asiapacificresearch--2020-02-07--Genetically Modified Bt Cotton: Cultivating Farmer Distress in India

Later this month , India ’ s Supreme Court will hold a lengthy hearing on the commercialisation of genetically modified ( GM ) mustard , which would be the country ’ s first GM food crop .
The court has asked the chair of the Technical Expert Committee to be present and says that the decision on GM mustard can not be kept pending .
The TEC has come out against using genetically modified organisms ( GMOs ) in Indian agriculture .
As lead petitioner in a public interest litigation challenging the government-backed push to commercialise this crop , Aruna @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submitted much evidence to the court alleging the science and field tests for GM mustard have been fraudulent and the entire regulatory regime has been dogged by malfeasance and a dereliction of duty .
To date , cotton is the only officially sanctioned GM crop in India .
Those pushing for GM food crops ( including the government ) are forwarding the narrative that GM pest resistant Bt cotton has been a tremendous success which should now be emulated with the introduction of GM mustard .
Ever since its commercialisation in 2002 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in India has been a hotly contested issue .
Bt cotton hybrids now cover over 95 % of the area under cotton and the seeds are produced by the private sector .
But critics argue that Bt cotton has negatively impacted livelihoods and fuelled agrarian distress and farmer suicides .
In a recent piece appearing in ‘ The Hindu ’ , Imran Siddiqi , an emeritus scientist at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad , argued that India ’ s cotton yields fall behind those of other major cotton producing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to use hybrids seeds made by crossing two parent strains having different genetic characters .
These plants have more biomass than both parents and capacity for greater yields .
But they also require more inputs , including fertiliser and water , and require suboptimal planting ( more space ) .
Siddiqi notes that all other cotton-producing countries grow cotton not as hybrids but varieties for which seeds are produced by self-fertilisation .
A key difference is that varieties can be propagated over successive generations by collecting seeds from one planting and using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , farmers must purchase seed for each planting .
Using hybrids gives pricing control to the seed company and also ensures a continuous market .
Siddiqi says that the advantages of varieties are considerable : more than twice the productivity , half the fertiliser , reduced water requirement and less vulnerability to damage from insect pests due to a shorter field duration .
He concludes that agricultural distress is extremely high among cotton farmers and the combination of high input and high risk has likely been a contributing factor .
Meanwhile , seed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Bt technology have profited handsomely from an irresponsible roll-out to poor marginal farmers who lacked access to irrigation and the money to purchase necessary fertiliser and pesticides .
Bt hybrids perform better under irrigation , but 66 % of cotton in India is cultivated in rain fed areas , where yields depend on the timing and quantity of variable monsoon rains .
Unreliable rains , the high costs of Bt hybrid seed , continued insecticide use , fertiliser inputs and debt have placed many poor smallholder farmers in a situation of severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues that Bt cotton has effectively put these farmers in a corporate noose .
It was against this backdrop that Andrew Flachs conducted fieldwork on cotton cultivation over four consecutive cotton growing seasons during 2012-2016 and a later visit in 2018 in the South Indian state of Telangana .
His new book ‘ Cultivating Knowledge : Biotechnology , Sustainability and the Human Cost of Cotton Capitalism in India ’ ( University of Arizona Press 2019 ) is based on that research .
A trained environmental anthropologist and assistant professor at Purdue University in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and political ecology to show how the adoption of GM seeds affects livelihoods , values and identities in rural areas .
By looking at everyday relationships and how farmers make choices , Flachs avoids falling into the pro/anti-GMO dichotomy that has polarised the debate on Indian cotton for the past 18 years .
Instead , he looks at farmers ’ aspirations , what it means to ‘ live well ’ and what ‘ sustainability ’ means in the everyday world of cotton cultivators .
Although some critics of GM cotton claim that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and farmer distress , Flachs is careful to locate the narrative of agrarian crisis against the overall backdrop of neoliberal reforms in Indian agriculture , the withdrawal of public sector extension services and exposure to commercial seed , pesticide and unstable global commodity markets ( and spiralling input costs ) .
In an increasingly commercialised countryside , independent cultivators have become dependent on corporate products , including off-farm commodified corporate knowledge .
In the past , they cultivated , saved and exchanged seeds ; now , as far as cotton cultivation is concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and necessary chemical inputs ) each year .
Flachs mentions former Minister of Agriculture Sharad Pawar who once stated that farmers decide to use GM cotton seeds based on rational decision making because GM gives better yields .
Indeed , this kind of thinking underpins much of the rhetoric of the pro-GMO lobby .
But such decision making is far from the truth ( moreover , Prof Glenn Stone has shown how ‘ facts ’ about yields have been constructed and that these ‘ facts ’ become mere distortions of the actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeds brands available in local seed stores , it becomes clear in ‘ Cultivating Knowledge ’ that environmental learning and the type of decision making referred to by Pawar do not exist .
Confusion , social learning , ‘ herding ’ and emulation are the norm .
Seed choices are not based on rational , cost-benefit decision making whereby farmers plant and compare crop performances and opt for the best ones .
Their choices of seeds are based on the advice of ( unscrupulous ) seed vendors , newspaper reports , advertising and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caste and social status play a major role in who is listened to , who is emulated and who is given short shrift by seed vendors .
If a ( high status ) farmer opts for a certain seed , for example , another farmer will emulate .
But even the high status farmer is not necessarily basing his seed decision of testing in the field : he too is emulating others , opting for whatever brand is ‘ popular ’ that season .
Similarly , Flachs notes that if your neighbour sprays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do it five times to be ‘ responsible ’ , to make sure you are taking care of your crop ; to make sure you don ’ t become infested and are then seen as the culprit for allowing your neighbours ’ fields to be infested too .
This , even though you overuse dangerous chemicals and become contaminated with pesticide spray or your food crop that your kids will eat becomes contaminated .
As Flachs implies – in a runaway neoliberal landscape , these types of risks ( the overuse of pesticides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) become regarded as ‘ natural ’ , as the outcome of individual choices , rather than the expression of political structures or macro-economic policies .
In the brave new world of neoliberalism that India began to embrace in the early 1990s , responses to the ‘ invisible ’ hand of the market , the performance of questionable on-farm practices and financial distress have therefore been internalised and have become associated with a notion of personal responsibility , which can result in self-blame , shame and even suicide .
Flachs notes that many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here , in stark contrast to cotton , farmers still activate their own indigenous knowledge and environmental learning about seeds and cultivation , not least because they tend to still save their ( non-corporate ) seeds .
For now , at least , the predatory commercialisation of the countryside has not yet penetrated every aspect of rural life .
While Bt cotton farmers are losing their traditional knowledge and skills , Flachs says they still have to make decisions and ‘ perform ’ the act of farming , taking into account potential risks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For cultivators of Bt cotton , chasing the dream of a better life means striving for higher yields , even if this entails greater debt and rising input costs .
And each year , as fresh seed brands appear , in the hope of hitting a jackpot yield , Flachs indicates that last year ’ s brand is ditched in favour of a new one .
In the meantime , debts increase and maybe one in four seasons a farmer will attain a good enough yield to break even .
In ‘ Cultivating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on seeds , weather and pesticide use are very much part of what has become a chase for ‘ better living ’ and an integral part of the corporate cotton seed and chemical treadmill .
Gambling more or less everything certainly does not bode well for poor , marginalised farmers .
And it ’ s a treadmill that is difficult to get off – even though Bt cotton was sold under the promise of reduced pesticide use , levels of usage are now higher that than before Bt cotton was introduced but non-GM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shops .
Whether farmer ’ s lives have improved because of the GM technology – or to be precise , the way it has been rolled out – is open to debate , especially if we consider what Gutierrez says about the corporate noose around farmers ’ necks and also consider alternative possibilities ( for instance , GM straight line varieties ) , which could have been pursued .
Moreover , as Flachs notes , with a glut of cotton , does the world need more of it anyway ?
Perhaps farmers – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultivation – would have been better served by planting food crops .
These are the ‘ counterfactuals ’ that seem to be overlooked when discussing GM cotton in India .
Cotton cultivation ( including organic cotton growing which Flachs also discusses ) in India is very much a social performance .
Flachs indicates that the field is a stage where notions of community obligation and personal aspiration are played out within the context of heavily socially stratified communities .
Key to this performance is the concept of sustainability .
Both sides of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustainable agriculture .
But Flachs discusses what sustainability means to farmers .
Is it about a quest for higher yields above all else ?
Or is it about debt-free sustainable livelihoods and ecological care of the land .
In the chase for yields – set against rising input costs , debt , the threat of bankruptcy and suicide , a free-for-all GM seed market with often unscrupulous vendors , the increasing use of dangerous pesticides – what are the impacts on farmers ’ quality of lives ?
Is the outcome ‘ better living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or does an air of desperation or insecurity prevail within cotton cultivating communities ?
These are the questions that readers will be compelled to ask themselves while reading ‘ Cultivating Knowledge ’ .
And it will become clear just what the human cost of cotton capitalism for many Indian farmers really is .
When people talk about rolling out GM food crops to uplift the conditions of farmers and make farming more ‘ sustainable ’ , they should abandon such generalisations and consider how farmers and farming communities face up to the challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unregulated seed markets , the eradication of environmental learning , a lack of extension services and the loss of control over their productive means .
For Flachs , organic cotton production ( that also has its own set of issues to deal with ) , which provides safety nets and encourages ecologically and socioeconomically beneficial practices on farms , can help redefine what ‘ success ’ means in Indian cotton .
While this may not in itself address the structural nature of the agrarian crisis , Flachs concludes that it offers some hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allows farmers to live well – and most importantly , to live well on their own terms .
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 .

Later this month, India’s Supreme Court will hold a lengthy hearing on the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) mustard, which would be the country’s first GM food crop. The court has asked the chair of the Technical Expert Committee to be present and says that the decision on GM mustard cannot be kept pending. The TEC has come out against using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Indian agriculture.
As lead petitioner in a public interest litigation challenging the government-backed push to commercialise this crop, Aruna Rodrigues has over the past few years submitted much evidence to the court alleging the science and field tests for GM mustard have been fraudulent and the entire regulatory regime has been dogged by malfeasance and a dereliction of duty.
To date, cotton is the only officially sanctioned GM crop in India. Those pushing for GM food crops (including the government) are forwarding the narrative that GM pest resistant Bt cotton has been a tremendous success which should now be emulated with the introduction of GM mustard. Ever since its commercialisation in 2002, however, the issue of Bt cotton in India has been a hotly contested issue. Bt cotton hybrids now cover over 95% of the area under cotton and the seeds are produced by the private sector. But critics argue that Bt cotton has negatively impacted livelihoods and fuelled agrarian distress and farmer suicides.
In a recent piece appearing in ‘The Hindu’, Imran Siddiqi, an emeritus scientist at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, argued that India’s cotton yields fall behind those of other major cotton producing countries. He attributes this to the decision to use hybrids seeds made by crossing two parent strains having different genetic characters. These plants have more biomass than both parents and capacity for greater yields. But they also require more inputs, including fertiliser and water, and require suboptimal planting (more space). Siddiqi notes that all other cotton-producing countries grow cotton not as hybrids but varieties for which seeds are produced by self-fertilisation.
A key difference is that varieties can be propagated over successive generations by collecting seeds from one planting and using them for the next. For hybrids, farmers must purchase seed for each planting. Using hybrids gives pricing control to the seed company and also ensures a continuous market.
Siddiqi says that the advantages of varieties are considerable: more than twice the productivity, half the fertiliser, reduced water requirement and less vulnerability to damage from insect pests due to a shorter field duration. He concludes that agricultural distress is extremely high among cotton farmers and the combination of high input and high risk has likely been a contributing factor.
Meanwhile, seed companies and Monsanto that issued licenses for its Bt technology have profited handsomely from an irresponsible roll-out to poor marginal farmers who lacked access to irrigation and the money to purchase necessary fertiliser and pesticides. Bt hybrids perform better under irrigation, but 66% of cotton in India is cultivated in rain fed areas, where yields depend on the timing and quantity of variable monsoon rains. Unreliable rains, the high costs of Bt hybrid seed, continued insecticide use, fertiliser inputs and debt have placed many poor smallholder farmers in a situation of severe financial hardship. Prof A P Gutierrez argues that Bt cotton has effectively put these farmers in a corporate noose.
Cultivating knowledge
It was against this backdrop that Andrew Flachs conducted fieldwork on cotton cultivation over four consecutive cotton growing seasons during 2012-2016 and a later visit in 2018 in the South Indian state of Telangana. His new book ‘Cultivating Knowledge: Biotechnology, Sustainability and the Human Cost of Cotton Capitalism in India’ (University of Arizona Press 2019) is based on that research.
A trained environmental anthropologist and assistant professor at Purdue University in the US, Flachs draws on anthropology and political ecology to show how the adoption of GM seeds affects livelihoods, values and identities in rural areas. By looking at everyday relationships and how farmers make choices, Flachs avoids falling into the pro/anti-GMO dichotomy that has polarised the debate on Indian cotton for the past 18 years. Instead, he looks at farmers’ aspirations, what it means to ‘live well’ and what ‘sustainability’ means in the everyday world of cotton cultivators.
Although some critics of GM cotton claim that the technology is directly responsible for fuelling suicides and farmer distress, Flachs is careful to locate the narrative of agrarian crisis against the overall backdrop of neoliberal reforms in Indian agriculture, the withdrawal of public sector extension services and exposure to commercial seed, pesticide and unstable global commodity markets (and spiralling input costs).
In an increasingly commercialised countryside, independent cultivators have become dependent on corporate products, including off-farm commodified corporate knowledge. In the past, they cultivated, saved and exchanged seeds; now, as far as cotton cultivation is concerned, they must purchase GM hybrid seeds (and necessary chemical inputs) each year.
Flachs mentions former Minister of Agriculture Sharad Pawar who once stated that farmers decide to use GM cotton seeds based on rational decision making because GM gives better yields. Indeed, this kind of thinking underpins much of the rhetoric of the pro-GMO lobby. But such decision making is far from the truth (moreover, Prof Glenn Stone has shown how ‘facts’ about yields have been constructed and that these ‘facts’ become mere distortions of the actual reality)
With hundreds of different GM seeds brands available in local seed stores, it becomes clear in ‘Cultivating Knowledge’ that environmental learning and the type of decision making referred to by Pawar do not exist. Confusion, social learning, ‘herding’ and emulation are the norm. Seed choices are not based on rational, cost-benefit decision making whereby farmers plant and compare crop performances and opt for the best ones. Their choices of seeds are based on the advice of (unscrupulous) seed vendors, newspaper reports, advertising and what other farmers are opting for.
Caste and social status play a major role in who is listened to, who is emulated and who is given short shrift by seed vendors. If a (high status) farmer opts for a certain seed, for example, another farmer will emulate. But even the high status farmer is not necessarily basing his seed decision of testing in the field: he too is emulating others, opting for whatever brand is ‘popular’ that season.
Similarly, Flachs notes that if your neighbour sprays pesticides four times a day, you do it five times to be ‘responsible’, to make sure you are taking care of your crop; to make sure you don’t become infested and are then seen as the culprit for allowing your neighbours’ fields to be infested too. This, even though you overuse dangerous chemicals and become contaminated with pesticide spray or your food crop that your kids will eat becomes contaminated.
As Flachs implies – in a runaway neoliberal landscape, these types of risks (the overuse of pesticides, taking out loans, seed preferences) become regarded as ‘natural’, as the outcome of individual choices, rather than the expression of political structures or macro-economic policies. In the brave new world of neoliberalism that India began to embrace in the early 1990s, responses to the ‘invisible’ hand of the market, the performance of questionable on-farm practices and financial distress have therefore been internalised and have become associated with a notion of personal responsibility, which can result in self-blame, shame and even suicide.
Flachs notes that many cotton farmers also grow food crops. Here, in stark contrast to cotton, farmers still activate their own indigenous knowledge and environmental learning about seeds and cultivation, not least because they tend to still save their (non-corporate) seeds. For now, at least, the predatory commercialisation of the countryside has not yet penetrated every aspect of rural life.
While Bt cotton farmers are losing their traditional knowledge and skills, Flachs says they still have to make decisions and ‘perform’ the act of farming, taking into account potential risks and what other farmers are doing.
For cultivators of Bt cotton, chasing the dream of a better life means striving for higher yields, even if this entails greater debt and rising input costs. And each year, as fresh seed brands appear, in the hope of hitting a jackpot yield, Flachs indicates that last year’s brand is ditched in favour of a new one. In the meantime, debts increase and maybe one in four seasons a farmer will attain a good enough yield to break even.
In ‘Cultivating Knowledge’, negotiating risk and gambling on seeds, weather and pesticide use are very much part of what has become a chase for ‘better living’ and an integral part of the corporate cotton seed and chemical treadmill. Gambling more or less everything certainly does not bode well for poor, marginalised farmers. And it’s a treadmill that is difficult to get off – even though Bt cotton was sold under the promise of reduced pesticide use, levels of usage are now higher that than before Bt cotton was introduced but non-GM seeds have all but disappeared from seed shops.
Whether farmer’s lives have improved because of the GM technology – or to be precise, the way it has been rolled out – is open to debate, especially if we consider what Gutierrez says about the corporate noose around farmers’ necks and also consider alternative possibilities (for instance, GM straight line varieties), which could have been pursued. Moreover, as Flachs notes, with a glut of cotton, does the world need more of it anyway? Perhaps farmers – aside from adopting different routes for cotton cultivation – would have been better served by planting food crops. These are the ‘counterfactuals’ that seem to be overlooked when discussing GM cotton in India.
Cotton cultivation (including organic cotton growing which Flachs also discusses) in India is very much a social performance. Flachs indicates that the field is a stage where notions of community obligation and personal aspiration are played out within the context of heavily socially stratified communities.
Key to this performance is the concept of sustainability. Both sides of the GM debate talk a good deal about sustainable agriculture. But Flachs discusses what sustainability means to farmers. Is it about a quest for higher yields above all else? Or is it about debt-free sustainable livelihoods and ecological care of the land. In the chase for yields – set against rising input costs, debt, the threat of bankruptcy and suicide, a free-for-all GM seed market with often unscrupulous vendors, the increasing use of dangerous pesticides – what are the impacts on farmers’ quality of lives?
Is the outcome ‘better living’ for farmers and their families? Or does an air of desperation or insecurity prevail within cotton cultivating communities? These are the questions that readers will be compelled to ask themselves while reading ‘Cultivating Knowledge’. And it will become clear just what the human cost of cotton capitalism for many Indian farmers really is.
When people talk about rolling out GM food crops to uplift the conditions of farmers and make farming more ‘sustainable’, they should abandon such generalisations and consider how farmers and farming communities face up to the challenges of increasing pest resistance, dependency on unregulated seed markets, the eradication of environmental learning, a lack of extension services and the loss of control over their productive means.
As Andrew Flachs says:
“Given that intimate local ecological knowledge has been shown to be crucial for sustainable endeavors, the GM seed market erodes rather than builds local efforts at sustainability… These seeds make cotton farming less sustainable on Telangana cotton farms because they have created a system in which farmers can’t learn much about their seeds or apply that knowledge when they’re at the market buying seeds next year.”
For Flachs, organic cotton production (that also has its own set of issues to deal with), which provides safety nets and encourages ecologically and socioeconomically beneficial practices on farms, can help redefine what ‘success’ means in Indian cotton. While this may not in itself address the structural nature of the agrarian crisis, Flachs concludes that it offers some hope for incentivising local knowledge and technology that allows farmers to live well – and most importantly, to live well on their own terms.
*
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--2020-01-30--Is Singapore About to Become a U.S. Military Hub Against China?

Singapore , a small but well-armed island nation in Southeast Asia , with 72,000 troops in the army , was approved by the United States in early January 2020 to acquire 12 F-35Bs , along with necessary equipment such as spare engines , parts , electronics , equipment , and simulators , at a contract price of $ 2.75 billion .
The Singaporean Air Force has 316 aircraft , 16 squadrons and 14,800 troops at four Air Force bases , with most of the offensive power being 40 F-15s and 60 F-16s .
The Air Force is impressive but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great powers .
Singapore ’ s Defense Minister , Ng Eng Hen , emphasized that the American made war planes is intended to gradually replace the F-16 fighter that is now mostly used by the Singaporean Air Force – and this could be a gamechanger against Chinese interests in the region .
With Singapore ’ s acquisition of these aircraft , it could drastically change the arms balance in the South China Sea region where China and the U.S. are competing , and even beyond .
This small island nation has a close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also joined the United Kingdom , Australia , New Zealand and Malaysia – all Commonwealth countries – in a military agreement known as the Five Powers Defence Arrangements .
Singapore is also providing full support to the U.S. by allowing them use of the Paya Lebar Air Force Base , and U.S. warships can call at Sembawang Naval Base .
The visits by U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump to the Paya Lebar base during their visit to the region also demonstrates Washington ’ s trust in Singapore and recognizes the critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Paya Lebar Air Base is home to 40 F-15s , and is also home to five aerial refuelling aircraft , the KC-130B .
Changi East Air Base is equipped with 20 F-16s and four A330 MRTT aerial refuelling aircraft .
The A330 MRTT ’ s are essentially a refuelling machine tied to a fighter .
This greatly increases the radius of action .
Not only can the F-35 be refuelled in the air , but it can also land on allied , especially American , aircraft carriers .
For example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the F-35 ’ s offensive actions .
Singapore is located on a junction of the Malacca Straits , a crucial sea lane in Southeast Asia that has about 50,000 mercantile ships pass through every year .
The Malacca Straits , strategically and economically , is one of the most important sea lanes in the entire world , in equal importance to the Suez and Panama Canals .
This is because the Malacca Straits is the main sea route connecting the Indian Ocean with the Pacific Ocean .
The route runs along the southern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the airspace above it , making it one of the most important sea lanes in the world , especially for international Chinese trade and the Belt and Road Initiative .
It is for this reason that Singapore has become another flashpoint in the China-U.S. rivalry in the region as any blockage of this sea lane from Chinese ships will significantly impact China ’ s economy .
Although Singapore is more aligned with the U.S. , its air force does not match its ambitions .
However , the acquisition of the U.S.-made F-35 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a powerful Small Power in one of the most important geostrategic locations in the world .
The F-35 creates many advantages in the Malacca Straits for the U.S. and Singapore .
In the event of a war in the region the Straits could be closed to China , creating significant economic and logistical problems for China ’ s engagement with the rest of the world .
In this way , Singapore ’ s acquisition of modern aircraft means not only increased control of the Straits , which is critical for military and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the U.S. and Singapore to quickly dispatching reinforcements to areas where potential combat in the South China Sea , Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula , could occur .
With Singapore ’ s F-35B , the small island country can also appear in unexpected places all across the region to assist their American allies in anti-China operations .
It is likely that Washington is turning Singapore into an important U.S. hub in the region to enact and serve its interests and prevent the ever-increasing influence of China in Southeast Asia .
With Singapore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military , there is the possibility that the U.S. Air Force can reduce its reliance on air refuelling and facilitates in possible combat operations .
Therefore , there is little doubt that Singapore ’ s latest acquisition of these powerful warplanes is to further consolidate Singapore ’ s alliance with the U.S. and Commonwealth states who overwhelmingly represent the Old Order of the world system and are yet to accept the realities of the Multipolar System .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
This article was originally published on InfoBrics .
Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies .

Singapore, a small but well-armed island nation in Southeast Asia, with 72,000 troops in the army, was approved by the United States in early January 2020 to acquire 12 F-35Bs, along with necessary equipment such as spare engines, parts, electronics, equipment, and simulators, at a contract price of $2.75 billion. The Singaporean Air Force has 316 aircraft, 16 squadrons and 14,800 troops at four Air Force bases, with most of the offensive power being 40 F-15s and 60 F-16s. The Air Force is impressive but not so much compared to other regional and great powers. Singapore’s Defense Minister, Ng Eng Hen, emphasized that the American made war planes is intended to gradually replace the F-16 fighter that is now mostly used by the Singaporean Air Force – and this could be a gamechanger against Chinese interests in the region.
With Singapore’s acquisition of these aircraft, it could drastically change the arms balance in the South China Sea region where China and the U.S. are competing, and even beyond. This small island nation has a close alliance with the United States and has also joined the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia – all Commonwealth countries – in a military agreement known as the Five Powers Defence Arrangements. Singapore is also providing full support to the U.S. by allowing them use of the Paya Lebar Air Force Base, and U.S. warships can call at Sembawang Naval Base. The visits by U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump to the Paya Lebar base during their visit to the region also demonstrates Washington’s trust in Singapore and recognizes the critical geostrategic location of Singapore on international trades.
The Paya Lebar Air Base is home to 40 F-15s, and is also home to five aerial refuelling aircraft, the KC-130B. Changi East Air Base is equipped with 20 F-16s and four A330 MRTT aerial refuelling aircraft. The A330 MRTT’s are essentially a refuelling machine tied to a fighter. This greatly increases the radius of action. Not only can the F-35 be refuelled in the air, but it can also land on allied, especially American, aircraft carriers. For example, an American Wasp-class assault ship can support the F-35’s offensive actions.
Singapore is located on a junction of the Malacca Straits, a crucial sea lane in Southeast Asia that has about 50,000 mercantile ships pass through every year. The Malacca Straits, strategically and economically, is one of the most important sea lanes in the entire world, in equal importance to the Suez and Panama Canals. This is because the Malacca Straits is the main sea route connecting the Indian Ocean with the Pacific Ocean. The route runs along the southern shore of the island and Singapore controls the airspace above it, making it one of the most important sea lanes in the world, especially for international Chinese trade and the Belt and Road Initiative. It is for this reason that Singapore has become another flashpoint in the China-U.S. rivalry in the region as any blockage of this sea lane from Chinese ships will significantly impact China’s economy.
Although Singapore is more aligned with the U.S., its air force does not match its ambitions. However, the acquisition of the U.S.-made F-35’s aims to create the island country into a powerful Small Power in one of the most important geostrategic locations in the world. The F-35 creates many advantages in the Malacca Straits for the U.S. and Singapore. In the event of a war in the region the Straits could be closed to China, creating significant economic and logistical problems for China’s engagement with the rest of the world.
In this way, Singapore’s acquisition of modern aircraft means not only increased control of the Straits, which is critical for military and commercial navigation, but also the possibility for the U.S. and Singapore to quickly dispatching reinforcements to areas where potential combat in the South China Sea, Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula, could occur. With Singapore’s F-35B, the small island country can also appear in unexpected places all across the region to assist their American allies in anti-China operations.
It is likely that Washington is turning Singapore into an important U.S. hub in the region to enact and serve its interests and prevent the ever-increasing influence of China in Southeast Asia. With Singapore becoming a regional hub for the U.S. military, there is the possibility that the U.S. Air Force can reduce its reliance on air refuelling and facilitates in possible combat operations. Therefore, there is little doubt that Singapore’s latest acquisition of these powerful warplanes is to further consolidate Singapore’s alliance with the U.S. and Commonwealth states who overwhelmingly represent the Old Order of the world system and are yet to accept the realities of the Multipolar System.
*
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 InfoBrics.
Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.


asiapacificresearch--2020-01-19--The TEPCO Trial: Prosecution and Acquittal after Japan’s Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown

On September 19 , 2019 , a panel of three professional judges in the Tokyo District Court acquitted three former executives of the Tokyo Electric Power Company ( TEPCO ) .
The defendants were former chairman Katsumata Tsunehisa ( 79 ) , and former vice presidents Takekuro Ichiro ( 73 ) and Muto Sakae ( 69 ) , who shared responsibility for the company ’ s nuclear energy sector .
They had been charged with criminal negligence1 for failing to prevent the meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant , which was precipitated by the earthquake and tsunami of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 18,000 people and forced 400,000 to evacuate their homes in order to escape the nuclear fallout ( Hasegawa , 2013 ) .2 The 3/11 earthquake was the most powerful ever recorded in Japan , and it was the fourth most powerful earthquake in the world since modern record keeping started in 1900 .
The tsunami it precipitated reached heights up to 40 meters ( 130 feet ) , and in some places the colossal swell traveled at 700 kmh ( 435 mph ) and surged 10 kilometers ( 6 miles ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious as the meltdowns at the Fukushima plant was the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl in Ukraine .
But while the Fukushima triple-disaster was severe , it was not precipitated by a low-probability event .
The 3/11 earthquake was a “ high-probability event , ” for massive earthquakes and tsunamis have been assaulting the northeastern coast of Japan for centuries – in 869 , 1611 , 1793 , 1896 , and 1933 ( Ramseyer , 2012 ) .
The size of the tsunami in 2011 was almost the same as the one in 1933 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political reactions to the meltdowns in Fukushima ( Samuels , 2013 ; Aldrich , 2019 ) .
Japan stopped using nuclear power for much of 2011 and 2012 , and its usage has remained low since then , though the administration of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo seems determined to restart many of the country ’ s reactors .
More broadly , several countries , including Germany , Italy , Belgium , and Taiwan , suspended or ended their use of nuclear power , and China suspended its plan to expand its use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New nuclear safety laws were also established in Japan , China , and South Korea , though in most of East Asia , major changes in the field of nuclear power seem unlikely because of “ nuclear power ’ s sunk-cost structure and embeddedness in national energy plans ” ( Fraser and Aldrich , 2019 , p.58 ) .
As for administrative law , Japan ’ s lax regulatory system ( Kingston , 2012 ) was reformed after 3/11 , with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency ( NISA ) and the Nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nuclear Regulation Authority ( NRA ) .
Government supervision of the nuclear industry was also transferred from the ministry responsible for promoting it ( the Ministry of Economy , Trade , & Industry , or METI ) to the Ministry of Environment ( MOE ) , which might result in more emphasis on safety and less on profit and the production of power ( time will tell ) .
In civil law , about 30 collective actions have been filed against TEPCO and government officials , in addition to some 400 individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Fukushima meltdown ( Jobin , 2019 , p.74 ) .
As of September 2019 , eight of the collective actions had resulted in judgments – and all found TEPCO liable ( Dooley , Yamamitsu , and Inoue , 2019 ) .3 And then there is the legal process through which criminal sanctions can be imposed .
Significant efforts were made to respond to the anti-social behavior of TEPCO executives and government officials by imposing punishment on those believed guilty of violating Japanese criminal law .
The central question in this essay is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for in the TEPCO case ?
We argue that , despite the acquittal of the TEPCO defendants , Japan ’ s criminal process did some good in this case , and that when it failed it did so in ways that are common in other systems of criminal justice .
The latter claim will be no consolation to the victims and survivors of 3/11 , but it does reflect how hard it is to hold corporations and their executives criminally accountable for the harms that they cause , not only in Japan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on the limits of criminal law and criminal procedure in a case that may be the biggest crime in postwar Japanese history , our point applies more broadly , for in many societies white-collar crime is “ the greatest crime problem of our age ” ( Coleman , 2002 , p. xi ) .4 Our essay proceeds in three parts .
Part one describes the complicated process of criminal prosecution through which charges were filed against the three TEPCO executives .
This part of our story involves a uniquely Japanese institution called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , which was reformed in 2009 to enable panels of 11 citizens to override the non-charge decisions of professional prosecutors .
Part two analyzes the reasoning of the Tokyo District Court and describes some of the reactions to its decision to acquit the executives .
Many Japanese were harshly critical of that decision , but Japanese prosecutors essentially said “ we told you so ” after the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to convict .
In our view , the verdicts in this case are troubling but unsurprising , for impunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in cases of “ mandatory prosecution ” ( kyosei kiso ) initiated by Japan ’ s PRCs .
Part three of this article concludes by suggesting some lessons to learn from the TEPCO trial .
Foremost among them is how difficult it is for criminal law and the institutions of criminal justice to control the conduct of corporations and their agents .
Important Study , incisive and carefully documented analysis : To Read the Complete Article on Asia Pacific Journal Japan in Focus , click Here

On September 19, 2019, a panel of three professional judges in the Tokyo District Court acquitted three former executives of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The defendants were former chairman Katsumata Tsunehisa (79), and former vice presidents Takekuro Ichiro (73) and Muto Sakae (69), who shared responsibility for the company’s nuclear energy sector. They had been charged with criminal negligence1 for failing to prevent the meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which was precipitated by the earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011, which killed more than 18,000 people and forced 400,000 to evacuate their homes in order to escape the nuclear fallout (Hasegawa, 2013).2
The 3/11 earthquake was the most powerful ever recorded in Japan, and it was the fourth most powerful earthquake in the world since modern record keeping started in 1900. The tsunami it precipitated reached heights up to 40 meters (130 feet), and in some places the colossal swell traveled at 700 kmh (435 mph) and surged 10 kilometers (6 miles) inland. The only nuclear accident as serious as the meltdowns at the Fukushima plant was the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl in Ukraine. But while the Fukushima triple-disaster was severe, it was not precipitated by a low-probability event. The 3/11 earthquake was a “high-probability event,” for massive earthquakes and tsunamis have been assaulting the northeastern coast of Japan for centuries – in 869, 1611, 1793, 1896, and 1933 (Ramseyer, 2012). The size of the tsunami in 2011 was almost the same as the one in 1933.
There have been many legal and political reactions to the meltdowns in Fukushima (Samuels, 2013; Aldrich, 2019). Japan stopped using nuclear power for much of 2011 and 2012, and its usage has remained low since then, though the administration of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo seems determined to restart many of the country’s reactors. More broadly, several countries, including Germany, Italy, Belgium, and Taiwan, suspended or ended their use of nuclear power, and China suspended its plan to expand its use of nuclear power for half a year.
New nuclear safety laws were also established in Japan, China, and South Korea, though in most of East Asia, major changes in the field of nuclear power seem unlikely because of “nuclear power’s sunk-cost structure and embeddedness in national energy plans” (Fraser and Aldrich, 2019, p.58). As for administrative law, Japan’s lax regulatory system (Kingston, 2012) was reformed after 3/11, with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) replaced by the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA). Government supervision of the nuclear industry was also transferred from the ministry responsible for promoting it (the Ministry of Economy, Trade, & Industry, or METI) to the Ministry of Environment (MOE), which might result in more emphasis on safety and less on profit and the production of power (time will tell). In civil law, about 30 collective actions have been filed against TEPCO and government officials, in addition to some 400 individual lawsuits filed nationwide by the victims of the Fukushima meltdown (Jobin, 2019, p.74). As of September 2019, eight of the collective actions had resulted in judgments – and all found TEPCO liable (Dooley, Yamamitsu, and Inoue, 2019).3
And then there is the legal process through which criminal sanctions can be imposed. Significant efforts were made to respond to the anti-social behavior of TEPCO executives and government officials by imposing punishment on those believed guilty of violating Japanese criminal law. The central question in this essay is this: what was the criminal process good for in the TEPCO case?
We argue that, despite the acquittal of the TEPCO defendants, Japan’s criminal process did some good in this case, and that when it failed it did so in ways that are common in other systems of criminal justice. The latter claim will be no consolation to the victims and survivors of 3/11, but it does reflect how hard it is to hold corporations and their executives criminally accountable for the harms that they cause, not only in Japan but in all countries. While we focus on the limits of criminal law and criminal procedure in a case that may be the biggest crime in postwar Japanese history, our point applies more broadly, for in many societies white-collar crime is “the greatest crime problem of our age” (Coleman, 2002, p. xi).4
Our essay proceeds in three parts. Part one describes the complicated process of criminal prosecution through which charges were filed against the three TEPCO executives. This part of our story involves a uniquely Japanese institution called the Prosecution Review Commission (kensatsu shinsakai), which was reformed in 2009 to enable panels of 11 citizens to override the non-charge decisions of professional prosecutors. Part two analyzes the reasoning of the Tokyo District Court and describes some of the reactions to its decision to acquit the executives. Many Japanese were harshly critical of that decision, but Japanese prosecutors essentially said “we told you so” after the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to convict. In our view, the verdicts in this case are troubling but unsurprising, for impunity is common both in white-collar crime cases and in cases of “mandatory prosecution” (kyosei kiso) initiated by Japan’s PRCs. Part three of this article concludes by suggesting some lessons to learn from the TEPCO trial. Foremost among them is how difficult it is for criminal law and the institutions of criminal justice to control the conduct of corporations and their agents.
Important Study, incisive and carefully documented analysis: To Read the Complete Article on Asia Pacific Journal Japan in Focus, click Here
**


asiapacificresearch--2020-01-17--Challenging the Flawed Premise Behind Pushing GMOs into Indian Agriculture

A common claim is that genetically modified organisms ( GMOs ) are essential to agriculture if we are to feed an ever-growing global population .
Supporters of genetically engineered ( GE ) crops argue that by increasing productivity and yields , this technology will also help boost farmers ’ incomes and lift many out of poverty .
Although in this article it will be argued that the performance of GE crops to date has been questionable , the main contention is that the pro-GMO lobby , both outside of India and within , has wasted no time in wrenching the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political contexts to use notions of ‘ helping farmers ’ and ‘ feeding the world ’ as lynchpins of its promotional strategy .
There exists a ‘ haughty imperialism ’ within the pro-GMO scientific lobby that aggressively pushes for a GMO ‘ solution ’ which is a distraction from the root causes of poverty , hunger and malnutrition and genuine solutions based on food justice and food sovereignty .
Last year , in the journal Current Science , Dr Deepak Pental , developer of genetically engineered ( GE ) mustard at Delhi University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same journal by eminent scientists PC Kesavan and MS Swaminathan which questioned the efficacy of and the need for genetically modified organisms ( GMOs ) in agriculture .
Pental argued that the two authors had aligned themselves with environmentalists and ideologues who have mindlessly attacked the use of genetic engineering ( GE ) technology to improve crops required for meeting the food and nutritional needs of a global population that is predicted to peak at 11.2 billion .
Pental added that aspects of the two authors ’ analysis are a reflection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the word ‘ mindlessly ’ is telling and betrays Pental ’ s own ideological disposition .
His words reflect tired industry-inspired rhetoric that says criticisms of GE technology are driven by ideology not fact .
If hunger and malnutrition are to be tackled effectively , the pro-GMO lobby must put aside this type of rhetoric , which is designed to close down debate .
It should accept valid concerns about the GMO paradigm and be willing to consider why the world already produces enough to feed 10 billion people but over two billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 821 million were classed as chronically undernourished in 2018 ) .
The performance of GE crops has been a hotly contested issue and , as highlighted in Kevasan and Swaminathan ’ s piece and by others , there is already sufficient evidence to question their efficacy , especially that of herbicide-tolerant crops ( which by 2007 already accounted for approximately 80 % of biotech-derived crops grown globally ) and the devastating impacts on the environment , human health and food security , not least in places like Latin America .
We should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solve problems in agriculture .
In their paper , Kesavan and Swaminathan argue that GE technology is supplementary and must be need based .
In more than 99 % of cases , they say that time-honoured conventional breeding is sufficient .
In this respect , conventional options and innovations that outperform GE must not be overlooked or sidelined in a rush by powerful interests like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to facilitate the introduction of GE crops into global agriculture ; crops which are highly financially lucrative for the corporations behind them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in place for GMOs because it is recognised that GE food/crops are not substantially equivalent to their non-GE counterparts .
Numerous studies have highlighted the flawed premise of ‘ substantial equivalence ’ .
Furthermore , from the outset of the GMO project , the sidelining of serious concerns about the technology has occurred and despite industry claims to the contrary , there is no scientific consensus on the health impacts of GE crops as noted by Hilbeck et al ( Environmental Sciences Europe , 2015 ) .
Adopting a precautionary principle where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach .
As Hilbeck et al note , both the Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GE crops and foods , in that they agree that GE differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GMOs are used in food or released into the environment .
There is sufficient reason to hold back on commercialising GE crops and to subject each GMO to independent , transparent environmental , social , economic and health impact evaluations .
Critics ’ concerns can not therefore be brushed aside by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided and the ‘ facts ’ about GE are indisputable .
Such claims are merely political posturing and part of a strategy to tip the policy agenda in favour of GE .
In India , various high-level reports have advised against the adoption of GE crops .
Appointed by the Supreme Court , the ‘ Technical Expert Committee ( TEC ) Final Report ’ ( 2013 ) was scathing about India ’ s prevailing regulatory system and highlighted its inadequacies and serious inherent conflicts of interest .
The TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crops .
As we have seen with the push to get GE mustard commercialised , the problems described by the TEC persist .
Through her numerous submissions to the Supreme Court , Aruna Rodrigues has argued that GE mustard is being pushed through based on outright regulatory delinquency .
It must also be noted that this crop is herbicide tolerant , which , as stated by the TEC , is wholly inappropriate for India with its small biodiverse , multi-cropping farms .
While the above discussion has only scratched the surface , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GE technology and various restrictions and moratoriums have not been driven by ‘ mindless ’ proclivities .
The ‘ gene revolution ’ is sometimes regarded as Green Revolution 2.0 .
The Green Revolution too was sold under the guise of ‘ feeding the world ’ .
However , emerging research indicates that in India it merely led to more wheat in the diet , while food productivity per capita showed no increase or actually decreased .
Globally , the Green Revolution dovetailed with the consolidation of an emerging global food regime based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking up prime agricultural land ) and ( unfair ) liberalised trade , linked to sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF structural adjustment-privatisation directives .
The outcomes have included a displacement of a food-producing peasantry , the consolidation of Western agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries from food self-sufficiency into food deficit areas .
And yet , the corporations behind this system of dependency and their lobbyists waste no time in spreading the message that this is the route to achieving food security .
Their interests lie in ‘ business as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms like ‘ foreign direct investment ’ and making India ‘ business friendly ’ , but behind the rhetoric lies the hard-nosed approach of globalised capitalism .
The intention is for India ’ s displaced cultivators to be retrained to work as cheap labour in the West ’ s offshored plants .
India is to be a fully incorporated subsidiary of global capitalism , with its agri-food sector restructured for the needs of global supply chains and a reserve army of labour that effectively serves to beat workers and unions in the West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malnutrition are not the result of a lack of productivity .
As long as these dynamics persist and food injustice remains an inbuilt feature of the global food regime , the rhetoric of GE being necessary for feeding the world will be seen for what it is : bombast .
Although India fares poorly in world hunger assessments , the country has achieved self-sufficiency in food grains and has ensured there is enough food ( in terms of calories ) available to feed its entire population .
It is the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millets and the second-largest producer of rice , wheat , sugarcane , groundnuts , vegetables , fruit and cotton .
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) , food security is achieved when all people , at all times , have physical , social and economic access to sufficient , safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life .
Food security for many Indians remains a distant dream .
Large sections of India ’ s population do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor do they have sufficiently diverse diets that provide adequate levels of micronutrients .
The Comprehensive National Nutrition Survey 2016-18 is the first-ever nationally representative nutrition survey of children and adolescents in India .
It found that 35 per cent of children under five were stunted , 22 per cent of school-age children were stunted while 24 per cent of adolescents were thin for their age .
People are not hungry in India because its farmers do not produce enough food .
Hunger and malnutrition result from various factors , including inadequate food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty ; in fact , the country continues to export food while millions remain hungry .
It ’ s a case of ‘ scarcity ’ amid abundance .
Where farmers ’ livelihoods are concerned , the pro-GMO lobby says GE will boost productivity and help secure cultivators a better income .
Again , this is misleading : it ignores crucial political and economic contexts .
Even with bumper harvests , Indian farmers still find themselves in financial distress .
India ’ s farmers are not experiencing financial hardship due to low productivity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ neoliberal policies , years of neglect and a deliberate strategy to displace smallholder agriculture at the behest of the World Bank and predatory global agri-food corporations .
Little wonder then that the calorie and essential nutrient intake of the rural poor has drastically fallen .
However , aside from putting a positive spin on the questionable performance of GMO agriculture , the pro-GMO lobby , both outside of India and within , has wasted no time in wrenching these issues from their political contexts to use the notions of ‘ helping farmers ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lynchpins of its promotional strategy .
GE was never intended to feed the world Many of the traditional practices of India ’ s small farmers are now recognised as sophisticated and appropriate for high-productive , sustainable agriculture .
It is no surprise therefore that a recent FAO high-level report has called for agroecology and smallholder farmers to be prioritised and invested in to achieve global sustainable food security .
It argues that scaling up agroecology offers potential solutions to many of the world ’ s most pressing problems , whether , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soil degradation , water shortages , unemployment or food security .
Agroecological principles represent a shift away from the reductionist yield-output industrial paradigm , which results in among other things enormous pressures on soil and water resources , to a more integrated low-input systems approach to food and agriculture that prioritises local food security , local calorific production , cropping patterns and diverse nutrition production per acre , water table stability , climate resilience , good soil structure and the ability to cope with evolving pests and disease pressures .
Such a system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food sovereignty , based on optimal self-sufficiency , the right to culturally appropriate food and local ownership and stewardship of common resources , such as land , water , soil and seeds .
Traditional production systems rely on the knowledge and expertise of farmers in contrast to imported ‘ solutions ’ .
Yet , if we take cotton cultivation in India as an example , farmers continue to be nudged away from traditional methods of farming and are being pushed towards ( illegal ) GE herbicide-tolerant cotton seeds .
Researchers Glenn Stone and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift from traditional practices to date does not appear to have benefited farmers .
This isn ’ t about giving farmers ‘ choice ’ where GE seeds and associated chemicals are concerned .
It is more about GE seed companies and weedicide manufactures seeking to leverage a highly lucrative market .
The potential for herbicide market growth in India is enormous and industry looked for sales to reach USD 800 million by 2019 .
The objective involves opening India to GE seeds with herbicide tolerance traits , the biotechnology industry ’ s biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent of the world ’ s GE crop acres in 2015 contain plants resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate and there is a new generation of crops resistant to 2,4-D coming through ) .
The aim is to break farmers ’ traditional pathways and move them onto corporate biotech/chemical treadmills for the benefit of industry .
Calls for agroecology and highlighting the benefits of traditional , small-scale agriculture are not based on a romantic yearning for the past or ‘ the peasantry ’ .
Available evidence suggests that ( non-GMO ) smallholder farming using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ output than large-scale industrial farms and can be more profitable and resilient to climate change .
It is for good reason that the FAO high-level report referred to earlier as well as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food , Prof Hilal Elver , call for investment in this type of agriculture , which is centred on small farms .
Despite the pressures , including the fact that globally industrial agriculture grabs 80 per cent of subsidies and 90 per cent of research funds , smallholder agriculture plays a major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a massive quantity of subsidies and funds to support a system that is only made profitable as a result of these financial injections and because agri-food oligopolies externalize the massive health , social and environmental costs of their operations .
But policy makers tend to accept that profit-driven transnational corporations have a legitimate claim to be owners and custodians of natural assets ( the ‘ commons ’ ) .
These corporations , their lobbyists and their political representatives have succeeded in cementing a ‘ thick legitimacy ’ among policy makers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bank ‘ enabling the business of agriculture ’ directives to the World Trade Organization ‘ agreement on agriculture ’ and trade related intellectual property agreements , international bodies have enshrined the interests of corporations that seek to monopolise seeds , land , water , biodiversity and other natural assets that belong to us all .
These corporations , the promoters of GMO agriculture , are not offering a ‘ solution ’ for farmers ’ impoverishment or hunger ; GE seeds are little more than a value capture mechanism .
To evaluate the pro-GMO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed to ‘ feed the world ’ , we first need to understand the dynamics of a globalised food system that fuels hunger and malnutrition against a backdrop of ( subsidised ) food overproduction .
We must acknowledge the destructive , predatory dynamics of capitalism and the need for agri-food giants to maintain profits by seeking out new ( foreign ) markets and displacing existing systems of production with ones that serve their bottom line .
And we need to reject a deceptive ‘ haughty imperialism ’ within the pro-GMO scientific lobby which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ .
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 .

A common claim is that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are essential to agriculture if we are to feed an ever-growing global population. Supporters of genetically engineered (GE) crops argue that by increasing productivity and yields, this technology will also help boost farmers’ incomes and lift many out of poverty. Although in this article it will be argued that the performance of GE crops to date has been questionable, the main contention is that the pro-GMO lobby, both outside of India and within, has wasted no time in wrenching the issues of hunger and poverty from their political contexts to use notions of ‘helping farmers’ and ‘feeding the world’ as lynchpins of its promotional strategy. There exists a ‘haughty imperialism’ within the pro-GMO scientific lobby that aggressively pushes for a GMO ‘solution’ which is a distraction from the root causes of poverty, hunger and malnutrition and genuine solutions based on food justice and food sovereignty.
Last year, in the journal Current Science, Dr Deepak Pental, developer of genetically engineered (GE) mustard at Delhi University, responded to a previous paper in the same journal by eminent scientists PC Kesavan and MS Swaminathan which questioned the efficacy of and the need for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. Pental argued that the two authors had aligned themselves with environmentalists and ideologues who have mindlessly attacked the use of genetic engineering (GE) technology to improve crops required for meeting the food and nutritional needs of a global population that is predicted to peak at 11.2 billion. Pental added that aspects of the two authors’ analysis are a reflection of their ideological proclivities.
The use of the word ‘mindlessly’ is telling and betrays Pental’s own ideological disposition. His words reflect tired industry-inspired rhetoric that says criticisms of GE technology are driven by ideology not fact.
If hunger and malnutrition are to be tackled effectively, the pro-GMO lobby must put aside this type of rhetoric, which is designed to close down debate. It should accept valid concerns about the GMO paradigm and be willing to consider why the world already produces enough to feed 10 billion people but over two billion are experiencing micronutrient deficiencies (of which 821 million were classed as chronically undernourished in 2018).
Critics: valid concerns or ideologues?
The performance of GE crops has been a hotly contested issue and, as highlighted in Kevasan and Swaminathan’s piece and by others, there is already sufficient evidence to question their efficacy, especially that of herbicide-tolerant crops (which by 2007 already accounted for approximately 80% of biotech-derived crops grown globally) and the devastating impacts on the environment, human health and food security, not least in places like Latin America.
We should not accept the premise that only GE can solve problems in agriculture. In their paper, Kesavan and Swaminathan argue that GE technology is supplementary and must be need based. In more than 99% of cases, they say that time-honoured conventional breeding is sufficient. In this respect, conventional options and innovations that outperform GE must not be overlooked or sidelined in a rush by powerful interests like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to facilitate the introduction of GE crops into global agriculture; crops which are highly financially lucrative for the corporations behind them.
In Europe, robust regulatory mechanisms are in place for GMOs because it is recognised that GE food/crops are not substantially equivalent to their non-GE counterparts. Numerous studies have highlighted the flawed premise of ‘substantial equivalence’. Furthermore, from the outset of the GMO project, the sidelining of serious concerns about the technology has occurred and despite industry claims to the contrary, there is no scientific consensus on the health impacts of GE crops as noted by Hilbeck et al (Environmental Sciences Europe, 2015). Adopting a precautionary principle where GE is concerned is therefore a valid approach.
As Hilbeck et al note, both the Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GE crops and foods, in that they agree that GE differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GMOs are used in food or released into the environment. There is sufficient reason to hold back on commercialising GE crops and to subject each GMO to independent, transparent environmental, social, economic and health impact evaluations.
Critics’ concerns cannot therefore be brushed aside by claims that ‘the science’ is decided and the ‘facts’ about GE are indisputable. Such claims are merely political posturing and part of a strategy to tip the policy agenda in favour of GE.
In India, various high-level reports have advised against the adoption of GE crops. Appointed by the Supreme Court, the ‘Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report’ (2013) was scathing about India’s prevailing regulatory system and highlighted its inadequacies and serious inherent conflicts of interest. The TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on the commercial release of all GE crops.
As we have seen with the push to get GE mustard commercialised, the problems described by the TEC persist. Through her numerous submissions to the Supreme Court, Aruna Rodrigues has argued that GE mustard is being pushed through based on outright regulatory delinquency. It must also be noted that this crop is herbicide tolerant, which, as stated by the TEC, is wholly inappropriate for India with its small biodiverse, multi-cropping farms.
While the above discussion has only scratched the surface, it is fair to say that criticisms of GE technology and various restrictions and moratoriums have not been driven by ‘mindless’ proclivities.
Can GE crops ‘feed the world’?
The ‘gene revolution’ is sometimes regarded as Green Revolution 2.0. The Green Revolution too was sold under the guise of ‘feeding the world’. However, emerging research indicates that in India it merely led to more wheat in the diet, while food productivity per capita showed no increase or actually decreased.
Globally, the Green Revolution dovetailed with the consolidation of an emerging global food regime based on agro-export mono-cropping (often with non-food commodities taking up prime agricultural land) and (unfair) liberalised trade, linked to sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF structural adjustment-privatisation directives. The outcomes have included a displacement of a food-producing peasantry, the consolidation of Western agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries from food self-sufficiency into food deficit areas. And yet, the corporations behind this system of dependency and their lobbyists waste no time in spreading the message that this is the route to achieving food security. Their interests lie in ‘business as usual’.
Today, we hear terms like ‘foreign direct investment’ and making India ‘business friendly’, but behind the rhetoric lies the hard-nosed approach of globalised capitalism. The intention is for India’s displaced cultivators to be retrained to work as cheap labour in the West’s offshored plants. India is to be a fully incorporated subsidiary of global capitalism, with its agri-food sector restructured for the needs of global supply chains and a reserve army of labour that effectively serves to beat workers and unions in the West into submission.
Global food insecurity and malnutrition are not the result of a lack of productivity. As long as these dynamics persist and food injustice remains an inbuilt feature of the global food regime, the rhetoric of GE being necessary for feeding the world will be seen for what it is: bombast.
Although India fares poorly in world hunger assessments, the country has achieved self-sufficiency in food grains and has ensured there is enough food (in terms of calories) available to feed its entire population. It is the world’s largest producer of milk, pulses and millets and the second-largest producer of rice, wheat, sugarcane, groundnuts, vegetables, fruit and cotton.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), food security is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
Food security for many Indians remains a distant dream. Large sections of India’s population do not have enough food available to remain healthy nor do they have sufficiently diverse diets that provide adequate levels of micronutrients. The Comprehensive National Nutrition Survey 2016-18 is the first-ever nationally representative nutrition survey of children and adolescents in India. It found that 35 per cent of children under five were stunted, 22 per cent of school-age children were stunted while 24 per cent of adolescents were thin for their age.
People are not hungry in India because its farmers do not produce enough food. Hunger and malnutrition result from various factors, including inadequate food distribution, (gender) inequality and poverty; in fact, the country continues to export food while millions remain hungry. It’s a case of ‘scarcity’ amid abundance.
Where farmers’ livelihoods are concerned, the pro-GMO lobby says GE will boost productivity and help secure cultivators a better income. Again, this is misleading: it ignores crucial political and economic contexts. Even with bumper harvests, Indian farmers still find themselves in financial distress.
India’s farmers are not experiencing financial hardship due to low productivity. They are reeling from the effects of neoliberal policies, years of neglect and a deliberate strategy to displace smallholder agriculture at the behest of the World Bank and predatory global agri-food corporations . Little wonder then that the calorie and essential nutrient intake of the rural poor has drastically fallen.
However, aside from putting a positive spin on the questionable performance of GMO agriculture, the pro-GMO lobby, both outside of India and within, has wasted no time in wrenching these issues from their political contexts to use the notions of ‘helping farmers’ and ‘feeding the world’ as lynchpins of its promotional strategy.
GE was never intended to feed the world
Many of the traditional practices of India’s small farmers are now recognised as sophisticated and appropriate for high-productive, sustainable agriculture. It is no surprise therefore that a recent FAO high-level report has called for agroecology and smallholder farmers to be prioritised and invested in to achieve global sustainable food security. It argues that scaling up agroecology offers potential solutions to many of the world’s most pressing problems, whether, for instance, climate change and carbon storage, soil degradation, water shortages, unemployment or food security.
Agroecological principles represent a shift away from the reductionist yield-output industrial paradigm, which results in among other things enormous pressures on soil and water resources, to a more integrated low-input systems approach to food and agriculture that prioritises local food security, local calorific production, cropping patterns and diverse nutrition production per acre, water table stability, climate resilience, good soil structure and the ability to cope with evolving pests and disease pressures. Such a system would be underpinned by a concept of food sovereignty, based on optimal self-sufficiency, the right to culturally appropriate food and local ownership and stewardship of common resources, such as land, water, soil and seeds.
Traditional production systems rely on the knowledge and expertise of farmers in contrast to imported ‘solutions’. Yet, if we take cotton cultivation in India as an example, farmers continue to be nudged away from traditional methods of farming and are being pushed towards (illegal) GE herbicide-tolerant cotton seeds. Researchers Glenn Stone and Andrew Flachs note the results of this shift from traditional practices to date does not appear to have benefited farmers. This isn’t about giving farmers ‘choice’ where GE seeds and associated chemicals are concerned. It is more about GE seed companies and weedicide manufactures seeking to leverage a highly lucrative market.
The potential for herbicide market growth in India is enormous and industry looked for sales to reach USD 800 million by 2019. The objective involves opening India to GE seeds with herbicide tolerance traits, the biotechnology industry’s biggest money maker by far (86 per cent of the world’s GE crop acres in 2015 contain plants resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate and there is a new generation of crops resistant to 2,4-D coming through).
The aim is to break farmers’ traditional pathways and move them onto corporate biotech/chemical treadmills for the benefit of industry.
Calls for agroecology and highlighting the benefits of traditional, small-scale agriculture are not based on a romantic yearning for the past or ‘the peasantry’. Available evidence suggests that (non-GMO) smallholder farming using low-input methods is more productive in total output than large-scale industrial farms and can be more profitable and resilient to climate change. It is for good reason that the FAO high-level report referred to earlier as well as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Prof Hilal Elver, call for investment in this type of agriculture, which is centred on small farms. Despite the pressures, including the fact that globally industrial agriculture grabs 80 per cent of subsidies and 90 per cent of research funds, smallholder agriculture plays a major role in feeding the world.
That’s a massive quantity of subsidies and funds to support a system that is only made profitable as a result of these financial injections and because agri-food oligopolies externalize the massive health, social and environmental costs of their operations.
But policy makers tend to accept that profit-driven transnational corporations have a legitimate claim to be owners and custodians of natural assets (the ‘commons’). These corporations, their lobbyists and their political representatives have succeeded in cementing a ‘thick legitimacy’ among policy makers for their vision of agriculture.
From World Bank ‘enabling the business of agriculture’ directives to the World Trade Organization ‘agreement on agriculture’ and trade related intellectual property agreements, international bodies have enshrined the interests of corporations that seek to monopolise seeds, land, water, biodiversity and other natural assets that belong to us all. These corporations, the promoters of GMO agriculture, are not offering a ‘solution’ for farmers’ impoverishment or hunger; GE seeds are little more than a value capture mechanism.
To evaluate the pro-GMO lobby’s rhetoric that GE is needed to ‘feed the world’, we first need to understand the dynamics of a globalised food system that fuels hunger and malnutrition against a backdrop of (subsidised) food overproduction. We must acknowledge the destructive, predatory dynamics of capitalism and the need for agri-food giants to maintain profits by seeking out new (foreign) markets and displacing existing systems of production with ones that serve their bottom line. And we need to reject a deceptive ‘haughty imperialism’ within the pro-GMO scientific lobby which aggressively pushes for a GMO ‘solution’.
*
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--2020-01-16--Australia’s Fires and Air Pollution, Tennis and Sporting Officialdom

They are disgruntled and have every right to be .
Whatever one ’ s feelings about tennis , expecting athletes to perform in subpar conditions is a rank matter that should see officials taken to task .
But administrators of a game are often distant from the practice of the game itself .
Being on different , cognitive paths , the players can be left stunned by decisions that have the estranging effect of being made in committee .
The pressing issue at the Australian Tennis Open this year is the air quality that has had a ruinous effect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of conflagration , marked by plumes so expansive they are moving out across the Pacific , was bound to affect sporting tournaments .
On Tuesday , a warning advising people to stay indoors in Melbourne was issued .
This did not prevent spectators making their way to Melbourne Park , equipped with breathing masks .
Nor did it prevent players from taking to the courts to do battle .
The first casualty was Slovenian player Dalila Jakupović , ranked 210 by the Women ’ s Tennis Association .
With some reluctance , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Monday against Switzerland ’ s Stefanie Vögele .
Coughing fits had become impossible to ignore .
“ It was very dangerous to play in those conditions yesterday , ” she subsequently said .
Nor did it stop with her .
“ I think all of the players yesterday suffered more than the ones playing today because not all matches are going to be finished today.
” Players complained of “ headaches ” , “ chest pains ” and breathing problems .
Canada ’ s Genie Bouchard and Australia ’ s own Bernard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I ’ m never one to stop playing , ” Bouchard would claim , “ but I definitely started felling unwell and I had to call the trainer because it was tough to breathe and I felt a bit nauseous.
” The spectacle of Bouchard suffering and her opponent , Xiaodi You , being reduced to near immobility , said much of an increasingly absurd spectacle .
All of this left Bouchard perplexed .
“ It ’ s not healthy for us .
I was surprised , thought we would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have much choice.
” She insisted in her explanation to ABC News that she was a hardened professional , not asthmatic and more than capable .
Other matches have been abandoned .
An exhibition match between Maria Sharapova and Germany ’ s Laura Siegemund was called off after both players felt distinctly off with respiratory issues .
The players have been less than impressed .
Ukraine ’ s world No .
5 Elina Svitolina was eyeing the World Air Quality Index , and revealed her concerns on Twitter .
“ Why do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to happen to do an action ” ?
American Nicole Gibbs felt cheated , wondering if she had played in hazardous conditions without being sufficiently informed .
Others like Britain ’ s Harriet Dart were careful before going out on court , mindful of staying indoors .
For all these utterances , few came close in incandescent rage than Liam Brody ’ s determined salvo .
“ The more I think about the conditions we played in a few days ago , ” he fumed , “ the more it boils my blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slide.
” Most off-putting for Brody was the email from both the ATP and AO , deemed “ a slap in the face ” .
“ Citizens of Melbourne were warned to keep their animals indoors the day I played qualifying , and yet we were expected to go outside for high intensity physical competition ?
” Within Brody ’ s revolt lies the broader problem with lower ranked tennis players .
When they splutter and suffer on the courts , the protective padding is nowhere to be seen .
Where , posed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ players , both male and female ?
” Canadian player Vasek Pospisil seconded the idea of a player ’ s union .
Fellow countryman Brayden Schnur insisted that establishment stars such as Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer needed to take the lead and escape their sponsorship cocooned Nirvana .
“ It ’ s got to come from the top guys.
” A swipe of some pettiness duly followed .
“ Roger and Rafa are a little bit selfish in thinking about themselves and their careers.
” This Australian Open seems to be coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters of health and elite players who collect their sponsorship moneys without asking too many questions .
Squeaky clean Federer has found himself in the cross fire of the climate change skirmishes , criticised for leaving his wallet open for the likes of Credit Suisse , a company with an extensive portfolio of shares in fossil-fuel industries .
His cool and polished counter , largely directed at climate change activist Greta Thunberg , claimed that he took “ the impacts and threat of climate change very seriously ” and appreciated “ reminders of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The choking fires in Australia had also moved him and his family .
The response from AO officials has been laced with smidgens of callousness layered by indifference .
There are no emergency measures of the sort taken by Beijing just prior and during the 2008 Olympic games .
( These , as researchers found on closer inspection , led to improvements in cardiovascular health . )
Australian Open tournament director and Tennis Australia chief executive Craig Tiley is using an old trick : nothing to worry about ; the experts have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a new experience for us all , how we manage air quality and therefore we have got to rely on those experts that advise us how best to continue.
” Air-quality testing boffins , he tried to reassure sceptics , had been busy , including environmentalists , scientists and meteorologists .
Criticism of the conditions could be put down to ignorance .
“ Air quality is a very complex and confusing issue.
” No pressing concerns had been registered by such bodies as the Environmental Protection Authority .
Tiley also claimed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the Association of Tennis Professionals and the Women ’ s Tennis Association .
Any speculation about the event being cancelled could be scotched .
“ There is a lot of speculation about the Australian Open not happening .
The Australian Open is happening.
” None of the options for sporting officialdom are appealing .
In the name of health , postponement and cancellation are serious options .
But all of this requires a degree of selfless professionalism that is not in evidence so far .
Perhaps Svitolina is right : something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something is actually done .
Tiley prefers to be fatalistic .
Such conditions would have to come to be accepted over time .
“ It is potentially the new normal.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protected ]

They are disgruntled and have every right to be. Whatever one’s feelings about tennis, expecting athletes to perform in subpar conditions is a rank matter that should see officials taken to task. But administrators of a game are often distant from the practice of the game itself. Being on different, cognitive paths, the players can be left stunned by decisions that have the estranging effect of being made in committee.
The pressing issue at the Australian Tennis Open this year is the air quality that has had a ruinous effect on wildlife. Australia’s unprecedented summer of conflagration, marked by plumes so expansive they are moving out across the Pacific, was bound to affect sporting tournaments. On Tuesday, a warning advising people to stay indoors in Melbourne was issued. This did not prevent spectators making their way to Melbourne Park, equipped with breathing masks. Nor did it prevent players from taking to the courts to do battle.
The first casualty was Slovenian player Dalila Jakupović, ranked 210 by the Women’s Tennis Association. With some reluctance, the plucky player withdrew from her qualifying match on Monday against Switzerland’s Stefanie Vögele. Coughing fits had become impossible to ignore. “It was very dangerous to play in those conditions yesterday,” she subsequently said. Nor did it stop with her. “I think all of the players yesterday suffered more than the ones playing today because not all matches are going to be finished today.” Players complained of “headaches”, “chest pains” and breathing problems.
Canada’s Genie Bouchard and Australia’s own Bernard Tomic also faced delays during their sessions. “I’m never one to stop playing,” Bouchard would claim, “but I definitely started felling unwell and I had to call the trainer because it was tough to breathe and I felt a bit nauseous.” The spectacle of Bouchard suffering and her opponent, Xiaodi You, being reduced to near immobility, said much of an increasingly absurd spectacle.
All of this left Bouchard perplexed. “It’s not healthy for us. I was surprised, thought we would not be playing today but we don’t have much choice.” She insisted in her explanation to ABC News that she was a hardened professional, not asthmatic and more than capable.
Other matches have been abandoned. An exhibition match between Maria Sharapova and Germany’s Laura Siegemund was called off after both players felt distinctly off with respiratory issues.
The players have been less than impressed. Ukraine’s world No. 5 Elina Svitolina was eyeing the World Air Quality Index, and revealed her concerns on Twitter. “Why do we need to wait for something bad to happen to do an action”? American Nicole Gibbs felt cheated, wondering if she had played in hazardous conditions without being sufficiently informed. Others like Britain’s Harriet Dart were careful before going out on court, mindful of staying indoors.
For all these utterances, few came close in incandescent rage than Liam Brody’s determined salvo. “The more I think about the conditions we played in a few days ago,” he fumed, “the more it boils my blood. We can’t let this slide.” Most off-putting for Brody was the email from both the ATP and AO, deemed “a slap in the face”. “Citizens of Melbourne were warned to keep their animals indoors the day I played qualifying, and yet we were expected to go outside for high intensity physical competition?”
Within Brody’s revolt lies the broader problem with lower ranked tennis players. When they splutter and suffer on the courts, the protective padding is nowhere to be seen. Where, posed Brody, “is the protection for players , both male and female?” Canadian player Vasek Pospisil seconded the idea of a player’s union. Fellow countryman Brayden Schnur insisted that establishment stars such as Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer needed to take the lead and escape their sponsorship cocooned Nirvana. “It’s got to come from the top guys.” A swipe of some pettiness duly followed. “Roger and Rafa are a little bit selfish in thinking about themselves and their careers.”
This Australian Open seems to be coming full circle, linking ecological disaster to matters of health and elite players who collect their sponsorship moneys without asking too many questions. Squeaky clean Federer has found himself in the cross fire of the climate change skirmishes, criticised for leaving his wallet open for the likes of Credit Suisse, a company with an extensive portfolio of shares in fossil-fuel industries. His cool and polished counter, largely directed at climate change activist Greta Thunberg, claimed that he took “the impacts and threat of climate change very seriously” and appreciated “reminders of my responsibility as a private individual”. The choking fires in Australia had also moved him and his family.
The response from AO officials has been laced with smidgens of callousness layered by indifference. There are no emergency measures of the sort taken by Beijing just prior and during the 2008 Olympic games. (These, as researchers found on closer inspection, led to improvements in cardiovascular health.) Australian Open tournament director and Tennis Australia chief executive Craig Tiley is using an old trick: nothing to worry about; the experts have it all in hand. “This is a new experience for us all, how we manage air quality and therefore we have got to rely on those experts that advise us how best to continue.”
Air-quality testing boffins, he tried to reassure sceptics, had been busy, including environmentalists, scientists and meteorologists. Criticism of the conditions could be put down to ignorance. “Air quality is a very complex and confusing issue.” No pressing concerns had been registered by such bodies as the Environmental Protection Authority.
Tiley also claimed to have the support of the relevant bodies, including the Association of Tennis Professionals and the Women’s Tennis Association. Any speculation about the event being cancelled could be scotched. “There is a lot of speculation about the Australian Open not happening. The Australian Open is happening.”
None of the options for sporting officialdom are appealing. In the name of health, postponement and cancellation are serious options. But all of this requires a degree of selfless professionalism that is not in evidence so far. Perhaps Svitolina is right: something drastically harmful will need to manifest before something is actually done. Tiley prefers to be fatalistic. Such conditions would have to come to be accepted over time. “It is potentially the new normal.”
*
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]