Soma ceramic ware, and both fishery and forestry were active. There were farmers who grew pears and other fruit. Rice, fish, fruits, seasonal foods like mushrooms and vegetables– all these were within our reach. Namie was a comfortable and easy place to live.

Hirano: All such things have been destroyed, haven’t they? That’s where things stand now in Namie.

Suzuki: That’s right. There is no doubt that the nuclear industry was one main factor that made this town prosperous. All the regions throughout Japan where nuclear power stations were located, were very poor. There was nothing to develop. This was true for Namie where Fukushima Daiichi (Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Station) and Daini (Fukushima No.2 Nuclear Power Station) are located.

But remember, we were always lectured with the myth of nuclear safety, and I was taught it since I was little. We visited the nuclear energy information center on a social studies school trip and learned about how it would work and how beneficial it would be, like how it could create energy at a low cost. I do not recall any discussion about radiation at all. That’s why we never thought it could cause such a danger.

That’s how we grew up here. It is also true that we had a low unemployment rate in this town because there were a quite a few people engaged in nuclear power-related work. Our tax revenue also had been going up, and the nuclear industry had promoted our local economies significantly. So economically the town and the industry maintained a mutually beneficial relationship.

Namie High School before the Nuclear Disaster

Hirano: So residents here had a very positive impression of the economic effect brought by the nuclear industry?

Suzuki: I think they did. At least I did.

Hirano: So while the safety myth had been accepted widely by residents, neither the central government nor TEPCO had explained anything about nuclear related risks.

Suzuki: No, they didn’t talk about risk. We were told that accidents could not happen.

Hirano: That means they didn’t explain that if an accident were to happen, how serious a disaster it could cause, or even how much of the community could be destroyed. Nothing like that at all…

Suzuki: I don’t think so. There is a PR facility nearby the power stations, and there might have been some kind of explanation concerning nuclear risks there, but I don’t remember it, even if they had anything. So I think probably not at all. This must be true for other communities with nuclear power plants nationwide.

Hirano: I agree with you. My hometown is close to Tokai-mura, and I heard the same thing from residents there, as well. This is probably how the safety myth spread through all these communities. The residents were told how it would bring positive economic effects and significant wealth to their community. That it’s nothing but a win-win situation. This was how they came to accept the nuclear power plants in their community. Was it the same in Namie?

Suzuki: Yes, I think it was the same here. At least that’s how I feel. I am 56 years old, and I was 50 at the time of the accident. I believed what they had told us.

I did not even realize that a cooling system failure could cause the kind of situation that it did. So at the time of evacuation, I imagined that the accident at the power plant would lead to an explosion, that is, an explosion like an atomic bomb. That was the image I had then about the accident.

However, at the time of the accident, plant workers I talked to said that the loss of power supply and the failure of cooling system in one unit would cause problems with all four units. They all said that. Obviously those who were engaged in the plant work knew so much more about radiation, such as the limit of radiation exposure, since they worked in a strict radiation-control environment. I am sure they had been educated well through numerous lectures about radiation.

I have a feeling that only a handful of officials in local government had knowledge about radiation at that time. I gradually learned all about how much exposure we received, and about radioactive substances Cesium 134, 137, Strontium, etc. I came to learn these things after the nuclear disaster. I had no knowledge whatsoever before then.

Hirano: Let me ask you some specific questions. What was the percentage of Namie residents who worked at TEPCO or its affiliated companies before the accident? You mentioned that the industry stimulated the local economy.

Suzuki: I would say at least 50% if we include all its subcontractors’ businesses, and factories, and all the companies below them. In fact, my uncle also ran a small subcontracting company, which was about two or three steps down from the general contractors. My uncle’s company dispatched workers, and he himself worked with them to make a living. So if we include all the businesses related to the TEPCO operation, such as catering, entertaining, and gift-giving, I would say at least 50% of residents here had worked for TEPCO and related industries.

Hirano: I would guess that many companies located in Namie relied heavily on TEPCO.

Suzuki: I think many of them did. I can’t give you an exact proportion, but many businesses were affiliated with TEPCO.

Hirano: I would like to ask about the return policy. Are there are any discrepancies between plans at the national, prefectural, and local level regarding the policies for “residents’ return” and “reconstruction”?

Suzuki: My feeling is that right after the disaster, the central government was willing to listen to us and to try to help with whatever we needed, but recently I feel that they have turned everything toward lifting the evacuation orders.

Their attitude is “we’ve heard you enough, and we’ve dealt with you enough during the concentrated reconstruction period. (2011~2015) What else do you want? More money?” You might remember a cabinet member (Ishihara Nobuteru) saying, “the bottom line is they want money.”6

The government should just contribute money – this was the feeling I got. I understand that it isn’t that easy for them to dispatch officials to a local government at the spur of a moment just because we had an emergency and needed more people and help. I know the central government hires many officials as needed, so it is hard to deal with our request for more people to handle the extra work related to the evacuation.

However, it is easier to provide funds to the disaster-stricken areas. That’s why they had such strong preferences for coming up with a budget rather than sending staff.

Also I feel that people who haven’t been the victim of a disaster, including politicians and bureaucrats, won’t be able to understand the predicament of the evacuees who were forced to flee. Here we thought that victims of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake of 1995 must have resumed normal lives after a few years of living in temporary housing.7 To me that was just something that happened far away in the Kansai area. Unless you experience it yourself, it’s difficult to understand what it’s really like.

Hirano: What the media has been saying is that for Namie, in particular, after lifting its evacuation orders, full-scale reconstruction can begin. I feel that what the Japanese government is trying to do is to send the message that the nuclear crisis in Fukushima has been finally settled. The government believes that it is necessary to do so in order to create an image of Japan rising like a phoenix from the ashes at the Tokyo Olympics of 2020. That’s what it hopes to achieve by putting aside the thorny predicament of more than 100,000 evacuees and the difficulty of rebuilding communities.

I don’t feel that the Japanese government is looking at reality from the standpoint of the locals. That’s why they simply can’t accept how much the pre-accident life in Namie has fundamentally been destroyed, as you described earlier, and that, even for residents wishing to return, the current situation here is far from ready for them to come back and that there is no way to fix the situation. Mr. Suzuki, how do you feel about this sense that the government has conveyed that the situation in Fukushima is now under control, that reconstruction has been going well, and the return policy has been successful?

Suzuki: Well, I don’t think it will be possible for the reconstruction to be completely finished even 100 years from now. We can say the reconstruction is 100% complete only when everything has been restored to the way it used to be before the evacuation. But of course, there is no way to really restore the life we had before.

So I don’t think 100% reconstruction will be possible, but I think it would be nice if each family passes on its own stories of what Namie used to be like from generation to generation, from mothers and fathers to sons and daughters, and to their children, including lessons of what we learned from this nuclear accident. In fact, some NPOs and other organizations have been working hard to facilitate events so that stories about Namie may continue into the next generation.

Also, since the budget from the central government won’t last forever, I think they want to lift the evacuation order to continue the next step of settling the other remaining issues in the next few years. Considering the fact that money comes from limited financial resources and the burden falling on taxpayers, I understand the situation even from the standpoint of a beneficiary.8

The most important thing we need to do, I think, is to figure out how to support evacuees who are struggling to put their lives back together. More than people like me who have been able to keep a job, I’m concerned about people without jobs and unable to work because of various health issues, and those who have lost their homes to the earthquake or tsunami and have no place to return to and no idea what to do.

They have managed to live so far with the compensation they receive from TEPCO for mental stress, but it is vital now more than ever to think about how to financially support these people.9 For example, instead of giving the same flat amount of financial support to all evacuees, we need to establish a system to grant support based on individual needs and circumstances. Unfortunately it is true that there are some who are not willing to support themselves even though they are capable, and are using the compensation to lead an idle life.

We appreciate the compensation since those who have been affected by the disaster have been suffering mental distress, but I think the time has come to reach out to and focus on the people in real need of help. Those capable of working should get jobs and stand on their own feet.

Hirano: So you think it is necessary and important to carefully differentiate individual needs and give assistance and support on a case-by-case basis.

Suzuki: Yes, I believe so.

Hirano: Have there been any discussions about this between the central and local governments?

Suzuki: No. Well, as the local government, I think it is very difficult to pursue. There will be residents who will complain, “so you are going to cut our compensation. You are going to abandon us. We are all residents of this town.” We will have to deal with problems like this, so it’s not going to be easy. I think it would be difficult for the local government to carry out such a policy.

If it is really true that it is now safe to return and restart life, as the central government has said, I believe they should come up with a policy to encourage people to return by creating employment in Namie. If they do and provide job opportunities, I do think that more people would come back.

The best way to do so would be, I think, for the Japanese government to build national facilities in the evacuation areas, in Namie and elsewhere. Then former residents will be assured that the government decision to build indicates the safety of the area. But in reality there no government facilities have been built in this town. Since the accident, not a single facility has been built here. That leads residents to think that it is still not safe to live here, especially with Fukushima Daiichi not yet decommissioned. They feel that the absence of government facilities confirms this.

Hirano: It makes sense. If the central government insists that it is safe to return, if Prime Minister Abe’s pledge that Fukushima is under control is true, they need to take the initiative to show people that in fact it is now a safe place to live. Otherwise residents won’t be convinced.

Suzuki: Exactly. They should buy land from the town and actively start building government facilities to conduct research or to work on developmental plans. They should build housing for national government employees. Residents would then be reassured. I am not sure if it has something to do with evacuation orders or instructions, but right now there is a branch office of the Ministry of the Environment in Minami Soma city, far north of our town. The nearest office to the south is in Hirono town.

Hirano: In addition, as you mentioned before, it is also important to implement policies to educate people about the risk of nuclear power. In order to achieve that, both the central government and TEPCO need to end their cover-up culture. They need to explain all the possible risks to residents who wish to return, and let them decide. Is that what Namie town local government hopes to do for its residents?

Suzuki: Yes, exactly. Part of what we call “risk communication” (risukomi,リスコミ) is, in a way, to give people some “negative” information. The government has been reluctant to pursue this, but it is crucial for people to be informed of any risks even if it has a potential negative impact on them, so that they can make their own decisions. We had been fed only positive information, but if something bad happens, we will know what to expect.

But as long as the reconstruction plans come from a Tokyo-centric perspective, Namie will have neither hopes nor dreams. As I’ve said many times, the only people coming back to town are elderly. Without young people, I believe, a town can’t be revived and reconstructed. The current policy seems to focus on merely bringing back people, but unless government can recreate a safe environment for young people, including children, beginning with complete decontamination, it’s hard to see any future. I’m not even sure, to be honest with you, if it’s possible to actually create a safe environment. Remember, it was the central government that told us that it would take responsibility to decontaminate and reconstruct.

For the local government that was forced to evacuate, it would have been much better and less stressful if we had been told not to live in this area for, say, the next thirty years and to find some other place to start a new life. They could have given us some money to cover initial cost of moving and later compensation for losses. That way, we could transfer our resident certificates to a new town and receive full public services and benefits like other residents there. It would have been much better financially, as well.9

But the central government that took the initiative to promise that it would take full responsibility for decontamination and would bring us back to our hometowns. That’s why I believe it should put itself in the position of evacuees and take responsibility for what they are supposed to do to the end, instead of relying on the power of money.

Hirano: The evacuation orders will be lifted at the end of March 2017. This interview has revealed that there is still much more work to be done and many problems to resolve, and that the prospect for the future still remains unclear. It also gave us a chance to think again about for whom and for what the policies and slogans of “reconstruction” and “return” exist. We greatly appreciate your valuable time and opinion.

Notes

1In April 2013, two years after the disaster, the Japanese government changed the limit of radioactive exposure dose from one milli-sievert per year (mSv/yr) or 0.23 micro-sievert per hour (μSv/h) to 20 mSv/yr or 3.8 μSv/h. This standard was roughly 6 times higher than that for “Radiation Controlled Areas.” The Labor standards act prohibits those under the age of 18 from working under these conditions. This new standard has been used only in Fukushima for determining evacuation zones as well as school grounds, buildings, and residential areas. The policy of zoning left (607) 743-2421out over 260 “spots” in areas such as Minami Sōma-city, Date-city, and Kōzu-village whose radiation levels exceeded 20 mSv/yr. The government initially announced that the new standard would be used as an emergency measure and soon be lifted. Contrary to this announcement, however, 20 mSv/yr has virtually become the new standard for safety measure and return policies.

On December 28, 2014, the Japanese government removed 142 areas in the city from the list, noting that annual radiation exposure had fallen below the 20 mSv/yr threshold. On April 17, 2015, some 530 residents of Minami Sōma filed a lawsuit demanding that the government revoke a decision to remove their districts from a list of radiation hot spots. This decision meant the ending of their entitlement to receive support in the form of subsidized medical treatment and “consolation” money. The plaintiffs argued that by international standards, the upper limit for radiation exposure was 1 mSv/yr, and thus the government’s decision to delist the hot spots based on a 20 mSv/yr standard betrayed its responsibility for protecting the safety of citizens. The government insisted that its decision was based on scientific findings.

The government is now carrying out the return policies based on the same rationale. Evacuees who have lived in areas that are under 20 mSv/yr and expressed concerns about safety are regarded as “voluntary” and thus can receive very little financial support and compensation. With the lifting of evacuation orders in parts of Namie, Ōkuma, Iitate, and Tomioka at the end of March, 2017, they will not be allowed to stay in temporary housing. Even those who were originally ordered to evacuate will be considered “voluntary” after March 31, losing Fukushima prefecture’s financial aid for housing. Many critics refer to the government’s return policy as “forced return policy” as well as “kimin seisaku” or the “policy of abandoning people.” See more details, Hino Kōsuke, Genpatsu Kimin (原発棄民), (Tokyo: Mainichi News Press, 2016).

2When I visited Namie in the summer of 2016 with a group of researchers of Niigata University, the radiation level in some backyards and a forest area ranged from 5~10 microsieverts per hour.

3In 2012, Fukushima prefecture promised to build “reconstruction public housing” (fukkō kōei jūtaku, 復興公営住宅) in Iwaki-city, Minami Sōma-city, and Fukushima-city for evacuees. The temporary housing (kasetsu jūtaku, 仮設住宅) was originally expected to be in use only for 2 years until the construction of public housing. But due to central government hesitation to implement this plan as well as the increase in the cost of construction materials and worker outflow from Fukushima to Tokyo for the 2020 Olympics, the construction of the public housing was delayed and over 30,000 people are still living in the temporary housing. As reported in many media outlets, the conditions of temporary housing are far from desirable. The walls are paper-thin, and apartments are small. Furthermore, about 50,000 people are either living with relatives or renting apartments, unable to find new homes. According to the 2015 survey conducted by Fukushima prefecture, 62.1% of the 80,000 evacuees have health problems. 61.6 % are worried about the wellbeing of their families and themselves, 43.2% about their housing, 42.7% about their mental conditions, and 39.0% about the uncertain future and financial problems. When I interviewed evacuees from Namie at one of the temporary housing sites in Nihonmatsu, they expressed similar concerns. Now, with the lifting of evacuation orders, they will be forced to decide whether to return to their hometowns or find a new home within or outside Fukushima.

4Hirono-town is about 20 kilometers from Fukushima-Daiichi. The Japanese government lifted the evacuation order in 2015. As of 2017, 2,897 out of 5,490 people have returned. Naraha-town is 16 kilometer from Fukushima-Daiichi and the evacuation order was lifted in September, 2015. 767of 8,011 Haraha residents have retuned to the town. Odaka-ku of Minami Sōma-city is also 16 kilometers from Fukushima Daiichi. The order was lifted in July, 2016. 1,329 of 12,842 Odaka-ku returned to the area.

5The so-called “damages created by rumors” have become a major point of political contention since the nuclear disaster. Many farmers and businesses, not only in relatively unaffected areas of Fukushima but in other prefectures in northeastern Japan, have suffered substantial financial loss due to widespread concerns about being exposed to radiation. On the other hand, Liberal Democratic Party politicians and conservative media outlets have used the “rumor-caused damage” charge to silence criticism, warning against discussion of the real danger of external and internal radioactive exposure. Residents of Fukushima continue to live under the pressure of being accused of encouraging rumor-caused damage even though their concerns are legitimate and their efforts to raise awareness about radiation should be taken very seriously. Some right-wing internet bloggers call those who raise concerns about radiation “unpatriotic” or “anti-Japanese.”

6Ishihara Nobuteru, a son of former Tokyo mayor Ishihara Shintaro, then Minister of the Environment, made the infamous remark in June, 2014 during a Q and A session at the House of Councilors with regard to slow progress in persuading towns and villages to build intermediate nuclear waste storage facilities.

7The Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake occurred on January 17, 1995 in the southern part of Hyogo prefecture, Japan. It measured 6.9 on the earthquake magnitude scale, claiming 6,434 lives, most of which were in Kobe, a major urban center with a population of 1.5 million.

8In 2016, the Abe administration has decided to use taxpayer money for decontaminating affected areas in Fukushima. The decision marks a fundamental shift from the current policy that obliges TEPCO to pay for the decontamination work.  The 2017 decontamination work is estimated to cost 30 billion yen. Behind the adminstration’s decision for the use of taxpayer money is the rapidly expanding expense of decontamination, with the latest estimate rising from the original 2.5 trillion yen to 4 trillion. This estimate does not include the no-return zones. The government expects the planned work in those areas to cost roughly 300 billion yen over five years. The Abe administration’s decision not only increase people’s financial burden but also blur TEPCO’s responsibility for the irretrievable damages it caused.

9Each person receives from 100,000 to 120,000 yen per month as compensation for mental anguish in addition to compensation for the loss that varies significantly. The former compensation will end in 2018.

10As stated in note 2, the Japanese government was reluctant to support the building of “reconstruction public housing.” This was mainly because it was concerned that this would slow the return of evacuees to their hometowns and home villages. Hino Kōsuke writes in Genpatsu Kimin that Tokyo’s reluctance indicates it is prioritizing the return policy over respecting evacuees’ needs and concerns. Suzuki Yūichi’s statement here expresses the same view.

  • Posted in Asian @as
  • Comments Off on Reconstruction Disaster: The Human Implications of Japan’s Forced Return Policy in Fukushima

While the Trump presidency is mired in chaos, another national leader, also accused of being a fascist, is solidifying his rule of the Philippines.

Rodrigo Duterte was elected president of the Southeast Asian island nation in May 2016 and remains popular. A January 2017 poll showed he enjoyed a trust rating of “excellent” among voters. He has also wiped out his political opposition. Since last year’s election, virtually all Liberal Party lawmakers have joined the president’s ruling Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) in congress, giving Duterte complete control over the national legislature.

Remarkably, Duterte has also co-opted the Communist Party (the dominant section of the left), which has joined his government and been given cabinet posts. Unlike Trump, however, Duterte calls himself a socialist and came into office on a social reform platform, railing against the elite (represented by the Liberals). He pledged to wipe out corruption, poverty, and drug trafficking and addiction, but so far has only focused on the last issue, resulting in the horrific extrajudicial killings by police of more than 7,600 people, most of them low-level drug sellers and users (methamphetamines are the main drugs consumed in the country).

At the end of January, Duterte removed the police from the drug war after drugs squad officers killed a South Korean businessman. But he promptly handed the responsibility to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), to be supported by the military. The drug war has been widely criticized, including by the United Nations and the United States government, which has dominated the Philippines since 1898. Duterte famously reacted to U.S. criticism by calling former president Obama’s a “son of a bitch” and telling him to “go to hell.” Duterte cancelled joint military exercises with the U.S. and has reoriented the Philippines’ main alliance toward China. It is a sea change for his nation and a significant defeat for U.S. policy in Asia.

Like Trump, Duterte is a braggart. He has even boasted about personally killing drug dealers in the city of Davao when he was mayor—a statement designed to encourage police to do the same on levels the president likened to the number of Jews murdered in the Second World War. During his election campaign in 2016, Duterte made an even more shocking remark when he said he “should have been first” in a gang rape and killing of an Australian missionary during a prison uprising in Davao in 1989, while he was mayor.

***

Walden Bello, a former member of the Philippines’ House of Representatives and leading analyst of national politics, wrote last May that he thought Duterte’s comment was “a fatal mistake” for his election chances. But much like Trump’s comments about women, the outrageous quip ended up having little effect on the soon-to-be-president’s popularity. Bello, a professor of sociology at both the University of the Philippines and the State University of New York at Binghamton, ran unsuccessfully for senator in that election as an independent. He respresented the leftist Akbayan (Citizen’s Action) Party for six years in congress.

Bello says he believes Duterte is in the process of setting up a fascist dictatorship.

The president “uses the war on drugs, not so much to solve the drugs problem, but to further an authoritarian agenda, to gain total and undisputed control,” he tells me. “We are talking about a fascist regime, which is an extraordinary response to the crisis of the system, but which does not replace the system itself. I use ‘extraordinary’ here to mean not business-as-usual politics.”

According to Bello, the Philippine system is in “deep structural crisis.” Duterte is to that crisis what Roosevelt was to the crisis of U.S. capital in the 1930s, and what Hitler was to the crisis of German capital at that time. In this case it stems from “the failure of the liberal democratic order to deliver popular empowerment and the wealth redistribution” promised when the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship was replaced in 1986.

“Popular anger and alienation from this failed project was what catapulted Duterte to power in an electoral insurgency. He combined the image of a strongman who would get rid of the ‘national chaos’ and a ‘socialist’ who would discipline the elite, though he does not seem to understand what socialism is.”

Bello points out that 40 of the richest families in the Philippines control most of the country’s wealth and the media. This semi-feudal ruling oligarchy includes a landowning elite that monopolizes vast swathes of land in the countryside, causing massive landlessness and poverty among peasants and small farmers, which has given rise to both a communist and a religious (Muslim) insurgency.

According to figures released by the Philippines Statistics Authority in March 2016, more than 26.3% of the population was poor in 2015. The land-owning elite has dominated the centres of power in the capital Manila since independence in 1946, noted Barry Desker, from the Nanyang Technological University, in a June 2016 column, adding Duterte is the first president that does not belong to this elite.

However, now that the Philippine elite is allied with Duterte it is unlikely the president will move against their interests by engaging in significant wealth redistribution, especially not critically needed land reform.

“That makes social reform very difficult,” says Bello. “And indeed, no reform has taken place and none seems to be in the offing. But this is not because Duterte does not have the space for reform. It is that he has entrusted the key levers of the economy (the ministries of finance, trade, industry, planning and the budget) to neoliberal technocrats who are very status quo oriented, while he focuses on the anti-crime campaign, which he admits is the only expertise he has.”

Duterte has given Communist Party–affiliated cabinet members control over the ministries of social welfare and agrarian reform, but these agencies are “very weak relative to the finance, trade, industry, planning and budget ministries,” says Bello. Still, he adds, the president’s alliance with the elites does not make him their instrument.

“I would even say that many factions of the elite are behaving towards Duterte like small merchants towards the mafia, that is, to buy protection.”

***

In his 10 months in office, Duterte has transformed not only Philippine politics but also the country’s international alliances, to the extent of upending Asian geopolitics. For more than a century, the Philippines has been a colony and then a neocolony of the United States, hosting two large U.S. military bases that made the country one of Washington’s two “unsinkable aircraft carriers in the Pacific” (the other is Japan), according to Conn Hallinan, an analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus, a project of the Washington, D.C.–based Institute for Policy Studies.

In October, Duterte went on a state visit to China where he told his hosts:

“I announce my separation from the United States both in military, not maybe social, but economics also.  America has lost. I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to (President Vladimir) Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way.”

The Philippines and China have competing claims in the South China Sea, but Duterte has put this issue aside.

“The move [toward China] by Duterte reflects a growing understanding in Asia that China is on the way up and the U.S.—while still the most powerful military force on the planet—is in decline,” says Hallinan.

He quotes a CIA study claiming that by 2023, Asia will have surpassed North America and Europe in GDP, population size, military spending and technological investments. By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population will reside in Asia, 7% in Europe and 5% in the U.S. “Those are the demographics of eclipse,” says Hallinan.

Duterte recognizes that China is the leading trade partner for Japan, South Korea, Australia, Vietnam and India, and the third largest for Indonesia and the Philippines, adds Hallinan.

“Putting the South China Sea disputes on the back burner not only reflects an understanding of this reality, but also a well-founded fear that there could be a military confrontation between China and the U.S. in the region.”

More than 400 of the 800 U.S. military bases around the world are in Asia. In another embarrassment for the Trump administration, a 2016 video recently surfaced in which Steve Bannon, a top political advisor to Trump, claims “We’re going to war in the South China Sea” in the next 10 years. Trump began his tenure by questioning the “One China” policy, and his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, threatened to block China from accessing its chain of bases in the South China Sea. “The first would mean a break in diplomatic relations and the second, war,” Hallinan warns. Trump has since backtracked on both issues, reducing tensions, but “a serious danger of war remains.”

Because war could easily go nuclear—NATO maintains the right to initiate a nuclear first strike, China had an estimated 260 warheads in 2015, and North Korea continues to flout a missile test ban—Asian countries are “trying to avoid anything that might lead to a military clash,” adds Hallinan.

“In that sense, the action of the Philippines is a boost for China. If war is avoided, in the long run, China will replace the U.S. as the major power in the Western Pacific.”

Asad Ismi is the CCPA Monitor’s international affairs correspondent. He has written extensively on Asia and U.S. imperialism. His latest radio documentary  Women: The Oppressed Majority, has been aired on 60 radio stations in the U.S., Canada and Europe. For his publications visit www.asadismi.info (under construction). 

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on The Philippines and The Political Regime of President Rodrigo Duterte

India has strained relations with virtually all of its neighbors. India functions as the modern Asian imperialist. All of India’s neighbors will have dossiers of issues related to incursions, interventions, interferences and covert operations to relate about India. Raising concerns about India’s security issues, India deems it can dictate how its neighbors should function and India makes use of its powerful status to prevail over countries less powerful than itself. The economic, cultural, military engagements by India has no other purpose than to create ‘protectorates’ out of India’s neighbors to function according to India’s dictates. Having acquired strategic positioning and established joint ventures and control over strategic assets of these countries, it translates to India vesting control over these areas with no say by the host nation. 

Sri Lanka is another victim of India’s covert operation. Have we forgotten India’s role in passing the pillow of the separatist struggle from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka using Tamil militancy with a dual role to destabilize Sri Lanka? Armed militancy was created by India, clandestinely training Sri Lankan Tamil youth, arming and funding them and then using selected members as Indian agents (Kittu, Mahaththaya). India drew up the bogus Indo-Lanka Accord fictitiously creating the homeland myth and merging two provinces so it could vest control over the Trincomalee harbor. Indian illegal immigrants have been flooding Sri Lanka freely and LTTE too claimed 37% of its fighters were Indian. India even forced Sri Lanka to change its constitution and introduce the 13a and the provincial council system which the racist Tamil leaders are using to demand federal system of governance a step ahead of separation as virtually all these leaders are controlled by the Indian establishment proven by the fact that they regularly visit India and Indian officials regularly dictate their demands. 

This painful past should entail Sri Lanka to learn lessons and be cautious of India’s every motive however ‘friendly’ it is packaged. 

Why is the government drawing up a series of secretive documents that is virtually handing over the country to India? There is news that India is to be given the gas plant in Kerewalapitiya and joint venture with Ceypetco and Trinco Tank farm, to develop the Trincomalee port, to set up a power plant in Sampoor, India to be given industrial zones in Western province, developing the Dambulla-Trinco road as well as developing the Northern roads, Mannar-Jaffna and Mannar-Trincomalee, India to undertake Hydrographic Survey of Sri Lanka, efforts to divide Sri Lanka’s military and have it coordinating with India, ministers of the Sri Lankan government were also seen openly mooting the idea of handing over Sri Lanka’s Ports to India to develop, who gives a countries port to an enemy and a competitor? India to supply helicopters to Sri Lanka ..now that might not be such a bad idea given the failure rate and if these are assigned to only VVIP travels. 

Now just look at the scenario of India being given the Trinco habor and India building road and rail network from Mannar cutting across to Trincomalee together with the direct road link from India to Sri Lanka and what does this spell out to you? Does it not mean that India has strategically cut off entire North from the South across Mannar direct to Trincomalee and there is no requirement of a re-merger by adopting this method? It is a Sudan-South Sudan like creation economically and we wonder whether the fools in the Sri Lankan government in particular the officials who are drafting these MOUs cannot see the long term repercussions for Sri Lanka. Or are they too working in the interest of India not Sri Lanka? These are detrimental and dangerous deals that Sri Lanka should not make. 

To understand the nature of the danger, it is good to look at the record of India’s treatment of all of its neighbors when India controls resources and when India deems nations are not following India’s dictates. These examples are good enough to deal with India at arms length and with caution for India has never shown itself to be a true friend at any time for any of its neighbors other than for its own convenience and its own agendas. 

The British Empire after over 300 years of colonial rule created India by cobbling independent princely states and territories and gave it independence in 1947 together with Pakistan. The division was another divide and rule outcome contributing to much bloodshed and animosity. The Jammu-Kashmir issue is also a British created legacy. However, the Indian crimes in Kashmir has been documented but nothing done about them. International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-Administered Kashmir (IPTK) released a scathing report against the rape of Kashmiri women by the Indian forces. More than 10,000 women are said to have been raped. Kashmir Media Service report there are 107,000 orphaned children and 22,764 widowed women in Kashmir. This calls to mind the 3000 rapes by IPKF soldiers in Sri Lanka. Kashmir’s population is just 1million but there are over 300,000 Indian troops and officers stationed.  Since 1990, nearly 100,000 Kashmiris including women and children have been killed. This is the same India that is sponsoring resolutions against Sri Lanka for accountability and its external minister is claiming that India feels ‘pain and anguish’ about the Tamil people. What about the Kashmiris that the Indians are violating?

It was only in 2016 that the Indian PM said that he had a task force placed to cut off water to Pakistan. It raised the question whether India is planning to revoke the 1960 Indus Water Treaty that shares waters of 6 rivers between Pakistan and India. 

The same Indira Gandhi who trained Sri Lanka’s Tamil militants also trained Mukti Bahini guerilla fighters to divide Pakistan and create Bangladesh in 1971. In the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Brigadier Uban sent in Indian soldiers or rather CIA-trained, Indian-funded Tibetans who were under the direct command of RAW’s legendary spymaster Rameshwar Kao. The main purpose of creating RAW in 1968 was to organize covert operations in Bangladesh. Just as India failed to honor the IPKF soldiers who were killed in Sri Lanka by the very men India trained, India has conveniently forgotten to honor the RAW officers who helped with the covert operation. We can only guess how many Indian intelligence officials are placed inside India’s neighbors.

Indira Gandhi announced, “Dacca is now the free capital of a free country.” The plan was to also annex Sri Lanka to India using Tamil militancy. After Bangladesh was given independence, it was a case of Bangladesh having to remain eternally ‘grateful’ to India for making it ‘free’. Was Bangladesh truly ‘free’ or did India now ‘control’ Bangladesh and is this the same outcome likely to result from the tomfoolery of Sri Lanka’s leaders. However, learning lessons from Bangladesh where India had to deal with security and water issues, India is now making sure that India wrests control over Sri Lanka’s entire gamut of chokepoints placed well in India’s favor to control as and when required. 

Of late, 7 years after the defeat of the LTTE, the Indian are now claiming to have had a role in the LTTE’s defeat and the killing of Prabakaran. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s Awami League who promised autonomy and who sought Indian help but later began to distance from Indian contacts was assassinated with his whole family except daughter. Glaring similarities to how India initially assisted Prabakaran who later went on to distance himself from India.

Immediately after the January 2015 election, it was apparent that the Indians had played a major role in bringing about regime change even deciding on the candidate to contest. In 2013 just before Bhutan’s elections India cut off its longstanding cooking gas and kerosene subsidies (amounting to 50 crore) to Bhutan resulting in price hikes and clearly meant to influence Bhutans elections against the incumbent PM and his party (DPT). What did the Bhutan PM do wrong by India? He had talks with Chinese PM and had agreed to expand relations without obtaining India’s ‘permission’. Rajapakse’s closeness with the Chinese became the reason for his eventual regime change at elections just as Bhutan PM also lost. It showed that Indian presence on the ground and among political parties in foreign nations could bear dangerous consequences. Immediate after elections India restored the withdrawn subsidies! Giving India an economic stranglehold over internal affairs is committing to strangling one’s citizens. Does the Ranil-MS administration not understand this much? It would be interesting to know how many of Sri Lanka’s politicians are in the pocket of India and being used on and off as puppets when India decides! This is not what the Indian public would want its government to be doing. But how many Indians are aware of the interventions and interferences India regularly commits upon all of its neighbors and then cries foul at anti-Indian sentiments?

How ‘friendly’ were the treaties of ‘friendship’ India signed with Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan between 1949 to 1950? Let us not forget how India merged Sikkim in 1975. More recently, when Nepal refused to change provisions in its new constitution (7 clauses to be exact) India blocked essentials entering Nepal through India’s borders. The situation was such that China had to send 1.3 million liters of gasoline plus other essentials. India did the same in 1989 forcing Nepal into submission. 

Do we in Sri Lanka want to invite the same trouble? With over 95% of Bhutan’s trade being in the hands of India, Bhutan cannot afford to do anything to anger India. Bhutan has just 750,000 population but the Indian military presence is overwhelming. In short, Bhutan cannot do anything without the permission of India. Do you call that a sovereign nation? Bhutan remains ‘sovereign’ so long as Bhutan adheres to India. To test this, all Bhutan needs to do is to invite a Chinese delegation to Bhutan to see how India would react and the reaction would be detrimental to the Bhutanese people. Is this what we want happening to us in Sri Lanka?

Remember November 1988 when LTTE invaded Maldives? India sent 1600 troops by air. However, during this time period LTTE was very much in control of India.

Both Nepal and Maldives have shown resistance to India’s interference something Sri Lanka’s leaders have been shy to do other than President Premadasa who unceremoniously sent the IPKF packing back to India and refused to be present at the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987. In 2015 Maldivian President told visiting Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj that his government would not be dictated to and India should refrain from interfering in Maldivian domestic affairs. The same Indian minister recently made an open threat at Sri Lanka and not a single statement of disappointment has been issued against the Indian Government by the Sri Lankan leaders.   

The present government came to power with the connivance of many players unbeknownst to the majority voters. Yet 62lakhs placed faith in them to govern the country believing that they would do better than the former regime. Signing secret MOUs virtually handing over Sri Lanka to a neighbor that has a history of covert interference and intervention as its foreign policy is committing hara kiri and subjecting the nation and the people to gross injustices tantamount to betraying the nation. Let us remind the present government that Sri Lanka has a proud history of withstanding foreign oppression and every time the country fell into the hands of the enemy it was due to our own people handing over the country to them. We are wondering whether this government too is planning to enter that list of traitors.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Why is Sri Lanka Granting India Control Over Our National and Energy Security?

THAAD Will Not Protect South Korea

April 2nd, 2017 by Hyun Lee

Elderly women held up signs reading “Illegal THAAD, back to the U.S!” as they marched, leaning on walking frames for support. 

Soseong-ri, their small village in South Korea, has become the center of a fight that could lay the groundwork for U.S.-Korean relations under Seoul’s next government. On Mar. 18, 5,000 people from across South Korea gathered in the village to protest the controversial deployment of the U.S.’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system.

In July 2016, the US and South Korean governments announced plans to deploy the THAAD system in Seongju County, North Gyeongsang Province. But due to staunch opposition from local residents, the location was revised to a nearby golf course owned by the South Korean corporation Lotte, nestled between Soseong-ri in Seongju County and the city of Gimcheon.

Since Lotte handed its land over to the South Korean Ministry of National Defense on Feb. 27, Soseong-ri, just three kilometers from the golf course, has become the front line in the fight against the missile system. The deployment has already begun and the South’s defense ministry will soon transfer the land to United States Forces Korea (USFK).

Residents of Seongju and nearby Gimcheon have vowed to reverse the deployment.

A “Peace Walk” in opposition to THAAD took place near the former Lotte Skyhill Seongju Country Club, the missile deployment site, on Mar. 18. 

Missile Defense Is No Defense

THAAD, made by the U.S. weapons firm Lockheed Martin, stands for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. It consists of a radar, used to surveil the missile activity of so-called enemy countries and detect incoming missiles, and interceptor missiles, which — in theory — can be launched to shoot down incoming missiles in mid-air.

The THAAD deployment in South Korea is supposed to counter threats from the North, but it is not unique. The U.S. has missile defense systems installed all over the world, mainly in Eastern Europe and Asia, and it is clear from their locations that their deployments are aimed at creating a network surrounding China and Russia.

If two adversarial countries have nuclear weapons, neither will attack the other, because it fears retaliation in the form of a nuclear counter-attack. Picture two people holding guns to each others’ heads. If one shoots first, the other will shoot back, and vice versa. The result is a perpetual standoff. This is known as mutually assured destruction, and proved an effective form of deterrence between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War.

But to return to our analogy: If one gunman renders the other unable to fire, nothing deters him from pulling the trigger of his own gun. This is the ultimate aim of missile defense — to gain first strike advantage by removing the enemy’s ability to retaliate.

U.S. missile defense systems are dangerous precisely because they enable a preemptive nuclear strike. This is why some argue that such systems are, in fact, offensive. It is also why, in 1972, the US and the Soviet Union signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty), which limited the development of missile defense systems by both countries. But in 2002, after thirty years of relative stability guaranteed by mutually assured destruction, former U.S. President George W Bush walked away from the ABM Treaty.

Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst turned antiwar activist who was present at the signing of the ABM Treaty, said:

When president Bush came into office, he said, ‘I’m getting out of the ABM Treaty.’ That was a key moment in the strategic equation, because the ABM Treaty was the main source of strategic stability.

China, Russia and North Korea have all declared a policy of no first use, i.e. they will not use their nuclear weapons offensively, but the US has not done the same and reserves the right of preemptive strike.

No Protection for South Korea

According to JJ Suh, professor of Politics and International Affairs at International Christian University in Japan, the aim of the THAAD deployment in Seongju is not to protect South Korean citizens at all:

“This system is designed to work at higher altitudes, higher than 45 kilometers. But most North Korean missiles [that would be used against South Korea] are short-range missiles that would fly below 45 kilometers.”

The THAAD system, Suh said, serves U.S. strategic interests in the region: It can be… deployed against intermediate-range missiles from North Korea targeting Okinawa… or Guam. And so, it’s more plausible that the U.S. military wants to deploy the THAAD system in South Korea to protect [U.S.] soldiers and military assets in the region, rather than South Koreans in South Korea.

The THAAD radar, if stationed in South Korea, would also significantly expand the U.S.’s field of vision for spying on Chinese missile activity. For this reason, China has been staunchly opposed to the system’s deployment in South Korea.

But the South Korean people may pay a steep price for hosting THAAD, warned missile defense expert and MIT professor Ted Postol. The system, he says, will put South Korea in the path of a potential conflict between the U.S. and China. In the event of a confrontation between these two superpowers, says, China’s first target for a nuclear strike could be the THAAD radar in Seongju.

Costly but Ineffective

Postol also notes the THAAD system has not been proven to work.

“The infrared seeker on THAAD interceptors is easily fooled by decoys,” he said.

An enemy can launch several fake missiles along with the real one; they would shoot out in different directions to confuse the THAAD system, which would then have a hard time discerning and honing in on the real missile. According to Postol:

The infrared seeker on a THAAD interceptor cannot determine the distance from the target, and the THAAD radar cannot determine the precise azimuth of the target even if the decoys are only about 100 meters away from the real warhead.

Philip Coyle, Senior Science Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation, concurred.

“After a very poor record with six test failures in a row in the 1990s, THAAD has successfully intercepted its targets in 11 out of 11 tests since 2006, but these tests are highly scripted to maximize the system’s chance of success.” And there is the problem of countering more than two projectiles. “We don’t know whether THAAD can intercept three incoming missiles, let alone hundreds,” he concludes.

Furthermore, according to Coyle, THAAD has blind spots. Its radar can only cover 120 degrees at a time, so North Korea could circumvent the system by launching a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) from any point not covered by the radar.

Yet U.S. and South Korean taxpayers will end up paying for this system. One THAAD unit costs 1.3 billion U.S. dollars to produce. Then there is also the annual operation cost, which amounts to 22 million U.S. dollars. Neither the South Korean nor the U.S. government has said who will foot that bill, and the South’s Ministry of National Defense declined to tell Korea Exposé the total cost of THAAD deployment in Seongju, saying,

“The numbers aren’t public.”

The Fight to Oppose THAAD

Seongju is a small agricultural region of mostly elderly farmers, who had voted all their lives for the conservative party and had been staunch supporters of recently-impeached Park Geun-hye. When the government announced Seongju as the deployment site without any warning or consultation, they felt shocked and betrayed. Seongju resident Lee Hae-kyung said:

There are children here, there are schools here. Why do they have to put it here? There was no explanation from the government…They just suddenly announced they would put it here.

The people at the forefront of this fight are ordinary farmers, mostly women, who have never led rallies or protested government policies. They demanded the deployment decision be rescinded, and pro-government media were quick to label them North Korean sympathizers and paid outside agitators.

The government’s complete disregard for citizens’ concerns was what initially prompted so many of the residents to join the protests. But they also became worried about the potentially harmful effects of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the THAAD radar on their health and crops.

Even after the government changed the deployment site to the Lotte golf course, Seongju residents made clear that they were not just fighting to keep it out of their backyard but to oppose its deployment anywhere. They are joined by the residents of Gimcheon City, which lies next to the golf course, as well as the clergy of Won Buddhism — one of whose holy sites is nearby — and a national task force composed of peace, antiwar and other civic organizations.

Yoon Geum-soon, a resident of Seongju and the former national chairperson of the Korean Women Peasants Association, says the fight against THAAD is a fight to end the U.S.’ hold over South Korea’s foreign policy:

For over 60 years, the so-called US-ROK alliance has been based on our subordination. As long as our country does not have the autonomy to pursue its own foreign policy, the regional conflict will only worsen and we will suffer for it. We have no choice but to end this cycle.

This article was written by Julian Cho and Hyun Lee. They are staff writers at ZoominKorea, an online resource on democracy and peace in Korea.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on THAAD Will Not Protect South Korea

US Presence in South Korea Drives Instability

March 26th, 2017 by Ulson Gunnar

US and European interests continue to portray the government and nation of North Korea as a perpetual security threat to both Asia and the world. Allegations regarding the nation’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs are continuously used as justification for not only a continuous US military presence on the Korean Peninsula, but as justification for a wider continued presence across all of Asia-Pacific.

In reality, what is portrayed as an irrational and provocative posture by the North Korean government, is in fact driven by a very overt, and genuinely provocative posture by the United States and its allies within the South Korean government.

During this year’s Foal Eagle joint US-South Korean military exercises, US-European and South Korean media sources intentionally made mention of  preparations for a “decapitation” strike on North Korea. Such an operation would be intended to quickly eliminate North Korean military and civilian leadership to utterly paralyze the state and any possible response to what would most certainly be the subsequent invasion, occupation and subjugation of North Korea.

The Business Insider in an article titled, “SEAL Team 6 is reportedly training for a decapitation strike against North Korea’s Kim regime,” would report:

The annual Foal Eagle military drills between the US and South Korea will include some heavy hitters this year — the Navy SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden, Army Special Forces, and F-35s — South Korea’s Joon Gang Daily reports. 

South Korean news outlets report that the SEALs, who will join the exercise for the first time, will simulate a “decapitation attack,” or a strike to remove North Korea’s leadership.

To introduce an element of plausible deniability to South Korean reports, the article would continue by stating:

Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Gary Ross later told Business Insider that the US military “does not train for decapitation missions” of any kind. 

Yet this is a categorically false statement. Throughout the entirety of the Cold War, US policymakers, military planners and operational preparations focused almost solely on devising methods of “decapitating” the Soviet Union’s political and military leadership.

76345523

In more recent years, policy papers and the wars inspired by them have lead to documented instances of attempted “decapitation” operations, including the 2011 US-NATO assault on Libya in which the government of Muammar Qaddafi was targeted by airstrikes aimed at crippling the Libyan state and assassinating both members of the Qaddafi family as well as members of the then ruling government.

Similar operations were aimed at Iraq earlier during the 2003 invasion and occupation by US-led forces.

Regarding North Korea more specifically, entire policy papers have been produced by prominent US policy think tanks including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) devising plans to decimate North Korea’s military and civilian leadership, invade and occupy the nation and confound North Korea’s capacity to resist what would inevitably be its integration with its southern neighbor.

A 2009 report titled, “Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea,” lays out policy recommendations regarding regime change in North Korea. It states in its description:

The authors consider the challenges that these scenarios would pose–ranging from securing Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal to providing humanitarian assistance–and analyze the interests of the United States and others. They then provide recommendations for U.S. policy. In particular, they urge Washington to bolster its contingency planning and capabilities in cooperation with South Korea, Japan, and others, and to build a dialogue with China that could address each side’s concerns.

Preparations for these documented plans which include provisions for invasion, occupation and the eventual integration of North Korea with South Korea have been ongoing for years with the most recent Foal Eagle exercises being merely their latest, and most blatant manifestation.

The aforementioned Business Insider article would also report:

Yet a decapitation force would fit with a March 1 Wall Street Journal report that the White House is considering military action against the Kim regime. 

The SEALs boarded the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier and should arrive in South Korea on Wednesday, Joon Gang Daily reports. 

South Korea has also made efforts toward a decapitation force, and international calls for action have increased in intensity after North Korea’s latest missile test, which simulated a saturation attack to defeat US and allied missile defenses.

While US-European and South Korean media platforms continue claiming such preparations are being made in reaction to North Korean military programs, careful analysis of North Korea and South Korea’s respective economic and military power reveal immense disparity and North Korea’s military capabilities as solely defensive with any first strike against its neighbors almost certainly leading to retaliation and the nation’s destruction.

North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and its expanding ballistic missile capabilities serve then only to raise the costs of any first strike carried out against it by US and South Korean forces. Claims that preparations by US and South Korean forces to carry out these first strikes are in response to North Korean provocations mirror similar political deceit that surrounded and clouded debate and analysis regarding US aggression in North Africa and the Middle East over the past two decades.

Ultimately, regardless of what political leaders in Washington or Seoul claim, the historical track record of the United States and its allies speaks for itself. Its annual military exercises and its adversarial approach to negotiations and relations with North Korea serve only to further drive tensions on both the peninsula and across the wider Asia-Pacific region.

For the United States, the perpetuation of instability helps justify its otherwise unjustifiable presence in a region literally an ocean away from its own borders. And while Washington cites “North Korean” weapons as a pretext for its continued presence in South Korea, its decades-spanning policy of encircling and attempting to contain neighboring China serves as its actual purpose for remaining involved in Korea’s affairs.

Provocative policies coupled with equally provocative military preparations including these most recent exercises openly aimed at North Korea’s leadership, guarantee continued instability and thus continued justification for a US presence in the region.

Washington’s careful cultivation of tensions on the peninsula serve as just one of many intentionally engineered and perpetuated conflicts across the region. Knowing well that nations targeted by US subversion and provocations will make preparations to defend against them, and possessing the media platforms to portray these preparations as “provocations” in and of themselves, the US has persuaded entire swaths of both its own population and those in regions inflicted by instability it itself drives, that Washington alone possesses the ability to contain such instability with its continued, extraterritorial presence.

In reality, the true solution for establishing peace and prosperity in these inflicted regions is for the US to simply withdraw.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on US Presence in South Korea Drives Instability

Cyclone Watch in Australia

March 26th, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The curious, sweaty mammals of North Queensland in Australia are bracing themselves for yet another cyclone with an anodyne name. Cyclone Debbie might have impressed you as a person who turns up at the door asking for donations for the Red Cross Appeal. But cyclones are rarely disposed to sweetness, featuring in a serious of catastrophes that have affected various continents.  The door is not so much knocked upon and fully blown open, along with roofs and dangerous objects finding their way across cities and suburbs. The only moral in this: stay indoors as much as you can.

As a review for PLOS Current Disasters begins,

“Cyclones have significantly affected populations in Southeast Asia, the western Pacific, and the Americas over the past quarter of a century.”[1]

Australia has also been privileged (dare one use that word?) to receive some of nature’s more tempestuous phenomena in that sense. Repeatedly, this ancient continent has been battered by weather systems that have either brought considerable drought, drenching floods, incinerating bush fires, or eviscerating storms.

Debbie has a bit of work to do before heading into the dizzying heights of Cyclone Yasi, which hit Queensland in 2011 in what was to be the highest category on the cyclone spectrum. When it did its good deal of damage, it was deemed one of the most powerful storms to have made landfall since humans decided to take records of such events on the Australian continent.[2]

Before Debbie develops, however, she was a less than conspicuous “tropical depression,” as the Australian Bureau of Meteorology tends to term it. Care must to be taken to observe the Tropical Cyclone Advice Numbers as to whether this depression deepens into a gloomy meteorological nightmare, which looks like a gorgeously moving animal of vapours and clouds on the charts.

Advice Number 4, in particular, issued on Saturday, March 25, before 5 a.m., is a tantalising picture of doom, seductively arresting yet imminently terrifying. Some of the locals have been busying loading up with sandbags; others have been just as busy sipping beer and observing the still ocean from sea fronts that will be shortly inundated.

The course of the cyclone’s eye is noted in clinical language in the various warnings, with predictions about possible strength as it draws up strength from the sea. Scientific precision matches unpredictable content. What matters is that the more laboriously it moves and lumbers, the more dangerous it will be in resisting dissipation.

“The forecast path shown above is the Bureau’s best estimate of the cyclone’s future movement and intensity. There is always some uncertainty associated with tropical cyclone forecasting and the grey zone indicates the range of likely tracks of the cyclone centre.  Due to the uncertainty in the future movement, the indicated winds will most certainly extend to regions outside the rings on this map. The extent of the warning and watch zones reflects this.”[3]

Erratic, uncertain, cheeky, the cyclone can be seen as an unpredictable insurgent, striking with deadly stealth against civilian populations. “The tropical low has moved slowly overnight while steadily developing.”  Like a cacoon ready to break, the tropical “low is expected to develop into a tropical cyclone and adopt a west-southwest track today, bring it towards the north Queensland coast.”

Then came the announcement from the ABC news centre: “Tropical Cyclone Debbie has been declared!”  Not exactly a time to bring out the fizz for a glorious environmental arrival, a celebratory urging on for a cataclysm, but the general sense in Australia at such events is much like an interest in an accidental conception. It may not have been intended, but we best deal with it.

By the evening of Saturday, the dreary language from the meteorologists assumes a sense of the inevitable. Progress is slow, which is exactly what no one wants to hear, except suicidal Millenarians keen to meet some curious cranky maker of their own belief:

“Tropical Cyclone Debbie is currently intensifying, and is now a category 2 cyclone. The system remains slow moving at the present time…. Conditions will remain favourable for the cyclone to develop further before landfall, which will likely be between Townsville and Proserpine on Tuesday morning.”

The rituals of readying one self for such an onslaught are familiar, and even peculiar, to those who have been living in this region for decades.  For one, the shelves are emptied with pious ferocity. Stockland, as one of the shopping centres, is rapidly unstocked. Bottled water makes it out of the door with blurring speed by the thousands. Special sections in the Coles supermarket are assigned for cyclone purchases. Favourite foods include the reliable canned spam, a legend that persists in Australia as potent as any wartime tucker. To that can be added baked beans and canned tuna.

The essentials are religiously outlined in what a cyclone emergency kit should contain: radios, batteries, matches, candles, torches. Make sure you have your insurance documents. Ensure that you unplug appliances. The home itself is to be cleared of unnecessary debris on lawns, and potentially dangerous trees trimmed with scrutiny. Families congregate and have “cyclone parties”. Even before what seems like catastrophe, there is a true human calm before the ferociousness that is about to hit. Time to bolt the doors, close the windows and wait.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge and lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: [email protected]

Notes

[1]http://currents.plos.org/disasters/article/the-human-impact-of-tropical-cyclones-a-historical-review-of-events-1980-2009-and-systematic-literature-review/
[2]http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2016/02/australias-most-destructive-cyclones-a-timeline
[3]http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ65002.shtml

US “Failures” in Afghanistan. US Military Still There

March 24th, 2017 by Salman Rafi Sheikh

report of Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), especially prepared for the US Congress and the Trump administration, finds what should be called a magnanimous failure of the US in achieving any of its major objectives in Afghanistan even after spending almost 16 years in the country.

Ironic though it may sound, this report, along with its list of grave threats that the US needs to tackle, endorses the war as, what Trump himself has called, totally “disastrous” for the US. While the actual intention behind the preparation of this report seems to be to impress upon the president and the Congress to sanction more funds, commit more US troops and continue the rehabilitation programme (read: Trump has vowed to end the programme), it ends up enlisting the US’ multiple failures in Afghanistan, ranging from eliminating the Taliban completely to restoring even a semblance of peace and establishing a strong security force in the war torn country. Hence, the question:

Will commitment of more resources (funds and troops) to Afghanistan make any difference, especially when the proposed increase is nothing compared to what the US had committed and continued to utilize for years after it invaded Afghanistan in 2001?

It is worth recalling that since 2001, around 2250 US military personnel have died and over 20,000 wounded in Afghanistan and the war is not over—yet. Apart from it, as the report notes, the US has spent more money in Afghanistan than it collectively spent to reconstruct the whole Europe after the Second World War, marking this the “largest expenditure to rebuild a single country in our (US) nation’s history.” Given the scale of the loss, it cannot be gainsaid that it is also the greatest failure the US has suffered ever since. And as the report highlights, “after 15 years the task is incomplete.”

56324324323

Afghanistan, for the US, remains a “high risk” territory—something that warrants, the US policy makers think, a long-term military presence. Despite spending a whopping US$70 billion on establishing Afghan security forces—almost half of the reconstruction budget going to this particular sector of national reconstruction— the report finds that Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) remain acutely incapable of tackling the war on their own.

While the report places the onus of responsibility on Afghan forces for seceding territory to the Taliban, the fact remains that the US forces have not left the country either and remain militarily engaged.

According to the US-Afghanistan Bi-Lateral Security Agreement (BSA), the very purpose of retaining a significant strength of US troops and military personnel is to “enhance the ability of Afghanistan to deter internal and external threats against its sovereignty.”

However, despite the fact that two years have passed since the agreement was signed, no major progress has been seen in terms of the Afghan forces’ ability to recover territory from the Taliban. On the contrary, as the SIGAR report notes,

“approximately 63.4% of the country’s districts are under Afghan government control or influence as of August 28, 2016, a decrease from the 70.5% reported as of January 29, 2016.”

What this indicates is that the US has been unable to achieve, so far, its publicly stated objectives. According to the SIGAR report, the other “high risk” areas include corruption, sustainability, on-budget support, counter-narcotics, contract management, oversight, strategy and planning.

Curiously enough, SIGAR does not mention the rising threat of the Islamic State in Afghanistan and the threat it is posing to the regions surrounding this country. The regions surrounding Afghanistan include Central Asia, South Asia and China.

Were the Islamic State to be allowed, by not taking action against it, to spread in Afghanistan and be able to set foothold in this region, it will spread utter devastation—something that will directly serve the US interest against Russia and China. Not only will it jeopardize China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ project but will also cause a manifold increase in the threats of ISIS finding support in China’s Xinjiang province and in Central Asia states i.e., Russia’s “under belly.”

No wonders, the US doesn’t see ISIS as a “real threat” to their interests in Afghanistan because it is not, as yet, posing any direct threat. For the US, the primary threat remains the Taliban and the imperative of silencing their movement remains the primary objective.

It is for this reason that both China and Russia have found a justifiable reason in establishing contacts both with the Afghan government and the Taliban in order to prevent ISIS from gaining foothold in Afghanistan. While China has already started to conduct counter-terror operations in co-operation with Kabul, Russia is equally setting itself up to lead the peace process by holding a global peace conference on Afghanistan in Moscow.

What are Trump’s options for an un-winnable war?

Given the dark scenario depicted in the report, it seems that the US military is deeply interested in raising troop level in Afghanistan. But the question is: will sending more troops do any good when 16 years of war have led only to deterioration? What it will do is intensify the war with the Taliban and provide ISIS a ready-made scenario to gain strength.

It is obvious that the US cannot win the war against the Taliban. As a matter of fact, the question of actually winning the war has lost whatever significance it previously had. Therefore, the new question that must be raised and duly addressed is how to prevent Afghanistan from becoming another Levant?

It is again self-evident that ISIS doesn’t figure as a threat in the US officials’ calculation. Therefore, China and Russia must step up their efforts and help negotiate a peace settlement with the Taliban. Pakistan’s role is crucial in this regard and fortunately enough, both Russia and China are on good terms with Afghanistan’s immediate and most important neighbour.

Therefore, the best option for the US/the Trump administration is to engage with countries that can actually pave the way for settlement. On the contrary, were the US to continue to walk the lonely path in Afghanistan, it will continue to progressively lose space and momentum to China-Pakistan-Russia nexus just as it lost space and advantage in Syria after Russia started its own military campaign in September 2015. As such, with Russia and China willing to facilitate a peace settlement, the US needs to tap into this opportunity and turn the “disastrous war” into a meaningful settlement.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/23/sigar-report-notes-us-failures-in-afghanistan/

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on US “Failures” in Afghanistan. US Military Still There

“The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) says an internal review into World Vision funding in Gaza has uncovered nothing to suggest any diversion of government aid funding to Hamas.” ABC

The blow to Israel’s credibility is colossal because,

a. the investigation had teeth, fangs in this case, as “DFAT has in place rigorous processes to investigate any report that aid funding has been misappropriated, consistent with DFAT’s Fraud Control and Anti-Corruption Plan”

b. the refutation comes from Australia, one of Israel’s most subservient apologists: on Netanyahu’s recent list PM Turnbull chundered the empty cliches that Australia and Israel “have much in common. Shared values, democracy, freedom, the rule of law. Two great democracies – one very small in area, one vast, but each of us big-hearted, generous, committed to freedom.” Definitely in common is their disregard for international law affirmed by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop who “committed Australia to continue defending Israel in hostile international forums” including the ICC and she  had firmly announced that Australia would not have supported UN Resolution 2334 that confirmed Israel’s settlements are illegal.

c. the refutation has left egg on the faces of Netanyahu and Dore Gold, the Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs MFA (really- Ministry of Fools and Amateurs) for the elaborate fiction, created by an MFA gang of wanna-be Ian Flemings, that turned Mohammad Al Halabi, a hardworking UN recognised humanitarian hero, into a dastardly super secret agent who infiltrated World Vision and channeled 50 phantom million dollars to Hamas thus promoting the strategic  interests of Iran and, wait for it, ISIS! Yes, and to top it all, this mild-mannered loving man apparently thwarted the vast Shin Bet apparatus of ex-military thugs, agents, spies, and collaborators for 10 years!! 10 years! BTW the Head of Shin Bet reports directly to Netanyahu. Furthermore, Dor Gold stupidly sent the  Al-Halabi-aka-James-Bond profile of fantasy crimes to his foreign affairs counterparts around the world. Ooops!

Israel counts on lies trumping facts, but it has cried ‘wolf,’ ’terrorists,’  ‘boo hoo we are victims’ too often. The sham accusations began unraveling from the start with World Vision’s assertion that it conducts scrupulous checks and balances, for example “Any payment over US$80 needed two signatures, with anything over US$15,000 signed off by the national office in Jerusalem” and audits are conducted annually through Price Waterhouse Coopers that show no diversion of WV resources.

Meanwhile, despite torture and 9 months of wrongful incarceration, Al-Halabi has stood by his innocence, denied the allegations as well as  a ‘confession’, and refused  a three year plea deal.

So why this murky deceptive political terrorism aimed to demonise and destroy a reputable humanitarian organisation?

Well, first and foremost, Israel’s attack on humanitarian NGO’s is integral to its  policy of ethnic cleansing  through lebensraum i.e. removing all Palestinians from their ancestral land  to achieve the final goal of Eretz Israel from the river to the sea, by making life unlivable for the indigenous Palestinians.

Second, pay back for recalcitrant NGO’s that dare to criticise Israel’s war crimes and crimes  against humanity. In August 2015, World Vision joined  human rights organisations in a public call to end the Gaza blockade. World Vision had stood strong on opposing the  Annexation Wall and the Gaza siege until – World Vision Australia  CEO, Tim Costello’s capitulation in November 2016 when he parroted zionist propaganda to the Australian Jewish News (AJN),

“that he has changed his opinion on the security wall between the West Bank and Israel.

“At the time [the wall was built] I was critical, but I now have a different view,” he said.

“I see that wall has saved lives.

“My dream is still a two-state settlement, people living together without a wall.”

When speaking about Gaza, Costello referred to it as “a sad social experiment” to see if “a blockade and consequent suffering cures people of terrorism”.

“I don’t think that it’s Israel’s fault,” he said, “but I just think it’s very sad that we have to say this isn’t working and see if there is another way.”

He also conceded that the focus of criticism on Israel is unfair, as Egypt, which also has a border with Gaza, should also be pressured into lifting its blockade.”

To intimate that the impoverished, traumatised people, the mothers, fathers, children and old folk, he serves in Gaza are part of a ‘sad social experiment’ (Josef Mengele comes to mind) to cure them of terrorism is obscene and then blame the Palestinian victims as it’s not Israel’s fault. That decades of horrific suffering caused by zionist violence and theft of Palestine is not Israel’s fault is  the dregs. One wonders what pressure was forced on Costello to make him dump his principles and integrity. Standing firm and exposing the pressure would have been another, better way.

There are inescapable patterns of cause and effect in human life; and one is Hubris (wanton violence, god-defying arrogance) of which literature and history warn us. Netanyahu, Bush, Blair, Obama, Trump, Kim Jong-Un are today’s Ozymandias and they are fated to eventual despair and nothingness. The sooner the better.

Dr. Vacy Vlazna is Coordinator of Justice for Palestine Matters and editor of a volume of Palestinian poetry, I remember my name. She was Human Rights Advisor to the GAM team in the second round of the Acheh peace talks, Helsinki, February 2005 then withdrew on principle. Vacy was convenor of  Australia East Timor Association and coordinator of the East Timor Justice Lobby as well as serving in East Timor with UNAMET and UNTAET from 1999-2001.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Australia Blows Israel’s Credibility on Its “World Vision” Sham Accusations

Prominent American propagandist Howard French recently published a lengthy editorial in the Guardian titled, “Is it too late to save Hong Kong from Beijing’s authoritarian grasp?,” in which he attempts to buttress an otherwise categorically false narrative surrounding an alleged indigenous struggle for democracy and independence within Hong Kong.

French attempts to hold China accountable for backtracking on an agreement made with Britain over the return of its own territory taken from it by force in 1841. He also attempts to portray Beijing’s crackdown on US-UK subversion in Hong Kong as “authoritarian,” never making mention of the extensive funding and meddling both the United States and the United Kingdom are engaged in within Chinese territory.

The article documents only one side of the so-called “independence” movement in Hong Kong, sidestepping any critical analysis of the colonial background of the ongoing political crisis or the neo-colonial aspects that shape current events even now.

The lengthy piece was paid for by a grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, a Washington D.C.-based front that collaborates with the New York Times, PBS, NPR, Time Magazine and other mainstays of US propaganda. These are the same media outlets that helped sell the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as US-led attacks on Libya and US meddling in Syria beginning in 2011. By supporting French’s work, they now help sell to the public a narrative that undermines Chinese sovereignty an ocean away from American shores.

The entire editorial, its contents, author and the special interests that paid for it as well as its placement in the Guardian, represent a continued and concerted effort to maintain an Anglo-American foothold in Hong Kong, part of the last vestiges of Western hegemony within Chinese territory.

The Truth About Hong Kong 

Had Howard French penned an honest account of Hong Kong’s recent political crisis, he would have included the extensive, some may say exclusive, control the United States and the United Kingdom exercised over an otherwise fictitious and impossible pro-independence movement. Quite literally every leader of the so-called “Umbrella Revolution” is either directly funded and directed by the US and/or UK government, or possesses membership within an organisation, institution or front funded by Anglo-American money.

5634523423

The notion that a teen-aged Joshua Wong was single-handedly defying Beijing is preposterous even at face value. He was but one cog of a
much larger, well-documented foreign-funded machines aimed at stirring up conflict within Hong Kong, undermine Beijing’s control of the territory and infect Chinese society as a whole with notions of Western-style “democracy.”

Just months before the 2014 “Umbrella Revolution,” one of its leaders, Martin Lee, was literally in Washington D.C., before members of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), pleading for material and political support for upcoming demonstrations. Toward the end of that same year, and despite NED denying Lee was a protest leader, Lee would find himself in the streets of Hong Kong leading the protests from the front shoulder-to-shoulder with Benny Tai and Joshua Wong.

Ironically, after the protests diminished and were finally pushed off the streets by both local police and impatient residents, Lee, Tai and Wong would be invited to Washington D.C. for a special event organised by NED subsidiary, Freedom House, dubbed, “Three Hong Kong Heroes.” The three protest leaders, having attempted to shake off accusations of being Washington puppets, or even protest leaders altogether, would take to the stage with yellow umbrellas in hand.

Howard French, and others attempting to persuade Western audiences of their version of events in Hong Kong omit these critical facts regarding the foreign-funded and directed nature of the “pro-independence” movement. They do so intentionally, with French himself being a 2011 Open Society fellow, Open Society being one of several fronts the US has channelled money through in support of subversion in Hong Kong.

In reality, there is nothing “pro-independence” about the movement in Hong Kong. It is simply the latest in a centuries-long attempt by Western powers to project geopolitical hegemony into Asia and more specifically, upon China itself.

French’s lengthy lament regarding China’s “authoritarianism” captures what may possibly be frustration that Washington and London’s tricks no longer work, and the more “Umbrella Revolutions” they attempt to organise against Beijing, the more familiar the Chinese public will be with them and subsequently, the more determined they will become to frustrate them.

Additionally, China’s influence over Hong Kong and even across Asia as a whole, is stronger, more sustainable and continuously expanding versus waning Western influence. Spectacular political stunts like the “Umbrella Revolution” attempt to leverage global public opinion over which the US media still maintains considerable influence, but ultimately such strategies have been confounded by Beijing and are, in the long-term, unsustainable.

Hong Kong represents a past, strong bastion of Western colonial power, now struggling to maintain itself even as a minor regional foothold. Despite the efforts of manipulators like Howard French and media platforms that lend themselves to his disingenuous narrative, footholds like Hong Kong will continue to diminish until the last remnants of the West’s colonial past are all but swept from modern geopolitics and permanently assigned to the pages of history.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

https://journal-neo.org/2017/03/22/hong-kong-anglo-americas-struggling-foothold-in-china/

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Hong Kong: Anglo-America’s Struggling Foothold in China

Singaporean Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen reiterated the importance of the city-state’s policy of Total Defence. In his statement coinciding with the 75th anniversary of the British surrender of the island to Japanese forces in 1942, he spoke specifically about the 5 pillars of Total Defence.

He emphasised that Singapore cannot depend on other nations for its defence, and warned that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

According to Singapore’s Ministry of Defence website, the 5 pillars of Total Defence include military, civil, economic, social and psychological defence. The policy specifically includes the entirety of Singaporean society as part of Total Defence. While clearly the military and other state institutions play larger roles in each of the above mentioned pillars, the policy assigns clear examples all Singaporeans can follow to contribute.

Singapore’s Defence Minister and his ministry’s 5 pillars reflect an often overlooked realism to geopolitics. It is realism in which “alliances” and “treaties” ultimately amount to nothing and that a nation can only depend on itself to truly ensure self-preservation.

Singapore’s defence policy, in turn, reflects on the global transition from American and European unipolar hegemony, toward a more equitable balance of power within a multipolar world where national sovereignty once again holds primacy, as does a nation’s responsibility to uphold its own sovereignty.

The Five Pillars of Total Defence 

The five pillars of Singapore’s Total Defence policy, military, civil, economic, social and psychological, reflect on the multiple vectors through which foreign aggression can move in attempts to undermine and overthrow any nation’s (including Singapore’s) sovereignty.

While military and economic (which includes cyber and information) defence are more or less self-explanatory, social and psychological defence are owed an explanation.

According to Singapore’s Ministry of Defence, social defence includes:

Singapore enjoys social and economic stability because people of all races and religions live together harmoniously. We know what could happen if we allow extremist ideologies and racial prejudice and discrimination to endanger social cohesion and harmony. We befriend, accept and help people of different ethnicities.

Regarding psychological defence, the ministry states:

While being prepared is the key to Total Defence, it is always the fighting spirit, the will, the resilience of Singaporeans that determines whether or not our nation will overcome a crisis. When each Singaporean is resolved and determined to overcome any crisis together, proud of our country and willing to stand up to defend what is ours, we can be assured of a secure future, regardless of the challenge.

National unity and pride are cited as essential for cultivating a viable psychological defence.

How Aggressors Use Different Vectors Against Targeted States 

Reflecting on the past decade and a half of US foreign policy, one can see examples of how the US alone used overt military aggression to invade, occupy and systematically divide and destroy nations like Iraq and Afghanistan.

21629222

The US also used economic warfare to undermine and destabilise nations ahead of overt military aggression. In other cases, such as Libya, Egypt and Syria, economic warfare, price manipulation and even sanctions, helped create social and psychological cracks among the populations of targeted nations.

Libya and Syria’s populations had vulnerable social and psychological fault lines as well that the United States and its allies were able to exploit to foment unrest and eventually destructive military conflict. Had these nations extended national defence to include economic, social and psychological warfare, they may have fared better in the face of American aggression.

In one form or another, every state appears aware of these necessary aspects of national defence. But Singapore has openly and cohesively integrated them into a single strategy; Total Defence.

For nations across the rest of Asia Pacific, still very much targeted by the United States in its decades-long effort to encircle and contain China by asserting American hegemony over China’s peripheries, particularly in Southeast Asia, developing a similar, focused and properly integrated Total Defence policy would be highly recommended.

Each state across Southeast Asia possesses different strengths and weaknesses regarding Total Defence, but could adopt and build on Singapore’s basic premise. So many other aspects of Singapore’s successful socioeconomic policies have been adopted, modified or built up upon across Asia, enhancing regional resilience to global challenges. Total Defence appears to be another concept to prepare both Asian governments and their populations to defend themselves against the full-spectrum warfare waged against the region by both evident enemies today and potential enemies tomorrow.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Singapore’s Total Defence Policy Provides a Regional Model

Dimanche, au centre-ville de Paris, la police française a attaqué une manifestation d’environ 7000 personnes contre la brutalité policière, tirant des gaz lacrymogènes et en venant aux coups avec les manifestants, tout en bloquant les autres groupes de manifestants pacifiques au mépris des droits démocratiques fondamentaux. La marche a défié l’état d’urgence perpétuellement étendu en France qui, selon les déclarations des responsables du Parti socialiste (PS) ainsi que des membres des partis de droite et néo-fascistes, signifie qu’aucune manifestation ne devrait avoir lieu.

La manifestation a été organisée par la Marche pour la Justice et la Dignité, une organisation créée par les familles des victimes de violences policières dans de multiples banlieues parisiennes. Un cas particulièrement important fut le viol récent de Théo, un jeune de la banlieue ouvrière d’Aulnay-sous-Bois, qui a subi une plaie de 10 cm au rectum par une matraque de police le mois dernier.

L’assaut contre la manifestation est survenu au milieu de l’hystérie sécuritaire incitée par le gouvernement PS et le candidat de droite à la présidence François Fillon lors de la fusillade de l’aéroport d’Orly samedi. Ziyed Ben Belgacem, un français mentalement dérangé de 39 ans, armé et agissant seul, a blessé un policier lors d’une fusillade, puis a été abattu par des soldats patrouillant dans l’aéroport après s’être emparé de l’arme d’une militaire.

L’ensemble de l’aéroport a ensuite été verrouillé.

Ces événements mettent en évidence les tensions sociales explosives en France à la veille des élections présidentielles d’avril-mai et l’atmosphère implacable de droite et sécuritaire suscitée par toutes les factions de l’establishment politique français.

Plusieurs membres de la famille des victimes de violences policières ont pris la parole lors de la manifestation et ont exprimé la profonde colère qui monte dans les quartiers populaires face aux actes de brutalité policière commis en toute impunité. Amal Bentousi, dont le frère Amine a été tué d’une balle dans le dos en 2012 en fuyant la police, a déclaré : « Le meurtrier de mon frère a été condamné, mais il reste encore d’autres familles pour qui ce n’est pas le cas. »

Ramata Dieng, dont le frère Dieng est mort d’asphyxie au cours d’une arrestation en 2007 où la police l’a brutalement retenu et a plaqué au sol, a déclaré : « Nous réclamons que les policiers ne soient pas au-dessus des lois. Nous réclamons que leurs homicides soient jugés à la mesure de ce que prévoit le code pénal. » Se référant aux conclusions des enquêteurs qu’il n’y avait aucune raison d’accuser la police dans l’affaire, elle a ajouté : « Nous en avons marre de ces mascarades de justice. »

À la fin de la manifestation, cependant, alors que la marche s’approchait de la place de la République, des affrontements ont éclaté entre la police et des groupes non identifiés de manifestants cagoulés ou des manifestants du Black Bloc. Les activités de ces forces, dont il fut révélé à plusieurs reprises en France et dans toute l’Europe qu’elles sont infiltrées par des provocateurs policiers, a servi de prétexte à une répression policière, y compris contre des manifestants pacifiques.

Les manifestants du Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA) petit-bourgeois auraient été empêchés de continuer leur route pendant la manifestation, bien qu’il n’y ait aucune indication d’un reproche de la police contre eux. En particulier, étant donné les liens bien connus et très étroits entre le NPA et le Parti socialiste (PS) au pouvoir, le fait que les escadrons de police sous l’autorité PS ciblent les militants NPA est un avertissement. Ils sont prêts à procéder brutalement contre d’autres organisations qui ne sont pas aussi serviles envers les intérêts à long terme du PS.

Ces manifestations donnent une image bien plus vraie de l’attitude de la population envers la police française que le culte incessant de la police et du ministère de l’Intérieur dans les médias et les sondages qui veulent montrer qu’une large majorité de la population appuie l’état d’urgence. Dans une crise sociale et économique profonde en France et à travers l’Europe, les interventions policières dans les quartiers ouvriers de plus en plus exploités et opprimés produisent une colère explosive.

La seule réponse du gouvernement PS profondément impopulaire a été d’essayer de supprimer l’opposition sociale en fomentant une atmosphère sécuritaire hystérique et d’insister constamment sur le rôle de la police dans l’état d’urgence.

Samedi, alors que tout l’aéroport d’Orly a été verrouillé, laissant des milliers de passagers à l’abandon, le président François Hollande et François Fillon, le candidat présidentiel du parti de droite Les Républicains (LR), ont fait des déclarations belliqueuses sur la fusillade. Fillon a utilisé l’incident pour dénoncer toute suggestion selon laquelle l’état d’urgence, qui suspend les droits démocratiques fondamentaux, pourrait être résilié. « Rien, je dis bien rien, n’autorise à lever l’état d’urgence » a-t-il dit.

Hollande a déclaré : « ceux qui s’interrogeaient encore sur le rôle de l’opération Sentinelle (la présence de militaires dans les lieux publics, les aéroports, les gares) doivent comprendre que ce renfort est essentiel, que tout le dispositif a pu répondre parfaitement aux ordres donnés il y a plusieurs mois par moi et par le gouvernement ».

En fait, les rapports initiaux qui émergent donnent à penser que la présence de soldats armés de fusils d’assaut dans des lieux publics à travers la France a plutôt encouragé Belgacem à agir agressivement – cherchant une confrontation avec des soldats pour mettre fin à sa propre vie.

Vers 6 h 55 samedi, il a blessé un policier avec un fusil de chasse lors d’un contrôle de circulation à Garges-lès-Gonesse, au nord de Paris, puis a fui. Il a ensuite appelé sa famille et a dit : « J’ai fait des bêtises, j’ai tiré sur des gens et on m’a tiré dessus ». Il est ensuite allé à un bar à Vitry-sur-Seine, où il a menacé les clients et a tiré plusieurs coups sans toucher personne. Il a ensuite volé une voiture et a conduit à l’aéroport d’Orly.

À 8 h 22, il a affronté une patrouille de trois personnes à l’aéroport, en criant : « Posez vos armes, je suis là pour mourir par Allah. De toutes façons il va y avoir des morts ». Il a tenté et finalement réussi à saisir le fusil d’assaut de la militaire, à ce moment les deux autres soldats l’ont abattu.

La famille de Belgacem a déclaré qu’il n’avait aucun lien islamiste connu, et que ses fusillades étaient dues à une histoire de vol à main armée et de toxicomanie. « Mon fils n’a jamais été un terroriste. Jamais il a fait la prière, et il boit. Et sous l’effet de l’alcool et du cannabis, voilà où on arrive », a déclaré le père de Belgacem alors qu’il était en détention préventive pour interrogatoire par la police.

Par les Journalistes du WSWS

Article paru en anglais, WSWS, le 20 mars 2017

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on La police française lance des gaz lacrymogènes contre des manifestants au moment du vérrouillage de l’aéroport d’Orly

With extreme recklessness, the Trump administration is charting a course toward war in the Asia-Pacific. From the response in the US media and political establishment, however, one would have no idea how dangerous the situation is, nor how incalculable the consequences.

The latest in the escalating war of words came from US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who said at a press conference in Seoul, South Korea on Friday that “all options are on the table” in dealing with North Korea. The comments came in advance of Tillerson’s visit today to China, North Korea’s main ally.

“Let me be very clear: the policy of strategic patience has ended,” the former CEO of ExxonMobil said, in what was widely interpreted as a rebuke to the Obama administration’s preference for economic sanctions in relation to North Korea. When asked about the possibility of a military response, Tillerson replied, “If they elevate the threat of their weapons program to a level that we believe requires action then that option is on the table.”

Echoing Tillerson’s threats, US President Donald Trump tweeted,

“North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been ‘playing’ the United States for years. China has done little to help!”

If words have any meaning, the statements from Tillerson and Trump make clear that the US is preparing “pre-emptive” war, justified by North Korea’s reported plans to test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the continental United States.

There is a staggering disconnect between the terrible consequences of such a war and the way it is being treated in the US media. Tillerson’s comments were greeted with a shrug on the network news programs Saturday evening. The Democrats have remained silent.

What would come from a US strike on North Korea? Would the crisis-ridden North Korean regime respond by firing missiles against Seoul or Tokyo? Would it use one of its nuclear weapons? Would a war against North Korea spiral into a direct conflict between the world’s two largest economies, the United States and China? These questions cannot be answered for certain, but all scenarios are possible.

One of the few comments addressing the character of a US war with North Korea came from retired Army Major Mike Lyons, a senior fellow for the Truman National Security Project. Writing in the Hill on Friday, Lyons said that US allies in the Pacific should begin “taking inventory of your military capability” and planning for a military operation that “could cause immediate casualties and destruction the world hasn’t seen since WWII.”

“We would have to literally blanket the sky for hours with air strikes,” Lyons wrote. The attack “would not focus on just military targets—there would be civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands as well.” He further warned, “The war won’t go as planned for many reasons—if the North is successful in launching a nuclear weapon that destroys part of Seoul,” the US would likely be impelled to retaliate.

In other words, a war is being contemplated that could lead to the first combat use of nuclear weapons since the end of World War II.

Any military action in the tinder box of North East Asia can have far-reaching consequences, whatever the immediate intentions of the US may be. In recent weeks, the US and South Korea have engaged in large-scale military exercises; North Korea’s ambassador to the UN has warned that the “the Korean Peninsula is again inching to the brink of a nuclear war;” North Korea has test-fired missiles in the direction of Japan; and the US has begun deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea that is directed primarily at China.

On Tuesday, Japan announced plans to dispatch its largest warship on a tour of the South China Sea, prompting protests from China.

The German newspaper Die Zeit commented earlier this week on escalating geopolitical tensions throughout the world:

“Whether on purpose or accidentally, Trump could quickly get into a great war. Whether the United States, or anyone else, could emerge victorious from it, is doubtful.”

The recklessness of US actions testifies to the fact that the root of the spiraling conflict is not to be found in the Asia-Pacific, but rather in the United States, which is facing an unparalleled series of crises.

Despite its increasingly provocative threats against China and North Korea, the US alliance system in Asia is showing severe signs of strain. The impeachment of South Korean President Park Geun-hye was seen as a blow to US interests in the region. Meanwhile the Philippines, a key US ally, has reoriented toward China at the expense of the US.

Washington’s European alliance system faces an even more dramatic breakdown. The same day that Tillerson made his threats against China, Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel held a press conference in which the NATO allies addressed each other effectively as adversaries.

At the same time, the Trump administration has proposed a budget that calls for cuts to domestic spending of over 30 percent in some departments, while adding some $52 billion to US military spending. The White House is pushing a health care overhaul that would gut Medicaid, the health care program for the poor and disabled, and cause more than 20 million people to lose health care coverage.

The imposition of these policies will lead to growing social discontent within the United States, which is already beset by record social inequality.

There is an element of madness in the Trump administration’s policies, but it is a madness rooted in the contradictions of American capitalism. The American ruling class depends upon constant war—both as a means of diverting social tensions outward, and as the principle mechanism for maintaining its global position under conditions of economic decline.

Responsibility for this policy does not end with the White House. Whatever their differences, all factions of the political establishment are agreed on the basic strategic imperative of world domination. As for the pseudo-left organizations, which take their line from the Democratic Party and ooze with the complacency of the upper-middle class layers for which they speak, one would never know from reading their publications that world war is an imminent possibility.

The greatest danger is that the working class, which does not want war, is unaware of the gravity of the situation and is not politically organized and mobilized to prevent it. Policies that will have catastrophic consequences for workers in the United States and internationally are being carried out behind their backs. This plays into the hands of the conspiratorial cabal in Washington.

The development of a socialist, anti-war movement in the United States and throughout the world is the most urgent political task.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on “Trump Madness”: US Threats Against North Korea And The Danger of War in Asia

No One Needs Another Korean War

March 19th, 2017 by Eric Margolis

Panmunjom, the ‘peace village’ on the incredibly tense demilitarized zone (aka DMZ) between North and South Korea, is one of the weirdest places I’ve ever visited. Tough North Korean soldiers lurk about, watched by equally tough South Korean troops in one-way sunglasses and an aggressive judo ‘warrior’ stance.

When I was filming at Panmunjom, we were warned to beware of North Koreans who could at any moment rush into the main conference room and drag us into North Korea.

It was into this crazy house that the new, jet-lagged US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was transported from turbulent Washington. After a quick look at the DMZ, Tillerson announced `no more Mr. Nice Guy.’ The US had run out of `strategic patience’ with North Korea and will go to war to end North Korea’s ‘threat’ to the US, he warned.

Tillerson, formerly CEO of EXXON, is well-versed in world affairs but the Korean peninsula’s complexities could be too much for him to quickly absorb. Immediately threatening war is no way to begin a diplomatic mission. But Tillerson was obviously reading from a script written by his boss, Donald Trump, whose knowledge of North Asian affairs makes Tillerson look like a Confucian scholar.

Welcome to Trump’s credo: tweet loudly and walk with a big stick.

What would war between the US and North Korea mean? A very grim scenario if it occurs.

The US has nearly 80,000 military personnel in South Korea and Japan, as well as more war-fighting units in Guam, which the US conquered from Spain in 1898. The US 7th Fleet patrols the region, armed with tactical nuclear weapons. US nukes are also based in South Korea and Guam. As we recently saw, US heavy B-1 and B-52 bombers can fly from North America to Korea.

South Korea has a formidable, 600,000-man army equipped with state of the art weapons. I’ve been up on the DMZ with the 2nd ROK division. As an old soldier, I was very impressed by their skill and warlike spirit.

North Korea’s one million-man armed force is large, but obsolescent. Its great strength in heavy artillery partly compensates for its totally obsolete, 1960’s vintage air force. Key combat elements of the DPRK army are dug deep into the rocky hills just north of the DMZ, with thousands of heavy North Korean guns facing south. In the event of war, the North claims it will destroy South Korea’s capitol, Seoul, that is only 30km away and has 20 million residents.

US estimates of war in Korea, made a decade ago, suggest America would incur 250,000 casualties in a war that would cost one million Korean deaths. That’s why the US has shied away from direct attack on North Korea. Unlike Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Somalis, North Koreans know how to fight back and are amply armed for a defensive war.

The US would certainly be tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons against North Korean troops and guns deeply dug into the mountainous terrain. Without them, air power, America’s usual trump card, would lose much of its destructive potential. No doubt, all North Korea would be ravaged by US air power, as it was during the 1950’s Korean War. South Korea plans massive air, missile and commando attacks on North Korean military HQ and against leader Kim Jung-un’s hideaway.

US war plans call for amphibious landings along North Korea’s long, vulnerable coastline. This threat forces the North to deploy large numbers of regular army and militia troops on both coasts.

North Korea’s air force and little navy would be vaporized on the first day of hostilities. But it is likely that the DPRK would be able to fire a score or more of medium-ranged missiles at Japan. If the war goes nuclear, Japan looks almost certain to suffer nuclear attack, along with Guam. Tokyo and Osaka are prime targets.

North Korean forces might be able to push south to Seoul, but likely no further in the face of fierce attacks by US and South Korean air power operating from bases further south. The North’s powerful commando force of some 100,000 troops would attack key South Korean targets, including its vital air bases shared with the US. Such raids would be highly disruptive but not decisive unless the DPRK used chemical and/or biological weapons to shut down South Korea’s air bases and its ports at Busan and Inchon.

The US and South Korea could certainly win such a war but it would be very bloody and expensive. There would be the threat of Chinese military intervention if it appeared the US was about to occupy North Korea. Russia is right next door.

Secretary Tillerson, please leave war threats to the generals and start practicing some active diplomacy with the North. If ever a war was not needed, it’s here.

Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times, Nation – Pakistan, Hurriyet, – Turkey, Sun Times Malaysia and other news sites in Asia. https://ericmargolis.com

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on No One Needs Another Korean War

Almost six years after a tsunami caused a meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the facility’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) faces overwhelming problems to clean up the site. Tepco now reports radiation in reactor 2 that would kill a worker in thirty seconds, and even destroys robots. Arjun Makhijani, the President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and host Steve Curwood discuss the implications of this new report and the challenges of cleanup.

Radio Interview

Click stream/download audio MP3 file

Transcript

CURWOOD: It’s Living on Earth, I’m Steve Curwood.

Six years after an earthquake and resulting tsunami devastated Fukushima, Japan and led to the melt down of three nuclear power reactors there on the coast, radiation levels have reached a staggering 530 sieverts an hour, many times higher than any previous reading. Tepco, the plant’s operator, claims that radiation is not leaking outside reactor number two, site of these readings, but concedes there’s a hole in the grating beneath the vessel that contains melted radioactive fuel.

Juan Carlos Lentijo of the International Atomic Energy Agency looks at tanks holding contaminated water and the Unit 4 and Unit 3 reactor buildings during a February 2015 tour of the tsunami-stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. (Photo: Susanna Loof / IAEA, Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Joining us now to explain what it all means is Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Welcome back to Living on Earth Arjun.

MAKHIJANI: Thank you, Steve. Glad to be back.

CURWOOD: So, this report from TEPCO seems serious, maybe even ominous. What what exactly is going on?

MAKHIJANI: Well, they are exploring the molten core of the reactor in reactor number two with robots, and the robot called Scorpion went farther into the bottom of the reactor in an area called “the pedestal” on which the reactor kind of sits and measured much higher levels of radiation than before. The highest level was 73 Sieverts per hour before and this time they measured a radiation level more than seven times higher. It doesn’t mean it’s going up. It just was in a new area of the molten core that had not been measured before.

CURWOOD: Still, it sounds to me like it’s problematic, that six years after this meltdown there’s such a high reading.

MAKHIJANI: It is a very high reading; they may encounter even higher readings. The difficulty with this high reading is that the prospect that workers can actually go there, even all suited up, becomes more and more remote. Robots are going to have to do all this work – That was mostly foreseen – but the radiation levels are so high that even robots cannot survive for very long. So now they’re going to have to go back to the drawing board and redesign robots that can survive longer or figure out how to do the work faster, and it’s going to be more costly and more complicated to decommission the site.

The lid of Unit 4’s Primary Containment Vessel lies close to the reactor building. The reactor was shut down
for maintenance at the time of the accident. (Photo: Gill Tudor / IAEA, Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0)

CURWOOD: Remind us, Arjun, please, of the human impact of this kind of radiation. What’s toxic to humans?

MAKHIJANI: Right. So, if you get high levels of radiation in a short period of time, four Sieverts is a lethal dose for about half the people within two months. So, in 530 Sieverts per hour would give you a lethal dose in less than 30 seconds.

CURWOOD: Wow.

MAKHIJANI: So, it’s a very, very, very high level of radiation. That’s why people cannot go into the reactor and work there. That’s not the end of the bad news, but that’s quite a bit of it.

CURWOOD: OK. All right, there is more bad news. I’m sitting down. Tell me.

MAKHIJANI: Yes, so the bottom of the reactor under the reactor there is a grating and then under the grating there’s the concrete floor, and what this robot discovered — It was supposed to go around the grating and survey the whole area, but it couldn’t because a piece of the grating was deformed and broken. So, now it appears that some of the molten fuel may have gone through the grating and maybe onto the concrete floor. We don’t know because even robotic surveys are now difficult, and a high radiation turns into heat, so the whole environment around the molten fuel is thermally very hot, and so whether it is going through the concrete, whether it is under the concrete, I don’t know that we have a good grip on that issue.

CURWOOD: So, Arjun, what’s going on with the reactors one and three? There have been published reports that TEPCO, Tokyo Electric Power Company that has these reactors, hasn’t really taken a good look at those reactors. What do you know?

MAKHIJANI: Well, they have to develop the robots, and I think that developing them, by looking at reactor two, and they’re finding these surprises, radiation levels much higher than previously measured. It shouldn’t actually be unanticipated. The big surprise here was that a part of the grating was gone, and so that the molten fuel would possibly have gone through the grating. So, I think similar surprises will await reactors one and three because each meltdown will have a different geometry.

Storing contaminated water in tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi site
presents an ongoing risk, says Makhijani. (Photo: Gill Tudor / IAEA, Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0)

CURWOOD: So, now what about the decay products here? We’re starting with the Uranium family, but we wind up with Cesium and Strontium – Strontium 90. What risk is there of Strontium 90 getting into groundwater there?

MAKHIJANI: Yeah, so the peculiar thing about a nuclear reaction is the initial fuel, Uranium, is not very radioactive. It’s radioactive but you can hold the uranium fuel pellets in your hand without getting a high dose of radiation. After it’s gone through the nuclear reaction – Fission, that’s what generates the energy – the fission products which result from splitting the Uranium atom are much more radioactive than Uranium, and Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 are two of the products that last for quite a long time, half-life 30 years, and are quite toxic. So, Strontium 90 is specially a problem when it comes in to contact with water. It’s mobilized by water. It behaves like calcium, so if it gets into like sea water and get into the fish, the bones of the fish, or human beings, of course, it gets into the bone marrow and bone surface, increases the risk of cancer, leukemia. So it’s a pretty nasty substance, and Strontium 90 has been contacted with water. You know, rainwater goes and contacts the molten fuel. Groundwater may be contacting the molten fuel. So, we have had Strontium 90 contamination and discharges into the ocean. They also collect the water. They’ve got about more than 1,000 tanks of contaminated water stored at the Fukushima site. By my rough estimate may be about 100 million gallons of contaminated water is being stored there.

CURWOOD: What happens if there’s an earthquake?

MAKHIJANI: That’s exactly right. So about a week into the accident, I sent a suggestion to the Japan Atomic Energy Commission that they should buy a supertanker, put the contaminated water into the supertanker, and send it off elsewhere for processing. They do have a site in the north of Japan which was supposed to be for plutonium separation, but it could be used to support the cleanup of Fukushima. But they rejected that proposal more than once and decided to build these tanks instead. They have a decontamination process on-site, and there are a very vast number of plastic bags on the site filled with contaminated soil. Nobody wants the stuff and nobody knows what’s going to happen with it.

Arjun Makhijani is the President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.
(Photo: Francisco Martinez/Tides Momentum, Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

CURWOOD: It’s six years after the original meltdown. How much of a disaster is Fukushima today?

MAKHIJANI: Well, Fukushima is possibly the longest running, continuous industrial disaster in history. It has not stopped because the risks are still there. This is going to take decades to decommission the site, and then what is going to happen with all this highly radioactive waste, ‘specially the molten fuel? Nobody knows.

CURWOOD: Arjun Makhijani is President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Thanks for taking time with us today, Arjun.

MAKHIJANI: So good to be back with you, Steve.

Links

The Guardian: “Fukushima nuclear reactor radiation at highest level since 2011 meltdown”

Washington Post: “Japanese nuclear plant just recorded an astronomical radiation level. Should we be worried?”

TEPCO’s Decommissioning Plan for Fukushima Daiichi

About Arjun Makhijani

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Radiation Spikes at Fukishima, Worldwide Impacts, “Longest Running, Continuous Industrial Disaster in History”

Derogation of the Rights of Forest Communities Worldwide

March 16th, 2017 by Forest Peoples Programme

The Indonesian government must address the human rights violations in Long Isun, Indonesia – a global gathering has declared.

Delegates from Africa, Asia and Latin America heard first-hand testimonies of the growing harm facing forest communities around the world. From Indonesia, many cases demonstrated that Government plans and policies favoured the interests of large companies to the detriment of unprotected communities.

They have called on the Government to protect the rights of the communities.

Among the stories shared was the situation facing indigenous people from Long Isun, in Long Pahangai, Mahakam Ulu – in East Kalimantan on the island of Borneo. There, customary land has been seized by the timber company PT. Kemakmuran Berkah Timber (KBT) without prior consultation or consent from the community that lives and survives off the land.

In a recent report (p14 & 22) by international NGO Rainforest Alliance, KBT was said to have failed to protect rare, threatened and endangered species, provided no off-site locations for the disposals of its chemical and damaged soils and water resources. The company was also found to be using Delamethrin in its operations in the Upper Mahakam, a chemical which is extremely toxic to fish even in low concentration.

Speaking to the delegates, Pak Hanyang, from the Dayak Bahau community living in Long Isun, said: “Behind the beauty of the forest lies great sadness, if there is no forest left how will can we expect our children and grandchildren to live? The Dayak Bahau need the forest to survive, we are nothing without the forest.”

The impacts of KBT’s activities have devastated the community. Hufat Biseh, a hunter, said: “The river Meraseh is now dirty. We cannot fish there anymore. Wild boar and deer populations have moved deeper and deeper into the forest fearing the noise caused by KBT’s activities, so it is harder and harder for us to hunt.”

He added that the fish populations had almost disappeared in parts of the river close to the company’s operations.

The community explained that they were worried not only about the pollution of water sources and the physical destruction of their hunting grounds, but the impact it had had on their society, with some members lured by the promise of ‘fees’ and the first pick of newly-harvested hardwoods (ulin).

“Before the company came Naha Aruq and Long Isun were one. Now we cannot speak to some of brothers and sisters in Naha Aruq because they are in bed with the company,” said Inui Yaq.“It has split our community, it has split our family.”

Naha Aruq’s close ties to the new regency government – the Wakil Bupati/Vice District Head originates from the village and its several business interests in the area means the community is more open to the company’s favours.

On hearing the situation, the delegation issued the Pekanbaru Declaration. This expresses concern about KBT’s negative impacts on indigenous rights and raises the alarm at the continued activities despite community resistance, and also calls on the Government of Indonesia to take concrete action to:

  • Revoke the executive order (The SK Bupati Kutai Barat Decree No.136.143/K.917/2011 dated 4th November 2011) which has led to border disputes with neighbouring Naha Aruq and allowed the PT KBT to enter Long Isun ancestral land without their consent.
  • Remove the customary land of the village of Long Isun from all company concessions.
  • Restore Long Isun’s customary boundaries in accordance to the 1966 map agreed between the indigenous communities of the Upper Mahakam.

Indigenous peoples of Long Isun have managed their own lands and forests for generations; it is their birth right to be able to live peacefully on their ancestral land. The 24 Indonesian-based NGOs hope the declaration will spur the Indonesian Government, East Kalimantan and the District of Mahakam Hulu officials, and the national human rights commission to take urgent action to address the gross violations and atrocities that are being committed by KBT.

The Rights of Forest Peoples meeting was held from 6-10 February in Pakanbaru, Indonesia.

KBT is a subsidiary of the Roda Mas Group.

For more information contact: 

Dico Luckyharto – [email protected]
Skype: dico.fpp

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Derogation of the Rights of Forest Communities Worldwide

The Trump administration has further exacerbated the extremely tense standoff on the Korean Peninsula by dispatching attack drones to South Korea and sending special forces units to participate in massive war games already underway. The military build-up takes place as the White House considers launching strikes on North Korean nuclear and military sites.

US Forces Korea announced on Monday that the company of Gray Eagle Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) will be permanently stationed at Kunsan Air Base, south of Seoul. “The UAS adds significant intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability to US Forces Korea and our [South Korean] partners,” it stated.

While the US announcement emphasized reconnaissance, the Gray Eagle drones can also carry up to four Hellfire missiles that have been used to carry out assassinations and strike military targets. The lethal drones can stay aloft for up to 24 hours.

The South Korean military was in no doubt as to the purpose of the deployment. An unnamed official told the Yonhap news agency: “In case of a war on the Korean Peninsula, the unmanned aircraft could infiltrate into the skies of North Korea and make a precision strike on the war command and other major military facilities.”

The dispatch of attack drones to South Korea coincides with the involvement of US special forces in annual Foal Eagle war games, including SEAL Team 6, the highly-trained assassination squad that killed Osama bin Laden. The SEAL team will take part in the joint exercises in South Korea along with US Army Rangers, Delta Force and Green Berets, according to Yonhap.

A military official told the news agency that bigger numbers and more diverse US special operations forces were taking part, in order “to practice missions to infiltrate into the North, remove the North’s war command and demolition of its key military facilities.” The joint Foal Eagle drills are the biggest ever, involving more than 320,000 troops backed by a US aircraft carrier strike group, stealth fighters and strategic bombers.

Commenting on US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s trip to Japan, South Korea and China later this week, State Department spokesman Mark Toner absurdly claimed that the US military was taking “defensive measures” against “an increasingly worrying, concerning threat from North Korea.”

Neither the drones nor the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system to which Toner was referring are “defensive” in character. The drones, along with the special forces units, are rehearsing for pre-emptive attacks on North Korean military sites and “decapitation raids” to kill North Korean leaders. This is in line with an aggressive new joint operational plan, OPLAN 5015, agreed to between the US and South Korea in late 2015.

The THAAD deployment is part of the Pentagon’s broader build-up of anti-ballistic missile systems and military forces in Asia, primarily for war against China. Beijing has repeatedly voiced strenuous objections to the THAAD installation in South Korea, which has a powerful radar system capable of peering deep into the Chinese mainland and giving the US military much greater advance warning of Chinese missile launches in the event of war.

The Trump administration, which is currently reviewing US strategy towards North Korea, is exploiting North Korea’s test launch of four ballistic missiles last week to advance longstanding military preparations on the Korean Peninsula. According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House is actively considering “regime change” in Pyongyang and military strikes on North Korea.

“We have to look at new ideas, new ways of dealing with North Korea,” US State Department spokesman Toner blandly declared. “China understands that threat. They’re not oblivious to what’s happening in North Korea.”

The reference to China underscores the aims of Tillerson’s upcoming trip. Firstly, he intends to brief Washington’s Japanese and South Korean allies on US plans and to encourage closer military cooperation in the event of conflict. Then he will fly to Beijing, where he will attempt to bully the Chinese government into taking tougher punitive action against Pyongyang.

The mounting US threats towards North Korea are also directed against China, which the Trump administration is targeting as the chief obstacle to maintaining US dominance in Asia and internationally. Tillerson has provocatively declared that the US should block Chinese access to islets under Beijing’s administration in the South China Sea. The only way to carry out such a reckless plan would be through a US military blockade—an act of war that could provoke conflict between the two nuclear-armed powers.

Tensions in the South China Sea have been further strained by the decision of the Japanese military to dispatch its largest warship, the JS Izumo, for three months of operations, including in disputed waters. According to Reuters, the Izumo will make stops in Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka before joining the Malabar joint naval exercise with Indian and US naval vessels in the Indian Ocean in July. It will also train with the US navy in the South China Sea.

Over the eight years of the Obama administration and its “pivot to Asia,” the US has engaged in a systematic military expansion throughout the Asia Pacific, strengthened alliances and strategic partnerships and greatly aggravated dangerous regional flashpoints, including the Korean Peninsula and the South China Sea. The Trump administration, which has been critical of the “pivot” for not being sufficiently aggressive, is now embarking on a course that greatly heightens the danger of war.

The response of the North Korean regime to Washington’s actions is reactionary through and through. Its nuclear and missile tests, along with its bloodcurdling threats and Korean chauvinism, in no way defend the Korean people, but do provide the US with a pretext for its military build-up in North East Asia. According to the 38north.org web site, affiliated with John Hopkins University, commercial satellite imagery indicates that Pyongyang could be preparing for another nuclear test.

Confronted with an intense political crisis in Washington, the Trump administration is not simply considering, but actively preparing for reckless provocations and military moves against North Korea that have the potential to trigger a cataclysmic war that draws in the entire world.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on US Sends Drones, Assassination Squad to South Korea. Massive “War Games” Directed against DPRK Underway

On March 1, the WSJ reported that the options contemplated by the White House in response to recent North Korean acts, include “the possibility of both military force and regime change to counter the country’s nuclear-weapons threat.” The review came es amid recent events have strained regional stability including last month’s launch by North Korea of a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan, and the assassination of the estranged half brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Malaysia.

And, according to a report in Yonhap, said “regime change” may come far sooner than expected: the South Korean website writes that U.S. special operations forces, including the unit that killed Osama Bin Laden, will take part in joint military drills in South Korea “to practice incapacitating North Korean leadership in the case of conflict”, a military official said Monday.

The U.S. Navy’s Special Warfare Development Group, better known as the SEAL Team 6, will arrive in South Korea for joint military drills and take part in an exercise simulating a precision North Korean incurion and “the removal of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un”, according to the Ministry of National Defense Monday.

The U.S. Navy SEAL Team Six will join the annual Foal Eagle and Key Resolve exercises between the two allies for the first time, along with the Army’s Rangers, Delta Force and Green Berets.

The counterterrorism unit is best known for its removal of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May 2011, known as Operation Neptune Spear. It will be the team’s first time participating in the annual Foal Eagle and Key Resolve exercises, which will run through late April.

The ministry did not say when the SEAL Team 6 will arrive. The Japan Times reported that the American unit boarded the USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, last Friday and are currently training in South Korean waters. The carrier will arrive in Busan Port Wednesday, according to the Japanese newspaper. The ministry did not say when the SEAL Team 6 will arrive, however according to The Japan Times, the American unit will arrive in Busan Port Wednesday, according to the Japanese newspaper.

As Korea JoongAng Daily adds, also set to touch down in South Korea is Delta Force, a special mission unit of the U.S. Army whose main tasks include hostage rescue and counterterrorism, said the Defense MinistryTogether with SEAL Team 6, they will practice removing Kim Jong-un and destruction of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction.

“It will send a very strong message to North Korea, which is constantly carrying out military provocations,” a ministry official said.

A bigger number of and more diverse U.S. special operation forces will take part in this year’s Foal Eagle and Key Resolve exercises to practice missions to infiltrate into the North, remove the North’s war command and demolition of its key military facilities,” a ministry official told Yonhap News Agency asking not to be named.

F-35 stealth fighters will also fly from U.S. Navy bases in Japan this month and carry out strike simulations on key North Korean facilities. A joint amphibious landing operation, which will kick off next month, will see the deployment of support ships the USS Bonhomme Richard, USS Green Bay and USS Ashland.

The beefing up of U.S. special operation forces in the drills comes after North Korean leader Kim said in a New Year’s speech that the country was in the “final stage” of test-firing an intercontinental ballistic missile, the first of its kind, and pushed through two separate missile tests earlier this year, the latest on March 6. North Korea claimed through its state-run media that the most recent drill was aimed at striking “the bases of the U.S. imperialist aggressor forces in Japan.”

Washington and Seoul stress that the annual military drills are purely defensive, although Pyongyang sees them as a rehearsal for an invasion. South Korea’s military said around 290,000 domestic soldiers and 10,000 U.S. soldiers will participate in this year’s drills, which by scale would be approximately the same as last year, the largest to date.

While the US may have decided to remove the element of surprise from a potential tactical strike inside North Korea in order to spook Kim Jong-Un, it is just as likely that by exposing their intentions, the US may have precipitated a response from the Korean leader which will make such a military operation inevitable, even as the geopolitical fallout for the region from such an action could be dire. As a reminder, last week an analysis by the Predata-Beyond Parallel strategic consultancy predicted that there is a 43% chance of North Korean WMD activity taking place in the next 14 days, rising to 62% in the next 30 days. Beyond Parallel defines WMD activity as nuclear tests and ballistic missile launches.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on US Delta Force, SEAL Team 6 Prepare To “Take Out Kim Jong-Un”, Practice Tactical North Korea “Infiltration”

The United States and South Korea are conducting their largest-ever military exercises on the Korean peninsula [1], one week after the White House announced that it was considering military action against North Korea to bring about regime change. [2] The US-led exercises involve:

• 300,000 South Korea troops
• 17,000 US troops
• The supercarrier USS Carl Vinson (image below)
• US F-35B and F-22 stealth fighters
• US B-18 and B-52 bombers
• South Korean F-15s and KF-16s jetfighters. [3]

While the United States labels the drills as “purely defensive” [4] the nomenclature is misleading. The exercises are not defensive in the sense of practicing to repel a possible North Korean invasion and to push North Korean forces back across the 38th parallel in the event of a North Korean attack, but envisage an invasion of North Korea in order to incapacitate its nuclear weapons, destroy its military command, and assassinate its leader.

The exercises can only be construed as “defensive” if undertaken as preparation for a response to an actual North Korean first-strike, or as a rehearsed pre-emptive response to an anticipated first strike. In either event, the exercises are invasion-related, and Pyongyang’s complaint that US and South Korean forces are practicing an invasion is valid.

But the likelihood of a North Korean attack on South Korea is vanishingly small. Pyongyang is outspent militarily by Seoul by a factor of almost 4:1, [5] and South Korean forces can rely on more advanced weapons systems than can North Korea. Additionally, the South Korean military is not only backed up by, but is under the command of, the unprecedentedly powerful US military.

A North Korean attack on South Korea would be suicidal, and therefore we can regard its possibility as virtually non-existent, especially in light of US nuclear doctrine which allows the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea. Indeed, US leaders have reminded North Korean leaders on numerous occasions that their country could be turned into “a charcoal briquette.” [6] That anyone of consequence in the US state truly believes that South Korea is under threat of an attack by the North is risible.

The exercises are being carried out within the framework of Operation Plan 5015 which “aims to remove the North’s weapons of mass destruction and prepare … for a pre-emptive strike in the event of an imminent North Korean attack, as well a ‘decapitation’ raids targeting the leadership.” [7]

In connection with decapitation raids, the exercises involve “US Special Missions Units responsible for the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011, including SEAL Team Six.” [8] According to one newspaper report, the “participation of special forces in the drills…may be an indication the two sides are rehearsing the assassination of Kim Jong Un.” [9]

A US official told South Korea’s Yonhap news agency that “A bigger number of and more diverse US special operation forces will take part in this year’s … exercises to practice missions to infiltrate the North, remove the North’s war command and demolish its key military facilities.” [10]

Astonishingly, despite participating in the highly provocative exercises–which can have no other consequence than to rattle the North Koreans and place them under imminent threat—the South Korean ministry of national defense announced that “South Korea and the US were keenly monitoring the movements of North Korean soldiers in preparation for possible provocations.” [11]

The notion that Washington and Seoul must be on the alert for North Korean ‘provocations’, at a time the Pentagon and its South Korean ally are rehearsing an invasion and ‘decapitation’ strike against North Korea, represents what East Asia specialist Tim Beal calls a “special sort of unreality.” [12] Adding to the unreality is the fact that the rehearsal for an invasion comes on the heels of the White House announcing urbi et orbi that it is considering military action against North Korea to bring about regime change.

In 2015, the North Koreans proposed to suspend their nuclear weapons program in exchange for the United States suspending its military exercises on the peninsula. The US State Department peremptorily dismissed the offer, saying it inappropriately linked the United States’ “routine” military drills to what Washington demanded of Pyongyang, namely, denuclearization. [13] Instead, Washington “insisted the North give up its nuclear weapons program first before any negotiations” could take place. [14]

In 2016, the North Koreans made the same proposal. Then US president Barack Obama replied that Pyongyang would “have to do better than that.” [15]

At the same time, the high-profile Wall Street-directed Council on Foreign Relations released a task force report which advised Washington against striking a peace deal with North Korea on the grounds that Pyongyang would expect US troops to withdraw from the peninsula. Were the United States to quit the peninsula militarily, its strategic position relative to China and Russia, namely, its ability to threaten its two near-peer competitors, would be weakened, the report warned. Accordingly, Washington was adjured to refrain from promising Beijing that any help it provided in connection with North Korea would be rewarded by a reduction in the US troop presence on the peninsula. [16]

Earlier this month, China resurrected Pyongyang’s perennial proposal. “To defuse the looming crisis on the peninsula, China [proposed] that, as a first step, [North Korea] suspend its missile and nuclear activities in exchange for a halt in the large scale US – [South Korea] exercises. This suspension-for-suspension,” the Chinese argued, “can help us break out of the security dilemma and bring the parties back to the negotiating table.” [17]

Washington rejected the proposal immediately. So too did Japan. The Japanese ambassador to the UN reminded the world that the US goal is “not a freeze-for-freeze but to denuclearize North Korea.” [18] Implicit in this reminder was the addendum that the United States would take no steps to denuclearize its own approach to dealing with North Korea (Washington dangles a nuclear sword of Damocles over Pyongyang) and would continue to carry out annual rehearsals for an invasion.

Refusal to negotiate, or to demand that the other side immediately grant what is being demanded as a precondition for talks, (give me what I want, then I’ll talk), is consistent with the approach to North Korea adopted by Washington as early as 2003. Urged by Pyongyang to negotiate a peace treaty, then US Secretary of State Colin Powell demurred. “We don’t do non-aggression pacts or treaties, things of that nature,” Powell explained. [19]

As part of the special unreality constructed by the United States, Russia, or more specifically its president, Vladimir Putin, is routinely accused by Washington of committing “aggressions,” which are said to include military exercises along the Russian border with Ukraine. These exercises, hardly on the immense scale of the US-South Korean exercises, are labelled “highly provocative” [20] by US officials, while the Pentagon-led rehearsal for an invasion of North Korea is described as routine and “defensive in nature.”

But imagine that Moscow had mobilized 300,000 Russian troops along the Ukraine border, under an operational plan to invade Ukraine, neutralize its military assets, destroy its military command, and assassinate its president, one week after the Kremlin declared that it was considering military action in Ukraine to bring about regime change. Who, except someone mired in a special sort of unreality, would construe this as “purely defensive in nature”?

Notes

1. “THAAD, ‘decapitation’ raid add to allies’ new drills,” The Korea Herald, March 13, 2017; Elizabeth Shim, “U.S., South Korean drills include bin Laden assassination team,” UPI, March 13, 2017.

2. Jonathan Cheng and Alastair Gale, “North Korea missile test stirs ICBM fears,” The Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2017.

3. “S. Korea, US begins largest-ever joint military drills,” KBS World, March 5, 2017; Jun Ji-hye, “Drills to strike N. Korea taking place,” Korea Times, March 13, 2017.

4. Jun Ji-hye, “Drills to strike N. Korea taking place,” Korea Times, March 13, 2017.

5. Alastair Gale and Chieko Tsuneoka, “Japan to increase military spending for fifth year in a row,” The Wall Street Journal, December 21, 2016.

6. Bruce Cumings, “Latest North Korean provocations stem from missed US opportunities for demilitarization,” Democracy Now!, May 29, 2009.

7. “THAAD, ‘decapitation’ raid add to allies’ new drills,” The Korea Herald, March 13, 2017.

8. “U.S., South Korean drills include bin Laden assassination team,” UPI, March 13, 2017.

9. Ibid.

10. “U.S. Navy SEALs to take part in joint drills in S. Korea,” Yonhap, March 13, 2017.

11. Jun Ji-hye, “Drills to strike N. Korea taking place,” Korea Times, March 13, 2017.

12. Tim Beal, “Looking in the right direction: Establishing a framework for analyzing the situation on the Korean peninsula (and much more besides),” Korean Policy Institute, April 23, 2016.

13. Choe Sang-hun, “North Korea offers U.S. deal to halt nuclear test,” The New York Times, January 10, 2015.

14. Eric Talmadge, “Obama dismisses NKorea proposal on halting nuke tests,” Associated Press, April 24, 2016.

15. Ibid.

16. “A Sharper Choice on North Korea: Engaging China for a Stable Northeast Asia,” Independent Task Force Report No. 74, Council on Foreign Relations, 2016.

17. “China limited in its self-appointed role as mediator for Korean peninsula affairs,” The Hankyoreh, March 9, 2017.

18. Farnaz Fassihi, Jeremy Page and Chun Han Wong, “U.N. Security Council decries North Korea missile test,” The Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2017.

19. “Beijing to host North Korea talks,” The New York Times, August 14, 2003.

20. Stephen Fidler, “NATO struggles to muster ‘spearhead’ force to counter Russia,” The Wall Street Journal, December 1, 2014.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Dangerous Crossroads: US “Rehearsal” of Invasion of North Korea. Largest Ever US-ROK Military Exercise

A US led war against North Korea would affect the entire Asia Pacific  region. It is crucial that ASEAN countries take a firm stance against Washington’s first strike missile threats against the DPRK.

As outlined by Chandra Muzaffar, Malaysia has taken the lead. (M. Ch. GR Editor). 

The Malaysian government has done the right thing in keeping the channels of communication with the North Korean Government open. It wants an amicable resolution of the friction arising from the murder of Kim Jong-Nam, the elder brother of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Un, at KLIA (Kuala Lumpur International Airport) 2 on the 13th of February 2017. 

Prime Minister Najib Razak has made it very clear that Malaysia has no intention of severing diplomatic ties with North Korea.

The North Korean government has also adopted a positive stance. It has given a firm assurance to its Malaysian counterpart that the nine Malaysians who are still at the Malaysian Embassy in Pyongyang are safe and are allowed to carry on with their daily routine. However, they are barred from leaving North Korea.The Malaysian government has reciprocated by reiterating that North Koreans in Malaysia who are prohibited from leaving the country will not be harmed in any way.

These positive vibes from both sides should encourage the two governments to begin serious negotiations on a variety of issues pertaining to the current crisis. It is quite conceivable that the talking has already commenced. If a facilitator is required, the Chinese government would be the best candidate. It remains — in spite of its disillusionment with Pyongyang — North Korea’s only real ally. At the same time, China and Malaysia are close friends.

Apart from lifting the bans on nationals from each other’s country that Pyongyang and Putrajaya have imposed, the two governments will have to address the central question of Kim Jong-Nam’s murder and the investigations being conducted by the Malaysian authorities.  North Korea will have to concede that Malaysia has been rational and professional in its approach. It has adhered to international law and established norms in the handling of cases of this sort. For these reasons Pyongyang should extend its fullest cooperation to Putrajaya.

Going on the basis of North Korea’s past record, it will not be easy to persuade its leadership to uphold the principles of international law. As a case in point, in spite of six sets of UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests, it continues to conduct such tests. The latest was its firing of two powerful Musudon medium-range missiles on the 1st of March 2017 one of which flew 400 kilometres into the Sea of Japan.

North Korea has often argued that it conducts these tests because the United States of America and South Korea continue to hold annual military war-games in its vicinity. The Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, has proposed that North Korea suspend its nuclear and missile tests while the US and South Korea halt their military exercises. A quid pro quo approach he hopes can bring the three parties to the negotiating table.

Once negotiations begin other outstanding issues can also be addressed. The recent deployment of the US’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system in South Korea has undoubtedly exacerbated relations between South and North Korea and between South Korea, on the one hand, and China and Russia, on the other. China and Russia perceive THAAD as a system that alters significantly the balance of power within the region. THAAD, and the larger question of the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula should be discussed among all concerned parties.

In fact, denuclearisation was the focus of a six-party discussion from 2003 to 2008. North Korea, China and Russia, together with South Korea, Japan and the United States constituted the six parties and they met in Malaysia. Though the talks did not achieve their desired goal, there is no reason why an attempt should not be made to revive it. Immediate concerns such as missiles and THAAD rather than denuclearisation should be the main items on the agenda this time.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Malaysia and the Question of North Korea. A US Led War against North Korea Would Affect the Entire Asia-Pacific Region

Fukushima Radiation, What Prospects for Humanity

March 12th, 2017 by Helen Caldicott

Do not go to Japan. Do not under any circumstances take your children to Japan, because you don’t know what you’re eating and where the food is sourced…

And the Japanese are trying now to export their radioactive food to London and elsewhere. Taiwan has refused to receive it. But, it’s dangerous and it’s going to continue to be dangerous for the rest of time. It’s sad.Dr. Helen Caldicott (from this week’s interview.)

 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (59:09)

Click to download audio (MP3 format)

Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear educator and former nuclear industry senior vice president, has referred to it as “the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind.” [1]

Six years ago this week, a tsunami, triggered by a category 9.0 earthquake, slammed into the site of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility on the north east coast of the Japanese island of Honshu. The natural disaster resulted in the failure of systems keeping the reactor cores and spent fuel rods cool, leading to core meltdowns in three of the plant’s reactors, as well as damage from consequent hydrogen explosions. [2]

Enormous quantities of radioactive particles were released into the atmosphere and the water table leading to the Pacific Ocean. Approximately 170,000 people in the vicinity of the plant were immediately evacuated.

The World Health Organization downplayed the health risks from the catastrophe, concluding in their 2013 Health Risk Assessment from the nuclear accident that the risks of contracting certain cancers in certain sex and age groups were only “somewhat elevated.” The report also concluded “no discernable increase in health risks from the Fukushima event is expected outside Japan.” [3]

Nevertheless, a health management survey examining 38,000 children in Fukushima found three children diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The natural incidence is one in one million. [4]

Further, a December 2011 peer-reviewed report in the International Journal of Health Sciences found that in the 14 weeks immediately following the event, there were 14,000 excess deaths in the United States connected with radio-active fall-out from the Fukushima meltdowns. [5]

 The Japanese government has been so successful in its efforts to assuage the concerns of the wider public that Prime Minister Abe was able to secure Tokyo as the site for the 2020 Olympic Summer Games! As of this month, the Abe government ends its housing subsidies to people evacuated from the area proximate to the nuclear facility, forcing those fearful of the lingering radiation to fend for themselves abroad. [6][7]

The nuclear accident may have profound consequences for all humanity, and possibly all life on Earth, yet the severity of the situation doesn’t seem to merit major headlines.

On this, the sixth anniversary of the start of the Fukushima crisis, we spend the hour with world renowned nuclear watchdog, Dr. Helen Caldicott.

 In this interview, conducted and recorded on International Women’s Day, Dr. Caldicott talks about the high radiation reading recently recorded at Unit 2, efforts to contain the radioactive water spilling out of the facility, projected health risks from the cesium, tritium, strontium and other isotopes spewing from the site and much, much more. Caldicott also extends the discussion to talk about Canada’s role in nuclear proliferation and the threats posed by the new Trump Administration and Cold War atmosphere in which it is situated.

 Dr. Helen Caldicott is a physician and co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility. She is a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, the recipient of the 2003 Lannan Prize for Cultural Freedom, and author or editor of several books including Nuclear Madness: What You Can Do (1979), If You Love This Planet: A Plan to Heal The Earth (1992)The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush’s Military-Industrial Complex(2001), and Crisis Without End -The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe (2014). She is currently the president of the Helen Caldicott Foundation (NuclearFreePlanet.org). Her latest book, Sleepwalking to Armaggedon: The Threat of Nuclear Annihilation will be available in bookstores in July, 2017. 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (59:09)

Click to download audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in everyThursday at 6pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca 

 

Notes: 

1) http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34565-radioactive-water-from-fukushima-is-leaking-into-the-pacific

2) ibid

3) “Health Risk Assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami” (World Health Organization 2013) p. 9; http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf

4) Hisako Sakiyama (2013) from the Symposium at the New York Academy of Medicine March 11-12, 2013; quoted in Crisis Without End: The MEdical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe, p.40, edited by Helen Caldicott

5) Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, “14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout,” International Journal of Health Services, December 19, 2011, 

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-journal-article–14000-us-deaths-tied-to-fukushima-reactor-disaster-fallout-135859288.html

6) “Abe claims Fukushima radioactive water woes are ‘under control’ ” The Japan Times, October 16, 2013;  http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/10/16/national/politics-diplomacy/abe-claims-fukushima-radioactive-water-woes-are-under-control/#.WMN7VNQrLs1

7) Satoshi Iizuka (March 7, 2017), “Financial crunch time looms for Fukushima’s ‘voluntary evacuees’”,  The Japan Times;  http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/07/national/social-issues/financial-crunch-time-looms-fukushimas-voluntary-evacuees/#.WMN9ZtQrLs1

The most outstanding feature of Islam is its history; if you study Islamic history, you would come to realize that Islam did not spread by force alone, it was the superior moral appeal of its peerless ethics that won the hearts and minds of medieval masses. For instance: Mongols conquered most of the eastern lands of the Islamic Empire during the thirteenth century, however, the Muslims of those lands did not convert to the religion of the conquerors: that is, the Mongolian Shamanism. Instead, the conquerors adopted the religion of the vanquished, i.e. Islam. Not only the Mongols, but several Turkish tribes also voluntarily converted to Islam. Such was the beauty of Islamic teachings and its sublime moral appeal in ancient times.

During the medieval times, when Europe was going through an age of intellectual and moral regression, Islamic culture thrived and flourished under the Abbasids, Ottomans and Mughals. Muslims ruled over India for more than six centuries; despite that, at the time of the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, Hindus outnumbered Muslims three to one (there were only 100 million Muslims in the population of 400 million Indians in 1947). That’s how tolerant and inclusive Islamic culture was back then. By comparison, the Red Indians of America and the Aborigines of Australia were reduced to a tiny minority of those continents after the European invasions.

The Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughal Empire were regarded as benevolent rulers by ancient historians. But when India was conquered by the British Empire, their Orientalist historians deliberately propagated the myth of supposedly “savage and rapacious” rule of Muslims in India in order to sow the seeds of dissension between Muslims and Hindus. In the nineteenth century, the newly established British education system in India deliberately portrayed Muslim rulers of India as marauders, rapists and looters in order to malign them. By contrast, the British rule in India was portrayed in a positive light: that the British Empire built roads and railways and established schools, colleges and hospitals in India.

If we were to compare the British and Muslim rules in India, the Muslim rulers at least resided in India and shared their wealth and fortune with their subjects. The British rule, on the other hand, was a foreign rule; the affairs of the state were run by viceroys and governors on the behalf of the monarchs of England who resided thousands of miles away in London. A small number of European colonizers in India treated their subjects as untouchables; they traded raw materials for pennies and sent finished goods back to the Indian market with huge profits, thus enriching themselves and the British Empire.

Up until 1857, the Hindus and Muslims of India were united enough to rise up in arms together against the British colonizers under the nominal command of the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar. But after that, the British education system introduced by Lord Macaulay in India entrenched communal divisions and made it virtually impossible for Hindus and Muslims to understand each other, even though both religious communities were the victims of exploitation of foreign rule.

Regarding the notion peddled by the Orientalist historians that Muslims or Islam were somehow foreign to India, we need to settle on the definition of nativity first. If an Indian settles in the US, for instance, how would you define such a first generation immigrant? Since he was brought up in India and subsequently migrated to a Western country, therefore such a first generation Indian-American would have more in common with Indians than Americans, as such. But how would you identify the children of an immigrant who have been brought up and educated in the West? The second generation Indian-Americans, for all practical purposes, would be more American than Indian in their outlooks.

Similarly, although I concede that the invading armies of Muslim rulers from Central Asia, Afghanistan and Iran were foreign to India; but once they settled in India, made Delhi their seat of governance, intermarried and gave birth to Indian children, then how come the descendants of such benevolent rulers be labeled as foreign invaders? Excluding a few odd adventurers, like Mahmud of Ghazni, who had his seat of government in Afghanistan but plundered the wealth of India by conducting raids on Somnath, the Muslim rulers of India, particularly the Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughal Empire, were as much native to India as the Hindu and Sikh rajas and maharajas.

Notwithstanding, the only true sociological definition of nation is ethno-linguistic group. The concept of modern nation state, particularly in multiethnic federations like India and Pakistan, is an artificial construct which is predicated on nothing substantive but on myths, fables and symbols. Rather than monolithic communities, the Hindus and Muslims of India were more parochial and tribal in character.

The astute Orientalist historians of British India debunked the myth of six centuries’ old Muslim rule in India by calling them “marauders” and substituted it with the fables of the pre-Christ Maurya Empire in order to forge and reify Hindu identity against Muslims. The primary concern of impoverished Indian masses was to earn bread and butter for their families. The metanarratives of Hindu and Muslim nationalism were taught by the British rulers, Hindu elites and Muslim ashrafiya to their subjects in order to distract and exploit them.

Here, let me clarify that I am not giving a free pass to the Muslim rulers of India. Their rule must have been as tyrannical as any other undemocratic, elitist rule throughout the history has been. I am only contending that the Muslim rulers were deliberately singled out and vilified in order to sow the seeds of dissension between the two communities.

After all, if the British rulers who resided in England and ruled over India can be hailed as saviors who built roads and railways and established schools, colleges and hospitals, not by academics but by common Indian citizens, then why can’t the Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughal Empire that ensured peace and stability in India and built architectural wonders in Delhi, Lahore and Agra be granted a similar level of deference?

By the British divide-and-rule policy in the Indian context, it is generally assumed by Indian historians that the British rulers used the Muslim minority against the Hindu majority by giving the former preferential treatment, separate electorates etc. but the fact is often overlooked that the British imperialists in equal measure used the Hindus against the Muslims by vilifying the latter’s culture, rule and religion.

Moreover, the partition of Bengal on religious lines in 1905 was another classic instance of the British divide-and-rule policy through demographic change. In this case, the British imperialists cleverly partitioned the Hindu-majority Bengal province into the Muslim-majority East Bengal and the Hindu-majority West Bengal. As a consequence, the Hindus felt aggrieved and launched a mass movement against the partition; the Raj obliged the Hindus by accepting their demand of reunifying Bengal in 1911 which created a sense of alienation and deprivation among Muslims.

This time around, however, despite unifying the province along linguistic lines, at the same time the British rulers split up Bihar and Orissa province to the west and Assam province to the east; thus, reducing the initial Hindu majority (pre-1905) that included Bihar, Orissa and Assam, in favor of Muslim majority (post-1911) in the reunified Bengal. Additionally, the British rulers also devised separate electorates for Muslims in 1909; thus, pitting one community against the other which had lived peacefully for centuries before the arrival of British in India.

Finally, rather than cultivating inclusive Indian nationalism that would glorify Hindu, Muslim and Sikh identities and histories in equal measure, the British rulers maliciously nurtured exclusionary Hindu and Muslim nationalism in order to divide the communities and prolong the British rule. As several contemporary Indian historians have contended that Muslim nationalism in India was a reaction to exclusionary Hindu nationalism.

The political leadership of India was the product of British education system that forged artificial identities and entrenched communal divisions, therefore it was not possible for them to rise above their communal prejudices and work for the betterment of all Indians as a nation. This self-serving, divide-and-rule policy by the British rulers and their Hindu, Muslim and Sikh collaborators eventually led to a carnage and mass exodus of people on the eve of independence the likes of which history has seldom witnessed.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and MENA regions, neocolonialism and Petroimperialism.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on How Orientalism Pitted Hindus against Muslims in India?

As the first military hardware associated with the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, commonly called THAAD, arrives in the southern region of the Korean Peninsula, the tensions around and within the  region seem to be escalating. A number of ongoing crises in South Korea are starting to take their toll, and could have regional and global implications.

The most prominent source of tension is the new missile system being erected in cooperation with the United States. The narrative in US media surrounding THAAD is that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, smeared as “the crazy North Koreans,” are threatening to destroy the Republic of Korea located in the south. The new missile system is said to simply be a mechanism for protecting a vulnerable, democratic US ally, that faces being wiped out. Mark Toner of the US State Department described the erection of THAAD as “frankly a response to a threat.”

Who is mad about THAAD? And Why?

Objections to THAAD are not only coming from Pyongyang. Moscow and Beijing have both spoken up against the new missile system for reasons that are routinely ignored in US media discourse.

South Korea is hardly unprotected and alone. The United States already has 28,500 troops in South Korea. It also has F-16 fighter aircraft and A-10 bomber jets. South Korea’s military is also very well stocked, with F-35 Fighter Jets, Aegis Destroyers, and all kinds of military hardware purchased from the United States.

The THAAD missile system being erected in a contract with Lockheed-Martin, in cold war terms, is a “strike enabling system.” Once the system is completed, the US and South Korean forces that are already in the Peninsula are free to launch an attack on North Korea, China, or Russia. The THAAD system, modeled after Israel’s Iron Dome, would prevent retaliation strikes aimed at disabling the attackers. THAAD enables the US and South Korea to begin striking countries in the region, while shielding themselves from any response. Furthermore, THAAD includes a radar system that will closely monitor regional activity, not only in North Korea, but also in northern China.

Its not hard to tell why Russia and China are loudly objecting to this multi-billion dollar military project. Strike enabling systems with penetrating radars are not a mechanism of defusing tension, in an already tense region. THAAD is the latest development in the Pentagon’s ongoing “Asian Pivot,” moving forces into the Pacific. Similar moves have already escalated tensions in the South China Sea.

US media’s justification for the project depends on a false, racist and cartoonish caricature of the DPRK. Fictional Hollywood movies, disproven news items about executions by wild dogs, and endless rumor mongering have all painted a picture of DPRK’s leadership as a group of people hell bent on nuclear war. In reality, the government in the north has frequently stated that its goal is peaceful, democratic re-unification of the peninsula, not war, death, and destruction.

Dissent, Repression & Democracy

At the same time this controversial and provocative missile system is being erected, the President of the Republic of Korea is facing impeachment. Park Geun-hye has had her power suspended as the country prepares for an impeachment trial. Park has been caught taking bribes, and giving favors to members of the corporate elite. Lee Jae-yong, described as the de-facto leader of the multinational electronics conglomerate known as Samsung is facing criminal charges for his illicit dealings with President Park.

Lee Jae-myung, a left-wing populist, is growing in popularity. Lee’s political career has been closely identified with expanding the social safety net and workplace protections. Lee is also a loud opponent of THAAD. Lee’s voice joins a chorus of Korean activists who have filled the streets protesting against the ongoing presence of US troops and the installation of the new missile system. The large anti-US, left-wing activist movement among Koreans, which made global headlines in prior decades has not gone away. It persists among young and old Koreans, despite the heavy restrictions on its activity and constant repression.

Global media has dubbed Lee Jae-myung as “the Bernie Sanders” of South Korea. However, there is one key difference between Lee and Sanders. Sanders identifies himself as a “Democratic Socialist.” Lee does not use such terms to describe himself, as doing so is illegal under the National Security Laws. While millions of Koreans living in the south identify with organized labor, anti-capitalism, socialism, and other radical left-wing ideas, their ability to express themselves is tightly restricted.

The slightest criticism of capitalism, discussions of the history of the Korean War, or statements in any way perceived as being supportive of their northern countryfolk can land citizens of South Korea in prison. The National Security Laws of South Korea are condemned by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and many international bodies. A 24 year old photographer and activist named Park Jung-geun was convicted and given a 10-month suspended sentence simply for sarcastically tweeting the phrase “Long Live Kim Jong-Il” in 2012.

The Unified Progressive Party, a dissident voice in Korean politics, has been outlawed. The leaders of the party were imprisoned after an audio recording surfaced. The crime for which party leaders were sentenced to decades in prison was a hypothetical conversation about what to do in the context all out war between the North and South.

While the US media’s narrative ignores it, for the majority of the years following the country’s division in 1945, the southern half of the Korean peninsula has hardly been democratic. Military dictators like Sygman Rhee ruled with an iron fist. The scandal ridden President who faces a pending impeachment trial is herself the daughter of Park Chung-Hee, the military dictator who ruled the country until his assassination in 1979.

The current President’s father not only brutally repressed labor unions and dissident students, but also slaughtered thousands of Koreans simply for being homeless. In 1975, Hee issued an order for the police to remove all homeless people from the capital city of Seoul. Koreans determined by the police to be vagrants were placed in a network of 36 different prison camps throughout the country, and forced to work long hours. Torture was routinely utilized in these camps, and an unknown number died. While US media endlessly hypes up unsubstantiated claims about “labor camps” in the North, often coming from defectors with clear incentives to exaggerate, the reality of labor camps under the US backed regime in the south, and the thousands who died after being worked to death in them, has been largely glossed over.

What Role Will South Korea Play?

China hasn’t simply objected to THAAD with words. Chinese corporations are tightly controlled by the Communist Party, and their activities fit in with the country’s five year development plan. International observers have often commented on the Chinese governments ability to cooperate with the private sector in order to serve geopolitical goals. An undeclared boycott of South Korea is now being carried out by Chinese businesses.

China’s tourism websites have stopped booking packages in South Korea, which has been a popular destination for Chinese tourists in recent years. The Japanese-Korean conglomerate known as Lotte has also faced a sudden loss of Chinese business. 23 Lotte owned stores in China have been closed own. South Korean music and TV programs have been blocked from web-streaming services on the Chinese mainland. As China cuts off a large amount of its business dealings with South Korea, critics of Beijing are calling these measures “unofficial sanctions” in retaliation for THAAD.

During his Presidential campaign, Donald Trump questioned the US relationship with South Korea, saying “We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself … they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.”

Though Lee Jae-myung is a leftist, and Trump is identified with the extreme right wing in the United States, on this issue, they seem to agree. Lee is quoted as saying “Americans impeached their establishment by electing Trump… Our elections will do the same.”

Lee Jae-myung, who wants to US military presence scaled back, is one of the “big three” expected to run in the upcoming Presidential election. More and more Koreans agree with his argument that allying with the United States against the north, China, and Russia, is not in the people’s best interest. Furthermore, less than 4% of the population stands behind the disgraced President. South Korea could soon be moving in the same direction as the Philippines, where the long standing neoliberal, pro-American status quo was shaken up by the election of Rodrigo Duterte.

With the THAAD controversy boiling, amid bribery scandals, impeachment proceedings, discontent with the status quo, and renewed tensions with the North, the southern half of the Korean peninsula is gradually becoming more and more of a global hotspot. The point of disagreement seems to be about the role southern Korean will play in the world. Will it remain an extension of US influence in Asia, or will the southern half of the Korean peninsula follow in the footsteps of its powerful Chinese neighbors and northern countryfolk? Will Koreans in the south declare their economic, political, and military independence from the United States and Japan?

These questions, which have driven so many uprisings, protests, military coups, and strikes since 1945 are not going away any time soon.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on The Korean Crisis and the THAAD Missile Deployment: A Growing Tinderbox in the South

A potential wood supplier for one of the world’s largest pulp and paper mills does not have the consent of local communities

A joint investigation report released in English on May 8, 2017 by Indonesian NGOs titled “Local Communities Reject PT. Bangun Rimba Sejahtera, Potential Supplier to APP’s OKI Mill”, details the opposition of local communities to the development of industrial pulpwood plantations on their lands in Banka Belitung, Indonesia. Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) is considering purchasing wood from these plantations as a fiber source for its controversial new mill PT. OKI Pulp and Paper mill, despite the ongoing conflicts. The OKI Pulp and Paper mill is one of the world’s largest and has been criticized over concerns that its high demand for wood fiber will drive new land conflicts, breaking APP’s social and environmental commitments.

The report shows that Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) is currently considering PT. Bangun Rimba Sejahtera (BRS) as a fiber supplier for its OKI mill, despite BRS being rejected by a majority of the communities living within and adjacent to the BRS plantation concession.

“One hundred thousand people could be negatively affected by these plantations,” said Ratno Budi of Walhi Banka Belitung. “A majority of these communities have declared their objection to the plantation and to the presence of BRS on their community lands.”

Communities have organized demonstrations and written letters and petitions to government officials opposing the BRS plantation, as their customary lands, which will be affected, are the primary source of livelihood for most community members. The report shows that communities were not adequately consulted about the project and did not give their consent to the plantation. It also documents how BRS has included police and army in public meetings, with an intimidating effect on local residents.

“APP has made a commitment that any new concessions or fiber used to supply the OKI mill will respect the rights of affected communities to give or withhold their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC),” said Aidil Fitri, director of HaKi. “If APP brings BRS on as a supplier it would clearly be breaking its own sustainability policies and its promise to respect human rights.”

“There is a lot of concern that the OKI mill will drive more social conflict, peatland drainage and deforestation” said Lafcadio Cortesi of Rainforest Action Network. “This is a test case for APP. Pulp and paper customers and investors will be watching whether APP will be true to its word and avoid suppliers like BRS.”

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Deforestation and Industrial Pulpwood Plantations in Indonesia, Devastating Social and Environmental Impacts

The US has begun the installation of its Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea, provoking an angry reaction from China, which warned that it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. The provocative move will heighten the already tense situation on the Korean Peninsula as the US and South Korea engage in huge annual war games.

Two trucks, each mounted with a THAAD launch pad, were landed aboard a C-17 cargo plane at the US military’s Osan Air Base, south of Seoul, on Monday night. According to South Korean military officials, more equipment and personnel will arrive in the coming weeks. The THAAD battery installation is likely to be completed as early as May or June.

US officials exploited North Korea’s test launch of four ballistic missiles on Monday morning as the pretext for commencing the THAAD installation. However, the final go-ahead for the THAAD deployment, which was agreed by South Korea last July, occurred last week when the South Korean government acquired the planned site in a land swap deal with the conglomerate Lotte.

Washington also insists that the THAAD placement is purely defensive and needed to counter North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. In reality, the THAAD system is offensive in character. It is an important component of an expanding US anti-ballistic missile system in Asia that is primarily aimed at preparing for nuclear war against China, not North Korea.

US imperialism, which has an estimated 4,000 nuclear warheads, has never ruled out a first nuclear strike and is spending $1 trillion to upgrade its nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Its anti-ballistic missile systems are designed to neutralise the ability of any enemy to retaliate in the event of a US nuclear attack. The Federation of American Scientists estimated that China had about 260 nuclear warheads as of 2015.

The THAAD system is designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles at high altitude. It consists of a powerful X-band radar system to track missiles at long range, linked to truck-mounted interceptors designed to destroy a hostile missile in flight. In the event of war with China, the THAAD system would not only protect key US military bases in South Korea and Japan. Its X-band radar could detect and track missile launches deep inside the Chinese mainland.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang yesterday reiterated Beijing’s opposition to the THAAD deployment. Geng warned that China would “take necessary measures to defend our security interests and the consequences will be shouldered by the United States and South Korea.”

Russia also condemned the THAAD installation. Victor Ozerov, who chairs Russia’s Federal Defense and Security Committee, branded the deployment as “another provocation against Russia” aimed, if not at encircling Russia, “then at least to besiege it from the west and the east.”

The Chinese government has already taken retaliatory moves against South Korea, closing more than 20 stores owned by Lotte in China on the pretext of safety violations, and has advised travel agents not to sell South Korean packages to Chinese tourists. The state-owned media has suggested a wider boycott of South Korean goods and even the severing of diplomatic relations with Seoul.

A commentary in the official Xinhua news agency warned that the THAAD deployment “will bring an arms race in the region.” Hinting that China would enlarge its nuclear arsenal to counter the US anti-ballistic missile systems, it declared: “More missile shields on one side inevitably bring more nuclear missiles of the opposing side that can break through the missile shield.”

The suggestion that China could expand its nuclear arsenal only underscores the reactionary character of the Chinese regime’s response to the escalating economic and military threats by the Trump administration. The Chinese Communist Party represents the interests of an ultra-rich oligarchy, not Chinese workers and the poor. Its military build-up and whipping up of Chinese nationalism heightens the danger of war and divides the working class.

A nuclear arms race between China and the United States would be profoundly destabilising in Asia and the world. An expansion of the Chinese nuclear arsenal could prompt South Korea and Japan to develop their own nuclear weapons, and encourage India to enlarge its nuclear arsenal, exacerbating tensions throughout South Asia, particularly with Pakistan.

The Trump administration has targeted China, warning of trade war measures, threatening military action against Chinese-controlled islets in the South China Sea and suggesting it could tear up the “One China” policy that forms the bedrock of US-China relations.

Trump has repeatedly accused China of not imposing crippling sanctions on its ally North Korea to force it to abandon its nuclear weapons and missiles. The White House is currently engaged in a review of US strategy toward North Korea, details of which have been leaked to the media, including proposals for pre-emptive military strikes on North Korea and regime-change operations.

North Korea provides a convenient pretext for the US military build-up in North East Asia against China. The New York Times reported that one option under consideration is the return of tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea—adjacent not only to North Korea, but also China.

Trump has already outlined a huge expansion of the US military and has tweeted that the US has “to greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capacity.” Moreover, the US strategy is shifting from the use of nuclear weapons as a last resort to the active consideration of a limited nuclear war.

North Korea is rapidly emerging as a dangerous global flashpoint. A small incident, either accidental or calculated, has the potential to trigger a catastrophic conflict on the Korean Peninsula that would draw in nuclear-armed powers such as China and Russia.

The only social force capable of halting the drive to world war is the international working class, through building a unified anti-war movement based on socialist principles to put an end to capitalism and its outmoded nation-state system, which is the source of war.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Dangerous Crossroads: America Threatens China, US Deploys THAAD Missile System in South Korea, Beijing Warns of Nuclear Arms Race

South Korea President to be Impeached?

March 8th, 2017 by Seok Jin-hwan

Massive protests in South Korea are barely covered by the Western media. More than 15 million have demonstrated against president Park who is supported by Washington (M. Ch. GR Editor)

Public opinion poll shows that support for Park’s impeachment has remained above 80% since December 

Over eight in ten South Koreans feel prosecutors should conduct a thorough follow-up investigation of President Park Geun-hye even if she leaves office with a Constitutional Court decision upholding her impeachment, a survey shows. 

Opinion poll on President Park’s impeachment

Findings from a Research Plus survey conducted on Mar. 3-4, commissioned by the Hankyoreh and the Hankyoreh Economy & Society Research Institute (HERI), showed 67.8% of respondents answering that prosecutors should “thoroughly investigate [Park] and arrest her if the conditions are met” when asked what judicial measures should be taken if the Constitutional Court confirms her impeachment. Another 17.6% of respondents answered that “prosecutors should investigate thoroughly, but she should not be arrested.”

Beyond the question of arrest, the results showed an overwhelming 85.4% of respondents calling for a thorough investigation by prosecutors, compared to just 9.5% who said prosecutors should halt their investigation if Park’s impeachment is confirmed.

While politicians are likely to unanimously shift course toward early elections if the Constitutional Court does support the impeachment with its anticipated ruling this week, a majority of South Koreans still would like to see an investigation of the government interference scandal and clear punishments resulting from it.“The high level of interest in the prosecutors’ investigation is set to continue even after the impeachment [ruling],” said Han Gwi-young, head of HERI’s social research center.

“There looks to be a serious possibility that prospective candidates in the presidential election will face a backlash if they suggest exempting President Park from judicial handling,” Han said.

Public support for Park’s impeachment, which stood at nearly 80% when the National Assembly voted it through in December, has repeatedly been found remaining at more or less the same level even as the ruling approach. The latest survey showed 75.7% of respondents agreeing that Park “should be impeached,” while just 18.6% said her impeachment “should be overturned.” Another 5.7% said they were “not sure.”

Support for impeachment outweighed opposition across all regions and age groups. Even respondents who voted for Park in the 2012 presidential election supported impeachment by a 48.1% to 43.5% margin. When asked how they would take a Constitutional Court decision that went against their own feelings, 53.9% of respondents said they would “not accept it,” more than the 39.7% who answered that they would “accept it.” When asked whether they thought the ruling should go ahead even if Park resigns beforehand, 63.4% said the Court’s decision should “continue regardless of her resignation,” while 32.9% said the impeachment trial “should be halted.”

By Seok Jin-hwan, staff reporter

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on South Korea President to be Impeached?

The global populist fever is catching. Put the nation first before all else, patria before sense. Make America Great Again. One Nation before any other. Australia has been a fairly non-responsive patient to that effect, keeping its symptoms to the rural fringes of the country, or the more bitter blue-collar edges disgruntled by immigrants. While essentially conservative and reactionary, the Australian skill over the years has been to temper revolt with urbanism, mortgages and status anxiety.

But the emergence in recent months of the Trump presidency has stirred a virus of sorts, moving through the political body at some speed. Homes are becoming unfordable. Australia’s banks, a long protected profit-making racket, continue charging monstrous fees for using the money of citizens. (Their wealth is your benefit.) Industries are closing or, in the weight loss metaphor, down-sizing. Governments and the main opposition party are getting edgy.

Much of this has been fanned by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party, an entity conservatives were so keen on destroying during the 1990s they established a special fund to do so, run by the deposed former Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott. He was to have the monopoly on reactionary politics.

A campaign of such fanatical fury ensued against Hanson, one with shades of hollow martyrdom, genuine persecution, and political vengeance. It came from political and cultural circles, from faux Australian elitism and snobbery, and those fearing she was having a bite of their electoral cake. Tribal mania kicked in, and she had to be destroyed. Convict culture, rather than being egalitarian, hoards, protects, preserves. Hanson, it was suggested, was out to get more than her fair share.

She was attacked for her fish and chip shop ignorance; mocked for her excruciating whine that tears strips in the air; teased brutally for her ill-considered remarks that showed reading even less advanced than a Rupert Murdoch tabloid. (“Go back to Islam!”)

For a time, she even became the subject of cruel, albeit apt satire for a drag queen by the name of Pauline Pantsdown, nabbing her statement “I don’t like it” and immortalising it, if only across a narrow spectrum.[1] Australia, having never had clear cut, totalitarian types who scream eloquently and supply erudite arguments for ostracising or killing races, could only point at Hanson. She was comedy, she was easy, and she had red hair. No poorer example was possible.

After her parliamentary loss and subsequent brief imprisonment for corruption, Hanson was confined to the reality television circuit, a shadow of Trump cast, doing the rounds as a minor celebrity on trash celluloid. Even there, there was some sympathy. The goblin of populism lay, gazing and stirring. She was bound to ride again.

Then came the elections in 2016, an event which almost unseated the Turnbull government. This was a good test case in cutting down smug, establishment confidence: the lawyer, banker Prime Minister, happy to gamble on his reading of the Australian electorate’s temperature, fell terribly and broke his party. It resulted in an overdose for the conservative coalition, and the spread of concern that has seen various members of the government speak of defection and sabotage.

The foolish calculation of gaining an advantage over his Labor opponents and cross benchers almost cost him government. But one of the greatest beneficiaries was a stormily renascent One Nation, now a heckling presence in the Senate. Not only did Hanson return with her coarseness slightly polished – she brought senators in tow. Canberra had to finally wake up.

At the state level, the One Nation threat is sending State premiers giddy with fear. The sharp cliff face looks promising. Electoral defeat, like a potential loss of life, creates monstrous romances and disturbing flings of speculation. Anything to survive.

Long assumed positions on voting strategy are being abandoned. Conspiracies are being hatched. The Western Australian state leader, Colin Barnett, succumbed to what had been deemed a wicked temptation: yielding to a vote-sharing deal with One Nation at state elections due next month.

Not all were impressed by the arrangement, with Liberals (that is to say, Australian conservatives) more inclined to the political centre concerned that a suicide pact had been made. Never, went the line, would they make a preference vote deal with Hanson’s outfit. Their National Party partners were also fearful that their traditional voters would make an electoral dash, draining their traditional base.

As Reuters staff put it, “The deal demonstrates the influence now wielded by One Nation, which advocates protectionism and anti-immigration policies, since its return from 20 years in the political wilderness at national elections last year.”[2]

Such are the times. Traditional party establishments who refuse to adapt are perishing before an electoral anger that is singeing the base and torching bridges. Hanson can praise Russia’s Vladimir Putin as “a strong leader”.[3] Voters, be they the sanctified forgotten, the product of amnesiac intelligentsias and spread-sheets of political predictions, are moving their feet to the beat of a dark music. Not just dark, but angry.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4tZRZSGxcE
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-politics-idUSKBN15S0U0
[3] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pauline-hanson-has-no-problems-with-killer-vladimir-putin-would-be-honoured-to-be-pm-one-day-20170205-gu6392.html

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on One Nation Train. “Make Australia Great Again”, US-Australian Relations

Terror and Sectarian Violence at Delhi University

March 1st, 2017 by New Socialist Initiative

Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) (All Indian Student Council) is a right wing Hindu nationalist student organisation affiliated to the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). “It participates in joint activities with BJP’s official youth wing, Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha“. It is supported by the ruling BJP party of the Modi government. (M. Ch. GR Editor)

*     *      *

The Ramjas College of University of Delhi, and wider campus of the university are under siege. Members of the ABVP, the student group affiliated to RSS, have unleashed an open terror. They attacked a seminar organised by the English Department and Literary Society of the college on 22 February, threw stones on the college conference hall, and physically and verbally attacked students and teachers of the college.

The following day, they were even more violent. They held students and teachers of the college hostage by not allowing them to march to the local police station against the previous day’s happenings. Violent threats were openly given against two teachers of the college, and like the previous day, students and teachers were abused and threatened. Outside the college, they attacked students and teachers of other colleges and universities of the city, who had gathered in solidarity with students and teachers of the college, and against ABVP violence.

Scores received serious injuries. A dangerous low was reached when student members of the ABVP were seen physically attacking their own teachers. Delhi police has acted as a mute agent of ABVP terror. It did not arrest ABVP members when they attacked the Ramjas college seminar, threatened its students and teachers, and assaulted others the next day. In fact, police personnel joined the attackers, and also attacked journalists covering the violence.

ABVP violence is the result of careful planning, training, and crucial support from state functionaries of the Modi government, whose Home Ministry directly controls Delhi Police. Unlike other universities like JNU and HCU, which have seen ABVP aggression in recent times, DU has been a centre of ABVP politics for decades. It has won many student union elections. However, this level of violence is unprecedented. It is well known for decades that RSS trains its cadres for visceral hatred and violence against minorities.

ABVP members at a place like Delhi University have now also been successfully trained for direct physical assault on other students and teachers. It is a new high for fascist organisational skills of the RSS and BJP. They have a group of storm troopers, ready to terrorise and physically assault in open day light anyone who does not agree with, or opposes, RSS and BJP.

A university is a rare space in the caste ridden, patriarchal and communalised society of India, which provides the youth to interact freely with students and teachers of diverse backgrounds, to learn and critically think about diverse aspects of society, and develop as autonomous social agents. Radical social reformers like Phule and Ambedkar had long recognised the importance of modern education for the oppressed, and its potential to challenge existing social hierarchies. The recent expansion of higher education in the country has seen millions of first generation students from oppressed castes, minorities, and women joining universities like DU.

The relative openness of a university space allows for radical questioning of hierarchies, and explains why the social environment in universities can be liberal and encourage growth of radical politics. At present, when the state ideology in India has become neoliberal, and an expanding capitalism has created a receptive atmosphere for the rightwing politics, it is precisely radical politics against caste and patriarchy, and the radical left which demands abolition of class rule, which stand most forcefully in the way of the overall subjugation of India under the fascist Hindu Rashtra programme of the RSS and BJP. This also explains why universities are critical for the RSS, and why since the BJP came to power at the Centre it has targeted groups like Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle at IIT Madras, Rohith Vemula’s organisation, Ambedkar Students’ Association at HCU, JNU, and now students and teachers at Ramjas College and DU who do not agree with them. The most recent case of suspending a member of the faculty at Jodhpur’s Jai Narain Vyas University for something as basic as inviting Nivedita Menon for an academic conference exposes the extent of their insecurity well.

It needs to be recognised that the RSS/BJP politics is fundamentally different from other forms of authoritarian politics. Its success lies in turning violent authoritarianism into the politics of mass mobilisation. It was worked on for decades on the religious, communal and caste prejudices of Hindus to build an expanding core of supporters. More recently, it has clothed itself in the flag of nationalism to brand its opponents as anti-national. In reality, the Hindu Rashtra of RSS/BJP would be a prison house of hatred and violence against any freedom and equality. It would impose a nationalist test on everyone. It would mobilise Hindus for violence against minorities, oppressed castes and those in Kashmir and the North-East who question the impositions and brutal use of military force by the Indian State there.

None of this is being taken lying down and resistance has been growing, whether in the 139-day strike of the students of FTII, the anti-caste movement that emerged in HCU following the institutional murder of Rohith Vemula or the battle that continues to this day in JNU. The confrontation in DU is simultaneously testimony to the fierce resistance offered by the broader university community in rejecting the terror tactics of the ABVP. NSI calls upon the student and teacher community of Delhi University to not be cowed down by this blatant exercise of muscle power by the ABVP. It is an opportunity to think clearly about the actual game plan of the RSS/BJP, and not be taken in by any slogan of false and violent nationalism. Students and teachers of DU need to come together and think of effective ways to counter ABVP terror on campus.

All left, progressive and liberal forces in campus need to plan for mobilising the widest sections of students, who wish to use opportunities at DU for learning and critical thinking, and are seeing ABVP terror as an attack on their freedom.

NSI demands that:

1. Appropriate legal action be taken against ABVP members who indulged in violence and attacked students and teachers of Ramjas college and University of Delhi.

2. Delhi police officials who connived with the ABVP, and did not take immediate and appropriate action be punished.

3. Authorities of the University of Delhi, Ramjas College and all other colleges of DU must provide a secure environment for learning and questioning, holding extra-curricular activities like seminars on all issues, and for all students and teachers to express their opinions and organise without fear.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Terror and Sectarian Violence at Delhi University

Les élections du 2 mars pour les 90 sièges de l’Assemblée de l’Irlande du Nord auront lieu dans des conditions de turbulences politiques croissantes.

La crise du Brexit (sortie britannique de l’UE), suivie de l’élection de Donald Trump à la présidence américaine, a grandement exacerbé les divisions entre l’Europe et l’Amérique et provoque un conflit ouvert entre le gouvernement britannique et l’Union européenne. De plus, la classe dirigeante britannique et tous ses partis politiques sont partagés entre les partisans du Brexit et ceux dont les intérêts dépendent de l’adhésion britannique à l’UE.

Quelle que soit l’issue de l’élection, les accords de partage du pouvoir entre les partis unionistes pro-britanniques et les partis nationalistes irlandais se détricotent.

L’élection a été déclenchée par la démission du Premier ministre adjoint de l’Irlande du Nord Martin McGuinness et le refus du Sinn Fein de nommer immédiatement un remplaçant. Le Sinn Fein a exploité le scandale sur l’Initiative de chauffage renouvelable (RHI) qui dure toujours comme une occasion d’attaquer ses rivaux unionistes et partenaires au pouvoir, le Parti unioniste démocratique (DUP).

Le Sinn Fein a déclaré qu’il ne rentrera pas au gouvernement avec le DUP sous la direction d’Arlene Foster avant la conclusion d’une enquête publique sur le RHI. Le porte-parole du parti, le député de la circonscription de Belfast Ouest, a insisté sur le fait qu’il n’y aurait pas de renouveau de l’Assemblée au palais Stormont de Belfast, sans une loi défendant la langue irlandaise, une déclaration de droits et un accord sur la façon de traiter les « questions héritées » des « Troubles » (la lutte nationaliste pour l’indépendance).

Entre 1969 et 1998, l’Irlande du Nord a été déchirée par une longue guerre larvée entre d’un côté l’armée britannique et les forces loyales au gouvernement d’Ulster (Irlande du Nord), dominé par les protestants, et de l’autre, les forces républicaines irlandaises dominées par l’Armée républicaine irlandaise provisoire (PIRA).

Le conflit a entraîné des milliers de morts et a pris fin sous les auspices du gouvernement travailliste de Tony Blair, quand, avec l’appui de l’UE et des États-Unis, un accord a été mis en place qui a ouvert la porte à l’aile politique du PIRA, le Sinn Fein, à partager le pouvoir en Irlande du Nord avec les unionistes pro-britanniques. L’accord du Good Friday (du vendredi saint) de 1998 et les accords ultérieurs ont permis de réduire énormément la présence militaire britannique, de démilitariser la frontière entre l’Irlande du Nord et la République d’Irlande et de faciliter un flux considérable de fonds de l’UE et des investissements mondiaux dans une Irlande du Nord en manque d’investissements.

La vie politique, telle qu’elle a été codifiée dans l’accord, est restée divisée sur les lignes sectaires et « communautaires », les partis étant obligés de s’identifier soit comme unionistes soit comme nationalistes. La discrimination anticatholique féroce qui a caractérisé l’Irlande du Nord depuis sa fondation en 1921 à la fin de la guerre d’Indépendance irlandaise s’est transformée en une nouvelle forme de sectarisme institutionnalisé qui a servi et sert à diviser la classe ouvrière.

Depuis 2007, le Sinn Fein et ses anciens ennemis jurés, le Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) et ensuite le DUP ont dirigé l’Irlande du Nord dans l’intérêt mutuel de cliques rivales de la classe moyenne supérieure cherchant à se remplir les poches tout en imposant conjointement des mesures d’austérité.

L’aggravation des inégalités sociales et de nombreux scandales de corruption toujours plus flagrants ont démasqué les deux partis au pouvoir et les institutions qu’ils défendent comme hostiles aux intérêts de la classe ouvrière.

En outre, la décision britannique de quitter l’UE génère une énorme inquiétude dans les deux parties de l’île. Alors que des factions de l’élite dirigeante dans le nord voient le départ de l’UE comme offrant de nouvelles occasions pour réduire les impôts et attaquer les niveaux de vie, la faction dominante dans la République et une partie importante de la bourgeoisie nordique comprenant bien plus que l’électorat habituel du Sinn Fein voient en le Brexit une atteinte à la fois au commerce avec la Grande-Bretagne et à la position de l’Irlande dans les transactions transatlantiques entre les États-Unis et l’UE.

Les préoccupations ont trait à la frontière qui, il y a 20 ans, était marquée par des postes de contrôle militaires et des policiers, fortement fortifiée et patrouillée par des hélicoptères de l’armée britannique, mais qui est maintenant presque invisible. Aujourd’hui, environ 177 000 camions, 208 000 camionnettes et 1,85 million de voitures transitent par les 200 point de passage chaque mois. Toute perturbation de ce flux de marchandises, de travailleurs et voyageurs menace les deux côtés d’un effondrement économique. Le gouvernement conservateur britannique de Theresa May a cependant clairement indiqué qu’il a l’intention de quitter l’union douanière de l’UE, faisant ainsi de la ligne de séparation de 1921 une frontière extérieure de l’UE.

Les gouvernements britannique et irlandais ont insisté à plusieurs reprises sur le fait qu’aucun contrôle aux frontières ne sera imposé, mais personne n’a encore donné une explication de la manière que cela peut être réalisé. Au lieu de cela, la frontière et même le statut de l’Irlande du Nord deviennent une monnaie d’échange dans les négociations de gros enjeux entre la Grande-Bretagne et l’UE sur les conditions de la sortie de l’UE du pays.

À la suite des récents entretiens entre le Premier ministre irlandais (Taoiseach) Enda Kenny et le président de la Commission européenne, Jean-Claude Juncker, Kenny et Juncker ont annoncé leur objectif commun selon Kenny que « les termes de l’accord du Good Friday figureront également dans les termes issus des négociations », une référence à l’accord final entre l’UE et la Grande-Bretagne. « En d’autres termes, si à un moment donné futur, si jamais cela devait arriver, l’Irlande du Nord aurait des facilités d’accès pour redevenir membre de l’UE. »

L’Irlande du Nord a voté par 56 contre 44 pour cent pour rester dans l’UE, mais la DUP a fait campagne pour un vote de sortie (Brexit) et a même servi de conduit pour les fonds pro-Brexit à être canalisés dans des publicités pro-Brexit affichées à Londres, contournant ainsi les limites imposées sur dépenses du référendum.

Les divisions profondes entre l’UE et les États-Unis qui ont émergé ces dernières années sur le statut de l’Irlande comme un paradis fiscal pour les entreprises américaines de technologie et de chimie sont davantage compliquées par l’élection de Trump.

L’UE a exigé que le gouvernement irlandais perçoive 13 milliards d’euros d’impôts auprès, entre autres, de la société américaine Apple Corporation. Il y a des spéculations répandues quant à l’impact de la politique de « l’Amérique d’abord » de Trump à exacerber ces tensions et l’effet que cela aura sur l’Irlande.

Le journaliste irlandais Fintan O’Toole s’est interrogé sur la question de savoir si la Grande-Bretagne post-Brexit avec un accord commercial avec les États-Unis rapidement conclu et défavorable en poche se présenterait comme une ligne de fracture non seulement entre la Grande-Bretagne et l’UE mais aussi entre deux blocs de puissances, l’un dominé par les États-Unis et l’autre par l’Europe.

Voilà le contexte de la décision du Sinn Fein de baisser le rideau sur le gouvernement d’Irlande du Nord, du moins pendant la durée de l’enquête sur le RHI et en attendant la pleine mise en œuvre des questions en suspens de l’accord du Good Friday. Une reprise directe du pouvoir à Londres sur l’Irlande du Nord, ce que le gouvernement britannique voudrait éviter, sera nécessairement imposée à sa place. L’objectif de Sinn Fein semble être de marginaliser l’Assemblée de Stormont pendant les négociations sur le Brexit, tout en plaidant pour un nouveau « vote frontalier » sur le statut constitutionnel de l’Irlande du Nord. Le Sinn Fein est le seul parti unifié représenté dans de toute l’Irlande et a été mis en avant en tant que partenaire de coalition pour les deux principaux partis bourgeois dans la République, Fine Gael et Fianna Fail.

Le parti DUP de Foster a prévenu d’une élection « brutale », ce qui ne peut signifier qu’une campagne violemment sectaire qui rappelle les jours de l’hégémonie protestante. Ce mois-ci, le DUP a voté, comme la grande majorité des députés, pour déclencher l’article 50 au parlement de Londres, lançant la sortie de l’UE. Il a également voté contre un amendement proposé par le parti nationaliste Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) de l’Irlande du Nord pour préserver les droits pour le « peuple d’Irlande du Nord » contenus dans l’accord de Good Friday et défendus par l’UE. Foster a réitéré son intention de réduire le taux d’imposition des sociétés à 12,5 pour cent, s’alignant sur la République d’Irlande, ou même à 10 pour cent.

Steve James

Article paru en anglais, WSWS, le 27 février 2017

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Les questions frontalières et le Brexit dominent les élections en Irlande du Nord

The Pacific Ocean is large. Since World War II, weapon systems operating in this theater have required special provisions regarding extensive range, long duration performance and relative self-sufficiency during operations.

From America’s Gato-class submarines and PBY Catalina flying boats used to fight the Japanese and reassert American hegemony across Asia-Pacific during WWII, to America’s continued presence in Japan, South Korea and islands throughout the region, it is clear the lengths the US has gone through then and now to remain “engaged” in the Pacific.

More recently, a report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), commissioned by the US Navy titled, “Restoring American Seapower: A New Fleet Architecture for the United States Navy,” obsesses over not how to defend American shores, but how to remain involved in Asia-Pacific despite the immense distances between there, and America.

The report’s introduction includes:

Great power competitors such as China and Russia increased their military capabilities over the last two decades and now appear willing to challenge the international order.

However, the report never addresses Chinese or Russian forces landing on American shores, or even threatening to do so. Rather, the report revolves around maintaining hegemony within spheres of influence much more appropriately (and likely inevitably) Chinese or Russian.

The report coins a term, “deny-and-punish” to describe the use of US power abroad to “stop aggression,” not in defense of America itself, but in “adjacent theaters.” Ironically, the report cites Iraq as an example, a nation the US, not China nor Russia, invaded, occupied and destroyed with considerable, unchallenged “aggression.”

A more specific point in the 162-page report picked out by The National Interest in an article titled, “How to Guarantee America’s Aircraft Carriers Can Fight China in a War,” involves long-range air sorties of up to 2,000 miles.

The article elaborates:

…a 2000-mile mission would strain human endurance and an unrefueled range of more than 10 hours would require an enormous aircraft that might not fit on a carrier flight deck. Thus, the CSBA proposal calls for a smaller aircraft that would be supported by a tanker.

In other words, in order for the US to project considerable force beyond its own borders, across the Pacific Ocean, and within China’s logical, proximal sphere of influence, it needs not only drone aircraft capable of 10 hour sorties, it needs drone tankers to refuel them.

Defense contractors surely welcome the report’s findings, since it will require the development of not one new aircraft carrier-based vehicle, but two, including the tanker.

The CSBA report concludes by stating:

To be deterred in the 2030s, aggressors must be presented with the possibility that their goals will be denied or that the immediate costs to pursue them will be prohibitively high.

In reality, the “aggression” the United States fears is not the unjust encroachment on other, innocent nations, but rather the undoing of every aspect of its own global order, put together piece by piece through just such aggression. It is an order constructed not within any rational US sphere of influence, rather, one spanning the globe, so far from American shores combat pilots lack the endurance to fly the sorties required to “deter” other nations from reversing America’s grip upon it.

The US seeks to “deter aggression” that may potentially diminish or extinguish entirely America’s systematic and decades-spanning violation of Beijing’s “One China” policy regarding Hong Kong and Taiwan, China’s claims in the South China Sea or regimes the US puts into power along China’s peripheries to admittedly confound regional stability at Beijing’s expense,

Students of history will recognize much of this as a modern-day continuation of European colonization throughout Asia, where sophisticated and overbearing military might was used to corner China and its neighbors across the region, divide and conquer them, as well as prevent them from ever rolling back any of the gains colonial expansion gifted Europe and eventually America in the late 19th century.

The CSBA report is just one of many US policy papers that openly and repeatedly admits that China is not a threat to the United States as a nation, but a threat to the hegemonic order that nation attempts to maintain globally well into the 21st century.

And while the US seeks drone forces to bridge the vast distances between American territory and the territory it seeks to continue dominating, China and Russia are likewise developing weapon system to make those vast distances greater still. While the CSBA report places urgent imperative in preventing China or Russia from exerting influence within their own territory or along their immediate peripheries, the final conclusion of this new arms race in long-range weapon systems may force the US to accept a reality in which the only region it dominates is the US itself. But the obvious question remains, why isn’t that already the case?

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Washington is Looking for a “Pacific Fight”. US Navy Report Envisages War with China

The volume of international transfers of major weapons has grown continuously since 2004 and increased by 8.4 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16, according to new data on arms transfers published today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Notably, transfers of major weapons in 2012–16 reached their highest volume for any five-year period since the end of the cold war.

The flow of arms increased to Asia and Oceania and the Middle East between 2007–11 and 2012–16, while there was a decrease in the flow to Europe, the Americas and Africa. The five biggest exporters—the United States, Russia, China, France and Germany—together accounted for 74 per cent of the total volume of arms exports.

Asia: major increases for some states

Arms imports by states in Asia and Oceania increased by 7.7 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16 and accounted for 43 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

India was the world’s largest importer of major arms in 2012–16, accounting for 13 per cent of the global total. Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 it increased its arms imports by 43 per cent. In 2012–16 India’s imports were far greater than those of its regional rivals China and Pakistan.

Imports by countries in South East Asia increased 6.2 per cent from 2007–11 to 2012–16. Viet Nam made a particularly large jump from being the 29th largest importer in 2007–11 to the 10th largest in 2012–16, with arms imports increasing by 202 per cent.

‘With no regional arms control instruments in place, states in Asia continue to expand their arsenals’, said Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘While China is increasingly able to substitute arms imports with indigenous products, India remains dependent on weapons technology from many willing suppliers, including Russia, the USA, European states, Israel and South Korea’.

Middle East: arms imports almost double

Between 2007–11 and 2012–16 arms imports by states in the Middle East rose by 86 per cent and accounted for 29 per cent of global imports in 2012–16.

Saudi Arabia was the world’s second largest arms importer in 2012-16, with an increase of 212 per cent compared with 2007–11. Arms imports by Qatar went up by 245 per cent. Although at lower rates, the majority of other states in the region also increased arms imports. ‘Over the past five years, most states in the Middle East have turned primarily to the USA and Europe in their accelerated pursuit of advanced military capabilities’, said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Despite low oil prices, countries in the region continued to order more weapons in 2016, perceiving them as crucial tools for dealing with conflicts and regional tensions.’

Arms exporters: the USA accounts for one-third of total

With a one-third share of global arms exports, the USA was the top arms exporter in 2012– 16. Its arms exports increased by 21 per cent compared with 2007–11. Almost half of its arms exports went to the Middle East.

‘The USA supplies major arms to at least 100 countries around the world—significantly more than any other supplier state’, said Dr Aude Fleurant, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘Both advanced strike aircraft with cruise missiles and other precision-guided munitions and the latest generation air and missile defence systems account for a significant share of US arms exports.’

Russia accounted for a 23 per cent share of global exports in the period 2012–16. 70 per cent of its arms exports went to four countries: India, Viet Nam, China and Algeria.

China’s share of global arms exports rose from 3.8 to 6.2 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. It is now firmly a top-tier supplier, like France and Germany which accounted for 6 per cent and 5.6 per cent, respectively. The ongoing lower rate of French arms export deliveries may end soon because of a series of major contracts signed in the past five years. Despite a spike in arms exports in 2016, German arms exports—counted over a five-year period—decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. 

Other notable developments

  • Algeria was the largest arms importer in Africa with 46 per cent of all imports to the region.
  • The largest importers in sub-Saharan Africa—Nigeria, Sudan and Ethiopia—are all in conflict zones.
  • Total arms imports by states in the Americas decreased by 18 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. However, changes in import volumes varied considerably. Colombia’s arms imports decreased by 19 per cent, while Mexico’s arms imports grew by 184 per cent in 2012–16 compared with 2007–11.
  • Imports by states in Europe significantly decreased by 36 per cent between 2007–11 and 2012–16. Initial deliveries to Europe of advanced combat aircraft as part of major contracts started in 2012–16 and further deliveries will drive import volumes up in the coming years.
  • Imports by Azerbaijan were 20 times higher than those of Armenia in 2012–16.
The trend in international transfers of major weapons, 1950—2016. Data and graphic: SIPRI

The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database contains information on all international transfers of major weapons (including sales, gifts and production licences) to states, international organizations and armed non-state groups from 1950 to the most recent full calendar year, 2016. SIPRI data reflects the volume of deliveries of arms, not the financial value of the deals. As the volume of deliveries can fluctuate significantly year-onyear, SIPRI presents data for 5-year periods, giving a more stable measure of trends.

For information or interview requests contact Stephanie Blenckner ([email protected],  or Harri Thomas ([email protected].

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Increase in Arms Transfers Driven by Demand in the Middle East and Asia, says SIPRI

Who Americans Consider Their Greatest Enemies

February 19th, 2017 by Niall McCarthy

Americans have consistently identified ISIS as the biggest threat to their nation across multiple polls. Traditional foes, such as the countries making up George W. Bush’s infamous “Axis Of Evil”, have been pushed into the background by the rise of non-state actors like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. In recent years however, the threat presented by some of America’s traditional enemies has started to manifest itself once again. Russia’s annexation of Crimea came as a reality check to the Obama administration while as recently as last Saturday, North Korea conducted a ballistic missile test.

YouGov conducted a poll to find out which countries Americans perceive as their nation’s biggest enemies. North Korea has continued to make headlines even after that missile launch with news emerging earlier this week that Kim-Jong-un’s half brother was allegedly poisoned in an airport in Malaysia. Both incidents have illustrated the unpredictability of the nuclear-armed regime in Pyongyang and it comes as little surprise that 57 percent of Americans consider North Korea their enemy.

Some of the entries on the upper portion of the infographic below are surprising. Iraq and Afghanistan were considered U.S. enemies by 29 and 23 percent of respondents respectivley, despite their governments being key U.S. allies in the fight against Islamic extremism. Iran was labelled an enemy by 41 percent of Americans, even though a deal was signed last year to prevent Tehran developing nuclear weapons.

This chart shows the percentage of American adults considering these countries an enemy of the U.S.

Infographic: Who Americans Consider Their Greatest Enemies  | Statista You will find more statistics at Statista

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Who Americans Consider Their Greatest Enemies

Trump’s new defense chief James Mattis hit the ground running, so to speak, and top on his agenda was meeting with his counterparts in South Korea and Japan. Just two weeks after being sworn in as Secretary of Defense, he was in South Korea, the initial stop on his first itinerary abroad, presumably to reassure the U.S.’ historical ally of the Pentagon’s continued commitment to the alliance between the two countries. 

What was unusual about this trip is that it broke with the now decade-long tradition of U.S. defense secretaries making the Middle East the destination of their first overseas trips. It also departs from the unspoken custom of U.S. dignitaries stopping in Tokyo before Seoul. What, then, prompted Mattis to rush to Seoul immediately after taking office?

Trump’s inauguration speech contained virtually no mention of his foreign policy goals and signaled a distinctly inward-looking and isolationist vision. “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries, while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military. We’ve defended other nations’ borders while refusing to defend our own,” he said. “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first.”

North Korea: Trump’s First Foreign Policy Test in Asia

A scan of Trump’s cabinet leads one to believe U.S.’ foreign policy focus, if anything, will continue to be intervention in the Middle East and upping the ante in the so-called “war on terror.” Mattis commanded the Marines in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and is an outspoken critic of the U.S.’ nuclear deal with Iran. Trump’s first pick for national security advisor Mike Flynn was well known for his controversial views on Islam before he eventually resigned over his alleged Russian connections. And Trump expects, however inanely, his son-in-law Jared Kushner to “produce peace in the Middle East.”

As far as Asia is concerned, U.S.’ alliance with Japan, not South Korea, will likely be the anchor of Trump’s security policy in the region. Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe was the first foreign leader to meet Trump after his November election win and met him again this past weekend over a round of golf at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

So why, again, did Mattis cross the Pacific in such a hurry to visit Seoul?

What Keeps them Up at Night

The clue may be found in the recent remarks of Robert Brown, the commander of U.S. Army Pacific, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The thing that keeps me up at night, the thing that worries me the most is North Korea,” he said on January 25 in a keynote address on the forecast for the Asian region in 2017.

State Secretary Rex Tillerson echoed this sentiment in a recent phone conversation with his South Korean counterpart Yun Byung-se. Referring to the North Korean nuclear program as an “immediate threat,” Tillerson reportedly said the issue will be foremost in his face-to-face talks with Yun in the near future.

From the outset of his administration, even before he’s had a chance to get his house in order, Trump is faced with a North Korea that has, for the past eight years while the previous U.S. administration refused to engage, been quietly sharpening its sword. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un warned in his new year address that his country is close to test-launching an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the continental United States. And just one day before Trump took office, North Korea placed two missiles presumed to be ICBMs on mobile launchers in plain view of U.S. spy satellites.

Spooked, the Pentagon deployed its Sea-Based X-Band Radar out of Pearl Harbor 2,000 miles northwest of Hawaii to watch for a possible North Korean launch. This might also explain why, within minutes of Trump’s inauguration, the White House posted a policy position on its website announcing its intention to develop a “state of the art” missile defense system to protect against attacks from North Korea and Iran.

An incoming government official not given to following the U.S.-North Korean conflict may ask oneself, “How the heck did we get here?”

Byung-jin versus Strategic Patience

U.S.-North Korean relations during the previous Obama administration may be characterized as a contest between “byung-jin” versus strategic patience— strategic patience being the U.S.’ policy of waiting and preparing for the eventual collapse of the North Korean regime, and “byung-jin” being North Korea’s strategy of making parallel progress in economic development and its nuclear deterrence capability.

The United States has always maintained a certain level of tension on the Korean peninsula and painted North Korea as a belligerent pariah to justify U.S.’ strategic presence on the Asian continent, which it considers vital to its economic and geopolitical interests. This is all the more important now in view of China’s growing influence in the region. But a belligerent with nuclear weapons is another matter altogether. For the past twenty years, the United States has tried to stall North Korea’s nuclear development while constantly threatening to bring about the regime’s collapse through crippling sanctions and military exercises that rehearse provocative war plans including the decapitation of the North Korean leadership.

In defiance, Kim Jong-un has pursued a simultaneous “guns and butter” approach— eluding the sanctions through a combination of multi-year economic plans, a series of work speed-up campaigns that mobilize the entire population, and a boost in tourism and special economic zones to attract foreign currency; and devoting the country’s top scientists and engineers to developing an effective nuclear deterrent.  The Hyundai Research Institute, a South Korean think tank notes that despite the sanctions, North Korea’s per capital income has risen steadily since the 2000’s.

At the end of Obama’s presidency, the consensus in Washington was that strategic patience had failed. North Korea had not collapsed, and to the contrary, experts warned that the country will soon have an ICBM that can strike the continental United States. Siegfried Hecker, an American nuclear scientist at Stanford University, who visited North Koreas’s plutonium processing plant at Yongbyon in November 2010, estimates that North Korea might develop the capacity to strike the West Coast of the United States with a nuclear warhead within five years. Hecker wrote, the North is now probably able “to put nuclear weapons on target anywhere in South Korea and Japan and even on some U.S. assets in the Pacific.”

Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, concurs— “It is only a matter of time before North Korea increases its nuclear arsenal (now estimated at 8-12 devices) and figures out how to miniaturize its weapons for delivery by missiles of increasing range and accuracy.”

Byungjin, apparently, has triumphed over strategic patience.

Limited Options for Trump 

Trump’s former advisor Michael Flynn seemed to reject the option of continuing the status quo, which would be to stick one’s head in the sand and simply ignore North Korea. According to a South Korean official who met with him back in November, Flynn had said North Korea’s nuclear program would be a high priority under the new administration.

What, then, are the options before Trump?

Some advocate military action to take out North Korea’s nuclear program. But they would be well-advised to remember that former President Bill Clinton considered this option in the early 1990’s and ultimately nixed the idea based on a Pentagon assessment that even limited action could escalate into a full-scale war and lead to the death of one million people. And that estimate was made before North Korea possessed nuclear weapons.

Global intelligence firm Stratfor outlined the challenges of a military action against North Korea in a five-part analytical series entitled “Removing the North Korean Nuclear Threat” published last year—

First, we simply do not have a comprehensive or precise picture of the North Korean nuclear program, especially when it comes to the number of weapons and delivery vehicles — we do not know for sure where they are located or how well they are protected. Second, we have no way of knowing just how good the U.S. intelligence picture really is when it comes to the North Korean nuclear program. Predicting the likelihood of a U.S. strike is difficult to do when the decision to carry out an attack would depend heavily on the degree of confidence the United States places in its intelligence.

The destruction of North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure is hardly enough to remove the deterrent. Therefore, though the United States can be reasonably certain of its ability to destroy the nuclear infrastructure in a single strike, it would require an extremely accurate intelligence picture — far beyond what is likely — for Washington to be reasonably certain of having hit and destroyed all available weapons and delivery vehicles. The longer the North Korean program evolves, the more this becomes a reality. Realistically, absent the use of nuclear weapons or the invasion and occupation of North Korea, the United States and its allies are already at a point where they cannot guarantee the complete removal of the threat of a North Korean nuclear attack.

The United States has 28,500 troops, some with families, stationed in South Korea, and North Korea is capable of striking key U.S. assets in the region, including Guam and Okinawa. Even limited surgical action could escalate to a full-scale regional confrontation with potential Chinese involvement. The United States, on the other hand, is still too bogged down in the Middle East to shift its attention effectively to another region as volatile as Northeast Asia. War, for anyone of rational mind, is clearly not an option.

The Myth of China’s Leverage over North Korea

Others advocate pressuring China to denuclearize North Korea. But how will this administration persuade China to solve a crisis that is essentially a problem between the United States and North Korea while Trump threatens a trade war with China? Also, China has made clear that if the United States wants its cooperation on North Korea, it should first reverse its controversial decision on the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system in South Korea.

(As a quick aside- the Pentagon wants to place missile interceptors and the THAAD radar in South Korea to counter North Korea’s missile threat and spy on China’s missile activity. This has been most ardently opposed by the residents of Seongju South Korea, where the THAAD system will be based, and China. Despite the political crisis that has engulfed South Korea, where the current administration has no legitimacy in the eyes of the public, the United States has been aggressively pushing forward the THAAD deployment decision and has said that it plans to complete the deployment by this summer.) All indications suggest the Trump administration will continue the same policy on the THAAD deployment, and that will make it difficult to get Chinese cooperation on North Korea.

Moreover, the strategy of pressuring China to denuclearize North Korea is based on the assumption that China has the kind of leverage, presumably economic, that can force North Korea to abandon its only deterrence capability. But it’s unclear that this is true.

In a report for the Wilson Center, James Person warns against outsourcing North Korea policy to China and says China’s leverage over North Korea “is a double-edged sword.” Cutting off North Korea’s economic lifeline would invite instability on China’s borders and precipitate a refugee crisis in Northeast China, “the last thing Bejing wants,” he writes. (Actually, what China may want even less is the prospect of a unified Korean peninsula led by a pro-U.S. South Korean government as its neighbor should North Korea collapse.) Moreover, Person argues, China’s leverage is limited, and North Korea’s relationship with China has historically been fraught with tension and mistrust. “Economic leverage does not enable the Chinese leadership to impose policy directives upon North Korea at will—precisely what North Korea most resisted throughout the Cold War,” he writes.

North Korea, furthermore, may not be as economically reliant on China as the United States believes. As it rebuilt its nearly-collapsed economy, North Korea placed strong emphasis on the principle of self-reliance. It devoted scientific and technological research to ensuring that their basic economic building blocks, such as steel, fertilizer and textile, are made with indigenous raw materials and technical know-how. “So that we don’t have to rely on exports and can be free from the volatile fluctuations of the global market,” explained the manager of a fully-automated sock factory in Pyongyang on the author’s trip to North Korea in 2011.

The Path to Peace

The only remaining and sensible option is to start talks, but what type of talks? The sole concern for the United States is to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons. North Korea’s concern is to remove the threats to its sovereignty, i.e. the sanctions that prevent its full economic potential; the military exercises that constantly threaten war and simulate the collapse of its regime; the perpetual state of war since 1953 when an armistice put a temporary halt to the Korean War and the parties failed to produce a peace treaty; and the presence of 28,500 U.S. troops stationed south of the de-militarized zone.

The United States, if it were to negotiate, will most likely try to repeat what it has done in the past— impose a moratorium on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and draw out the talks as long as possible while dangling the possibility of incentives, such as economic assistance and the removal of a limited layer of sanctions. But it may quickly realize that the negotiating table is no longer what it used to be.

For one, economic incentives are not what North Korea is primarily after. In a little-noticed statement issued in July 2016, North Korea laid out the terms for denuclearization and presented five conditions, all of which were very clearly not about economic assistance but had to do with removing the threats (either perceived or real) to its sovereignty posed by U.S. nuclear weapons. North Korea is no longer the energy-starved nation arduously toiling to survive as it was during the former Clinton and Bush administrations. And it now possesses a range of options in its nuclear arsenal. It successfully flight-tested a long-range submarine-launched ballistic missile last year and claims it successfully detonated a hydrogen bomb. Western experts dispute North Korea’s claims about its nuclear capability, but what matters at the negotiating table is that North Korea now feels confident enough in its deterrence capability to reject anything less than a fundamental resolution to its longstanding conflict with the United States.

The sheer arrogance of our policy makers in Washington may blind them, but they may gradually wake up to what former National Intelligence Director James Clapper concluded last year– that persuading North Korea to renounce nuclear weapons, “their ticket to survival,” is “probably a lost cause.” Unless the United States declares an end to the Korean War, signs a peace treaty and finally withdraws its troops from the peninsula, that is.

Upcoming War Games

Every year from late February through March, the U.S. and South Korean militaries conduct combined exercises called Key Resolve Foal Eagle, massive war games involving tens of thousands of U.S. troops, including from Guam, Okinawa and the U.S. mainland, and the deployment of strategic weapons.  And every year, North Korea stages a demonstration of protest before the war games begin. 2017 is no exception.

North Korea fired an intermediate-range ballistic missile into the East Sea last Sunday, and more missile tests may follow. In an exclusive interview with NBC on January 25, Choe Kang-il, deputy director general for North American affairs at North Korea’s foreign ministry, reiterated Kim Jong-un’s new year message that their country is ready to test-fire an ICBM “at any time, at any place.” Referring to the upcoming Key Resolve Foal Eagle exercises, he added, “As long as the U.S. conducts these joint military exercises we will increase our nuclear deterrent forces and our preemptive strike forces.”

If North Korea follows through on its notice of an ICBM test, then how Trump responds will be an early indicator of how U.S.-North Korean relations might play out during his administration. If he responds with tough talk and more sanctions, we’re in for escalation of tensions that could include North Korea test-launching an SLBM, followed by successive tests of an atom bomb and a hydrogen bomb, i.e. the whole kitten caboodle in its nuclear arsenal. In other words, the situation will likely get much bleaker before turning around for the better. If, on the other hand, Trump drastically scales down or halts the war games in preparation for talks, it would indicate that someone with a clear head regarding the Korea crisis has the ear of his administration and there’s a chance for improved relations.

What’s been reported thus far about this year’s Key Resolve Foal Eagle is confusing, to say the least. According to a Yonhap News report filed on February 8, Seoul and Washington are reportedly “in talks to deploy U.S. strategic assets,” including the Nimitz-class super-carrier USS Carl Vinson Strike Group, B-52 and B-1B bombers, to the Korean Peninsula during the exercises. The allies will, according to the same article, conduct the exercises as though the THAAD missile defense system, planned for deployment later this year, is already in operation and rehearse a preemptive strike plan called “4D,” which stands for detect, disrupt, destroy and defend. This reflects the recent comments of General Vincent Brooks, commander of U.S. Forces in Korea (USFK), who advocates the integration of offensive capabilities in the so-called U.S. missile “defense” system. “Defense is not enough. If we’re not also able to kill the archers, then we’ll never be able to catch enough arrows,” he said at an air and missile defense forum hosted by the Association of the U.S. Army on February 7. “So we have to have an offensive capability also integrated into our air and missile defense system.”

On the other hand, an earlier Yonhap report on January 30 curiously stated that South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) “will lead the upcoming exercises with the U.S. staff playing a supporting role” and suggested that the United States will play a markedly diminished role this year. It quoted an unnamed South Korean defense ministry official as saying, “During the upcoming Key Resolve exercise, Seoul’s JCS will be responsible for exercise planning and control, operation of opposing forces, and after-drill meetings.” The article also  announced that this year’s exercise command center will be in an underground bunker of South Korea’s Capital Defense Command, not the usual bunker of the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command.

The two reports together don’t stack up. How would an exercise led by the South Korean JCS incorporate the THAAD system, which is solely operated by the United States? The confused reports about the upcoming Key Resolve Foal Eagle exercise may reflect general disorientation within the Trump administration and/or discord between the Pentagon and the South Korean Defense Ministry on how to approach North Korea. That, most likely, is the reason why newly-appointed defense chief Mattis scurried to Seoul within weeks of assuming office. And while there, he presumably surveyed the political mess that the current Park Geun-hye administration and the South Korean ruling party are in and could not possibly have come away with a clear or satisfying assessment of the near future for the U.S-South Korean alliance.

Mattis and his boss would do well to learn from the failures of their predecessors. North Korea is not collapsing, and its nuclear threat is real. The lives of 28,500 U.S. troops, not to mention the 75 million Koreans on the Korean peninsula, are at stake. The only sensible path is dialogue towards a fundamental solution— signing a peace treaty to bring closure to the Korean War and finally withdrawing U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula in exchange for a halt in North Korean nuclear weapons development and a commitment to non-proliferation. Suspending the upcoming war games and abandoning U.S.’ preemptive nuclear strike prerogative should be the first stop on that path.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on North Korea: Trump’s First Foreign Policy Test in Asia

American Media Hacking “Fake News” About North Korea

February 14th, 2017 by Caleb Maupin

US Media continues its campaign against “fake news,” urging people to only listen to mainstream, pro-western capitalist news sources, despite their documented record of factual inaccuracies.

US media coverage around anything related to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a great example of media bias and deception in practice. Sometimes US media is caught blatantly reporting false things about the DPRK, such as the outrageous claim that Kim Jong-Un executed someone by feeding them to a pack of wild dogs. This was proven to be fake, or untrue news.

However, most of the manner in which the US public is deceived about the DPRK is more subtle.

The Forgotten “Economic Miracles”

For example, most Americans believe that the economic system that is in place in the northern half of the Korean peninsula has been an absolute, total failure, and caused nothing but mass starvation. This is demonstrably false.

A new video from the Council on Foreign Relations, a top American foreign policy think tank features Scott Snyder passingly mentioning:

“It is a socialist system, it was established on the  Soviet model. The economy is centrally controlled, it worked well in the early 60s, but it ran into roadblocks.”

A BBC article from 2008 says the same thing:

“At one time, North Korea’s centrally planned economy seemed to work well – indeed, in the initial years after the creation of North Korea following World War II, with spectacular results. The mass mobilization of the population, along with Soviet and Chinese technical assistance and financial aid, resulted in annual economic growth rates estimated to have reached 20%, even 30%, in the years following the devastating 1950-53 Korean war. As late as the 1970s, South Korea languished in the shadow of the “economic miracle” north of the border.”

The Country Study of the DPRK published by the US Library of Congress goes into detail describing the economic achievements of the country, including housing, literacy, self-sufficiency and access to medical care.

Mass food shortages and famine took place in the DPRK during the 1990s. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, the DPRK was unable to import oil, on which the country’s food system was very dependent. Within the DPRK, this period is known as the “arduous march.” The government blames sanctions from the United States for the food crisis.

However, when reporting on North Korea, American media emphasizes the “arduous march” period, and omits the “economic miracles” of the 1960s. Furthermore, the causes of the food crisis of the 1990s are never explained. A single episode of mass starvation during the 1990s does not accurately represent the entire experience of socialist construction in northern Korea.

Furthermore, the audience is led to believe that the only factor is the failure of socialist economics and mis-leadership by the Korean Workers Party. Usually no other factors, such as sanctions, lack of arable land, drought, flooding, etc. are discussed.

Nukes: The Whole Story

The other example of lying through omission and emphasis relates to nuclear proliferation. North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on January 10th, 2003. It understood now that the country possesses nuclear weapons. But why?American media ignores, omits, or de-emphasizes the entire context of the DPRK developing nuclear weapons. The audience is led to believe that the DPRK randomly developed nukes out of a desire to attack the United States or threaten its neighbors.

Let’s go over the omitted background of the story of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula. During the Korean War, millions of Koreans died. Some estimate that roughly 30% of the population of the DPRK was lost. Every building above one story high was destroyed. During the war, the United States was openly considering the use of Nuclear Weapons against both Korean and Chinese forces. Douglas MacArthur even made these threats publicly.

North Korea first ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985. In 1993, they threatened to withdraw. At the time, the country was facing an episode of mass starvation, amid US threats, sanctions, and the loss of their Soviet allies. Negotiations between the US Government and the DPRK took place, and DPRK did not withdraw. In 1994 the “Agreed Framework” was established between the United States and North Korea. It was understood that North Korea would be given agricultural aid, heating oil, and the US would move toward having diplomatic relations with North Korea, all in exchange for nuclear non-proliferation.

However, the United States never fulfilled its end of the bargain. US Congress blocked the implementation of the deal which the Clinton administration had negotiated.

In this context, the DPRK dropped its obligations under the agreed framework as well, and ultimately developed nuclear weapons.

US media of course leaves out this entire chain of events. Korea’s leadership agreed not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for food for their starving population, as well as other humanitarian support, in a time of mass starvation. US leaders did not fulfill their promises. Very little food and heating gas was ever delivered. In this context, is it a surprise, or a moral outrage that North Korea would also drop its end of the bargain, and go ahead and pursue nukes? Does such an action really fit the narrative of a “rogue state” lead by “insane” leaders bent on destroying the planet?

When a few basic facts are mentioned, the entire narrative and perception of North Korea falls apart. The DPRK hasn’t always had mass starvation, and according to even rather hostile sources like BBC and the Council on Foreign Relations, its economic system was quite successful at one time. Furthermore, the DPRK developed Nuclear Weapons only in response to the failure US leaders to fulfill their obligations under a negotiated agreement. They were promised certain things in exchange for not developing nuclear weapons. They did not get those things, so they went ahead did it.

These facts are conveniently forgotten in any discussion of the DPRK, but they are highly relevant to understanding the country and its relationship with the world. While ignoring important aspects of reality, these news sources talk of “fake news” and urge us to listen exclusively to them? That’s probably not a good idea, especially for those who want peace.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on American Media Hacking “Fake News” About North Korea

Merci DECODEX…

February 14th, 2017 by Jacques Sapir

Je dois ici confesser une erreur. Et je le fais en toute humilité. L’application « Decodex » lancée à sons de trompes par Le Monde n’était pas une opération d’auto-promotion de ce journal. J’avais pu me laisser induire en erreur par le fait qu’apparaissaient en vert, donc en lectures réputées comestibles, toutes les publications associées au Monde.

J’avais pu penser qu’il s’agissait d’une attaque hystérique contre le pluralisme de la pensée, d’une tentative aussi sotte que grossière pour « certifier » la vérité, comme si cette dernière pouvait tomber sous copyright. Bref, j’avais pu dire des choses peu agréables pour les auteurs de cette opération, comme dans l’interview réalisé par RT (en anglais) : https://www.rt.com/viral/376488-fake-news-crackdown-facebook-google/ 

En réalité, il s’agissait d’une opération visant à renforcer le pluralisme de la presse en assurant une promotion gratuite aux sites classés « orange » (come c’est le cas pour RussEurope) ou en « rouge », comme c’est le cas pour le blog d’Olivier Berruyer Les Crises. Je m’en suis rendu compte en regardant les statistiques de mon carnet. En effet, Decodex a été rendu publique le 1er février. En regardant les résultats depuis (jusqu’au 11 février) et en les comparant avec ceux d’avant on obtient donc les résultats suivants :

 On constate que par rapport aux 20 jours ayant précédé la publication de Decodex, le nombre de connexions a augmenté de 20% et par rapport aux 11 jours ayant précédé cette publication, de 16%. Cependant, rapporté au nombre de notes installées dans les périodes considérées (19 pour les 20 derniers jours de janvier, 11 pour les 11 derniers jours, et 7 pour les 11 premiers jours de février) le nombre de connexions a augmenté de 79,7% pour la première période et de 82,4% pour la seconde.

Je me doutais bien de quelque chose depuis que le 3 février le nombre de connexions avait subitement grimpé à plus de 15000…Mais, maintenant, j’en ai la confirmation.

Je tiens donc à exprimer mes plus chaleureux remerciements à l’équipe de Decodex qui – certainement « à l’insu de son plein gré » – m’a fait cette belle publicité, et indirectement à l’ensemble du portait Hypothèses. Il reste à savoir si un effet inverse ne s’est pas manifesté pour les publications classées en « vert ». Et je suis sûr que les auteurs de Decodex auront à cœur de nous en tenir au courant…Ou alors, ils se révéleraient de biens mauvais joueurs…

Jacques Sapir

It has been two months since the South Korean National Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of impeaching Park Geun-hye for her involvement in the corruption scandal with her confidante Choi Soon-sil, and South Korean citizens are growing concerned about the Constitutional Court, which is deliberating whether to uphold or dismiss the impeachment motion. To add to the uncertainty surrounding the impeachment trial, the special prosecutor charged with investigating the corruption scandal has yet to obtain access to the evidence it needs to prosecute Park.

The Constitutional Court faces delays as Park’s legal team continues to request additional witnesses for examination. This week, Park’s lawyers pressured the Constitutional Court to consider taking on 17 more witnesses. The Court ended up scheduling eight witnesses to take the stand in the next few weeks, so it is highly unlikely that it will reach a verdict before March, as was widely expected. Members of the National Assembly’s impeachment committee have accused Park’s representatives of requesting an endless list of witnesses as a tactic to delay the court’s decision. They were also critical of the Constitutional Court for its inability to push the trial process along.

Park Geun-hye Impedes Impeachment Verdict, Refuses Cooperation with Corruption Probe

On February 8, lawmakers of the opposition parties demanded the Constitutional Court reach its final verdict before March 13, when the Presiding Justice of the Constitutional Court Lee Jung-mi is scheduled to retire. Lee instructed representatives of Park Geun-hye and the National Assembly’s impeachment committee to submit their closing arguments by February 23. If the Constitutional Court allows the trial to move forward as scheduled without further delay, there is a chance that the final verdict will be announced before March 13. If the trial is delayed beyond March 13, however, only seven active judges (of the usual nine) will remain to make the final verdict. The previous Chief Justice Park Han-chul retired after completing his term last month.

As the courtroom drama drags on, the South Korean people are gearing up to put pressure on the Constitutional Court to make a swift decision. On February 10, the Emergency Task Force to Remove the Park Geun-hye Administration and other civil society groups called for one million people to take to the streets again for the 15th candlelight action on Saturday, February 11. The task force is aiming to pressure the court to rule in favor of impeachment and put an end to the Park administration’s abomination before the end of February. They will also march to the Blue House to demand the resignation of acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn, who served as the prime minister under Park Geun-hye.

Time Running Out for Special Prosecutor

Protestors performing arrest of Park Geun-hye and Samsung vice president Lee Jae-yong; Photo -- Voice of People

Earlier in the week, the independent special prosecutor charged with investigating the “Choi Soon-sil/Park Geun-hye gate” scandal was scheduled to interrogate Park Geun-hye about her involvement with Choi Soon-sil in the corruption scandal. The team had agreed with Park’s lawyers to arrange for Park to be questioned on February 9.

At the last minute, however, Park Geun-hye’s legal counsel abruptly called off the interview. Park’s legal team accused the prosecution of violating a prior agreement by releasing the date of the president’s interview to the public. The prosecution team, however, denied the allegation. Time is running out with fewer than 20 days remaining in the special prosecutor’s investigation mandate. And the prosecution side has yet to obtain enough evidence to prove Park’s direct involvement in corrupt dealings with private corporations, such as Samsung. The Blue House has also refused to cooperate. Last week, the presidential office prevented members of the special prosecution team from carrying out a search and seizure at the Blue House and cited concerns around security of classified military information.

The special prosecution team could be granted an extension for its investigation, but it is highly unlikely, as it requires the approval of the acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn. On February 10, National Assembly lawmakers asked Hwang whether he would extend the special prosecution team’s mandate should it fail to complete its investigation before the deadline at the end of February. Hwang responded,

“There are still 20 days remaining in the investigation period. What is important is to conduct the investigation for that duration… it is not appropriate to talk about extending the special prosecution mandate… the special prosecution team must do its best.”

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on South Korea’s Defunct President Park Impedes Impeachment Verdict, Refuses Cooperation with Corruption Probe

A clean-up mission using a remotely operated robot at Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant has had to be aborted, as officials feared they could completely lose control of the probe affected by unexpectedly high levels of radiation.

The robot equipped with a high-pressure water pump and a camera designed to withstand up to 1,000 Sieverts of cumulative exposure had been pulled off the inactive Reactor 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex earlier this week, The Japan Times reported Friday, citing the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The device reportedly broke down just two hour into the probe.

The failure led experts to rethink estimated levels of radiation inside the damaged reactor.

While last week TEPCO said it might stand at 530 Sieverts per hour – a dose that can almost instantly kill a human being, following the latest aborted mission a company official has said a reading of up to 600 Sieverts should be “basically correct.”

Even despite the considerable 30-percent margin of error for the revised estimate, the latest probe left no doubt that radiation levels are at record highs within the reactor. Even though it cannot be measured directly with a Geiger counter or dosimeter, the dose is calculated by its effect on the equipment.

Last month, a hole of no less than one square meter in size was discovered beneath the same reactor’s pressure vessel. The apparent opening in the metal grating is believed to have been caused by melted nuclear fuel, TEPCO then said.

The recent mission has demonstrated that the melted fuel is close to the studied area.

While extreme radiation levels have been registered within the reactor, officials insist that no leaks or increases outside have been detected.

The failure might force Japan to rethink the robot-based strategy it has adopted for locating melted fuel at Fukushima, according to The Japan Times.

The robot affected by radiation was supposed to wash off thick layers of dirt and other wreckage, clearing ways for another remotely controlled probe to enter the area, tasked with carrying out a more proper investigation to assess the state of the damaged nuclear reactor. Previously, even specially-made robots designed to probe the underwater depths beneath the power plant have crumbled and shut down affected by the radioactive substance inside the reactor.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered a blackout and subsequent failure of its cooling systems in March 2011, when it was hit by an earthquake and tsunami. Three of the plant’s six reactors were hit by meltdowns, making the Fukushima nuclear disaster the worst since the Chernobyl catastrophe in Ukraine in 1986. TEPCO is so far in the early stages of assessing the damage, with the decommissioning of the nuclear facility expected to take decades.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Extremely High Radiation Breaks down Fukushima “Clean-Up Robot” at Damaged Nuclear Reactor

Here we go again. General “Mad Dog” Mattis, the US Secretary of Defense, declares Iran “is the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn puts Iran “on notice.”

President Trump says “they are not behaving,” and, on his Superbowl interview, doubles down: “They are the No 1 terrorist state. They’re sending money all over the place – and weapons. And… [they] can’t do that.” Iran is slapped with new sanctions. It’s as if Dick “Dark Side” Cheney and Donald “known unknowns” Rumsfeld never left.

Never allow facts to get in the way of a bombastic quote. “State sponsor of terrorism” is a neocon meme for any nation/political system that resists US Exceptionalism. The industrial-military-intelligence-security complex feeds on massive budgets to engage these manufactured “threats” while real, on the ground terrorism – yielding from the Salafi-jihadi matrix – has absolutely nothing to do with Iran.

The birth of al-Qaeda was inbuilt in the official Dr Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski doctrine of fighting the former USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s via a Wahhabi-controlled Jihad Inc. Nothing to do with Iran. Even Trump’s own national security advisor admitted on the record there was a “willful decision” by the Obama administration to let ISIS/ISIL/Daesh fester. Nothing to do with Iran.

As for the Iranian missile test, the UN resolution concerning the nuclear deal “called upon” Iran not to test nuclear-capable missiles. This was a conventional missile test, as even the White House admitted.

So what is it all about? We must once again resort to the shadowplay/wayang of a Henry Kissinger-devised new balance-of-power US foreign policy bent on preventing Eurasian integration by prying away Russia from China while antagonizing Iran.

Putting the New Silk Roads “on notice”

Beijing was not amused by the new “unilateral” (Foreign Ministry description) anti-Iran sanctions barring access to the US financial system or dealings with US companies. After all, the sanctions include two Chinese companies and two Chinese nationals. Xinhua worries that overall this may become “a ticking time bomb for peace and stability in the Middle East.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov for his part stressed that Russia and Iran “cooperate on a wide range of issues, [we] value our trade ties, and hope to develop them further.”

Whatever the administration, and whoever the privileged dalang advisor in the shade, the US strategic imperative in Eurasia always remains the same – to prevent the ascent of a peer competitor, or worse, an alliance, as in the case of a Sino-Russian strategic partnership.

For China, Iran is an absolutely critical node of the New Silk Roads, or One Belt, One Road (OBOR). Along with Russia, it is a key player in the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), is set to increase its cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), and will become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). All this spells out Eurasian integration. By 2030 Eurasia may exceed the US and Europe in global GDP terms. Eurasia, not the Atlantic alliance, is the future.

Most of the geostrategic game ahead hinges on whether there can be a “win-win” grand bargain between the Trump administration and the Kremlin. Assuming Washington would back off in eastern Ukraine and accept Russia’s legitimate sphere of influence in Eurasia – hardly a given – the price to pay for Moscow would be to let go of its very close partnership with Tehran. Kissinger should know better; this is not going to happen.

In between, there are pressing facts on the ground. The avowed, much ballyhooed Trump smashing of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh across “Syraq” simply cannot happen without Tehran-supported Shi’ite militias/boots on the ground, the Quds force led by Gen. Soleimani, as well as Hezbollah fighters in Syria. Trump is waiting for his ordered 30-day Pentagon plan of “victory” against the jihadis. Bets can be made that the Pentagon won’t integrate both Iran and Russia – both doctrinally regarded as “threats”.

In a nutshell; Trump cannot win his war against Islamist terror if he fully subscribes to the neocon wet dream of crippling the Russia-China-Iran alliance.

It also wouldn’t require a PhD thesis for Trump to understand that Iranophobia is bad for business. Iran is a tremendous developing market ripe for investment, as attested by European, Russian, Chinese and South Korean interest.

Assuming Trump’s campaign promise of no more regime change adventures holds, the new US strategic mission across Southwest Asia would be to essentially guarantee that global supply chain sea lanes remain open and secure – to the benefit of booming business across the Rimland. Russia and China could not agree more.

Everyone who’s been to Iran – neocons haven’t – knows Tehran won’t be subdued with angry threats. Iran has been under US sanctions for no fewer than 38 years. Absolutely nothing across Southwest Asia can be accomplished, geopolitically, without Iranian participation.

Nobody – except the usual suspects – wants confrontation. The Joint Chiefs had already informed then President Obama that Washington cannot go to war again until at least 2022; part of Trump’s platform is exactly to facilitate the means to recruit, retrain and re-tool a new US military.

And even in the (terrifying) event that the Pentagon hits Iran, it would take just a few Iranian ballistic missiles strategically deployed against oil fields and oil refineries around the Persian Gulf to spell out the end of the petrodollar.

Tehran is betting on – and wants to profit from – a new multipolar world order. Beijing knows there is no New Silk Road if Iran is constrained. Iran’s arc of development is inevitable – and European, Russian and Chinese investors know it. An American geography professor who conducted a project on the US presidential race told me that among pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions, “in no case did any of the four sides mention the New Silk Roads, or OBOR.” Trump’s cabinet – with the possible exception of Secretary of State “T.Rex” Tillerson – may also fit this mould.

To speak loudly and carry a tiny stick could not be more counter-productive. It might be a stretch to expect Trump to actually read his foreign policy dalang, but if he went through Kissinger’s World Order he would learn that “the United States and the Western democracies should be open to fostering cooperative relations with Iran. What they must not do is base such a policy on projecting their own domestic experience as inevitably or automatically relevant to other societies,’ especially Iran’s.”

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Lots of Shouting, Tiny Stick: Iran is “Not Behaving… They are the No 1 Terrorist State” according to Trump

A Deadly Legacy: The CIA’s Covert Laos War

February 9th, 2017 by Don North

In the first of many mistakes of the Vietnam War, President Dwight Eisenhower said in 1954, “You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over quickly.”

CIA pilots and crews prepare to re-arm a T-28 bomber for bombing missions on Laos 1964.

By January 1961, Eisenhower had warned his successor John F. Kennedy that Laos was the most pressing foreign policy issue in the world and he had initiated Operation Momentum in Laos, for the CIA to train and arm a small force of Hmong tribesmen to fight the communist Pathet Lao and their North Vietnamese supporters.

But history would prove the “domino theory” in Southeast Asia was a misconception of tragic proportions. Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines would all confidently resist communist influence and would have surely have done so without the bloodbath of millions of deaths across Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

As a young freelance journalist in 1965, I tried to cover the secret war in Laos. In the capital Vientiane, I encountered CIA pilots running supplies to the Hmong army in Long Chen and urged them, over many beers at the bar of the Continental Hotel, to take me along but without success.

Now, more than a half century later, author Joshua Kurlantzick, a senior fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, has published a book, A Great Place to Have a War, based on recently declassified documents and interviews with major players behind the secret war in Laos.

He also analyzes how the conflict in Laos was the genesis of the CIA’s support for clandestine paramilitary operations around the world, a pattern that continues through today. He concludes that the strategy in Laos set a sinister precedent for American presidents to conduct war without congressional or media oversight.

Kurlantzick writes,

“The Laos program would balloon in men and budget. It would grow into a massive undertaking run by CIA operatives. CIA leadership saw that an inexpensive proxy war could be a template for wars when U.S. presidents were looking for ways to continue the Cold War without going through Congress or committing ground troops. The CIA leadership thought that Laos was a great place to have a war.”

An army of hill tribes, mostly Hmong under the command of General Vang Pao, who initially led a ragged band of 5,000 guerrillas recruited and equipped by CIA officers. For 14 years, this irregular army fought the communists with Vang Pao’s guerrilla forces finally numbering 100,000 irregular troops.

Over those years, more bombs were dropped on Laos than were dropped on Japan and Germany during World War II. By the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, some 200,000 Laotians, both civilian and military had been killed, including at least 30,000 Hmong, with another 750,000 Laotians made homeless by the bombing. Some 700 Americans, mostly CIA officers, contractors and U.S. military also died in the Laos conflict, although those American deaths would not be revealed for decades.

Today, Laos is a failed country still strewn with landmines and other ordnance that take the limbs and lives of Laotians every day. Only 1 percent of the unexploded ordnance is believed to have been cleared and an estimated 20,000 Laotians have been killed or injured since the bombing ceased.

A Destructive Debacle

By most measures, the CIA’s war in Laos was a debacle that virtually destroyed a civilization. Plus, the war was “lost” from the U.S. government’s perspective when the country disappeared into the communist Vietnamese orbit. But by the CIA’s yardstick, it was a great success.

Hmong warlord Vang Pao who led the tribal army under the direction of the CIA until 1975.

“In the opinion of many officers in the CIA Clandestine services, the paramilitary programs that the agency operated in Laos between 1963-71 were the most successful ever mounted,” according to a quote from newly declassified CIA records cited by author Kurlantzick. “Small in numbers of personnel and even smaller in relative dollar costs, the CIA Laos operations shone in contrast to the ponderous operations of the US military forces in Vietnam.”

CIA Director Richard Helms declared that the agency had proven itself in Laos and had tied down 70,000 North Vietnamese troops who might otherwise have fought Americans in Vietnam. Laos would become the template for a new type of large, secret war for decades to come.

In his book, Kurlantzick concentrates on four remarkable individuals who in partnership with the CIA would control the agency’s war in Laos. All four have died recently, but Kurlantzick interviewed three of them.

There was Bill Lair, an American veteran of the U.S. Army’s 3rd Division in World War II who joined the CIA in Bangkok to train Thai troops for a possible invasion by China. Lair, adept at the Thai and Lao languages, was later sent to Laos where he would become the first chief agent to deal with the Hmong warlord Vang Pao.

There was Vang Pao, who met Lair in January 1961 and promised that if Lair would provide weapons he would gather 10,000 men to be trained by the CIA. Vang Pao had a reputation of having a sharp mind but his rage, sadness and energy sometimes overtook his abilities and knowledge.

There was Ambassador William Sullivan, who took his post in Vientiane in 1964 and soon became the most powerful U.S. ambassador in the world, in charge of the secret war in Laos. Sullivan’s power encompassed far more than the usual duties of filing reports on the political situation and attending diplomatic receptions. He had a strong respect for the CIA, unlike many U.S. ambassadors.

Sullivan also had a close relationship with President Lyndon Johnson, which Sullivan felt gave him a free hand to run the war in Laos. Called to testify before Congress, Sullivan drew the ire of Sen. William Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who complained: “We pretend Laos is a sovereign country. We are pretending we are not there? You are deceiving the American people and Congress.”

Sullivan, who didn’t mention that he had commanded nearly every aspect of the operation in Laos, later became National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger’s right-hand man at the Paris peace talks. (Sullivan was the only one of the four principals whom Kurlantzick did not interview.)

The fourth principal in the Laotian war was Tony Poe, who had experienced heavy combat with the U.S. Marines island-hopping across the Pacific during World War II. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, Poe signed up to train Korean saboteurs. In 1961, Poe arrived in Laos to help train the Hmong who had become the center of Operation Momentum.

Graphic for the movie, “Apocalypse Now,” which featured Marlon Brando as a crazed U.S. intelligence operative leading an irregular army, a character believed drawn from the CIA’s covert war in Laos.

Poe was a hard-drinking combat trainer who sought opportunities to fight with the troops he had trained. He had a reputation of ruthlessness that included tales of cutting heads off North Vietnamese troops and dropping them from a helicopter. He is said to have shipped bags of ears cut from enemy soldiers to the U.S. Embassy in Vientiane.

In the mountains with his private army and drinking heavily, many of Poe’s colleagues believed he had gone mad. However, in 1975, Poe was awarded a second CIA intelligence medal for “extraordinary heroism.” It is believed Poe was the model for Marlon Brando’s portrayal of Col. Kurtz in the film “Apocalypse Now.”

Enduring Lessons

The lessons from Laos had long-term effects on how the CIA would operate for years. After 1975, agents with Laos experience took over CIA stations all over the world and held senior jobs in agency headquarters. They brought with them a conviction the CIA could handle large-scale war fighting skills, reported Kurlantzick.

The secret war also had echoes up to the present.

“The post-9/11 war on terror replicates the Laos war in other critical ways: CIA activities are totally unwatched by the public and the media. The strategies used to keep most of the war on terror secret … would have been completely familiar to the CIA operatives running the Laos war.”

In his last foreign trip, President Obama went to Laos, the first sitting U.S. president to ever do so. In a speech in Vientiane in September that got little notice back home, he offered no apologies, but pledged to increase funding for clearing unexploded bombs by $90 million over the next three years.

President Barack Obama speaks in Vientiane, Laos, in September 2016 to announce an additional $90 million aid for bomb removal in the next three years. (White House Photo)

“Given our history here, the United States has a moral obligation to help Laos heal,” Obama said. “At the time the U.S. did not acknowledge America’s role. Even now, many Americans are not fully aware of this chapter in our history, and it’s important that we remember today.”

Kurlantzick didn’t complete the research and transcript for his book until October, before the election of Donald Trump as president, but in an article for the Washington Post’s Outlook section Jan. 22, he analyzed the new administration’s likely policy toward the CIA:

“The incoming President seems eager to cut some of the agency’s spies and analysts. Instead, power would flow to operatives in the field – those who help arm allied foreign military forces and manage drone strikes … the Trump administration is poised to accelerate a transformation that has been happening since the 1960’s, with the CIA becoming less focused on spying and more on paramilitary organizations with a central role in violent conflicts.”

The first secret counter-terrorism operation under Trump’s orders took place on Jan. 29 in Yemen against an “Al Qaeda affiliate” and appeared to have been a botched mission though the Trump administration hailed it as a success. It was reported to have been carried out by U.S. Special Operation Forces, with no mention of CIA participation.

A senior Navy Seal was killed during the raid and Yemeni officials reported 30 civilians also killed, mostly women and children. The New York Times said the civilian casualties triggered widespread anger across Yemen toward the U.S., adding to the tensions over President Trump’s entry ban on Yemeni citizens.

Kurlantzick’s A Great Place to Have a War could help Americans remember the chaos and destruction visited upon one of the world’s most primitive societies. Whether the book will influence the future history of America’s way of war remains to be seen.

Don North is a veteran war correspondent who covered the Vietnam War and many other conflicts around the world. He is the author of Inappropriate Conduct,  the story of a World War II correspondent whose career was crushed by the intrigue he uncovered.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on A Deadly Legacy: The CIA’s Covert Laos War

The Government of India is attempting to push through the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) food crops. In an attempt to spearhead the drive by making GM mustard the first such crop in the country, the government has apparently allowed regulatory delinquency, non-transparent procedures and fraudulent science. Aruna Rodrigues argues what is happening is blatant criminality and has taken the issue to the Supreme Court, which chairs the next hearing of the case on 7 February (date has since been put back a few days).

There is no proof that GM mustard is wanted or actually needed and one of (if not) the main arguments used to justify its introduction (reduction of edible oils imports) is fundamentally flawed. It raises the question: What is the point of GM mustard?

As lead petitioner in the case against GM mustard, Rodrigues is seeking a moratorium on the release of any genetically modified organisms into the environment pending a comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocol in the public domain conducted by agencies of independent expert bodies, the results of which are made public.

Government bogus narrative on Bt cotton to drive GM food crops into India

The latest development in this ongoing saga involves a comprehensive deconstruction of the government’s claims about Bt cotton, India’s first genetically modified commercial crop. Rodrigues argues that the government is using a false narrative about the history and successes of GM cotton in the country to try to demonstrate the success of GM technology per se and thus drive GM food crops into the country.

She sets out her case against Bt cotton in a rejoinder affidavit in response to the government’s previous reply affidavit that heralded the apparent successes of the GM crop. According to Rodrigues, the government appears to be “conducting a deliberate exercise in dissimulation in the reporting of facts and data and seeking to reconstruct a new set of facts.” She adds that government data and statistics on Bt cotton “cannot be distinguished from what would be expected from the Industry.”

According to Rodrigues, the government is unswerving in its plans to use Bt cotton as the ‘template of success’, despite unequivocal hard data to the contrary. The plan seems to be to introduce wholesale into Indian agriculture Bt food crops in virtually the entire range of the nation’s crops.

Whereas the government argues the apparent success (better yields and pest resistance) of Bt cotton is due to genetically modified traits, evidence suggests that other factors have contributed to any improved yields. For example, Dr K R Kranthi, Director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research in Nagpur recently completed his PhD study into Bt cotton and concludes:

“Bt-cotton plus higher fertilizers plus increased irrigation also received a protective cover from the seed treatment of neonicotinoid insecticides such as imidacloprid, without which majority of the Bt-cotton hybrids which were susceptible to sucking pests would have yielded far less. It can safely be said that yield increase in India would not have happened with Bt-cotton alone without enhanced fertilizer usage, without increased irrigation, without seed treatment chemicals, and the absence of drought-free decade.”

Dr Krathni has 20 years’ experience in the field of cotton research. Readers may also wish to read this by Professor Glenn Stone, who quotes Kranthi to make the point that “in none of the top 4 cotton-producing states do the trends fit the claim that Bt cotton has boosted yields.”

Moreover, it must be made clear that there is no trait for yield in the Bt technology, which is based on reducing insecticide use and, even in this respect, it has been a failure.

Failing pesticide treadmill and now a failing biotech treadmill

Bt cotton is no longer effective for controlling the bollworm pest. Rodrigues argues that scientific publications clearly show that pink bollworm developed resistance to Bt-cotton Bollgard II six years ago in India. Resistance is now widespread and has led to a failure of the Bt technology. The evidence provided by Rodrigues is multi-sourced, including official statistical data. Readers are urged to consult the rejoinder for all cited sources, which includes a summary of Dr Kranthi’s findings.

More than 1,000 hybrid Bt cotton varieties of dubious quality were developed and sold by several companies without proper assessment of the need for the technology or the economic benefits. It is now at the stage where 95% of all cotton farmers adopting hybrid Bt seed cannot save seed for replanting, and seed for adapted domestic Desi cottons have disappeared from the market place. Farmers are now trapped on a failing biotech treadmill.

The rush to implement Bt cotton in India started in 2002. It was intended to solve a bollworm problem created by pesticide misuse (a failing pesticide treadmill). After its introduction, yields increased initially due to the dual effects of increased subsidised fertilisers and there was a temporary reduction in insecticide use. However, yields have since stagnated and insecticide use has increased to pre-2002 levels as new and highly damaging pests not controlled by the Bt technology have emerged and pest resistance to the Bt technology is spreading.

Rodrigues notes that more than 65% of India’s poorest farmers have less than a hectare of land. In rain fed areas, yields depend on the timing and quantity of highly variable monsoon rains. Add to that the high costs of Bt hybrid seed, continued insecticide use and usury costs and the situation has become economically devastating for poor farmers and is likely the proximate cause of the increase incidence of suicides.

What if this scenario develops if biotechnology applications are introduced for Indian food crops across the board?

The 2005 base year for Bt cotton tells a different story

Rodrigues provides compelling evidence to show that claims for the success of Bt cotton derive from playing fast and loose with the data. Aside from abnormally low cotton yields in 2002 (taken by many as the base year for Bt cotton in India), the evidence indicates that 2005 should be regarded as the actual base year as Bt cotton then hit a double-digit market share for the first time.

This essentially changes the dynamics of Bt cotton growth drastically, providing a truer picture. The drastic fall in productivity in the last two years (2014 and 15) means that cotton productivity (because of resistance and crop failures) has now fallen back to levels in the pre-Bt era. Rodrigues adds that it must be also noted that cotton yield in the pre-Bt era increased significantly from its low in 2002 (191 kg/Ha) to 318 kg/ha in 2004-2005 registering an increase of 66% in just 3 years (DES). This increase was a result of increased acreage under hybrids and a new class of insecticides. The momentum of this upward swing carried into the Bt era that had nothing to do with the Bt. technology.

Rodrigues also notes that India’s global rank is a dismal 30-32nd in terms of cotton yield, overtaken by non-Bt producing countries and despite irrigation infrastructure in 4.8 million hectares having improved significantly.

Evidence set out in the rejoinder affidavit shows the following.

1) Insecticide usage on cotton in 2001 was 10,988 metric tonnes without Bt-cotton.

2) Usage increased to 11,598 metric tonnes in 2013 with more than 95% area under Bt-cotton.

3) In 2002, insecticide usage on cotton was 0.88 kg per hectare, which increased to 0.97 kg per hectare in 2013.

Thus, there is no evidence of any advantage in insecticide usage due to Bt-cotton.

Rodrigues goes on to dismiss other claims with regard to Bt. It has not resulted in better incomes for cotton farmers. Also, bee colony collapse disorder (CCD) is a specific fall-out of Bt cotton in India. Neonicotinoids are used as seed treatment in India on every seed of hybrid Bt cotton, but not on desi cotton varieties. CCD has been extensively documented along with the suspected role of neonicotinoids.

GM is a dying technology: India should let it rest in peace

Rodrigues states:

“Never has an agri-tech been sold as a ‘magic bean’ to farmers, like Bt cotton, with opprobrium attaching to our regulators and ministries of governance who supported and continue to support this technology-castle built on sand, in the absence of evidence and when the hard data said the opposite.”

The area planted with Bt cotton has increased substantially, even displacing food crops of lentils and oilseeds. Despite stagnating yields, which is the real measure of productivity (kg lint/Ha), ‘adoption’ or market share was deliberately used to camouflage the reality.

There should be a very clear line between regulation and product promotion. However, in India (as elsewhere), official bodies seem to not know the difference and are quite content to act as GM agritech product promoters while masquerading as regulators.

In addition to this, officials also seem quite confused when it comes to actual productivity. Rodrigues says:

“There is little distance between our regulators and institutions and ministries of governance and the supposedly regulated biotech industry, all of which together, promote GM crops as vendors. Is it to be assumed that the U of I [Union of India] does not know the difference between ‘adoption’ and ‘productivity’?”

The rejoinder affidavit concludes by asserting that Bt technology is a dying technology worldwide because it is proving to be unsustainable on the ground. This is certainly true of Bt cotton in India. Therefore, Rodrigues says that it would be utterly tragic if at this juncture, India were to succumb to industry pressure and introduce Bt technology into other food crops as is clearly the plan.

It is clearly the case that Bt cotton cannot be used as a model of success to justify the push for GM. Along with fudged data and invalid field tests, it smacks of desperation and constitutes part of a monumental bluff instigated on behalf of powerful commercial interests.

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer https://twitter.com/Colin_Todhunter 

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on GM Mustard Case Returns To Court In India: Bt Cotton Failure And Economic Distress Spun As A ‘Success’ In Pitch For GMOs

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi declared on Tuesday in Canberra that a war between the United States and China was unthinkable because of the disastrous losses that conflict would bring to both sides. However, the very fact that Wang was questioned about the Trump administration’s belligerent stance toward Beijing is another indication of the growing fears of conflict between the two nuclear-armed powers.

Speaking at a joint press conference with his Australian counterpart Julie Bishop, Wang was asked by an Australian journalist for his reaction to statements by the new US administration signalling “a stronger and even more aggressive posture towards China on a range of issues… How concerned are you really by the possibility of war between the US and China?”

The journalist specifically highlighted the comments of Trump’s top adviser Steve Bannon, predicting war between the US and China in five to ten years over the South China Sea. Bannon, who was speaking last March on the extreme right-wing web site Breibart, said:

“There is no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those.”

Wang was at pains to play down the danger of war, declaring that despite

“tough or sometimes even irrational failings on China-US relations” over the past four decades, the relationship had “defied all kinds of difficulties and has been moving forward continuously.”

Taking a shot at Bannon, Wang declared:

“Any sober-minded politician, they clearly recognise that there cannot be conflict between China and the United States because both will lose, and both sides cannot afford that.”

However, while continuing the confrontational stance of the previous Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” against China, the Trump administration represents a fundamental shift toward a no-holds barred assertion of the interests of American imperialism. Trump’s “America First” demagogy, which has been directed in particular against China, signifies a ruthless determination to halt the historic decline of the US in a struggle against rivals and allies alike through all, including military, means.

Moreover, while Yang is dismissive of Bannon, Trump has placed the fascistic, former editor of Breitbart News on the top tier of his National Security Council—that is, the body tasked with responding to emergencies and crises, as well as preparing and overseeing provocations, military interventions and wars.

It is no accident that Bannon focused on the South China Sea, which the Obama administration transformed into a dangerous international flash point through its destabilising interventions into China’s territorial disputes with its neighbours. Using China’s land reclamation activities on a handful of islets, Obama gave the green light for three “freedom of navigation” operations—that is, the dispatch of US navy destroyers within territorial waters claimed by China.

Trump and his advisers have been critical of the Obama administration’s actions for not being forceful enough in confronting Beijing over the South China Sea. In his confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson, now US Secretary of State, said the Trump administration would “send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”

Sending US destroyers within the 12-nautical-mile limits around Chinese islets was a reckless and provocative course that risked a military clash. Tillerson’s threat to block Chinese access in its South China Sea could be implemented only by imposing a naval blockade in the disputed waters—a flagrant act of war.

Foreign Minister Wang suggested that the Trump administration in office was already moderating its hard-line, anti-China stance. He pointed out that James Mattis, the new US Defence Secretary, stressed the importance of diplomacy in relation to the South China Sea disputes.

Mattis, who visited South Korea and Japan in his first overseas trip, had already raised tensions with China by concluding an agreement with Seoul to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea and threatening North Korea with “overwhelming” force if it attacked the US and its allies. In Japan, Mattis affirmed that the US would back Japan in any war with China over disputed islets in the East China Sea.

Having provoked angry reactions from Beijing on these two volatile flash-points, Mattiss’s comments on the South China Sea were relatively low-key. He declared that China’s land reclamation activities had “shredded the trust of nations in the region” but the US would exhaust diplomatic efforts to resolve the issues. “At this time, we do not see any need for dramatic military moves,” he added.

While publicly calling “at this time” for diplomacy before conflict, privately, according to several news sources, Mattis spoke of far more aggressive military measures to top Japanese officials.

The Nikkei Asian Review reported: “Mattis said America would no longer be that tolerant of China’s behaviour in the South China Sea. He pledged to take an active role in protecting freedom of navigation… Specifically, the US is set to increase the frequency of patrols within 12 nautical miles of man-made islands China has constructed in the sea.”

The newspaper also noted comments by the US defence secretary

“likening China’s expansion today to an effort to re-create the tributary system of the Ming Dynasty… In Mattis’s telling, Beijing could be trying to use its military and economic might to re-create a similar set-up today, though such efforts will not be tolerated in the modern world.”

Confronted with a bellicose US administration and the threat of war, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) veers between trying to appease Washington and engaging in an arms race that only heightens the danger of conflict. A senior official with China’s Central Military Commission, Liu Guoshun, warned last month that “a war within the [US] president’s term, war breaking out tonight, are not just slogans but the reality.”

The Chinese regime, which represents the interests of a tiny ultra-rich elite, is organically incapable of making any appeal to the only social force capable of halting the drive to war—the working class in China, the United States and internationally.

The threats by the Trump administration to implement trade war measures against China, to tear up alliances and multilateral arrangements if they are not in the immediate interests of American imperialism and, above all, to expand and use the US military to enforce American dominance are destabilising the entire region. The disputes in the South China Sea are just one of the triggers that could precipitate a catastrophic war.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Beijing Warns Against War with the US. “Disastrous Losses to Both Sides”

Populism in Australia: Channelling Trump “Down Under”

February 9th, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Australia’s prime minister has been politically tone deaf for the duration of his tenure, which was won by the political assassination of his predecessor, Tony Abbott. Since being in power, he has squandered a workable majority, been held in a headlock by reactionaries in his party, and looking every bit the straw man of politics. As he withers, opponents within and without feed remorselessly.

While this slide into oblivion has taken place, the global brushfire of populism has done its bit to rattle a few of Australia’s politicians. Generally speaking, the soil for revolt in Australia has generally been infertile, much like most of the hostile continent.

There have been sharp moments of inspired anger, usually confined to the agrarian and blue-collar segments of the population. Be it the disaffected worker, or the farmer at risk of losing his or her property, such individuals provide potentially rich pickings for demagogues and party strategists.

Again, such protests have been generally contained in brief spurts of electoral indignation: Pauline Hanson’s One Nation successes in Queensland in the 1990s, for instance, and, then the party’s resurgence among other curious fruit salad choices for the Australian federal senate in the last election.

Australian voters have generally detested those “pointy-headed” intellectual types, let alone anything remotely resembling cerebral noise: there has, in fact, been very little need to engineer a broad war against the experts, since they were never liked to begin with. Pragmatism remains cult and practice down under. Revolutionary potential there remains modest.

At heart, Australia remains, essentially, a conservative society more interested in interest rates and franked dividends than broader arguments about liberties, the grand vision of its place in the world or the vanishing society. Even Prime Minister Turnbull has publicly reneged on his Republican vision, preferring to praise Australia’s titular head of state, the Queen.

Protest against the Trans Pacific Partnership has been, relative to counterparts in the US and Europe, murmurings of regret. The sovereign surrender of the country to both the unelected corporation and the United States as bully are features that are occasionally acknowledged, though never seriously.

This is the context with which Senator Cory Bernardi, one of Australia’s true reactionary conservatives, has been working within. As far back as 2014, he was already telling the National Press Club that voters were gravitating towards independents and minor parties – the big don’ts of the country’s politics – as “a popular response to a perception of cowardice and distrust of the major parties.”

Dazzled by his time in New York on secondment to the United Nations, he returned to Australia convinced that there was something coursing in the waters. He was so convinced he started giving Turnbull a splitting headache, snipingly suggesting that his leader had lost, or at the very least misplaced, the plot. Kellyanne Conway, one of the architects of Trump’s victory, loomed in his consciousness.

“The past weeks,” he said reflecting on his New York sojourn with callow optimism, “have been enlightening and filled with amazing experiences. In a sense, they have extended my understanding of what is possible and reinforced my knowledge of what needs to be done.”

His Damascus conversion meant the need to leave the Liberal Party, the bosom that had nurtured and warmed his conservative instincts for years. “My time in the USA has made me realise I have to be part of that change, perhaps even in some way a catalyst for it.”[1]

Modest to a fault. “If you didn’t love a guy who was so in love with himself, you’d have a lot of trouble living with Cory,” observed his wife, Sinead. As far as ego is concerned, Bernardi has it in bucket loads.

His brief speech on the reasons why he was leaving the Liberal Party cherry pick the populist tree with self-serving grit. “There are few, if any, who can claim that respect for politics and politicians is stronger now than it was a decade ago.” (For those familiar with Aussie-gazing, Australians have never deemed politics a genuinely admirable pursuit now or then.)

According to Bernardi, “the body politic is failing the people of Australia and it’s clear we need to find a better way.” The major parties had been a cause of “public disenchantment,” a “direct product of the political class being out of touch with the hopes and aspirations of the Australian people.”

Political tribalism in Australia deems such acts of defection and independence as perfidious. It reeks of the rat fleeing briskly from a sinking ship; it suggests a level of intelligence and opportunism higher than the primitive collective.

“Acts of disloyalty and failing to stand by your commitments,” comments Paul Colgan, “are hallmark drivers of the type of voter cynicism which Bernardi is railing against.” Having been elected a Senator on the conservative ticket, “he will now enjoy five years of using that platform against them, while sitting in the Senate trousering $200,000 a year in taxpayers’ money as salary.”[2]

What are, then, his chances in driving this new party? Small, if not microscopic. One Nation is far more likely to scoop a larger share, as would Family First. The church, one filled with sermons against climate change as a reality, the joys of the fossil fuel state, the evils of same-sex marriage, or the tyranny of progressivism, is already rather full and particularly noisy. Bernardi will find it hard finding a chair.

We can always say that Trump’s chances at political glory were similarly limited, with chances deemed so obscure the Huffington Post refused – initially – to cover his candidacy other than in its entertainment section.

But unlike Trump, Bernardi is a professional politician, the very figure of the establishment common room that many Australian voters would have trouble identifying with. The immediate future is more prosaic, though no less problematic for the government. It means that Turnbull will have a fully-fledged reactionary on the Right of the spectrum, a person outside the tent piddling in: a grim proposition for him indeed.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes

[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/new-york-chill-fired-up-cory-bernardi/news-story/b8cefd48194da321683dd9dfc6e1dffa

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com.au/cory-bernardi-and-the-confusion-of-australian-conservatives-2017-2

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Populism in Australia: Channelling Trump “Down Under”

Less than a week after assuming office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order abandoning the 12 nation Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement negotiated by former President Barack Obama, but not yet ratified by the U.S. Congress. He then quickly attacked Mexico — abruptly cut short a phone conversation with Mexico’s President Peña Nieto, canceled a meeting with Peña Nieto after demanding Mexico pay for a wall on the U.S. border and threatened to impose a 20 percent border tax on goods exported to the United States based on the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Trump’s trade representative, Peter Navarro, then dropped another trade policy bomb by publicly declaring Germany was manipulating the euro currency unfairly to its advantage, stealing U.S. exports, while similarly exploiting the rest of the Eurozone economy as well.

Trump, meanwhile, continued to declare that China and Japan were also currency manipulators who were taking advantage of U.S. businesses and increasing their exports at the expense of the U.S. Their currencies declined by 8 percent and 15 percent, respectively, in recent months. The Mexican peso fell by 16 percent after the U.S. election and the euro and British pound each by around 20 percent in 2016.

Trump’s flurry of executive orders canceling trade deals, his phone calls to country leaders, his appointed representatives public statements, and his constant tweets on social media suggest to some, including the U.S. mainstream media, that Trump is anti-free trade, that Trump is ushering in a new trade protectionism, and that his attacks on free trade agreements, like TPP and NAFTA, will precipitate a global trade war. It is this writer’s view, however, that none of this is likely.

Trump is a dedicated free trader. He just rejects multilateral, multi-country free trade deals like TPP and NAFTA. He wants even stronger, pro-U.S. business free trade deals and intends to renegotiate the existing multilateral treaties — to the benefit of U.S. multinational corporations and at the expense of the U.S. trading partners. Trump’s threats of protectionist measures, like the 20 percent border tax and previous election promises of imposing a 45 percent import tax on goods from China, are primarily tactical and aimed at conditioning U.S. trading partners to make major concessions once U.S. renegotiation of past deals and agreements begin.

And as for a trade war, the answer is also a very likely “no.” The big ‘four’ targeted trading partners — China, Japan, Germany, and Mexico — currently exchange goods and services with the huge U.S. economy amounting between US$1 to US$2 trillion a year. China-U.S. two-way trade amounts to nearly US$500 billion a year, Mexico about as large, and Japan and Germany also account for hundreds of billions of dollars of trade with the U.S. per year. These are the countries with which the U.S. has the largest trade deficits: China’s about US$360 billion and the largest, Japan’s close to US$80 billion, Mexico and Germany around US$60-$70 billion. Given the large volume of lucrative trade with the U.S., these countries will eventually agree to renegotiate existing free trade treaties and trade arrangements with the U.S.

What Trump trade policies represent is a major shift by U.S. economic elites and Trump toward bilateral free trade, country to country. Trump believes he and the U.S. have stronger negotiating leverage “one on one” with these countries and that prior U.S. policies of multilateral free trade only weakened U.S. positions and gains. But free trade is free trade, whether multi or bilateral. Workers, consumers and the environment pay for the profits of corporations on both sides of the trade deals, regardless how the profits are re-distributed between the companies benefiting from free trade.

Trump’s shift to bilateral trade represents the intent of U.S. economic elites to increase their share of trade profits and benefits at the expense of their capitalist trading cousins. And this is not the first time the U.S. has set out to “shake up” trade relations to its advantage. In 1985 and 1986, when the U.S. under Reagan was losing out exports to Europe and Japan, the U.S. forced Japan to the bargaining table and negotiated the “Plaza Accords,” in which Japan was forced to make major concessions to the U.S. This was immediately followed up by the “Louvre Agreements” with Europe, with the same results.

The Reagan team, led by James Baker of the U.S. Treasury, decided to abandon multilateral trade negotiations through the then global General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT. GATT was an attempt to negotiate trade on a global scale involving scores of countries. The U.S. could not get the deal it wanted from GATT trade negotiations, so it turned its fire on its biggest capitalist trading partners — Europe and Japan — and forced the Plaza and Louvre Agreements on them. The results were great for U.S. business, especially multinational corporations. But the agreements play a large part in leading to banking crashes in the early 1990s in Europe and in Japan. Japan thereafter went into chronic recession for the rest of the decade and Germany in the 1990s ended up being described as the “poor man” of Europe.

Similarly today, Trump’s nixing of the TPP and his attacks on Mexico, NAFTA, Germany, and Japan reflect a strategic shift from multilateral free trade strategies and a U.S. policy turn to bilateral approaches to free trade where the U.S. can extract even more concessions from competitors in the critical decade ahead.

One reason for this strategic shift is that global trade volumes have been slowing rapidly in recent years. The global trade pie is shrinking, especially since 2010, when global trade grew at a 20 percent rate; but this past year the growth will be less than 2 percent. Capitalist elites are thus increasingly fighting over a smaller share of trade. For the first time, in the past year, the growth of global trade is slower than the growth of global Gross Domestic Product, even as GDP itself is slowing globally.

Another explanation for the Trump shift is that the U.S. dollar and interest rates are expected to continue to rise. That will result in an increase in inflation in the US. The rising dollar and U.S. prices will mean U.S. multinational corporations’ profits from trade will take a hit. They already are. The Trump shift to bilateral trade is therefore in anticipation of having competitors make up the expected losses of U.S. businesses from trade due to the rising U.S. dollar and U.S. price inflation.

The consequences of the Trump trade shift for the “big four” trade deficit trading partners are mostly negative. Eighty percent of all Mexico exports now go to the U.S. and 30 percent of Mexico’s GDP is from U.S. trade. Mexico’s peso will continue to fall, import inflation rise and undermine standards of living. Mexico’s central bank will raise interest rates to try to slow capital flight and that will cause more unemployment in addition to import inflation and a slowing economy.

For Europe, the U.S. turn from multilateral free trade will add impetus to Britain’s “Brexit” from the European Union, as well as further legitimize other countries in the EU exiting the Eurozone. France could be next, should the pro-Trump French National Front party there win the upcoming elections this spring, which the polls show it is leading.

Japan appears to want to be the first major U.S. trading partner to cut a bilateral deal with Trump. Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, continues to shuttle back and forth to Washington to meet with Trump. The first to strike a Trump bilateral deal may get the best terms. Britain’s Theresa May is not far behind, however, equally desperate to cut a bilateral deal to enable the U.K. to “Brexit” sooner than later.

Where the U.S. clearly loses from the trade policy shift is with China. The end of the TPP means that China will likely expand its own free trade zone, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, negotiated now with South Korea, Australia, India and also Japan. The TPP was the U.S. economic cornerstone for its so-called pivot to Asia (China) politically and militarily. That has now been set back. The expansion of China’s regional trade zone will also further solidify its currency, the yuan, as a global trading currency, as well as strengthen its recent Industrial Bank and “One Belt-One Road” initiatives.

The biggest negative impact of the Trump shift on free trade will be the global economy itself. The shift will take time, produce a lot of uncertainty, as well as reactions and counter-measures. That will only serve to slow global trade volumes even further. All emerging market economies will consequently pay a price in lower exports sales for Trump’s strategic trade shift, the ultimate aim of which is to restore U.S. economic hegemony in trade relations over trading partners — a hegemony that has been weakening in recent years. But this is not 1985. And a safe bet is that restoration will not prevail.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Trump Scraps The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for Bilateral “Free Trade”

Outside Southeast Asia, few people know of Palembang, a city on Sumatra, the sixth largest island in the world. A gloomy and immense city, with almost two million inhabitants, most of them living in cramped and squalid conditions.

The tropical River Musi bisects the city, a desperately polluted waterway, bordered by slums built on stilts and a few old colonial buildings.

Vessels of all types use the Musi, hauling everything that can be sold abroad or to the rest of Indonesia. The river is jammed with enormous barges filled with coal, oil tankers, makeshift boats carrying palm oil fruit bunches, as well as countless ships carrying timber.

Plunder is done openly; there is no attempt to conceal it.

Ms. Isna Wijayani, a Professor at Bina Darma University in Palembang, laments on the situation.

“There is no primary forest left in a wide area around Palembang,” she says. “However, illegal logging doesn’t get reported in the local media. It is because powerful forces, including police and the army (TNI) are involved or directly behind much of the illegal logging and other profitable commercial activities in South Sumatra.”

Bina Darma University invited me to speak on the manipulation of the Indonesian media by the West. I was asked to address some 100 selected students and lecturers from the region. What followed was an hour-long discussion, during which I clearly understood how little is known, even among the local students and teachers, about the dire environmental situation in their part of the world.

“We have no idea about the extent of deforestation around here,” explained Ms. Lina, a student.

Ms. Ayu Lexy, a graduate student, was somewhat more knowledgeable on the subject:

“I think Donald Trump is crazy, claiming that there is no global warming. The effects of it are clearly felt here.”

Just as I had done several years ago, I rented a makeshift speedboat and instructed the captain to take me around the delta to Upang, a village more than one hour of literally ‘flying’ over the murky waters from Palembang.

For the first few kilometers, hellish-looking factories lined up along both shores. All of the plants appeared to be forming a grand coalition, serving a single goal: to destroy what remains of the once-pristine tropical paradise.

There was the Pusri plant, producer of fertilizers, one of the largest in Southeast Asia, belching smoke and spewing an unbearable stench into the air. Right across the water, surrounded by slums, a wood-processing plant was emitting yet another very distinct odor. Local children were swimming nearby, clearly oblivious to health hazards.

Later, a former top executive of Pusri, Mr. Reza Esfan, confessed to me:

 “We create pollution, of course, although we try to minimize it. I can’t deny that unsavory odor is emitted… Obviously, Pusri’s mistake was that they didn’t purchase the land surrounding their plants. Now, if we have a leak, then the community sues us… ”

Naturally, not a word about the suffering of the communities…

At Kapitan village, several women were washing their clothes in the filthy river water, and then brushing their teeth in it.

“Why shouldn’t we be washing ourselves and brushing our teeth in clean water,” a village woman said. “We can’t spend our money on such luxuries! Anyway, the river water is free, and it is clean.”

As the woman spoke, a grotesquely swollen carcass of a dog passed slowly by in the water just a few meters away.

Disaster in the making

Deforestation was essential for the construction of all local industries. But how ruthless is deforestation in Indonesia? How bad is its contribution to global climate change?

The simple answer is: it is not just bad; it is dreadful.

The Pan-Asian independent news network, Coconuts TV, reported in 2015:

“Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change, adding more carbon pollution to the atmosphere than all the world’s cars, trucks, ships, trains and airplanes combined each year. It’s also pushing many animal species to the brink of extinction, including the Sumatran rhinoceros, Sumatran tiger, Sumatran elephant, and the orangutan due to the destruction of their habitats.”

Indonesia has become the global leader in deforestation, and the reason is the world’s thirst for palm oil. Palm oil is the most widely used vegetable oil on the planet. It can be found in over half of all packaged products at the supermarket, including everything from cooking oil to lipstick.”

As early as in 2007, Greenpeace Philippines snapped at Indonesia’s unwillingness to deal with the disaster:

“Indonesia destroys about 51 square kilometers of forests every day, equivalent to 300 football fields every hour — a figure, which should earn the country a place in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world’s fastest destroyer of forests… These figures demonstrate a lack of political will and power by the Indonesian government to stop runaway deforestation rates. A series of natural disasters in recent years, floods, forest fires, landslides, droughts, massive erosion are all linked to the unprecedented destruction of our forests. Forest fires from concessions and plantations have already made Indonesia the world’s third biggest contributor of greenhouse gases,” Mr. Hapsoro (Greenpeace Southeast Asia Forest campaigner) said.”

Since 2007, not much has changed. The country has already lost well over 70 percent of its intact ancient forests, and commercial logging, forest fires and new clearances for palm oil plantations threaten half of what is left. The greed seems to know no boundaries.

According to ScienceDirect:

“Between 1970 and the mid-1990s, export-oriented log production and global demand were the primary pressures underlying deforestation. Cultivation of rice and other crops was also found to be associated with a growing population and transmigration policy. Moreover, deregulation of foreign investment in the 1980s appears to have led to the expansion of an export-oriented industry, including commercial crop and log production. Between the mid-1990s and 2015, the imbalance between global demand and production of Indonesian timber and oil palm led to illegal or non-sustainable timber harvest and expansion of permanent agricultural areas…”

The result: Sumatra and Kalimantan islands are now choking on their own pollution, although the agony spreads far into neighboring Malaysia and Singapore. Year after year, millions of people get affected, classes are cancelled, airplanes grounded, and regular activities averted. Hundreds of thousands of people are suffering from acute respiratory infections. Hundreds lose their lives.

Some even call the unbridled ‘export of pollution’ a ‘crime against humanity.’ Emotions are running high, and many citizens of Malaysia and Singapore protest by boycotting Indonesian products.

On several occasions, I witnessed thick smog covering the skyscrapers of the leading Malaysian cities, and of Singapore. In 2015, during the ‘big fires’ of Sumatra, life in Kuala Lumpur almost came to a standstill.

This time, landing in Palembang, the haze had been covering almost the entire runway. “Visibility six kilometers,” the captain of Indonesian flagship carrier, Garuda, informed us, not long before the touchdown. In fact, the visibility appeared to be no more than 200 meters. But in Indonesia, many ‘uncomfortable facts’ are denied outright.

Throughout the following days, my eyes became watery and my joints were aching. I kept coughing uncontrollably. When I was asked by the Italian ‘5 Star Movement’ to record my political message (I did it in a local slum), I could hardly speak.

The trouble didn’t just come from the forest fires: everything here seemed to be polluting the environment: the burning of garbage, traffic jams, emissions from unregulated factories, even cigarette smoking in almost all public places.

Along the Musi River, the original forests are gone, replaced by rice fields, palm oil, and rubber plantations.

I spoke to dozens of farmers and fishermen. Most of them have never heard about global warming, others didn’t care. In Indonesia, the struggle for bare survival is what propels most of the people – this, as well as the cynical chase for profit, pursued by the ‘elites’. I described it in detail in my damning book Indonesia: Archipelago of Fear’.

At some point, the captain of my boat became hostile. Angry, frustrated and nationalistic, he began sabotaging my work, constantly rocking his boat in order to prevent me from photographing disaster areas.

Still, I prevailed. I had to. Millions of people were suffering; dozens of species were disappearing, including tigers and rhinos, elephants and orangutans.

Mr. Ahmad, a 55-year-old fisherman from Upang village, is aware of the tragedy: “In the last 20 years, the level of Musi River has risen on average by 50 centimeters. Here we have a badminton court. In the past, during high tides, the water would go up only to our ankles, but now it comes up to our thighs.”

Mr. Ahmad doesn’t understand that it is the destruction of tropical forests that has a direct impact on the rising levels of his river.

Local university students, who are accompanying me, know what’s happening, but they don’t seem to care. As I interview farmers and fishermen, they’re chatting on their phones, clearly indifferent.

“The environmental destruction around Musi River, particularly of the rainforest, is very bad, and it continues. The great fire of 2015 showed how bad the management of the rainforests is in Indonesia, particularly in Sumatra,” Ms. Khalisah Khalid working for WALHI (the Indonesian Forum for the Environment), told me over the phone.

However, for many different reasons, environmental disasters do not seem to be treated as emergencies: by the government, mainstream media, even by local people.

As my boat flew over the water, hitting waves created by monstrous coal barges, practically breaking my back, I realized the mainstream media hardly ever comes here, despite what takes place around Musi has a devastating impact on our entire planet. Abroad, the Sumatran environmental disaster is just one of those ‘abstract stories.’

For years, I worked in many parts of this enormous and once stunning island, from Aceh to Lampung. I also worked all over Oceania (‘Oceania’ is the title of my book covering that vast part of the world), the most affected area of the planet, where entire countries are now disappearing due to the climate change.

Global warming has an undeniably devastating impact on the whole world, including the Palembang area itself. In the short term, palm oil and rubber plantations may bring some profits to the companies, even to local people, but tens, maybe hundreds of millions of lives could be disrupted, even broken as a result. The price is too steep, but in Indonesia, there is hardly any discussion on the subject. Too many powerful individuals are involved, and too much money is being made.

Now those who claim that there is no climate change have a powerful ally in the White House. And so the silence reigns. The water is rising. Increasingly, smog is covering, like an endless and deadly duvet, this entire part of the world.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  “Fighting Against Western Imperialism. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

Photo: Andre Vltchek

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Indonesia’s Sumatra: Unspoken “Environmental Genocide”

Triumphalism followed the election of US President Donald Trump, particularly among those opposed to US foreign policy under US President Barack Obama. In particular, hope was rekindled that America would withdraw from the many, provocative conflicts it was cultivating, ranging from the Middle East to East Asia.

However, triumphalism and hope are now dashed, as the new US administration moves clearly and in earnest to not only continue on with these confrontations, but expand them.

For students of history, particularly those following events in Asia Pacific, the prospect of the US moving its confrontation with China forward for control over the region is hardly a surprise.

A Quick History Lesson of US Imperialism in Asia 

The United States had occupied the Philippines, declaring it a US territory from 1898-1946. It had also been involved in the military occupation and several armed clashes in China with Chinese forces, including during the Second Opium War and the Boxer Rebellion. Such conflicts saw Chinese fighters attempt to remove by force foreign influence, including supposedly Christian missionaries used to impose US and European sociopolitical control over China.

During this period of overt American colonisation throughout Asia Pacific, the annexation of Taiwan was also considered, as an American analogue of Britain’s annexation of Hong Kong.

In Thomas Cox’ 1973 book, “Harbingers of Change: American Merchants and the Formosa [Taiwan] Annexation Scheme,” published by the University of California Press, Cox wrote:

Since it appeared unlikely that Taiwan would long remain a part of the Chinese empire and there was ample justification for action by the United States, [US Commissioner in China, Peter] Parker argued that the United States should move quickly. “I believe Formosa and the world will be better for the former coming under a civilized power,” he wrote.

It should be noted that Parker’s advocacy of the US annexation of Taiwan was backed not by political ideology, though it was certainly presented as such publicly, but by US business interests at the time, particularly those of the Nye Brothers, merchants involved heavily in US-Chinese trade, including the movement of opium across the region.

Regional dynamics would change just before, during, and immediately after World War 2, with a resurgence of localised power and independence movements ousting Western colonial powers. This included the ousting of British and French holdings across the region such as in Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia and across Indochina which included Laos, Cambodia and of course Vietnam.

The ousting by force of French administrators from Vietnam brought the United States back into the region more directly and on an unprecedented scale.

And while the United States would claim its reasons for intervening in Southeast Asia were predicated on preventing a “domino effect” of spreading communism, leaked documents known as the “Pentagon Papers” made it abundantly clear that America was simply continuing its hegemonic pursuits vis-a-vis China in an effort to encircle, contain and eventually subdue a rising Beijing.
The US State Department’s own Office of the Historian, in a section titled, “189. Draft Memorandum From Secretary of Defense McNamara to President Johnson,” dated 1965, states explicitly:

The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain Communist China.

The papers openly advocate US global hegemony, stating:

…the role we have inherited and have chosen for ourselves for the future is to extend our influence and power to thwart ideologies that are hostile to these aims and to move the world, as best we can, in the direction we prefer. Our ends cannot be achieved and our leadership role cannot be played if some powerful and virulent nation—whether Germany, Japan, Russia or China—is allowed to organize their part of the world according to a philosophy contrary to ours. 

And again, just like during deliberations over the possible annexation of Taiwan during the 19th century, US ambitions in Asia Pacific may be rhetorically presented as pursuit of a particular ideology, but are in reality underpinned by economic interests which seek to move into and subsequently dominate markets globally, displacing anything and everything preexisting, through coercive diplomacy, or through indirect or direct military force.

21st Century American Hegemony 

Fast-forward to the 21st century. During the administration of former US President Barack Obama, the US “pivoted” toward Asia in an attempt to reassert itself in a region quickly escaping out from under what remained of over a century of US-European hegemony.

The pivot failed, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being categorically resisted and rejected across Asia, and feigned US rapprochement with several of China’s neighbours turned into confrontations across Southeast Asia as Washington attempted to replace governments friendly with Beijing with those that would toe an anti-Beijing line.

In an attempt to conceal what is a decades-long agenda, and the continuation of Obama’s “pivot,” US President Donald Trump’s counsellor Steven Bannon, as revealed by a Guardian article titled, “Steve Bannon: ‘We’re going to war in the South China Sea … no doubt’,” would claim that China, along with “Islam,” presented a menace to the “Judeo-Christian” West.

This ideological rhetoric is aimed at distracting the public, convincing them that US policy toward China is now determined by Trump’s ideological, xenophobic tendencies, rather than merely the latest logical iteration of Obama’s “pivot,” and the Vietnam-era’s full-scale military containment strategy.

Also noteworthy in Bannon’s incomplete thought is his omission of so-called Christian missionaries in China and the role they played in the attempted invasion, occupation and subjugation of China during the 19th century by US-European interests.

The Guardian would report:

Bannon’s sentiments and his position in Trump’s inner circle add to fears of a military confrontation with China, after secretary of state Rex Tillerson said that the US would deny China access to the seven artificial islands. Experts warned any blockade would lead to war. Advertisement 

Bannon is clearly wary of China’s growing clout in Asia and beyond, framing the relationship as entirely adversarial, predicting a global culture clash in the coming years. 

“You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China. Right? They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian west is on the retreat,” Bannon said during a February 2016 radio show.

And while the Guardian attempts to pose as sounding the alarm over the Trump administration’s seemingly xenophobic and confrontational stance, its own omission of America’s longstanding attempts to encircle, contain and subjugate China regardless of who occupies the White House or what rhetoric accompanies each iteration of US policy toward China, serves as complicity.

For policymakers across Asia, understanding history and the special interests that have and still do drive American foreign policy is key to seeing through inflammatory rhetoric, and essential in analysing and preparing solutions for continued attempts by Washington to reassert itself in a region an ocean away from its own shores, in a modern-day continuation of Western colonialism the nations of Asia Pacific have fought hard to escape and rise above over the past generation.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on U.S. Imperialism in Asia: Trump Administration Set to Expand South China Sea Conflict

The negative development impact of the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC, the World Bank’s private sector arm) investments in financial intermediaries (FIs) has once again been brought to light (see Observer Spring 2014). An October 2016 report, Disaster for us and the planet, by US-based NGO Inclusive Development International (IDI) and partners, provided evidence that  “IFC-supported financial institutions have funded at least 41 new coal projects …  since the World Bank announced its coal ban in 2013”. While the IFC has claimed that the concerns of civil society organisations have largely been addressed through its response to previously highlighted harmful projects that it funds, the report demonstrates that the IFC remains exposed to highly damaging projects.

The report highlighted the IFC’s involvement in the Mahan plant in India, where it provided millions of dollars in funding to two banks, IDFC and ICICI, which are “major players in India’s infrastructure and industrial sectors”. It noted that “in total, these two IFC-supported banks helped provide approximately $1.9 billion in financing to build the Mahan coal plant”. The report also disclosed that “the IFC’s support for the project did not end there” as it enabled the development of a nearby mine which Greenpeace found “would displace or otherwise harm 50,000 people who lived in the forest or depended on it for their livelihoods”.

The report also detailed IFC’s involvement in Rampal in Bangladesh, which it calls “one of the most potentially destructive coal plants in the world”. The plant sits very close to the world’s largest mangrove, which supports the lives of two million people in India and Bangladesh, is a UNESCO World Heritage site and home to numerous endangered and threatened species. The report stressed that “the World Bank was initially approached to fund Rampal. However, the Bank declined … Three French banks, Credit Agricole, BNP Paribas and Societe Generale, were also approached but refused to get involved”. In April 2016, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund placed the company charged with building the plant, the National Thermal Power Corporation, on its exclusion list.  The report emphasised that while “these institutions distanced themselves from the projects, six IFC-funded commercial banks arranged billions of dollars in financing for the National Thermal Power Corporation”, noting that “between 2005 and 2014, the IFC provided $520 million in funding to the six banks”. Considering the impact of IFC’s involvement in these and other similar projects, the report stressed that “these projects have also decimated the world’s forests. Coal plants, and the mines that feed them, are a leading cause of deforestation globally, further contributing to climate change.”

The World Bank Group has ended up fuelling and profiting from business activities responsible for enormous human suffering, environmental devastation and in some cases serious crimes –
DAVID PRED

Behind the fumes – the hidden story of IFC’s investment in coal

IFC’s involvement in coal power generation lies in stark contrast to the World Bank Group’s (WBG) position on coal, as outlined in its 2013 Energy sector directions paper, which states that “the WBG will provide financial support for greenfield [new] coal power generation projects only in rare circumstances”(see Bulletin December 2013). The Bank’s position was reiterated by World Bank president Jim Yong Kim in November 2016 when, in celebration of the entry into force of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, he stressed that “without climate action at scale, more than 100 million people could fall back into extreme poverty by 2030”, and that “we need to focus special attention and action on Asia, where energy demand is growing and some countries continue to look to coal as the solution.”

IDI’s report forms part of a four-part series titled Outsourcing development: Lifting the veil on the World Bank Group’s lending through financial intermediaries and contributes to evolving evidence of the negative development impacts of IFC investments in FIs. During a months-long investigation following the trail of IFC money, IDI uncovered 121 harmful projects that the IFC is funding through FIs. Despite some positive initiatives taken by the IFC, such as the disclosure of it private equity investments and a stated commitment to “strengthen and deepen the quality and coverage of IFC’s E&S [environmental and social] risk management of FIs”, the report demonstrated that the opaque nature of IFC investments in FIs and its inability or unwillingness to adequately screen and monitor FI sub-projects persist to the detriment of communities and the environment (see Observer Summer 2015).

The report’s reliance on expensive proprietary market information, unavailable to often marginalised communities affected by IFC-funded projects or their supporters, demonstrates that concerns about the lack of disclosure of sub-projects funded by IFC FI clients remain unaddressed (see Bulletin Nov 2014). The lack of disclosure prevents communities and CSOs from holding the IFC to account by bringing cases to light and accessing the IFC’s grievance mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO). This contravenes the IFC’s performance standards which oblige the IFC to ensure that communities are aware of the existence of the CAO.

An October letter to the IFC’s CEO Philippe H. Le Houérou, sent by six organisations, including the Philippines Movement for Climate Justice, a coalition of 130 environmental groups in the Philippines, and Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti (MASS), pleaded with him to respond to the call of those working to avoid a “climate catastrophe by ensuring that the IFC’s new FI investments are coal-free”.

Meanwhile, Owning the outcomes, a joint briefing by Oxfam and IDI also released in October 2016, challenged five arguments that the IFC has put forward to repudiate responsibility for harms caused by its financial-sector investments. David Pred, Managing Director of IDI commented “While the IFC has tried to distance itself from the projects funded by its intermediaries, the fact is that these banks are brazenly disregarding the IFC’s environmental and social requirements. As a result, the World Bank Group has ended up fuelling and profiting from business activities responsible for enormous human suffering, environmental devastation and in some cases serious crimes”.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on The Dirty Truth Behind the World Bank’s “Commitments” on Climate Change

Radiation levels inside a damaged reactor at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant have hit a record high, and are the worst since the plant suffered a triple meltdown nearly six years ago. The latest readings now pose a serious challenge as officials prepare to dismantle the stricken facility.

Radiation levels inside the containment vessel of reactor No. 2 at Fukushima has reached 530 sieverts per hour—a figure described by experts as “unimaginable.” The readings, taken by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. (Tepco), were taken near the entrance of a space immediately below the pressure vessel, which contains the reactor core.

The radiation level inside the plant now far exceeds the previous high of 73 sieverts per hour, which was recorded soon after the triple meltdown in March 2011. Tepco made the readings by analyzing electronic noise caused by the radiation in video images. The company says this technique has a margin of error of plus or minus 30 percent (so even at the extreme low ball, the levels are no lower than 370 sieverts per minute—but possibly as high as 690!).

Needless to say, this plant is not fit for human life. Just one dose of a single sievert is enough to cause radiation sickness and nausea. Exposure to four to five sieverts would kill about half of those exposed to it within a month, while a single dose of 10 sieverts is enough to kill a person within weeks.

These surging radiation levels are complicating plans to dismantle the plant. According to the National Institute of Radiological Sciences, medical professionals aren’t prepared to treat patients who have been exposed to the levels of radiation currently experienced at the facility. This is a big problem for Tepco, which plans to remove fuel debris as part of the decommissioning process. The dismantling of Fukushima is scheduled to start in 2021 and could take nearly a half-century.

Officials with Tepco aren’t entirely sure why radiation levels are on such a dramatic upward trend. Either previous readings were insufficient or incorrect, or conditions inside the plant are changing. Problem is, the interior condition of the plant is still a big mystery. The high readings suggest that some of the melted fuel that escaped the pressure vessel is lingering nearby. Should this be confirmed, it would mark the first time that tainted debris has been found in any of the three reactors that suffered core meltdowns. Tepco has been unable to confirm the condition of the melted fuel owing to the extreme and inhospitable conditions inside.

Tepco has discovered a 6.5-foot-wide hole in the metal grate under a pressure vessel in reactor No. 2’s containment vessels at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. (Image: Tepco)

In other news, a remotely-operated vehicle discovered a horrific 6.5-feet (two-meter) hole in the metal grating under the pressure vessel in the reactor’s primary containment vessel. The company suspects the gash was created by nuclear fuel that melted and then pierced through the vessel after the tsunami knocked out Fukushima Daiichi’s back-up cooling system.

“It may have been caused by nuclear fuel that would have melted and made a hole in the vessel, but it is only a hypothesis at this stage,” explained a Tepco spokesperson to AFP. “We believe the captured images offer very useful information, but we still need to investigate given that it is very difficult to assume the actual condition inside.”

This investigation will prove easier said than done. Tepco was hoping to send a newly developed robot into reactor No. 2, but that doesn’t seem possible now given the intense radiation inside. The remotely-operated machine was designed to withstand exposure of up to 1,000 total sieverts. At the previous peak of 73 sieverts per hour, it could run for about 10 hours. But at the newly recorded 530 sieverts per hour, it would last no more than two hours. Consequently, Tesco is planning to send the robot into reactor No. 1 in March, while its survey plan for reactor No. 2 is now on hold.

Scary stuff, to be sure. When nuclear goes wrong, it really, really goes wrong.

[The Japan TimesThe GuardianAFP]

 

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Radiation Levels Are Soaring inside the Damaged Fukushima Nuclear Plant

Russia will consider taking countermeasures to protect its own security if the United States pushes ahead with its planned deployment of an advanced anti-missile system on South Korean soil, the country’s top envoy in Seoul said Friday.

Russian Ambassador to South Korea Alexander Timonin said that the stationing of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on the Korean Peninsula will have a “dangerous” impact on ongoing efforts to secure regional peace and stability.

“We will have no choice but to draw a certain conclusion once the THAAD installment is complete,” he said during a press conference held in the Russian Embassy located in central Seoul. “We will have to take certain types of countermeasures to guarantee our own security.”

In July, South Korea and the United States announced a plan to set up a THAAD battery by the end of this year to better cope with the growing military threats from North Korea. China and Russia have strongly opposed the plan, saying it could hurt their strategic security interests.

Earlier in the day, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis visiting Seoul reiterated Washington’s stance, saying that deploying the THAAD anti-missile unit to South Korea is to protect America’s allies and its own troops.

Timonin said he does not want to elaborate on what impact the THAAD deployment will have on Russia-South Korea relations, adding that Moscow is still hoping that the decision could be withdrawn.

The ambassador, however, made it clear that the reason why Russia is opposed to THAAD is because it is regarded as part of the U.S.’ global missile defense system that surrounds its own borders.

“We see it as a threat to our national security,” he said.

He admitted that the cacophony over THAAD could affect Russia-South Korea relations but still drew attention to the importance of economic cooperation between the two countries, hinting that the impact will not go as far as to hurt their ties in business.

“Our bilateral economic cooperation is important as much as the THAAD issue. It could be more important than that,” he said, adding in Korean, “Don’t worry.”

Regarding the North, he reiterated Russia’s commitment to UNSC resolutions adopted to penalize Pyongyang for its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons but underlined the need for talks, as well as trying to find a “peaceful” solution.

“Russia is willing to take every possible measure in accordance with UNSC resolutions and no progress has been made in cooperation with the North in military and political areas,” he pointed out.

“But we think that the sanctions should not be pursued in a way that a possibility of talks with the North is ruled out or blocked,” he added. “Our stance is that the impact on the North Korean people should also be minimized.”

He called for the resumption of the long-suspended six-party talks to discuss the North’s denuclearization, saying that Russia is “ready” to participate in the multilateral negotiation process.

The six-party talks involving South and North Korea, the United States, China, Japan and Russia have been stalled since late 2008, when the North opted not to engage in negotiations.

“Russia is ready to actively join the talks, and we will be able to offer our version of solution,” he said. “Most countries involving the (North’s) nuclear issue see the six-party talks as an effective and constructive format.”

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on US-Russia Confrontation? Moscow Likely to Mull Action If U.S. THAAD Missile Deployment in South Korea Goes Ahead

Trumping Australia’s Refugee Deal

February 3rd, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“This is the worst deal ever.” President Donald J. Trump, The Washington Post, Feb 2, 2017

It was a moment of delightful reflection. The indecently smug politicians of a distant island continent, wealthy, cruel in refugee policy and lazy in development, stunned by encountering a short fused US President who had little time for a “dumb” deal.

That deal, prematurely hatched during the last stages of the Obama administration with the Turnbull government, would see 1,250 refugees on Australia’s questionable offshore centres on Manus Island and Nauru, settled in the United States.

Australia’s fanatical insistence on not processing refugees and asylum seekers arriving by sea lanes has produced a flawed and unsustainable gulag system in the Pacific, along with deals of mind scratching eccentricity.

Poorer countries such as Cambodia and Nauru are deemed appropriate processing centres and places of re-settlement, despite local hostilities and incompatibilities.  Wealthier countries such as New Zealand tend to be ignored as optional points since resettlement there, should it happen, would be embolden new arrivals.  The one exception – the United States – was largely premised on both its distance from Australia and daftness of mind amongst Canberra’s policy fraternity.

In its desperation to find customers in the global supermarket of refugee shopping, Washington offered a tentative hand to feed the Australian habit.  That hand was rapidly withdrawn on Donald Trump’s signing of the Executive Order banning travel from seven mainly Muslim states.  Many of these nationals feature in the 1,250 total, with Iranians making up the largest cohort.  (It was a deal that Turnbull, incidentally, refused to condemn: Australia, he realises, knows what bans and bars to immigrants and refuges look like.)

According to the Washington Post, Trump explained in exasperated fashion to Australia’s Malcolm Turnbull by phone that the agreement was “the worst deal ever” and made it clear he was “going to get killed” politically if it was implemented.[1]  In his pointed assertion, Turnbull was effectively attempting to export the “next Boston bombers” to the United States.  Australia, usually painfully supine before the wishes of the United States, had surprised Trump with “the worst call by far.”

Caught by the icy fury of the Trump blast, the conversation between the two leaders was cut short: what was slated for an hour became a 25 minute heckle and boast.  The size of Trump’s electoral college win was reputedly mentioned, while the number of refugees was inflated.

Did The Donald hang up on the stunned Turnbull?  The meek response followed: “I’m not going to comment on the conversation.” The official record from Washington made the school boy encounter dully deceptive: “Both leaders emphasized the enduring strength and closeness of the US-Australia relationship that is critical for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region and globally.”[2]

Taking to his preferred medium of announcement and expression, he tweeted in disbelief that he could be bound by a previous undertaking: “Do you believe it?  The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia.  Why?  I will study this dumb deal!”[3]

Turnbull preferred an Alice in Wonderland approach to Trump’s tongue lashing, beating a hasty retreat down the rabbit hole in confused hope. Citing what seemed to be a distinctly different, mutated conversation, a brow beaten Turnbull preferred to refer to the president’s official spokesman who confirmed that “the president … would continue with, honour the agreement we entered into with the Obama administration, with respect to refugee settlement.”

This parallel diplomacy approach was also adopted before the National Press Club: “The Trump administration has committed to progress with the arrangements to honour the deal… that was entered into with the Obama administration, and that was the assurance the president gave me when we spoke on the weekend.”

To be fair to the confused Turnbull, the Trump administration is proving to be quite a tease.  Volcanic contradictions are fizzling out of the White House on a daily basis, the toddler, as he has been accused of being, ever erratic with his tempers.  Trump pours cold water on the deal; the White House spokesman Sean Spicer, probably informed by a different set of whispers, comes up with another statement that Washington would, in fact, follow through:

“The deal specifically deals with 1,250 people,” explained Spicer to the White House press corps, “they’re mostly in Papua New Guinea, being held… there will be extreme vetting applied to all of them as part and parcel of the deal that was made.”[4]

Even if this near aborted deal were to revive in spectacular confusion, it would only apply to refugees who “express an interest” in being settled in the US, and who satisfied an “extreme vetting” regime.  Numbers matter less than process, or, in the words of secretary of the immigration department Mike Pezzullo from November, this was “a process-driven arrangement rather than a numerical arrangement.”  What price humanity.

This entire incident is being taken as a litmus test of Trump’s relations with his allies.  Will the man boy behave or berate? Towards Mexico and Australia, his approach is one of irritable businessman rather than sober statesman.Nor should the other side be neglected in this farcical cut of entertainment.  Canberra could have embraced the other option, one unacceptable for the Turnbull government: abide by the Refugee Convention and duly settle the refugees in Australia. Can the cant; observe international law.  Trump’s fumes of indignation would be avoided and Canberra would be doing something near unprecedented: implementing an approach of independence and obligation.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: [email protected]

Notes

 [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html

[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/readout-presidents-call-australian-prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull

[3] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827002559122567168

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/01/white-house-australian-refugees-deal-resettle-extreme-vetting

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Trumping Australia’s Refugee Deal

President Donald Trump‘s newly sworn-in Secretary of State, recently retired ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, turned heads when he expressed support for an aggressive military stance against China’s actions in the disputed South China Sea during his Senate committee hearing and in response to questions from Democratic Party Committee members.

Tillerson’s views on China and the South China Sea territory appear even more concerning against the backdrop of recently aired comments made by Trump’s increasingly powerful chief strategist, Steve Bannon, that the two nations were headed toward war in the next five to 10 years, as reported by the Independent (UK). However, what Tillerson did not reveal in his answers is that Exxon, as well as Russian state-owned companies Gazprom and Rosneft, have been angling to tap into the South China Sea’s offshore oil and gas bounty.

“We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops,” Tillerson said at his hearing, speaking of the man-made islands China’s military has created in the South China Sea and uses as a military base. “And second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”

Tillerson, who came under fire during his hearing for maintaining close business ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, was asked for further clarification on what he thinks the U.S. posture toward China should be in one of dozens of questionssent to him by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD). In responding, Tillerson spelled out the bellicose stance he believes the U.S. should take toward China, a country Trump has often said should be handled with a metaphorical iron fist.

Image Credit: U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Sean Spicer, White House Press Secretary and Communications Director, echoed this in a recent press briefing, stating that, “The U.S. is going to make sure that we protect our interests there.”

“It’s a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we’re going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country,” said Spicer.

While President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a rather hawkish U.S. foreign policy stance toward China known as the Pacific “pivot,” these developments under the new administration appear to take tensions with China to a new level.

The Chinese government sees the Trump White House and Tillerson’s recent statements, if carried out, as an act of “war” toward the country, which Beijing says would not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

A DeSmog investigation shows that “our interests” (to quote Spicer) overlap suspiciously often with those of ExxonMobil, Gazprom, and Rosneft.

South China Sea, Exxon, Gazprom

Exxon’s offshore oil and gas ties in the region circle the South China Sea from Vietnam and the Philippines to Indonesia and Malaysia. Gazprom also maintains business ties with Vietnam. While most western oil majors have veered away from tapping into this oil and gas, Exxon has not shied away.

“Unlike other Western oil majors, which have usually taken a wait-and-see approach when drilling in the disputed waters, ExxonMobil appeared unfazed by the political uncertainty in the region and maintained extensive business links with almost every Southeast Asian country,” wrote the South China Morning Post.

A leaked 2006 U.S. State Department cable published by Wikileaks shows that “China began to warn oil majors against conducting oil exploration activities in the disputed South China Sea in 2006, the year Tillerson became ExxonMobil’s chairman and chief executive,” the Morning Post further detailed.

According to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data from 2013, the South China Sea contains 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Image Credit: U.S. Energy Information Administration

As Lee Fang and I recently revealed for The Intercept, while Tillerson served as CEO of Exxon, the U.S. Department of State directly intervened on the company’s behalf to help the company win favorable financial terms to tap into that offshore oil and gas in countries which own offshore oil and gas in the South China Sea in both Vietnam and Indonesia.

Vietnam

On January 12, the New York Times became the first news outlet to dig into Exxon’s bounty of South China Sea offshore oil and gas and how it could possibly relate to Tillerson’s hardline views on the disputed territory there.

“What is also not clear is the extent to which Mr. Tillerson’s tough stance on the South China Sea springs from his extensive experience in the region during his time as chief executive of Exxon Mobil, when his company became embroiled in bitter territorial disputes over the extensive oil and gas reserves beneath the seafloor,” wrote the Times. “During his tenure, the company forged close ties to the Vietnamese government, signing an agreement in 2009 with a state-owned firm to drill for oil and gas in two areas in the South China Sea.”

That agreement was completed with a “quiet signing given sensitivities with China,” according to a State Department cable published by Wikileaks. ExxonMobil Vietnam’s then-President Russ Berkoben told the State Department that “although EM is uncertain of China’s reaction, it is ready if China reacts,” according to the cable. The deal made Exxon the largest offshore acreage holder in Vietnam, with 14 million acres to explore and tap into.

In 2008, the South China Morning Post reported that Exxon had “been approached by Chinese envoys and told to pull out of preliminary oil deals with Vietnam.” Vietnam stood its ground, telling China that Exxon and other companies had a right to drill in its territorial sea under its laws.

Three years later in 2011, Exxon said it had “encountered hydrocarbons” in the area during its exploratory drilling in a company statement. China reacted with fury, moving its own state-owned oil platform, belonging to China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CONOC), to the same area in 2014.

U.S. Secretary of State at the time John Kerry called CONOC’s move “aggressive” and “provocative,” with the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi telling Kerry to “speak and act cautiously” on the issue.

On January 13, PetroVietnam and Exxon announced a $10 billion deal to build a natural gas power plant in the country, set to be sourced with the gas Exxon will tap from the South China Sea via the Ca Voi Xanh offshore field. Exxon will also ship the gas to Vietnam via one of its underwater pipelines.

VietGazprom, Rosneft Vietnam

PetroVietnam also has a joint venture with the Russian state-owned company Gazprom; it goes by the name VietGazprom. Together, they operate five offshore blocks in the South China Sea.

Gazprom began negotiations to buy a 49 percent stake in Vietnam’s sole oil refinery, the Dung Quat refinery, in April 2015 but walked away from the potential deal in January 2016.

Rosneft, the Russian state-owned company which maintains close business ties with Exxon, also has skin in the game for offshore drilling in Vietnam through its subsidiary Rosneft Vietnam. The project is Rosneft’s first international offshore project.

“The implementation of projects in Vietnam is one of the priority [sic] of Rosneft’s international strategy,” said Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin, a close ally of Putin, of the project in a March 2016 press release. “The development of offshore fields in one of the most dynamically growing Asia-Pacific region country is a remarkable example of high-tech cooperation with our partners … We appreciate not only the current progress of joint projects implementation in Vietnam, but also the future prospects for their development.”

Rosneft and PetroVietnam signed a joint cooperation agreement in May 2016, which includes but is not limited to offshore drilling, that will further bolster the ties between Rosneft and Vietnam in the South China Sea.

“The agreement provides for the expansion of cooperation between the parties in Russia, Vietnam and third countries in the area of hydrocarbon exploration and production (including offshore), processing, commerce and logistics, as well as staff training,” reads a Rosneft press release. “The parties agreed to consider potential options for joint projects and define the basic terms of cooperation as well as establish a working group for each of the areas of cooperation.”

Rosneft also co-owns the underwater Nam Con Son Pipeline on a 32.7 percent basis through its subsidiary Rosneft Vietnam Pipelines, which is also owned on a 51 percent basis by PetroVietnam.

Indonesia

Exxon is a co-owner of the production sharing agreement between Indonesian state-owned company Pertamina and Thailand state-owned company PTT Public Company Limited, the three of which produce offshore gas from the East Natuna field.

In recent months, as with Vietnam, tensions have ratcheted up between Indonesia and China over the disputed territory in the South China Sea.

Philippines

Exxon previously had a stake in offshore wells in the Philippines in the South China Sea, which it sold in 2011 to Mitra Energy (now Jadestone Energy). Exxon decided to sell off the wells after it failed to produce commercial-scale levels of oil and gas.

“ExxonMobil drilled the four wells to test a new exploration play concept,” Exxon said in a statement in 2011. “While it encountered gas in three of the four wells drilled, non-commercial quantities of gas were found and ExxonMobil will withdraw from [the project] and resign as the operator.”

In 2014, Exxon expressed interest in the Philippines’ offshore reserves up for offer once again, according to an official statement made by the Philippines Department of Energy (DOE). But that bid did not go anywhere, with the DOE suspending all oil and gas exploration in the area due to the territorial dispute with China.

Malaysia

In 1997 Exxon signed a production sharing agreement with Malaysian state-owned company PETRONAS. Six years later, the two companies began their first major drilling project in the South China Sea at the Bintang natural gas field.

A decade later in March 2013, Exxon began production in Malaysia’s South China Sea-based Telok offshore gas basin, a project it co-owns on a 50-50 basis with PETRONAS.

Exxon began phase two of Telok with PETRONAS in 2014, with the two projects together making up 15 percent of the country’s oil production and half its natural gas output. That same year, Exxon signed another $2.6 billion 50-50 ownership stake dealwith PETRONAS for an enhanced oil recovery project in the South China Sea.

“Exxon’s Malaysian subsidiary operates 34 platforms in 12 fields and has an interest in another 10 platforms in five fields in the South China Sea,” reported the Houston Chronicle, putting the enhanced oil recovery project deal into context. “Those fields supply about 20 percent of Malaysia’s crude oil output and condensate and 50 percent of Peninsular Malaysia’s natural gas needs.”

“Oil-Coated Glasses”

Today, Tillerson has sold all of his Exxon stock, which normally would have been deferred to him over a period of time post-retirement. Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) recently said he worries Tillerson will see the world through “oil-coated glasses,” given Exxon’s multicontinental reach to every continent on the planet besides Antarctica.

But as the South China Sea shows, even if not dealing directly with oil and gas reserves, “black gold” can still loom large when considering geopolitical and foreign policy negotiations. Some believe Tillerson, from that vantage point, is a fatally flawed choice.

“The proportion of Tillerson’s job that would have the appearance of conflict is just enormous,” David Arkush, managing director for Public Citizen’s climate program, recently told Bloomberg. “If someone has to recuse himself from that many matters, he has no business being in that role.”

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Rex Tillerson Backs Aggressive Policy in Disputed South China Sea as Exxon, Russia Eye Region’s Oil and Gas

This article confirms that China is involved in the new arms race. It is threatened by the U.S in the South China sea. China’s response is the development of its naval capabilities. 

*     *     *

When the PLA Navy first eluded to its intention to build another class of guided missile destroyer (DDG) to follow the Type 052D, there was much speculation as to the dimensions, displacement, and intended role of such a vessel.

In March of 2014, images began to circulate on the internet that clearly illustrated a test-bed mock-up of the new vessel’s superstructure at the PLA Navy’s testing center at Wuhan, in southern China. Military analysts and enthusiasts keep a watchful eye on the Wuhan facility, as mock-ups for China’s LiaoningCV-16 aircraft carrier, and now the follow-on CV-17 have provided a useful tool by which to extrapolate the eventual size and weapons and systems complement of the finished vessels. Comparing the Type 055 mock-up at Wuhan to the hull modules currently being constructed at the Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai, gives a relatively accurate estimation of total size and displacement.

Type 055 testing and training platform located at the Wuhan University of Science and Technology.

Initial estimates on size and displacement have narrowed as a result of new information and photographic evidence becoming available. Speculation of a displacement tonnage in excess of 14,000 tons and a Length Overall (LOA) of 187 meters have been revised down to a displacement of 12,000 tons at 180 meters LOA. This makes sense when one looks at the size of its most similar contemporary in the West, the Arleigh Burke class DDG. The latest Arleigh Burke Flight IIA weighs in at 9,200 tons, with an LOA of 155 meters. The proposed Flight III upgrade adds an estimated 600 tons displacement without any changes to LOA or beam dimensions.

Initial cost estimates for the first of the four planned Type 055 DDGs is in excess of $5 billion Yuan ($750 million USD). The GOA reported in 2016, that the per-unit cost of an Arleigh Burke Flight IIA is approximately $1.19 billion USD. If the Chinese estimate is correct, this denotes a significant cost savings per vessel for a platform that is at least as capable, if not superior to its U.S. counterpart in comparison. Its larger size suggests greater range, electrical power generation, and accommodation for both weapons, and sensory and electronic warfare systems than other DDGs in service.

Why Field a Larger DDG?

The PLAN has impressed both its admirers and detractors with the swift development and production of the Type 052D class DDG. The PLAN has built 12 of the vessels so far, with 4 already in active service. The remainder are in various stages of fitting-out or sea-trials. There is speculation that there may be an additional two units under construction at both the Dalian and Jiangnan shipyards. With the adoption of such a capable, high-tech DDG, why would the PLAN require an additional class of destroyer? There are a number of reasons why fielding the Type 055 alongside its smaller sibling makes perfect sense.

The Type 055 DDGs could serve in a multitude of roles. Similar to the U.S. Navy Ticonderoga Class CGs, they could offer longer range and greater Anti-submarine (ASW) and Anti-aircraft (AAW) defense for fleet task forces or aircraft carrier strike groups to be fielded by the PLAN in the near future. Type 052D and 055 destroyers could operate in conjunction with one another in a similar fashion as the Arleigh Burke DDG and Ticongeroda guided missile cruiser (CG), in providing a multilayered and robust fleet defense. With greater range and capability, they offer the PLAN the ability to increase the range and endurance of China’s naval power projection efforts, and further transform the PLAN into a true “Blue Water” navy. They will undoubtedly serve to showcase the growing military, political and economic power of China in broader diplomatic terms.

Current Construction Efforts

Two vessels have appeared in photographs and satellite imagery taken of the Jiangnan Shipyard. The hull of the first vessel in class is apparently completed. Two or three hull section modules of a second Type 055 can also clearly visible in satellite imagery of the shipyard, under construction alongside the lead-on vessel.

The above satellite image of Jiangnan shipyard dated November 11, 2016 clearly shows that the first Type 55 hull has been completed, while additional hull sections for a second Type 55 are under construction.

It turns out that a third Type 055 is under construction at the Dalian shipyard. Dalian is also currently building the CV-17 aircraft carrier, the first indigenously constructed aircraft carrier for the PLAN. Dalian has also been building the Type 052D class destroyers in conjunction with Jiangnan. Using both of the shipyards has allowed China to speed up its acquisition of these modern naval vessels.

This satellite image of Dalian shipyard captures what appears to be a third Type 055 DDG (top left) under construction. Image was taken November 20, 2016.

Capabilities

The Type 055 is being fitted with either two 64 cell modular vertical launch systems (VLS) or one 64 cell and one 48 cell VLS. One VLS is mounted forward in the bow of the destroyer, between the deck gun and the superstructure, and one VLS between the main superstructure and the aft helicopter hangar. The modular VLS will most likely be the same system currently utilized by the Type 052D, and will be able to house and fire all current missiles in the PLAN inventory, including the YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missile and HQ-9 anti-aircraft missile.

This unofficial artist’s rendition illustrates the modular nature of the PLAN VLS and its ability to be loaded with a mix of missiles. This allows the PLAN to equip its vessels with mission specific payloads. The red squares denote the approximate orientation of the two VLS on the Type 055.

The Type 055 mock-up at Wuhan gives clues as to the possible radar array planned for the vessel, as well as the electronic support measures (ESM) to be carried. It is assumed by most analysts that the Type 055 will make use of an updated Type 346A active phased array radar (APAR) as well an X-band radar. The Type 055 will most likely use 4 phased array radar panels, with two panels on the front of the superstructure and two aft. Where the Type 052 mounts four panels at the same height, both fore and aft, the Type 055 may align the panels at an offset height in an attempt to maximize radar coverage. The integrated mast on the Type 055 mock-up mounts 3 radar panels, most likely for friend-or-foe identification (IFF), fire-control and electronic countermeasures (ECM), on the forward face of the mast only, yet the actual vessels will carry these same panels on all four sides of the mast. The mock-up also sports an exposed ESM mast at the top of the integrated mast, but it is unclear whether the ESM mast will remain exposed or not on the actual vessel.

A comparison of the integrated mast structures of the Type 055 mock-up and the active Type 052D Kunming. Note the location of the forward two active phased array radar panels on the Kunming. The large sloped superstructure facing, just under the starboard side bridge deck portals on the Type 55, will be fitted with a similar APAR panel.

 

The above illustrations clearly show the similarities and differences in the Type 052D (top) and Type 055 (bottom) guided missile destroyers.

Commonality and Functionality

Sharing common weapons, radars, electronic warfare systems, and sonar and communications systems across both platforms will allow the PLAN to achieve a great deal of cost savings. Common battle management systems and networking platforms will allow the vessels to easily coordinate both offensive efforts and defensive measures when working together as components of a larger fleet. It will also lower training costs, as sailors and officers will be able to more easily transition to deployments on either class of vessel. It is estimated that the propulsion systems of the newer vessel are similar to the smaller Type 052D. The PLAN aims to leverage all of the benefits of standardization.

The United States Navy has embarked upon a very different path, and is already paying a heavy price for deciding to not only field a number of totally new vessel designs, but at the same time abandoning proven technologies for unproven ones. The Freedom and Independence LCS programs, the first in class Gerald FordCVN, and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer project are all glaring examples.

Both class of LCS have experienced major engineering casualties since they were commissioned. Initial investigations have pointed to a combination of faulty engineering systems and inadequate engineering management processes. A major goal of the LCS program was to reduce vessel crews by automating as many processes as possible, and to gain flexibility through a modular design that allowed the platforms to be made mission specific by swapping warfare modules. For example, an LCS could be fitted with an ASW module to focus on anti-submarine duties one year, and then have the module removed and replaced with an AAW module the next, so that it could be shifted to air-defense duties as requirements changed. The benefits of this modularity have largely not been realized to date. For example, the LCS has failed to meet its intended ASW capabilities, even though the first vessels were commissioned in 2008 (Freedom LCS-1) and 2010 (Independence LCS-2).

The DDG-1000 Zumwalt was originally planned as the first of 32 vessels; however, the U.S. Navy later settled for only 3 vessels, as cost overruns and the failure of the design to meet mission requirements became evident. What resulted from the ambitious program are a $4 billion USD cost per vessel, advanced deck guns that are too expensive to use as intended (with an estimated cost per round of $800,000 USD), and an Advanced Induction Motor (AIM) propulsion system that left the Zumwalt dead in the water on its maiden trip through the Panama Canal on November 22, 2016. The DDG-1000 class are not Aegis vessels, have limited AAW capabilities due to their smaller missile payload, and lack any Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capability. They cannot integrate and coordinate AAW or BMD defense like all other Aegis class vessels. This is a major weakness, compared to all other Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga class surface combatants, that can work together seamlessly using shared Aegis-based systems.

The most expensive naval vessel ever constructed, the Gerald R. Ford CVN-78, has already cost U.S. tax payers a cool $13 billion USD, yet the Navy Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) has no idea when it will be able to officially take delivery of the vessel. Major defects in the main turbine generators (MITs), and an Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) that has yet to be deemed operational, have only added costs to a program that has already experienced cost overruns approaching $3 billion USD. The adoption of multiple unproven technologies in the key areas of propulsion, and aircraft launch and recovery systems, was a foreseeable mistake.

Chinese Aircraft Carrier Strike Group Takes Shape

While the Type 055 DDG will undoubtedly add a key component to future PLAN aircraft carrier strike groups (CSG), replenishment and support vessels that have the speed and range to match the warships of a CSG are an additional requirement. Although not earning the spotlight afforded aircraft carriers or large destroyers, the Type 901 fleet replenishment oiler (although classified by the PLAN as a “general supply vessel”) is a noteworthy addition to China’s growing blue water navy. The first Type 901 began sea trials in December of 2016. Measuring in at 240 meters LOA, and displacing 48,000 tons, the Type 901 has five liquid bulk cargo tanks for fuel and potable water and two dry cargo holds. A maximum cruising speed of 25 knots has been reported. It is equipped with hangar space for three heavy helicopters, as well as a sizeable flight deck. The Type 901 is reported to utilize an automated logistics management system that tracks and optimizes fuel consumption and logistics replenishment needs of fleet vessels. A second Type 901 is currently under construction at the Guangzhou naval shipyard.

Type 901 undergoing sea trials in December, 2016. An additional vessel is currently under construction at the Guangzhou Shipyard International (GSI) naval shipyard.

The PLAN commissioned three new Type 903A fleet oilers in 2016 alone (numbers 887, 963, 964), and is showing a dedicated interest to expand its fleet refueling capabilities. Replacement of older vessels with new, more capable designs, and expanding the total number of oilers and replenishment vessels will expand China’s power projection capabilities. The Type 903A has an LOA of 178 meters and displacement of 23,400 tons. In addition to the Type 903A, two Type 904B dry cargo/general stores vessels were commissioned in 2015, with a third such vessel currently being fitted out. These vessels are ideally suited for supporting off-shore island garrisons, such as those being stationed on Chinese held islands in the South China Sea. All of the PLANs Type 904, Type 904A and Type 904B dry cargo replenishment vessels are attached to the South Sea Fleet based at Hainan Island. The Type 904 was increased in size with the Type 904A and the addition of a heavy helicopter hangar was added in the design of the Type 904B.

Type 903 fleet replenishment oiler (bottom) and Type 904 dry cargo/general stores support vessels.

2017: A Big Year for the PLAN

Although the CV-17 aircraft carrier will not be commissioned until 2018 or 2019, this year is shaping up to be a big year for the PLAN, considering the expansion of the navy in both quantitative and qualitative terms. In addition to the commissioning on three more Type 052D destroyers, three additional Type 054A frigates, two newly commissioned Type 056 corvettes, one Type 904B and one Type 901 large replenishment ship, the first of China’s largest and most capable surface warships, the first Type 055 will be launched. Although the Type 055 will not be a game changer, in that it does not afford China a distinct advantage over near-peer adversaries, it does level the playing field in China’s favor in any prospective conflict. In terms of regional adversaries, it gives China a powerful advantage over the small navies at its doorstep. Only Japan’s JMSDF and the United States Navy in the Pacific region will maintain an edge over an increasingly capable and assertive PLAN. As time goes on, this advantage in naval power will continue to diminish.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on New Arms Race: China Develops its Naval Power, Launches Type 055 Destroyer. Analysis

When Donald Trump speaks about the barriers that US companies face, he often mentions a high corporate tax rate and the ability of other countries to produce more cheaply. Ironically, China, which most often draws Trump’s ire for doing so, is now facing many of the same problems.

In fact, in one case that attracted a lot of attention in China, an executive said it is more profitable for his company to produce goods in the US than domestically.

The label “Made in China” has long been associated with bulk goods manufactured cheaply in Asia. But even as Trump rails about China — while his own companies still produce products there — China’s dominant role as the “world’s factory” is already eroding.

Made in China

This is not only because of fierce competition from countries with even lower production costs, but because its companies are facing structural problems which are a drag on the domestic manufacturing sector.

Taxes on manufacturing, for example, can be up to 35% higher in China than in the US, Cho Tak Wong, founder and chairman of China’s largest auto glass manufacturer Fuyao Glass, told the Chinese business publication Yicai in December.

The interview attracted a lot of attention in China, with many business leaders echoing his sentiments. In particular, they complained about the burden of taxation and brought up other cost issues that are making the lives of Chinese manufacturers harder.

Cho noted that all of these reasons now make it more profitable for his company to produce goods in the US instead of manufacturing them in China, and exporting them. And he has put his money where his mouth is.

Having invested about $750 million in the US since 2014, including launching two factories in Illinois and Ohio, Fuyao Glass plans to open a third American plant in Michigan this year, bringing its investment in the US to a total of $1 billion, Reuters reported.

Speaking of other costs of his US factories, Cho said in the video, “land is basically free, the price of electricity is half of that in China, and the natural gas price is only one-fifth.”

For products sold in the US, Cho estimated that the profit is 10% higher by manufacturing there instead of exporting the same goods from China. He listed taxes, utilities and tariffs as factors contributing to his calculation.

Steve Chabot, Cho Tak Wong

Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot meeting with chairman of Fuyao Glass chairman, Cho Tak Wong. Photo credit: US House of Representatives

The Pain of Taxes

Cho attributed the higher taxes to China’s value-added tax (VAT) system. While the US only imposes taxes on a company’s income, the Chinese government collects taxes on income as well as each phase of the products’ circulation in the market, from buying to processing to reselling. For industrial manufacturers who turn raw materials into finished goods, the VAT is usually 17% of the value added.

To counter Cho’s complaints, the Chinese government has pointed out that it launched a tax reform scheme beginning in 2011. Its purpose is to gradually cancel the “business tax” on revenues. These new policies have cost the government about $17 billion in lost taxes from the manufacturing industry between May and November of last year, said Xiao Jie, the Minister of Finance, in a press conference.

Only about 1.5% of the taxpayers saw an actual increase in taxes under the new policies, Xiao added.

However, as the cooling economy makes it harder to generate profits, a manufacturer’s willingness to tolerate these taxes is reduced, and the extent of the tax cut does not make up for the lower profit, Chinese economist Ba Haiying told WhoWhatWhy.

“Businesses’ capacity to afford taxes is being weakened by oversupply, higher labor costs, lower added value and thinner profits in the market, as well as the hit of technology innovations like robots in the labor-intensive manufacturing industry,” said Ba Haiying, partner at Beijing-based ZhongHui Certified Tax Agents Company.

The modest tax reform implemented by the Chinese government stands in stark contrast to the plans offered by Trump on the campaign trail and the Republican-led House. The new president proposed to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% while some House Republicans want to see it reduced even more.

“Lowering our effective marginal corporate tax rate from its current value of 30%, if not higher, to 0% — as proposed in the House tax plan, will make the US the most tax-attractive developed country in which to invest,” Laurence Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University, told WhoWhatWhy.

Fuyao Glass America

Fuyao Glass America Photo credit: FUYAO USA

Facing the Risk of a US-China Trade War

The possibility of more restrictions on the US-China trade is definitely wracking the nerves of Chinese manufacturers.

Part of what makes it more profitable to produce in the US for Fuyao Glass and other manufacturers is incentives offered by local governments.

In Ohio, for example, the company received a package of benefits that was worth $30 million and offset the $15 million it spent to purchase the 1.6 million-square foot facility in Ohio, and another $15 million in construction costs, Cho said in an interview with Xinhua.

In return, the factories added about 1,700 manufacturing jobs in the US, according to Fuyao Glass’ website.

It must be noted, however, that Fuyao Glass could not have built a facility in the US without the approval of the Chinese regulators, including the Ministry of Commerce and the National Development and Reform Commission. Chinese leaders see a benefit in moving some production plants out of the country, which is in stark contrast to Trump’s protectionist “America First” approach.

“The Chinese government’s policies support some manufacturers, like Fuyao, to increase their competitiveness by better collaborating with foreign players [such as General Motors in this case],” Ba said. General Motors had encouraged Fuyao Glass to move some production facilities to the US in order to lower costs.

This is one example of a Chinese company bringing jobs to the US. However, it is unlikely to dissuade Trump from taking a tough line against China, even though economists say that the availability of cheaper labor elsewhere is not that critical in explaining the decrease of manufacturing jobs in the US.

As in other countries, the largest problem is the number of jobs deprived because of technological improvements, Michael Knoll, co-director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Tax Law and Policy, told WhoWhatWhy.

Studies have found that US manufacturing lost 5.6 million jobs between 2000 and 2010, but only 13% of the loss resulted from international trade, while 85% was attributable to automation, according to the Financial Times.

These facts and China’s investments in the US might not prevent Trump, who has accused China of taking American jobs and manipulating its currency, from starting a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies. While that may have some short-term benefits for the US, it would likely harm both countries in the end.

“I think President Trump’s apparent decision to start a trade war with China and accuse it of currency manipulation is an enormous mistake made by someone with no training in economics,” said Kotlikoff from Boston University.

  • Posted in English @as @as
  • Comments Off on Guess Who’s Moving Factories to America to Lower Costs… China Seeks A “Made in America” Label