asiapacificresearch--2020-09-06--Pandemic Reflexes: Lockdowns and Arrests in Victoria, Australia

Ugly .
Rough .
The police of the Australian state of Victoria muscling their way in .
The father and children watching .
It had all arisen because the pregnant mother in question had engaged in conduct defined as incitement .
In a post on her Facebook page , Zoe Buhler had urged Victorians to protest the coronavirus lockdown rules over the weekend .
She encouraged the practising of social distancing measures to avoid arrest and the wearing of masks , subject to medical exceptions .
“ Here in Ballarat we can be a voice for those in Stage 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We can be seen and heard and hopefully make a difference.
” Social media sniffers in the state police picked up the scent and repaired to her Ballarat home in Miners Rest .
Buhler promised to take down the post .
“ I didn ’ t realise I was doing anything wrong .
I ’ m happy to delete the post .
This is ridiculous.
” She noted the presence of her children ; the fact that she was due for an ultrasound appointment in an hour .
She inquired about clarification about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word she genuinely did not comprehend .
Subsequently , she claimed the police had shown some basic courtesy .
“ Sorry about my bimbo moment , ” she stated on reflection .
But she refused to resile from her view that the conduct had been “ too heavy handed , especially [ to arrest me ] in front of my children and to walk into my house like that.
” She remains ignorant about the meaning of incitement .
The Buhler arrest was coarse , incautious , suggesting a tone-deafness prevalent in law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common furrows across the political divide .
The Australian was assuredly predictable in its denunciation , having never quite taken the virus that seriously ( deaths we shall have , but managed responsibly ) , though it was hard to disagree with associate editor Caroline Overington ’ s plea .
“ You can accept lockdown and support saving lives but you should still oppose cuffing anyone – much less a pregnant woman.
” Janet Albrechtsen took matters into another register with her school girl claim of fascism , a term she had no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been troubled by forensic details , but she was correct to assume that Buhler will not necessarily be seen as hero or martyr .
Protesters are approved or repudiated depending on the flavour of the moment , and the ducking stools would be out .
“ Maybe she ’ s into crystals ?
Maybe she ’ s an anti-vaxxer ?
” She certainly did not share views “ common with rich hippies in Byron Bay.
” The legal fraternity were more than a touch unsettled .
The Victorian Bar was deeply unimpressed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely rough in execution but untutored , and said so in its media release on September 3 .
“ We recognise , ” its president , Wendy Harris QC explained , “ the importance of compliance with the law , but enforcement of those laws needs to be proportionate and consistent.
” Arresting Buhler and handcuffing her in her home in front of her partner and children “ appeared disproportionate to the threat she presented.
” Case law in Victoria – Slaveski v Victoria and Perkins v County Court of Victoria – had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not entitled to use handcuffs on a person merely because an arrest is made.
” Another thing also niggled the Victorian Bar Association .
“ Consistency in the enforcement of the law is also critical ; without it , confidence in the rule of law is undermined.
” This was a less than subtle swipe at mixed responses from the police : the enforcement measures taken against Buhler were “ apparently at odds with other reported and more measured responses by authorities to organisers and protesters of similar protesters planned or carried out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greg Barns , National Criminal Justice spokesman of the Australian Lawyers Alliance , was similarly shaken .
Writing in The Age , he was baffled by the views of Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius , who claimed that the police had been “ polite ” and “ professional ” .
Police were good enough to assist Buhler to contact the hospital to make another appointment for the ultrasound .
Hardly the point , fumes Barns .
“ They should not have arrested her in the first place.
” The result of such muscular policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign and ensure “ greater sympathy for those who are wanting to launch protests against the Premier [ Daniel Andrews ] and his government ’ s draconian laws.
” The mild mannered Rosalind Croucher , president of the Australian Human Rights Commission , also took to the debate , “ dismayed ” by the Buhler arrest .
“ In times of crisis , such as this pandemic , our rights are as important than ever.
” Temporary measures to limit rights and freedoms to control the spread of infection might have been necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risk – and managed appropriately.
” Buhler ’ s case is one of several arrests conducted this week , some of which would have caused fewer twangs of sympathy or outrage .
James Bartolo decided to mix reality television with pandemic law enforcement , filming his own arrest and posting it to Facebook .
Unlike Buhler , Bartolo is your traditional figure of practiced conspiracy , claiming to have better insight into the world of manipulated wickedness than most .
Through The Conscious Truth Network , he chest-thumpingly advertises his credentials as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ utopian advocate ” .
This fine former specimen of the Australian army and addled body builder is convinced that COVID-19 is but a Trojan horse , the fiendish , fictional product of a “ treasonous and corrupt network of filth ” intent on enslaving us .
A truculent Bartolo , in his three-minute long video , is seen arguing that the police was unlawfully trespassing on his property .
“ You don ’ t have authorisation to be on the property.
” But the paperwork was in order ; the police duly made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for alleged incitement , possession of prohibited weapons and two counts of resisting them .
An advertising stunt had been successfully executed .
These displays have caught the Victorian Police flatfooted .
It was always bound to resonate with some politicians .
On September 4 , David Limbrick of the Victorian Legislative Council and member of the Liberal Democrats wrote an open letter to Victorians expressing his shock and disappointment with the state government ’ s response , claiming that those authoritarians who had forced Victorians to wear masks “ and their enablers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing out specific acts of the Victorian police , the theme of his note was clear enough .
“ The intrusion into our lives gets more personal and more extreme every day .
The Government has given the police free reign [ sic ] , so no wonder their behaviour just gets more outrageous.
” Limbrick has also encouraged protests , but suggests forms that do not breach the regulations .
“ It ’ s simple – bring your pots and pans , beep your horns at 8pm , and let your neighbourhood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suffer in silence.
” An even sounder suggestion is advanced by Barns .
Make better laws , avoid sloppy drafting which leaves “ enormous discretion in the hands of the police ” and “ educate and try to reduce tension and stress in the community.
” As for Buhler ’ s case , they could have made things simple and civil : take her up on the offer to remove the Facebook post , explain why it was in breach , and be on their way .
A sensible thought for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research .
Email : [ email protected ] Featured image : A woman walks her dogs in Fitzroy Gardens park as police and defence force officers patrol in Melbourne , Victoria , Australia [ @ @ @

Ugly. Rough. The police of the Australian state of Victoria muscling their way in. The father and children watching. It had all arisen because the pregnant mother in question had engaged in conduct defined as incitement. In a post on her Facebook page, Zoe Buhler had urged Victorians to protest the coronavirus lockdown rules over the weekend. She encouraged the practising of social distancing measures to avoid arrest and the wearing of masks, subject to medical exceptions. “Here in Ballarat we can be a voice for those in Stage 4 lockdowns [in metropolitan Melbourne]. We can be seen and heard and hopefully make a difference.”
Social media sniffers in the state police picked up the scent and repaired to her Ballarat home in Miners Rest. Buhler promised to take down the post. “I didn’t realise I was doing anything wrong. I’m happy to delete the post. This is ridiculous.” She noted the presence of her children; the fact that she was due for an ultrasound appointment in an hour. She inquired about clarification about the term “incitement”, a word she genuinely did not comprehend.
Subsequently, she claimed the police had shown some basic courtesy. “Sorry about my bimbo moment,” she stated on reflection. But she refused to resile from her view that the conduct had been “too heavy handed, especially [to arrest me] in front of my children and to walk into my house like that.” She remains ignorant about the meaning of incitement.
The Buhler arrest was coarse, incautious, suggesting a tone-deafness prevalent in law enforcement. It was unusual in ploughing common furrows across the political divide. The Australian was assuredly predictable in its denunciation, having never quite taken the virus that seriously (deaths we shall have, but managed responsibly), though it was hard to disagree with associate editor Caroline Overington’s plea. “You can accept lockdown and support saving lives but you should still oppose cuffing anyone – much less a pregnant woman.”
Janet Albrechtsen took matters into another register with her school girl claim of fascism, a term she had no inclination to define. Albrechtsen has never been troubled by forensic details, but she was correct to assume that Buhler will not necessarily be seen as hero or martyr. Protesters are approved or repudiated depending on the flavour of the moment, and the ducking stools would be out. “Maybe she’s into crystals? Maybe she’s an anti-vaxxer?” She certainly did not share views “common with rich hippies in Byron Bay.”
The legal fraternity were more than a touch unsettled. The Victorian Bar was deeply unimpressed by a police operation that seemed, not merely rough in execution but untutored, and said so in its media release on September 3. “We recognise,” its president, Wendy Harris QC explained, “the importance of compliance with the law, but enforcement of those laws needs to be proportionate and consistent.” Arresting Buhler and handcuffing her in her home in front of her partner and children “appeared disproportionate to the threat she presented.” Case law in Victoria – Slaveski v Victoria and Perkins v County Court of Victoria – had held “that a police officer is not entitled to use handcuffs on a person merely because an arrest is made.”
Another thing also niggled the Victorian Bar Association. “Consistency in the enforcement of the law is also critical; without it, confidence in the rule of law is undermined.” This was a less than subtle swipe at mixed responses from the police: the enforcement measures taken against Buhler were “apparently at odds with other reported and more measured responses by authorities to organisers and protesters of similar protesters planned or carried out in contravention of public health directives.”
Greg Barns, National Criminal Justice spokesman of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, was similarly shaken. Writing in The Age, he was baffled by the views of Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius, who claimed that the police had been “polite” and “professional”. Police were good enough to assist Buhler to contact the hospital to make another appointment for the ultrasound. Hardly the point, fumes Barns. “They should not have arrested her in the first place.” The result of such muscular policing has been to gift Buhler the PR campaign and ensure “greater sympathy for those who are wanting to launch protests against the Premier [Daniel Andrews] and his government’s draconian laws.”
The mild mannered Rosalind Croucher, president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, also took to the debate, “dismayed” by the Buhler arrest. “In times of crisis, such as this pandemic, our rights are as important than ever.” Temporary measures to limit rights and freedoms to control the spread of infection might have been necessary but “must always be proportionate to the risk – and managed appropriately.”
Buhler’s case is one of several arrests conducted this week, some of which would have caused fewer twangs of sympathy or outrage. James Bartolo decided to mix reality television with pandemic law enforcement, filming his own arrest and posting it to Facebook. Unlike Buhler, Bartolo is your traditional figure of practiced conspiracy, claiming to have better insight into the world of manipulated wickedness than most. Through The Conscious Truth Network, he chest-thumpingly advertises his credentials as “truth seeker, freedom fighter, utopian advocate”.
This fine former specimen of the Australian army and addled body builder is convinced that COVID-19 is but a Trojan horse, the fiendish, fictional product of a “treasonous and corrupt network of filth” intent on enslaving us. A truculent Bartolo, in his three-minute long video, is seen arguing that the police was unlawfully trespassing on his property. “You don’t have authorisation to be on the property.” But the paperwork was in order; the police duly made their way in, arresting the 27-year-old for alleged incitement, possession of prohibited weapons and two counts of resisting them. An advertising stunt had been successfully executed.
These displays have caught the Victorian Police flatfooted. It was always bound to resonate with some politicians. On September 4, David Limbrick of the Victorian Legislative Council and member of the Liberal Democrats wrote an open letter to Victorians expressing his shock and disappointment with the state government’s response, claiming that those authoritarians who had forced Victorians to wear masks “and their enablers have been unmasked.” While not explicitly pointing out specific acts of the Victorian police, the theme of his note was clear enough. “The intrusion into our lives gets more personal and more extreme every day. The Government has given the police free reign [sic], so no wonder their behaviour just gets more outrageous.”
Limbrick has also encouraged protests, but suggests forms that do not breach the regulations. “It’s simple – bring your pots and pans, beep your horns at 8pm, and let your neighbourhood know that we don’t have to suffer in silence.” An even sounder suggestion is advanced by Barns. Make better laws, avoid sloppy drafting which leaves “enormous discretion in the hands of the police” and “educate and try to reduce tension and stress in the community.” As for Buhler’s case, they could have made things simple and civil: take her up on the offer to remove the Facebook post, explain why it was in breach, and be on their way. A sensible thought for an insensible time.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
Featured image: A woman walks her dogs in Fitzroy Gardens park as police and defence force officers patrol in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia [David Crosling/EPA]


asiapacificresearch--2020-09-06--Is the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) (US, Australia, India, Japan) Intent on Provoking Prox

Is the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) (US, Australia, India, Japan) Intent on Provoking Proxy War with China in the Solomon Islands?

The leader of the Solomon Islands province of Malaita announced earlier this week that his region will seek independence from the central government due to its disagreement with the capital over the latter ’ s recognition of Beijing last year as the legitimate government of China , which could dangerously plunge this underdeveloped nation back into a state of civil conflict that could then be exploited by the Quad as a proxy war for “ containing ” Chinese influence in the South Pacific through “ Balkanization ” .
From The Global Periphery To The Center Of Attention The South Pacific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s largely irrelevant to all major countries apart from nearby Australia , has increasingly figured more prominent in global media reports over the past few years as the West has sought to portray this part of the world as the latest theater in the West ’ s New Cold War with China .
The narrative goes that China ’ s recent inroads through its Belt & Road Initiative ( BRI ) and some regional states ’ decisions to recognize Beijing as the legitimate government of China has given the People ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence there , which is being portrayed in a zero-sum manner as supposedly being a threat to Western interests .
Political tensions have been building over the past year as more pressure was put upon these countries by their traditional Western partners to either reverse their relations with Beijing or at the very least “ balance ” them out by re-engaging with the Australia and/or the US , two of the four countries that comprise the so-called “ Quad ” alongside India and Japan which are collectively accused of seeking to “ contain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tense state of affairs had yet to destabilize the region , but that might soon change after the latest news coming from the Solomon Islands .
On The Precipice Of Civil War The leader of the Malaita Province — the most populous one in the country that ’ s home to approximately a quarter of the Solomon Islands ’ less than 700,000 people — announced earlier this week that his region will seek independence from the central government due to its disagreement with the capital over the latter ’ s recognition of Beijing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the Solomon Islands ’ de-facto state of civil war that lasted between 1999-2003 and prompted a nearly 15-year-long Australian-led peacekeeping intervention directly concerned an ethno-regional dispute between Malaita and the neighboring island of Guadalcanal which hosts the country ’ s capital .
The Capital Territory and Guadalcanal Province collectively have more people than Malaita does , which means that any possible exacerbation of their former conflict with one another over the China-Taiwan issue could immediately plunge approximately half of the Solomon Islands back into civil conflict .
That , however , might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for since it could then easily exploit this unrest as a proxy war for “ containing ” Chinese influence in the South Pacific through “ Balkanization ” .
What ’ s important to point out is that the China-Taiwan issue is simply a trigger for thawing this unresolved conflict between the two islands and their people , one which predates the Quad ’ s formation by over a decade but could potentially be encouraged by them for the aforementioned reason .
It ’ s extremely unlikely that the leader of Malaita Province would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not already secured support from this bloc ’ s American and Australian members , both of whom have an interest in pushing back against what they ’ ve portrayed as the “ aggressive ” expansion of Chinese influence in the region that they ’ ve historically regarded as falling within their joint “ sphere of influence ” .
The external exacerbation of preexisting identity conflicts for geostrategic reasons — especially those related to disrupting , controlling , or influencing transnational connective infrastructure projects such as BRI — fits the author ’ s definition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this scheme can rightly be described as the Quad ’ s Hybrid War on the Solomon Islands , which could become the catalyst of geostrategic change all across the New Cold War ’ s South Pacific theater if the “ Balkanization ” process that ’ s being unleashed in that country uncontrollably spreads throughout the region .
Any resumption of civil war-like unrest in the Solomon Islands as a result of Malaita ’ s attempted secession will almost certainly prompt another international peacekeeping mission there , one which might be led not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jointly by it and its other three Quad partners .
After all , US Deputy Secretary of State Biegun declared his country ’ s intention earlier this week to create a NATO-like military bloc in the so-called “ Indo-Pacific ” in order to “ push back against China in virtually every domain ” there .
He strongly hinted that the Quad could play such a role , and another conflict in the Solomon Islands might be just what ’ s needed in order to provide the impetus for formalizing this structure to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t all that difficult compared to others across the world so a forthcoming one possibly led by the Quad ’ s four members could serve as the perfect opportunity for strengthening their military interoperability with one another in a real-world mission instead of just another exercise .
It wouldn ’ t entail as much of a cost as doing so elsewhere in this transoceanic region should another Hybrid War be manufactured for that purpose , and the benefits to their bloc could be tremendous in terms of their grand strategic impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how this scenario is already being sold to the public .
Reutersquoted Malaita ’ s leader as evoking the UN principle of self-determination , which in this context could easily be spun in a way to sympathetically present him and his people as “ freedom-loving democrats ” opposed to the “ Chinese-controlled tyrannical central government ” .
Considering how preconditioned many people across the world are to suspect China of ulterior motives through BRI , it wouldn ’ t be surprising if they fall for this emerging narrative .
To make it more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about alleged human rights abuses carried out by the central government with Chinese support .
Reports could also be spread fearmongering about the environmental consequences of any potential BRI projects on the island .
Since the nearby Papua New Guinean Autonomous Region of Bougainville just held a non-binding UN-recognized independence referendum that overwhelmingly passed last year , the legal precedent has been established for arguing that Malaita deserves the same opportunity to choose its own destiny as the only lasting solution to the Solomon Islands ’ similar ethno-regional conflict .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Quad-China proxy war in the Solomon Islands could play out , but the initial conditions are such that one can nonetheless identify the broad contours of this conflict .
Violence would probably be concentrated mostly in Malaita and among migrant communities on Guadalcanal , which would thus make them the two most likely places for a Quad-led peacekeeping force to deploy .
If the central government successfully secures the capital region and its surroundings , then the peacekeeping mission might only concern Malaita and thus set it along the trajectory of seemingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overseen by the Quad .
If the authorities lose control of parts of Guadalcanal , however , then a regime change is certainly possible with or without a Quad-led military intervention there , one which could still result in Malaita ’ s eventual independence but also the reversal of the country ’ s recognition of Beijing back to Taipei .
In the course of events , China might be compelled to evacuate some of its citizens if they ’ re targeted by the separatists , who might also attack them systematically in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , financial , and perhaps even military support of the authorities through “ mission creep ” .
The news that the leader of a South Pacific island nation ’ s province announced his separatist intentions might have seemed so irrelevant to the rest of the world at first glance as to not warrant any serious attention , but the fact of the matter is that this event is actually extremely important because it ’ s poised to turn the South Pacific into the latest hot spot of the New Cold War .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 that “ it ’ s impossible to speculate on exactly what could set off a renewed round of violence in the [ Solomon Islands ] , but the most probable scenarios have to do with a continuation conflict between the people of Guadalcanal island and neighboring Malaita , which was at the core of the ‘ The Tensions ’ in the first place.
” That ’ s exactly what seems slated to happen after the leader of Malaita used the central government ’ s recognition of Beijing as the pretext for thawing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very likely support of the Quad for the purpose of “ containing ” China in the region through “ Balkanization ” , which in turn could serve as the regional security impetus for formalizing the bloc into an “ Asian NATO ” .
The calm waters of the South Pacific might therefore soon give way to a tempest of Hybrid War trouble with global strategic implications .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article was originally published on OneWorld .
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia , China ’ s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity , and Hybrid Warfare .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research .

The leader of the Solomon Islands province of Malaita announced earlier this week that his region will seek independence from the central government due to its disagreement with the capital over the latter’s recognition of Beijing last year as the legitimate government of China, which could dangerously plunge this underdeveloped nation back into a state of civil conflict that could then be exploited by the Quad as a proxy war for “containing” Chinese influence in the South Pacific through “Balkanization”.
From The Global Periphery To The Center Of Attention
The South Pacific, long regarded as a far-flung region that’s largely irrelevant to all major countries apart from nearby Australia, has increasingly figured more prominent in global media reports over the past few years as the West has sought to portray this part of the world as the latest theater in the West’s New Cold War with China. The narrative goes that China’s recent inroads through its Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) and some regional states’ decisions to recognize Beijing as the legitimate government of China has given the People’s Republic the opportunity to expand its influence there, which is being portrayed in a zero-sum manner as supposedly being a threat to Western interests. Political tensions have been building over the past year as more pressure was put upon these countries by their traditional Western partners to either reverse their relations with Beijing or at the very least “balance” them out by re-engaging with the Australia and/or the US, two of the four countries that comprise the so-called “Quad” alongside India and Japan which are collectively accused of seeking to “contain” China. Although concerning, this tense state of affairs had yet to destabilize the region, but that might soon change after the latest news coming from the Solomon Islands.
On The Precipice Of Civil War
The leader of the Malaita Province — the most populous one in the country that’s home to approximately a quarter of the Solomon Islands’ less than 700,000 people — announced earlier this week that his region will seek independence from the central government due to its disagreement with the capital over the latter’s recognition of Beijing last year. This is especially troublesome because the Solomon Islands’ de-facto state of civil war that lasted between 1999-2003 and prompted a nearly 15-year-long Australian-led peacekeeping intervention directly concerned an ethno-regional dispute between Malaita and the neighboring island of Guadalcanal which hosts the country’s capital. The Capital Territory and Guadalcanal Province collectively have more people than Malaita does, which means that any possible exacerbation of their former conflict with one another over the China-Taiwan issue could immediately plunge approximately half of the Solomon Islands back into civil conflict. That, however, might be exactly what the Quad is hoping for since it could then easily exploit this unrest as a proxy war for “containing” Chinese influence in the South Pacific through “Balkanization”.
Hybrid War On The Solomon Islands?
What’s important to point out is that the China-Taiwan issue is simply a trigger for thawing this unresolved conflict between the two islands and their people, one which predates the Quad’s formation by over a decade but could potentially be encouraged by them for the aforementioned reason. It’s extremely unlikely that the leader of Malaita Province would make such a dramatic announcement had he not already secured support from this bloc’s American and Australian members, both of whom have an interest in pushing back against what they’ve portrayed as the “aggressive” expansion of Chinese influence in the region that they’ve historically regarded as falling within their joint “sphere of influence”. The external exacerbation of preexisting identity conflicts for geostrategic reasons — especially those related to disrupting, controlling, or influencing transnational connective infrastructure projects such as BRI — fits the author’s definition of Hybrid War. That means that this scheme can rightly be described as the Quad’s Hybrid War on the Solomon Islands, which could become the catalyst of geostrategic change all across the New Cold War’s South Pacific theater if the “Balkanization” process that’s being unleashed in that country uncontrollably spreads throughout the region.
Source: OneWorld
Formalizing The “Asian NATO”
Any resumption of civil war-like unrest in the Solomon Islands as a result of Malaita’s attempted secession will almost certainly prompt another international peacekeeping mission there, one which might be led not just by Australia like last time, but jointly by it and its other three Quad partners. After all, US Deputy Secretary of State Biegun declared his country’s intention earlier this week to create a NATO-like military bloc in the so-called “Indo-Pacific” in order to “push back against China in virtually every domain” there. He strongly hinted that the Quad could play such a role, and another conflict in the Solomon Islands might be just what’s needed in order to provide the impetus for formalizing this structure to that point. The previous Australian-led peacekeeping mission wasn’t all that difficult compared to others across the world so a forthcoming one possibly led by the Quad’s four members could serve as the perfect opportunity for strengthening their military interoperability with one another in a real-world mission instead of just another exercise. It wouldn’t entail as much of a cost as doing so elsewhere in this transoceanic region should another Hybrid War be manufactured for that purpose, and the benefits to their bloc could be tremendous in terms of their grand strategic impact.
“Perception Management”
Special attention should be paid to how this scenario is already being sold to the public. Reutersquoted Malaita’s leader as evoking the UN principle of self-determination, which in this context could easily be spun in a way to sympathetically present him and his people as “freedom-loving democrats” opposed to the “Chinese-controlled tyrannical central government”. Considering how preconditioned many people across the world are to suspect China of ulterior motives through BRI, it wouldn’t be surprising if they fall for this emerging narrative. To make it more believable, unverified claims could be made about alleged human rights abuses carried out by the central government with Chinese support. Reports could also be spread fearmongering about the environmental consequences of any potential BRI projects on the island. Since the nearby Papua New Guinean Autonomous Region of Bougainville just held a non-binding UN-recognized independence referendum that overwhelmingly passed last year, the legal precedent has been established for arguing that Malaita deserves the same opportunity to choose its own destiny as the only lasting solution to the Solomon Islands’ similar ethno-regional conflict.
Proxy War Scenarios
It’s impossible to predict in detail exactly how a Quad-China proxy war in the Solomon Islands could play out, but the initial conditions are such that one can nonetheless identify the broad contours of this conflict. Violence would probably be concentrated mostly in Malaita and among migrant communities on Guadalcanal, which would thus make them the two most likely places for a Quad-led peacekeeping force to deploy. If the central government successfully secures the capital region and its surroundings, then the peacekeeping mission might only concern Malaita and thus set it along the trajectory of seemingly inevitable independence pending a UN-recognized referendum there overseen by the Quad. If the authorities lose control of parts of Guadalcanal, however, then a regime change is certainly possible with or without a Quad-led military intervention there, one which could still result in Malaita’s eventual independence but also the reversal of the country’s recognition of Beijing back to Taipei. In the course of events, China might be compelled to evacuate some of its citizens if they’re targeted by the separatists, who might also attack them systematically in order to prompt China into deepening its political, financial, and perhaps even military support of the authorities through “mission creep”.
Concluding Thoughts
The news that the leader of a South Pacific island nation’s province announced his separatist intentions might have seemed so irrelevant to the rest of the world at first glance as to not warrant any serious attention, but the fact of the matter is that this event is actually extremely important because it’s poised to turn the South Pacific into the latest hot spot of the New Cold War. The author predicted three years ago in September 2017 that “it’s impossible to speculate on exactly what could set off a renewed round of violence in the [Solomon Islands], but the most probable scenarios have to do with a continuation conflict between the people of Guadalcanal island and neighboring Malaita, which was at the core of the ‘The Tensions’ in the first place.” That’s exactly what seems slated to happen after the leader of Malaita used the central government’s recognition of Beijing as the pretext for thawing this unresolved conflict, all with the very likely support of the Quad for the purpose of “containing” China in the region through “Balkanization”, which in turn could serve as the regional security impetus for formalizing the bloc into an “Asian NATO”. The calm waters of the South Pacific might therefore soon give way to a tempest of Hybrid War trouble with global strategic implications.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


asiapacificresearch--2020-09-14--Rio Tinto Turns Cultural Vandal: The Destruction of the Juukan Gorge Caves

It was a calamity in cultural terms likened to the destruction of the Buddhist statues of Bamyan and the ancient city of Palmyra .
The explosive eradication of two Aboriginal sites in West Australia ’ s Juukan Gorge in May , said to be 46,000 years old , moved Peter Stone , the UNESCO chair in Cultural Property Protection and Peace , to call it “ a black day for us all ” .
This was not the dirty handiwork of Taliban zealots or Islamic State fanatics : the blasting had been an act of callous corporate desecration , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the earth .
These sites in the Pilbara were not parochial statements or nationalist kitsch .
They were evidence of continuous occupation by humans through the last Ice Age , sporting artefacts such as a belt made from human hair 4,000 years old .
Such artefacts could be claimed as linking the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura ( PKKP ) to immemorial ancestry .
As Stone remarked , “ They are not only extremely important sites for Aboriginal communities , but also they were extremely important sites for archaeological understanding of the distant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the company was one of justification , mixed with modest regret .
Rio Tinto had a long standing relationship with the PKKP people .
They had secured all the necessary approvals in 2013 , done the necessary jigs in law .
In a statement , the mining behemoth claimed that , “ We are sorry that the recently expressed concerns of the PKKP did not arise through the engagements that have taken place over many years under the agreement that governs our operations in the country.
” Commentators in the field of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why Rio Tinto turned cultural vandal .
Deanna Kemp , director of the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining at the University of Queensland , and Andrew Hopkins , sociologist at the Australian National University have a few .
There was “ extreme production pressure ” in the company ’ s iron ore division ; the iron ore in the caves ’ proximity was of such grade as to be irresistible , given demand for the company ’ s Pilbara blend .
West Australian law vested the company with authority to mine the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reservation and opposition .
The company ’ s structure is segmented : each product division – iron ore , aluminium , copper and diamonds , minerals and energy – reign separately .
When things shine , the system works , each division left to its own productive devices .
But lacking a central mechanism of oversight can be disastrous : the chance of reckless decisions with “ disastrous human and environmental consequences ” .
Not that Rio was unaware of these deficiencies .
Modest efforts had been made within the company to put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is drearily termed in corporation-speak “ functional executives ” .
Product division chiefs were not entirely free of their gaze .
And one field of importance for the functional executives was the external function of dealing with indigenous relations , subsumed under the broader title of corporate relations .
The position had been historically weak , lacking a presence on the executive committee .
Jean-Sébastien Jacques , on becoming chief executive in 2016 , created a seat for the head of corporate relations at the big table .
But , note Kemp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
There was too much scatter , too many specialisations , too much scope .
News about the imminent destruction of the Juukan Gorge caves might have intruded upon the executive for corporate relations or the chief executive .
But the watch-dog failed to bark , largely because the focus of indigenous relations was , to put it mildly , minor .
Simone Niven , the distantly London-based head of corporate relations , was ignorant of the Juukan Gorge caves till days before the blasts , lacking knowledge of their significance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shrubbery of corporate governance .
The sense that heads on pikes were needed started to take hold at Rio Tinto .
A Parliamentary review was instigated .
Investors were concerned .
Superannuation funds such as UniSuper , HESTA and AustralianSuper were agitated .
The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors ( ACSI ) demanded changes to “ ensure an incident of this nature does not happen again and what accountability there will be for the issues identified.
” Interest centred on what might happen to Jacques , chief executive of iron ore Chris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , led by Simon Thompson , initially felt that withholding bonuses and releasing their own review of the incident by Michael L ’ Estrange were two ways of pacifying the critics .
ACSI chief Louise Davidson wondered whether the company felt that “ 4 million [ British ] pounds is the right price for the destruction of cultural heritage ” .
Rio ’ s Australian directors L ’ Estrange , Megan Clark and Simon McKeon were accused by the Australian Financial Review of unconscionable weakness .
Dissent grew in the boardroom at what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disciplinary measures were urged .
Eventually , the big three would face Rio ’ s own version of the gold gilded corporate guillotine .
Before the parliamentary committee , Rio has been subpar and deceptive .
Former Rio chief executive Sam Walsh had claimed in the press that instructions were issued in 2013 to the company ’ s general manager of mine operations Greg Lilleyman to ensure that the Juukan Gorge not be mined .
In response to the question on notice put by the committee , the company found no mention of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lilleyman also claimed to have “ no recollection of Mr Walsh issuing any such direction.
” The company seemed to relish misleading members of parliament .
Jacques , for instance , had been reported as telling employees at a Brisbane staff meeting to “ Fit in or fuck off.
” The committee was intrigued : would such an environment be conductive to questioning the proposed destruction of the Juukan Gorge caves ?
The company response : “ Mr Jacques was expressing the sentiment that we will not tolerate any breaches of safety in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of our employees.
” Not quite , Joe Aston points out in the Australian Financial Review .
The FIFO remark was in response to dealing with “ dead wood ” in the company , an effort to remove those “ stuck in the past ” .
Nothing about safety ; nothing about good conscience .
Aston also notes another example .
To a question put by MP George Christensen about who in Rio “ knew or had an inkling about the significance of Juukan Gorge caves ” , the answer was equally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managers are noted at stages in 2012 to 2014 as having such knowledge .
Senior executives are spared it .
References to rock shelters or sites did not specifically mention “ Juukan ” .
A falsehood , Aston claims , given that Rio received a final report of archaeologist Dr. Michael Slack on December 31 , 2018 assigning the caves “ the highest archaeological significance in Australia ” .
The Rio Tinto Board Review was also a master class in hand washing exoneration .
The media release of the report noted that legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been obtained ; it merely “ fell short of the Standards and internal guidance that Rio Tinto sets for itself , over and above its legal obligations.
” The findings of the review revealed “ no single root cause or error that directly resulted in the destruction of the rock shelters.
” Blame the systems , data sharing , engagement with the PKKP , poor decisions over time .
But the vandal , in all of this , should be spared .
Rio , in the fashion of the times , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On its website , the company informs us of an unreserved apology had been made to the PKKP people .
The destruction of the rock shelters should never have been happened ; “ we are absolutely committed to listening , learning and changing.
” Measures in cultural heritage governance , controls and approvals in iron had been strengthened .
Vague references are made to “ increasing our focus on the importance of our relationships with Traditional Owners.
” More Indigenous leadership roles were needed .
Which brings us back to the gold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scintilla of empathy , the company board has given Jacques , Salisbury and Niven a fond farewell : some $ 40 million between them .
It affirms a rule common from the company board room to university bureaucrats : incompetence and insensitivity has its rich rewards .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research .
Email : [ email protected ]

It was a calamity in cultural terms likened to the destruction of the Buddhist statues of Bamyan and the ancient city of Palmyra. The explosive eradication of two Aboriginal sites in West Australia’s Juukan Gorge in May, said to be 46,000 years old, moved Peter Stone, the UNESCO chair in Cultural Property Protection and Peace, to call it “a black day for us all”. This was not the dirty handiwork of Taliban zealots or Islamic State fanatics: the blasting had been an act of callous corporate desecration, a molestation of country, a renting of the earth.
These sites in the Pilbara were not parochial statements or nationalist kitsch. They were evidence of continuous occupation by humans through the last Ice Age, sporting artefacts such as a belt made from human hair 4,000 years old. Such artefacts could be claimed as linking the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) to immemorial ancestry. As Stone remarked, “They are not only extremely important sites for Aboriginal communities, but also they were extremely important sites for archaeological understanding of the distant past in Australia.”
PKKP representative John Ashburton’s statement was a sob of desperation.
“Our people are deeply troubled and saddened by the destruction of these rock shelters and are grieving the loss of connection to our ancestors as well as our land.”
The initial approach by the company was one of justification, mixed with modest regret. Rio Tinto had a long standing relationship with the PKKP people. They had secured all the necessary approvals in 2013, done the necessary jigs in law. In a statement, the mining behemoth claimed that, “We are sorry that the recently expressed concerns of the PKKP did not arise through the engagements that have taken place over many years under the agreement that governs our operations in the country.”
Commentators in the field of mining are brimming with explanations as to why Rio Tinto turned cultural vandal. Deanna Kemp, director of the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining at the University of Queensland, and Andrew Hopkins, sociologist at the Australian National University have a few. There was “extreme production pressure” in the company’s iron ore division; the iron ore in the caves’ proximity was of such grade as to be irresistible, given demand for the company’s Pilbara blend. West Australian law vested the company with authority to mine the area, one it exercised despite severe reservation and opposition. The company’s structure is segmented: each product division – iron ore, aluminium, copper and diamonds, minerals and energy – reign separately. When things shine, the system works, each division left to its own productive devices. But lacking a central mechanism of oversight can be disastrous: the chance of reckless decisions with “disastrous human and environmental consequences”.
Not that Rio was unaware of these deficiencies. Modest efforts had been made within the company to put in place chains of command run by what is drearily termed in corporation-speak “functional executives”. Product division chiefs were not entirely free of their gaze. And one field of importance for the functional executives was the external function of dealing with indigenous relations, subsumed under the broader title of corporate relations. The position had been historically weak, lacking a presence on the executive committee.
Jean-Sébastien Jacques, on becoming chief executive in 2016, created a seat for the head of corporate relations at the big table. But, note Kemp and Hopkins, the system did not work. There was too much scatter, too many specialisations, too much scope. News about the imminent destruction of the Juukan Gorge caves might have intruded upon the executive for corporate relations or the chief executive. But the watch-dog failed to bark, largely because the focus of indigenous relations was, to put it mildly, minor. Simone Niven, the distantly London-based head of corporate relations, was ignorant of the Juukan Gorge caves till days before the blasts, lacking knowledge of their significance. The indigenous relations element was obscured in the shrubbery of corporate governance.
The sense that heads on pikes were needed started to take hold at Rio Tinto. A Parliamentary review was instigated. Investors were concerned. Superannuation funds such as UniSuper, HESTA and AustralianSuper were agitated. The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) demanded changes to “ensure an incident of this nature does not happen again and what accountability there will be for the issues identified.”
Interest centred on what might happen to Jacques, chief executive of iron ore Chris Salisbury, and Niven. The board, led by Simon Thompson, initially felt that withholding bonuses and releasing their own review of the incident by Michael L’Estrange were two ways of pacifying the critics. ACSI chief Louise Davidson wondered whether the company felt that “4 million [British] pounds is the right price for the destruction of cultural heritage”. Rio’s Australian directors L’Estrange, Megan Clark and Simon McKeon were accused by the Australian Financial Review of unconscionable weakness. Dissent grew in the boardroom at what was a lamentably timorous response. Stronger disciplinary measures were urged. Eventually, the big three would face Rio’s own version of the gold gilded corporate guillotine.
Before the parliamentary committee, Rio has been subpar and deceptive. Former Rio chief executive Sam Walsh had claimed in the press that instructions were issued in 2013 to the company’s general manager of mine operations Greg Lilleyman to ensure that the Juukan Gorge not be mined. In response to the question on notice put by the committee, the company found no mention of the sites in any email correspondence. Lilleyman also claimed to have “no recollection of Mr Walsh issuing any such direction.”
The company seemed to relish misleading members of parliament. Jacques, for instance, had been reported as telling employees at a Brisbane staff meeting to “Fit in or fuck off.” The committee was intrigued: would such an environment be conductive to questioning the proposed destruction of the Juukan Gorge caves? The company response: “Mr Jacques was expressing the sentiment that we will not tolerate any breaches of safety in our operations around the world, by any of our employees.” Not quite, Joe Aston points out in the Australian Financial Review. The FIFO remark was in response to dealing with “dead wood” in the company, an effort to remove those “stuck in the past”. Nothing about safety; nothing about good conscience.
Aston also notes another example. To a question put by MP George Christensen about who in Rio “knew or had an inkling about the significance of Juukan Gorge caves”, the answer was equally unsatisfactory, if not mendacious. Unnamed managers are noted at stages in 2012 to 2014 as having such knowledge. Senior executives are spared it. References to rock shelters or sites did not specifically mention “Juukan”. A falsehood, Aston claims, given that Rio received a final report of archaeologist Dr. Michael Slack on December 31, 2018 assigning the caves “the highest archaeological significance in Australia”.
The Rio Tinto Board Review was also a master class in hand washing exoneration. The media release of the report noted that legal authority to destroy the Juukan rock shelters had been obtained; it merely “fell short of the Standards and internal guidance that Rio Tinto sets for itself, over and above its legal obligations.” The findings of the review revealed “no single root cause or error that directly resulted in the destruction of the rock shelters.” Blame the systems, data sharing, engagement with the PKKP, poor decisions over time. But the vandal, in all of this, should be spared.
Rio, in the fashion of the times, is making its own effort at cultural re-education. On its website, the company informs us of an unreserved apology had been made to the PKKP people. The destruction of the rock shelters should never have been happened; “we are absolutely committed to listening, learning and changing.” Measures in cultural heritage governance, controls and approvals in iron had been strengthened. Vague references are made to “increasing our focus on the importance of our relationships with Traditional Owners.” More Indigenous leadership roles were needed.
Which brings us back to the gold gilded guillotine. Tone deaf and lacking a scintilla of empathy, the company board has given Jacques, Salisbury and Niven a fond farewell: some $40 million between them. It affirms a rule common from the company board room to university bureaucrats: incompetence and insensitivity has its rich rewards.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]


asiapacificresearch--2020-09-18--Neoliberal Death Knell for Indian Agriculture

In a 2017 article , I asked what might a future India look like and concluded that , if current neoliberal policies continue , there could be dozens of mega-cities with up to 40 million inhabitants and just two to three hundred million ( perhaps 15-20 % of the population ) left in an emptied-out countryside .
And it could also mean hundreds of millions of displaced rural dwellers without any work .
The policies referred to have not only continued but have been given a massive boost in the form of three parliamentary bills : The Farmers Produce Trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ordinance , 2020 ; The Farmers ( Empowerment and Protection ) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance , 2020 ; and The Essential Commodities ( Amendment ) Ordinance , 2020 .
The ordinances were issued by the Modi-led government in June and ( according to official rhetoric ) seek to create barrier-free trade for farmers and allow them to enter into agreements with private players prior to the production for sale of agri-produce .
Some have commended these bills , claiming they will completely ‘ liberalise ’ the farm economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offering freedom and choice to farmers and buyers of produce .
Others claim they effectively serve to impose the tenets of neoliberalism on the sector , finally clearing the way to restructure the agri-food sector for the benefit of large commodity traders and other ( international ) corporations : smallholder farmers will go to the wall in a landscape of ‘ get big or get out ’ , mirroring the US model of food cultivation and retail .
As reported in the Economic Times , the Congress party chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tooth and nail ” on this issue : He added that farmers would not be able to get a remunerative price for their crop under the current system of minimum support price and that his party will join with other parties to put up a joint opposition to the draconian ordinances of the BJP government aimed at : The proposed legislation will mean that mandis – state-run market locations for farmers ( overseen by Agricultural Produce Market Committees ) to sell their agricultural produce via auction to traders – can be bypassed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elsewhere ( physically and online ) , thereby undermining the regulatory role of the public sector .
In trade areas open to the private sector , no fees will be levied ( fees levied in mandis go to the states and , in principle , are used to enhance market infrastructure to help farmers ) .
This could incentivise the corporate sector operating outside of the mandis to ( initially at least ) offer better prices to farmers ; eventually , however , as the mandi system is run down completely , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector and dictate prices to farmers .
Another outcome of the proposed legislation could see the unregulated storage of produce and speculation , opening the farming sector to free-for-all profiteering for the big players .
Randeep Surjewala argues that the three ordinances are also a direct attack on the federal structure of India ( farming and mandis come under the jurisdiction of states ) , but the government did not even consider it appropriate to consult them before promulgating the ordinances .
Sitaram Yechury , leader of the Communist Party of India , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transnational agri-food corporations like Cargill and Walmart and home-grown billionaire capitalists like Gautam Adani and his agribusiness conglomerate and Mukesh Ambini and his Reliance retail chain to decide on what is to be cultivated , how much of it is to be cultivated within India and how it is to be produced and processed .
From seed to field to plate , the corporate take-over of the food and agriculture chain will be complete .
Smallholder and marginal farmers will be further forced out and those remaining in the sector will be squeezed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seed and agrochemical suppliers , trader , distributors and retail concerns .
Industrial agriculture will be the norm ( with all the devastating externalised health , social and environmental costs that the model brings with it ) .
It may make some wonder who is actually determining policy in India when hundreds of millions of ordinary people could lose their livelihoods .
Instead of pursuing a path of democratic development , the Indian government has chosen to submit to the regime of foreign finance , awaiting signals on how much it can spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation states to curb spending and roll back interventions and support mechanisms so that private investors can occupy the arena left open .
And this is exactly what we are seeing in agriculture .
Foreign capital and sections of India ’ s billionaire class are working to displace the prevailing agrifood model and recast it in their own image .
Tens of millions of small-scale and marginal farmers are already suffering economic distress and leaving farming as the sector is deliberately made financially non-viable for them .
The Modi administration is fully on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-corporate ‘ enabling the business of agriculture ’ and other such policies aimed at further incorporating nation states into the neoliberal fold , while equating neoliberal policies with ‘ development ’ .
Other recent policies will also serve to accelerate current trends in Indian agriculture as we see with regard to the Karnataka Land Reform Act , which will make it easier for business to purchase and consolidate agricultural land ( leading to landlessness and urban migration ) .
Both ongoing and proposed ‘ reforms ’ are ultimately about ‘ liberalising ’ agriculture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agribusiness interests and serve the needs of India ’ s home-grown billionaires .
The Modi government is predictably facilitating what could eventually lead to a trillion-dollar ( value of the Indian economy according to Modi ’ s former associates at APCO Worldwide ) corporate hijack of India three steps closer with the ‘ ordinances ’ .
By bringing the full force of liberalisation to the farm economy and in the process fundamentally restructuring Indian society ( around 60 % of the population still rely on agriculture for their livelihoods ) , any remnants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be hollowed out and India will become a fully incorporated subsidiary of global capitalism and its fundamentally flawed and exploitative food regime .
Of course , many millions have already been displaced from the Indian countryside and have had to seek work in the cities .
And if the coronavirus lockdown has indicated anything , it is that many of these ‘ migrant workers ’ have failed to gain a secure foothold and were compelled to return ‘ home ’ to their villages .
Their lives are defined by low pay , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It raises the question : what does the future hold for the hundreds of millions of others who will be victims of the dispossessive policies of neoliberal capitalism ?
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research .

In a 2017 article, I asked what might a future India look like and concluded that, if current neoliberal policies continue, there could be dozens of mega-cities with up to 40 million inhabitants and just two to three hundred million (perhaps 15-20% of the population) left in an emptied-out countryside. And it could also mean hundreds of millions of displaced rural dwellers without any work.
The policies referred to have not only continued but have been given a massive boost in the form of three parliamentary bills: The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, 2020; The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020; and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020.
The ordinances were issued by the Modi-led government in June and (according to official rhetoric) seek to create barrier-free trade for farmers and allow them to enter into agreements with private players prior to the production for sale of agri-produce.
Some have commended these bills, claiming they will completely ‘liberalise’ the farm economy, leading to greater flexibility and efficiency and offering freedom and choice to farmers and buyers of produce. Others claim they effectively serve to impose the tenets of neoliberalism on the sector, finally clearing the way to restructure the agri-food sector for the benefit of large commodity traders and other (international) corporations: smallholder farmers will go to the wall in a landscape of ‘get big or get out’, mirroring the US model of food cultivation and retail.
As reported in the Economic Times, the Congress party chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said his party will fight the government “tooth and nail” on this issue:
“These three draconian ordinances are a death knell for agriculture in India. They will subjugate the farmer at the altar of a handful of crony capitalists….”
He added that farmers would not be able to get a remunerative price for their crop under the current system of minimum support price and that his party will join with other parties to put up a joint opposition to the draconian ordinances of the BJP government aimed at:
“Subjugating the farming community and abolishing the livelihood of crores [tens of millions] of people who are aligned with the grain markets and other market systems”.
The proposed legislation will mean that mandis – state-run market locations for farmers (overseen by Agricultural Produce Market Committees)to sell their agricultural produce via auction to traders – can be bypassed, allowing farmers to sell to private players elsewhere (physically and online), thereby undermining the regulatory role of the public sector. In trade areas open to the private sector, no fees will be levied (fees levied in mandis go to the states and, in principle, are used to enhance market infrastructure to help farmers).
This could incentivise the corporate sector operating outside of the mandis to (initially at least) offer better prices to farmers; eventually, however, as the mandi system is run down completely, these corporations will monopolise trade, capture the sector and dictate prices to farmers.
Another outcome of the proposed legislation could see the unregulated storage of produce and speculation, opening the farming sector to free-for-all profiteering for the big players.
Randeep Surjewala argues that the three ordinances are also a direct attack on the federal structure of India (farming and mandis come under the jurisdiction of states), but the government did not even consider it appropriate to consult them before promulgating the ordinances.
Sitaram Yechury, leader of the Communist Party of India, tweeted:
“No amount of propaganda and spin can conceal such destruction of India and it’s economy. Withdraw these ordinances handing over our agriculture to multinational agribusinesses, further ruining our ‘annadaata’, demolishing India’s food security.”
The proposed legislation will enable transnational agri-food corporations like Cargill and Walmart and home-grown billionaire capitalists like Gautam Adani and his agribusiness conglomerate and Mukesh Ambini and his Reliance retail chain to decide on what is to be cultivated, how much of it is to be cultivated within India and how it is to be produced and processed. From seed to field to plate, the corporate take-over of the food and agriculture chain will be complete.
Smallholder and marginal farmers will be further forced out and those remaining in the sector will be squeezed, working on contracts for market-dominating global seed and agrochemical suppliers, trader, distributors and retail concerns. Industrial agriculture will be the norm (with all the devastating externalised health, social and environmental costs that the model brings with it).
It may make some wonder who is actually determining policy in India when hundreds of millions of ordinary people could lose their livelihoods. Instead of pursuing a path of democratic development, the Indian government has chosen to submit to the regime of foreign finance, awaiting signals on how much it can spend. The imperatives of global capital require nation states to curb spending and roll back interventions and support mechanisms so that private investors can occupy the arena left open. And this is exactly what we are seeing in agriculture.
Foreign capital and sections of India’s billionaire class are working to displace the prevailing agrifood model and recast it in their own image. Tens of millions of small-scale and marginal farmers are already suffering economic distress and leaving farming as the sector is deliberately made financially non-viable for them.
The Modi administration is fully on board with the World Bank’s pro-corporate ‘enabling the business of agriculture’ and other such policies aimed at further incorporating nation states into the neoliberal fold, while equating neoliberal policies with ‘development’. Other recent policies will also serve to accelerate current trends in Indian agriculture as we see with regard to the Karnataka Land Reform Act, which will make it easier for business to purchase and consolidate agricultural land (leading to landlessness and urban migration).
Both ongoing and proposed ‘reforms’ are ultimately about ‘liberalising’ agriculture to further ease the entrance of foreign agribusiness interests and serve the needs of India’s home-grown billionaires. The Modi government is predictably facilitating what could eventually lead to a trillion-dollar (value of the Indian economy according to Modi’s former associates at APCO Worldwide) corporate hijack of India three steps closer with the ‘ordinances’.
By bringing the full force of liberalisation to the farm economy and in the process fundamentally restructuring Indian society (around 60% of the population still rely on agriculture for their livelihoods), any remnants of economic sovereignty and sovereign state status will be hollowed out and India will become a fully incorporated subsidiary of global capitalism and its fundamentally flawed and exploitative food regime.
Of course, many millions have already been displaced from the Indian countryside and have had to seek work in the cities. And if the coronavirus lockdown has indicated anything, it is that many of these ‘migrant workers’ have failed to gain a secure foothold and were compelled to return ‘home’ to their villages. Their lives are defined by low pay, insecurity and callous treatment by the government.
It raises the question: what does the future hold for the hundreds of millions of others who will be victims of the dispossessive policies of neoliberal capitalism?
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.


asiapacificresearch--2020-09-29--Bt Cotton in India Is a GMO Template for a ‘Monumental Irreversible Catastrophe’

Cotton is the only genetically modified ( GM ) crop that has been officially approved in India and has been cultivated ( illegally then legally ) in the country for more than 20 years .
Although GM mustard has been approved for commercial cultivation by India ’ s apex regulatory body for GM crops ( the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee , GEAC ) , a public interest litigation led by Aruna Rodrigues is before the Supreme Court challenging that decision and commercialisation of the crop is on hold .
The push to drive GM food crops into India has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February 2010 , the government placed an indefinite moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal after numerous independent scientific experts from India and abroad had pointed out safety concerns .
Minister Jairam Ramesh therefore rejected the commercialisation of Bt brinjal .
He imposed a moratorium on its release till such time independent scientific studies establish the safety of the product from the point of view of its long-term impact on human health and the environment , including the rich genetic wealth existing in brinjal in India .
The moratorium has not been lifted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still not been met .
Regulatory processes have been shown to lack competency , possess endemic conflicts of interest and demonstrate a lack of expertise in GMO risk assessment protocols , including food safety assessment and the assessment of environmental impacts .
Not to be deterred by any of this , the GEAC is now facilitating final-stage trials of a new Bt brinjal ( event 142 ) .
It also seems dismissive of the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee ( TEC ) Final Report in 2013 which was scathing about the prevailing regulatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result , the TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on the commercial release of all GM crops .
Immediately after the 2010 moratorium was announced , the GEAC carried on regardless and went straight ahead and sanctioned fresh trials for the new Bt brinjal .
It appears that developers-cum-lobbyists were actually sitting on regulatory bodies as event 142 was proceeding , granting biosafety clearance and claiming all tests are complete , despite data being kept out of the public domain .
Colin Todhunter : The government has asserted that hybrid insecticidal Bt cotton in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues that it is a template for the introduction of GM food crops .
Aruna Rodrigues : The metric used to pronounce the grand success of hybrid Bt cotton is adoption/total production data as opposed to the real measure of performance , which is yield expressed as kg lint/ha and for the farmer , total net income/ha .
The error is so basic that it is embarrassing that supposedly leading public sector scientists can err in such manner .
But this is deliberate because the official agenda to promote GMOs is being openly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to back a decision of such profound importance and irreversible ramifications .
They want to use hybrid Bt cotton as the model to introduce other Bt crops , principally food crops .
And indeed , thousands of field trials of Bt crops have never been stopped , not even when the central government overturned the commercial approval of Bt brinjal a decade ago and imposed an indefinite moratorium .
CT : Renowned international experts have argued that we now have definitive evidence of the failure of Bt cotton in India , not least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use that is back to pre-Bt era levels , increasing pest resistance and rising input costs .
AR : The scientific evaluation of Bt cotton is the work of eminent scientists : Prof Dr Andrew Gutierrez , with Dr Hans Herren ( World Food Prize Laureate ) , Dr Peter Kenmore ( former head of FAO Plant Protection ) and Dr Keshav Kranthi ( former Director of the Central Institute of Cotton Research , India ’ s apex cotton institute ) .
Together , they have nailed the data and analyses of hybrid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its definitive failure .
( See ‘ International scientists highlight failure of GM Bt cotton in India ’ on GMWatch.org and ‘ International Webinar on Bt Cotton in India : Myths & Realities ’ on YouTube ) The use of hybrids has played an important role in the failure of hybrid Bt cotton , the development of the yield plateau in India , high production costs and low productivity .
The data show that suicides increase with economic distress , ( Gutierrez et al ; ‘ Bioeconomics of hybrid Bt cotton and suicides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Environmental Sciences Europe ) – low yield , rising costs and low net income .
The low yield is related to inappropriate hybrid Bt varieties and low planting densities and falling net revenues due to stagnant yield , unstable cotton prices and escalating costs of production .
Also entering this equation are insecticide-induced pests and insecticide resistance , increasing resistance in pink bollworms to Bt toxins and the vagaries of weather on hybrids .
American bollworm resistance is also increasing .
By 2013 , pre-Bt era of 2002 levels of insecticide use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that reducing insecticide use was the raison d ’ etre for the Bt technology ; it has no trait for yield .
Most hybrid cottons are long season of 180-200 day duration that increases the opportunities for pest resurgence and outbreaks .
Additionally , hybrids require stable water and more fertiliser .
In 13 years , the cost of cultivation increased 302 % .
In 15 years , there was a 450 % increase in labour costs .
Costs of hybrid seed , insecticide and fertiliser increased more than 250 to 300 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5971/ha in 2003 ( pre-Bt ) but plummeted to net losses of Rs .
6286 in 2015 ( Kranthi ) .
CT : How does the performance of Bt cotton in India compare with elsewhere ?
AR : Hybrid Bt cotton was designed to increase yield and quality , but India ’ s global rank is 36 in terms of yield out of the 75 cotton growing countries .
This ranking leaves India behind at least 21 major producing countries , including many in Africa , which do not employ GM cotton and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top eight producers use high density plantings of appropriate varieties that are approximately six-fold higher than commonly used in India .
Herein lies the solution for India in the potential of high-density short-season cotton .
CT : The use of long-season hybrids in India seems unique .
You and others have argued that the only reason to combine GM technology with hybrids was to serve as a value capture mechanism : for the seed companies to extract profit at the expense of farmers because in India international property rights on seeds can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West through signed contracts .
But there have been other implications .
Can you say something about these hybrids ?
AR : The use of hybrid cotton is unique to India , being sold as a value-capture mechanism to enable seed companies to safeguard their profit and side-step intellectual property rights concerns .
The hybrid technology disallows seed saving by millions of small farmers who can not be controlled by threats of lawsuits .
There is no other reason why hybrid technology was used ; but it added significantly to the failure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other cotton growing countries are grown at densities of more than 100,000 plants per hectare , which is at least five times higher than India ’ s national average density of 18,500 plants per hectare .
Scientific trials conducted with non-Bt varieties in all the cotton growing states of India and in more than 6,894 demonstrations in farmer fields by government agencies during 2012 to 2016 unequivocally show that high density planting results in higher yields compared to the most popular high priced Bt cotton hybrids .
Furthermore , long staple desi cotton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the national average of Bt cotton hybrids .
The high price of hybrid Bt seed engenders low planting densities in India that contributes greatly to low yields .
High-density short-season planting of non-GM straight line varieties of desi cotton and American cotton species that interrupt the lifecycle of the pink bollworm is required .
This simple insight has important implications and provides the basis for a proven solution against pests .
CT : Bt is a toxin encoding gene .
And yet the proposal is to incorporate it in brinjal , a vegetable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indian society .
Can you say a little about Bt toxicity and the implications for brinjal ?
AR : The question of the toxicity of Bt proteins is circumvented by the regulators accepting a discredited version of cry toxicity based on a Monsanto myth that Bt toxins are only toxic to alkaline gut systems of insects , not the acidic stomachs of mammals .
There is plenty of proof that Bt proteins are indeed toxic to both humans and animals ( Schubert letter of Nov 2009 to Minister Jairam Ramesh , when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brinjal ) .
Failed Bt cotton is indeed the model for hybrid Bt brinjal and for monumental catastrophe .
CT : Bt brinjal has been sanctioned for final-stage field trials .
If , in 2010 , Hybrid Bt brinjal was deemed unsuitable for India , given that these trials are going ahead , what if anything has changed ?
AR : Nothing has changed .
The Bt gene is still a Bt gene and it is a toxin .
It is worth reading an excerpt from the letter Prof David Schubert wrote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the immeasurable advantage of the definitive assessment of the failure of hybrid Bt cotton across all relevant measures .
We must use this knowledge to the benefit of our nation and Indian agriculture .
Bt Brinjal Event 142 is also planned in hybrids that will increase seed costs and prevent seed saving .
One thing is crystal clear and it is worth repeating for warning and emphasis : hybrid Bt cotton is a negative model for hybrid Bt brinjal ; for a monumental irreversible catastrophe .
Virtually no safety testing/risk assessment protocols @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 10 years ago .
It stands as the only test case where the raw data was subsequently assessed by several eminent international scientists .
They found a virtual vacuum .
None of this engenders confidence in the regulators as responsible or trustworthy .
Furthermore , GMO contamination in what is a centre of diversity is of paramount importance .
Our regulators have an uncanny ability to focus on two crops ( mustard and brinjal ) of great genetic diversity .
There are about 9,000 accessions of mustard in our gene banks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brinjal with the richest germplasm in the world .
I only have questions of our regulators because the things they do are fundamentally in error .
And the list is endless .
They also want to open up Indian agriculture to the second front of GM technology , herbicide tolerant crops , when chemicals ( e.g.
, glyphosate ) are documented to pose serious environmental and health risks .
The only option is to stop all environmental release of GMOs , because we are at serious risk from our own regulators .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court .
Four official reports support the petitioners and two of them belong to the Parliamentary process in India of Parliamentary Standing Committees ( PSCs ) , which are appointed across party lines .
Both PSCs were unanimous that Indian regulation is seriously awry , both for a lack of expertise and an endemic conflict of interest .
Both PSCs recommended a moratorium on GMOs .
CT : Given the vast genetic diversity of mustard and brinjal in India , developed over millennia , it is clear that ‘ need ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or any other ) GM crops .
Why is the government pushing so hard for GMOs ?
We don ’ t have independent regulation in India , not just in the sense of the regulators themselves , but also attendant ministries and institutions are rife with conflicts of interest .
They promote GMOs .
The glaring example is the regulatory body called the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation of the Department of Biotechnology , in the Ministry of Science and Technology ( DBT ) .
In this case , the DBT funds GM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The GEAC has historically had a serious conflict of interest with the line between the regulators and the regulated difficult to distinguish and partly explains why the government is pushing GMOs so hard .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .

Cotton is the only genetically modified (GM) crop that has been officially approved in India and has been cultivated (illegally then legally) in the country for more than 20 years. Although GM mustard has been approved for commercial cultivation by India’s apex regulatory body for GM crops (the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee, GEAC), a public interest litigation led by Aruna Rodrigues is before the Supreme Court challenging that decision and commercialisation of the crop is on hold.
The push to drive GM food crops into India has been happening for many years. Back in February 2010, the government placed an indefinite moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal after numerous independent scientific experts from India and abroad had pointed out safety concerns.
Minister Jairam Ramesh therefore rejected the commercialisation of Bt brinjal. He imposed a moratorium on its release till such time independent scientific studies establish the safety of the product from the point of view of its long-term impact on human health and the environment, including the rich genetic wealth existing in brinjal in India.
The moratorium has not been lifted and the conditions Ramesh set out have still not been met. Regulatory processes have been shown to lack competency, possess endemic conflicts of interest and demonstrate a lack of expertise in GMO risk assessment protocols, including food safety assessment and the assessment of environmental impacts.
Not to be deterred by any of this, the GEAC is now facilitating final-stage trials of a new Bt brinjal (event 142). It also seems dismissive of the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report in 2013 which was scathing about the prevailing regulatory system for GM crops. As a result, the TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on the commercial release of all GM crops.
Immediately after the 2010 moratorium was announced, the GEAC carried on regardless and went straight ahead and sanctioned fresh trials for the new Bt brinjal. It appears that developers-cum-lobbyists were actually sitting on regulatory bodies as event 142 was proceeding, granting biosafety clearance and claiming all tests are complete, despite data being kept out of the public domain.
I recently contacted Aruna Rodrigues to discuss the current situation.
***
Colin Todhunter: The government has asserted that hybrid insecticidal Bt cotton in India has been an outstanding success and argues that it is a template for the introduction of GM food crops.
Aruna Rodrigues: The metric used to pronounce the grand success of hybrid Bt cotton is adoption/total production data as opposed to the real measure of performance, which is yield expressed as kg lint/ha and for the farmer, total net income/ha. The error is so basic that it is embarrassing that supposedly leading public sector scientists can err in such manner. But this is deliberate because the official agenda to promote GMOs is being openly espoused without any factual data or science to back a decision of such profound importance and irreversible ramifications.
They want to use hybrid Bt cotton as the model to introduce other Bt crops, principally food crops. And indeed, thousands of field trials of Bt crops have never been stopped, not even when the central government overturned the commercial approval of Bt brinjal a decade ago and imposed an indefinite moratorium.
CT: Renowned international experts have argued that we now have definitive evidence of the failure of Bt cotton in India, not least in terms of stagnant yields, pesticide use that is back to pre-Bt era levels, increasing pest resistance and rising input costs.
AR: The scientific evaluation of Bt cotton is the work of eminent scientists: Prof Dr Andrew Gutierrez, with Dr Hans Herren (World Food Prize Laureate), Dr Peter Kenmore (former head of FAO Plant Protection) and Dr Keshav Kranthi (former Director of the Central Institute of Cotton Research, India’s apex cotton institute). Together, they have nailed the data and analyses of hybrid Bt cotton to provide conclusive proof of its definitive failure. (See ‘International scientists highlight failure of GM Bt cotton in India’ on GMWatch.org and ‘International Webinar on Bt Cotton in India: Myths & Realities’ on YouTube)
The use of hybrids has played an important role in the failure of hybrid Bt cotton, the development of the yield plateau in India, high production costs and low productivity. The data show that suicides increase with economic distress, (Gutierrez et al; ‘Bioeconomics of hybrid Bt cotton and suicides’ in the process of being published by Environmental Sciences Europe) – low yield, rising costs and low net income. The low yield is related to inappropriate hybrid Bt varieties and low planting densities and falling net revenues due to stagnant yield, unstable cotton prices and escalating costs of production.
Also entering this equation are insecticide-induced pests and insecticide resistance, increasing resistance in pink bollworms to Bt toxins and the vagaries of weather on hybrids. American bollworm resistance is also increasing. By 2013, pre-Bt era of 2002 levels of insecticide use were surpassed. It should be noted that reducing insecticide use was the raison d’etre for the Bt technology; it has no trait for yield.
Most hybrid cottons are long season of 180-200 day duration that increases the opportunities for pest resurgence and outbreaks. Additionally, hybrids require stable water and more fertiliser.
In 13 years, the cost of cultivation increased 302%. In 15 years, there was a 450% increase in labour costs. Costs of hybrid seed, insecticide and fertiliser increased more than 250 to 300%. And net profit was Rs. 5971/ha in 2003 (pre-Bt) but plummeted to net losses of Rs. 6286 in 2015 (Kranthi).
CT: How does the performance of Bt cotton in India compare with elsewhere?
AR: Hybrid Bt cotton was designed to increase yield and quality, but India’s global rank is 36 in terms of yield out of the 75 cotton growing countries. This ranking leaves India behind at least 21 major producing countries, including many in Africa, which do not employ GM cotton and cultivate only open pollinated varieties. The top eight producers use high density plantings of appropriate varieties that are approximately six-fold higher than commonly used in India. Herein lies the solution for India in the potential of high-density short-season cotton.
CT: The use of long-season hybrids in India seems unique. You and others have argued that the only reason to combine GM technology with hybrids was to serve as a value capture mechanism: for the seed companies to extract profit at the expense of farmers because in India international property rights on seeds cannot be enforced like they are in the West through signed contracts. But there have been other implications. Can you say something about these hybrids?
AR: The use of hybrid cotton is unique to India, being sold as a value-capture mechanism to enable seed companies to safeguard their profit and side-step intellectual property rights concerns. The hybrid technology disallows seed saving by millions of small farmers who cannot be controlled by threats of lawsuits. There is no other reason why hybrid technology was used; but it added significantly to the failure of Bt cotton.
Non-hybrid cotton varieties in other cotton growing countries are grown at densities of more than 100,000 plants per hectare, which is at least five times higher than India’s national average density of 18,500 plants per hectare.
Scientific trials conducted with non-Bt varieties in all the cotton growing states of India and in more than 6,894 demonstrations in farmer fields by government agencies during 2012 to 2016 unequivocally show that high density planting results in higher yields compared to the most popular high priced Bt cotton hybrids.
Furthermore, long staple desi cotton varieties also give consistently high yields above the national average of Bt cotton hybrids. The high price of hybrid Bt seed engenders low planting densities in India that contributes greatly to low yields.
High-density short-season planting of non-GM straight line varieties of desi cotton and American cotton species that interrupt the lifecycle of the pink bollworm is required. This simple insight has important implications and provides the basis for a proven solution against pests.
CT: Bt is a toxin encoding gene. And yet the proposal is to incorporate it in brinjal, a vegetable that is eaten across all sections of Indian society. Can you say a little about Bt toxicity and the implications for brinjal?
AR: The question of the toxicity of Bt proteins is circumvented by the regulators accepting a discredited version of cry toxicity based on a Monsanto myth that Bt toxins are only toxic to alkaline gut systems of insects, not the acidic stomachs of mammals. There is plenty of proof that Bt proteins are indeed toxic to both humans and animals (Schubert letter of Nov 2009 to Minister Jairam Ramesh, when he called for a scientific review of Bt brinjal). Failed Bt cotton is indeed the model for hybrid Bt brinjal and for monumental catastrophe.
CT: Bt brinjal has been sanctioned for final-stage field trials. If, in 2010, Hybrid Bt brinjal was deemed unsuitable for India, given that these trials are going ahead, what if anything has changed?
AR: Nothing has changed. The Bt gene is still a Bt gene and it is a toxin. It is worth reading an excerpt from the letter Prof David Schubert wrote to Jairam Ramesh in 2009:
“It is virtually certain that within the vast Indian population a large number of people eating Bt brinjal are going to be or will become allergic to this foreign protein; this number cannot be predicted and some of the immune responses will likely be severe, causing anaphylaxis and possibly fatalities. Since there will be no way of tracking these adverse reactions within the population, and since once Bt brinjal is commercially grown, its genetic presence within a major calorie source for the Indian population is irreversible, a simple decision has to be made. Is the negligible benefit of Bt brinjal worth the clear risk? My conclusion is that it is not worth the risk and that it would be a profound disservice to India if Bt brinjal were allowed to enter her food supply.”
We now have the immeasurable advantage of the definitive assessment of the failure of hybrid Bt cotton across all relevant measures. We must use this knowledge to the benefit of our nation and Indian agriculture. Bt Brinjal Event 142 is also planned in hybrids that will increase seed costs and prevent seed saving.
One thing is crystal clear and it is worth repeating for warning and emphasis: hybrid Bt cotton is a negative model for hybrid Bt brinjal; for a monumental irreversible catastrophe.
Virtually no safety testing/risk assessment protocols were carried out for Bt brinjal more than 10 years ago. It stands as the only test case where the raw data was subsequently assessed by several eminent international scientists. They found a virtual vacuum. None of this engenders confidence in the regulators as responsible or trustworthy.
Furthermore, GMO contamination in what is a centre of diversity is of paramount importance. Our regulators have an uncanny ability to focus on two crops (mustard and brinjal) of great genetic diversity. There are about 9,000 accessions of mustard in our gene banks and India is a centre of origin/diversity of brinjal with the richest germplasm in the world.
I only have questions of our regulators because the things they do are fundamentally in error. And the list is endless. They also want to open up Indian agriculture to the second front of GM technology, herbicide tolerant crops, when chemicals (e.g., glyphosate) are documented to pose serious environmental and health risks.
The only option is to stop all environmental release of GMOs, because we are at serious risk from our own regulators. This is not just petitioners’ stance in the Supreme Court. Four official reports support the petitioners and two of them belong to the Parliamentary process in India of Parliamentary Standing Committees (PSCs), which are appointed across party lines. Both PSCs were unanimous that Indian regulation is seriously awry, both for a lack of expertise and an endemic conflict of interest. Both PSCs recommended a moratorium on GMOs.
CT: Given the vast genetic diversity of mustard and brinjal in India, developed over millennia, it is clear that ‘need’ has not been established for these (or any other) GM crops. Why is the government pushing so hard for GMOs?
We don’t have independent regulation in India, not just in the sense of the regulators themselves, but also attendant ministries and institutions are rife with conflicts of interest. They promote GMOs. The glaring example is the regulatory body called the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation of the Department of Biotechnology, in the Ministry of Science and Technology (DBT). In this case, the DBT funds GM mustard development and also promotes it. The GEAC has historically had a serious conflict of interest with the line between the regulators and the regulated difficult to distinguish and partly explains why the government is pushing GMOs so hard.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.