foreignpolicy--2020-10-15--Why India Is Debating Secularism Again

Why India Is Debating Secularism Again

Why India Is Debating Secularism Again Welcome to Foreign Policy ’ s South Asia Brief .
Today : What to make of the controversy over an Indian jewelry brand ’ s withdrawn advertisement , Sri Lanka turns to China amid a growing debt crisis , a new survey predicts how Indian Americans will vote on Nov. 3 , and what we ’ re watching on Netflix .
If you would like to receive South Asia Brief in your inbox every Thursday , please sign up here .
It was a seemingly innocuous TV commercial .
A Hindu woman and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Muslim man ’ s mother—trying to make her daughter-in-law feel welcome—organizes a baby shower in a traditional Hindu manner .
It ’ s a feel-good family moment .
( And cue the advertisement for Tanishq jewelry , which the Hindu woman happily receives . )
The controversy .
Almost immediately after the commercial aired over the weekend , # BoycottTanishq began trending on social media in India .
Things escalated quickly .
Tanishq stores around the country received threatening calls , and some Twitter users accused Tanishq of promoting so-called “ Love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslim men forcibly convert Hindu women .
By Tuesday , Tanishq had had enough .
It took down the advertisement and issued a statement saying the company was “ deeply saddened with the inadvertent stirring of emotions ” and that it would remove the advertisement “ keeping in mind the hurt sentiments and well being of our employees , partners , and store staff.
” What it means .
The speed with which the simple video celebrating an interfaith relationship was brought down is stunning , especially considering that Tanishq is owned by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s biggest conglomerates with interests in industries as diverse as steel , information technology , and tea .
The calls to ban the advertisement reveal the growing dominance of an ugly side of Indian culture and politics .
“ Love Jihad ” is not only a bizarre conspiracy theory built around a false notion of Hindus under siege , but it is also underpinned by the backward view that a woman is a man ’ s property—hence the anger over a beautiful Hindu bride in a Muslim family .
The weaponization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s India encourages such beliefs .
Last year , the government adopted a new citizenship law that allowed refugees from neighboring countries to naturalize as long as they weren ’ t Muslim .
India ’ s 200 million Muslims now have ample reason to feel threatened despite the fact that secularism is enshrined in the country ’ s constitution .
The controversy over the Tanishq commercial will only make things worse .
Secular is becoming a dirty word .
On Monday , Maharashtra Gov .
Bhagat Singh Koshyari wrote a letter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Uddhav Thackeray , mockingly asking if he had turned secular after Thackeray shut down places of worship because of the coronavirus pandemic .
Thackeray , as president of the right-wing Shiv Sena party , hardly needed to be goaded on his Hindu-nationalist credentials .
But such is the moment India finds itself in .
In the absence of viable national alternatives , Modi ’ s Bharatiya Janata Party will continue to equate secularism—a calling card of the opposition Indian National Congress—with weakness and the appeasement of minorities .
And with it , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cementing its mainstream presence .
Coronavirus update .
The good news is that the growth rate of coronavirus infections seems to be slowing in India .
The bad news is that it ’ s difficult to believe the data , and several models show that the real number of new cases is orders of magnitude greater than those confirmed .
Either way , India is still on track to surpass the United States as the country with the most recorded cases of the coronavirus sometime in November .
Below is our four-week snapshot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asia .
Sri Lanka ’ s economic woes .
Sri Lanka is increasingly turning to China to help it combat a worsening financial crisis and debt problem .
On Sunday , the Chinese Embassy in Colombo tweeted that Beijing was considering a $ 500 million loan to the island country , adding mysteriously that “ Haters never understand love ” —likely a reference to fears that China may expect too much in return .
Sri Lanka doesn ’ t have too many options left , given its weak credit rating .
As Nikkei @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion of foreign debt on its books and has required 16 bailouts from the International Monetary Fund in the last 55 years .
Only Pakistan has needed more help .
Meanwhile , the Hindu reports that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo may visit Sri Lanka at the end of October , around the time of a scheduled visit to India with Defense Secretary Mark Esper .
And that brings us to… Biegun ’ s India visit .
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun was in New Delhi this week , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forum that in addition to increased defense sales and intelligence sharing with India , he believed Washington could help in “ strengthening India ’ s ability to defend itself and by promoting interoperability among our militaries.
” But he added that “ as we advance in this direction , there is an elephant in the room : China.
” Biegun ’ s visit closely followed the so-called Quad meetings in Tokyo last week between high-level delegations from Australia , India , Japan , and the United States .
Bangladesh and capital punishment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill allowing courts to sentence convicted rapists to death .
Previously , the maximum allowed punishment was a life sentence .
The decision comes after large protests in Dhaka and other cities over rape and sexual assault .
While the threat of capital punishment adds a theoretical deterrent , it is no solution : The vast majority of rapes go unreported in Bangladesh , and less than 1 percent end in conviction .
On Thursday—just a few hours ago and just two days after the new law was announced—a court in the northern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death for the 2012 gang rape of a 15-year-old girl .
How will Indian Americans vote on Nov. 3 ?
There has been much discussion on this topic in recent weeks , especially since U.S. Democratic nominee Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris , whose mother was Indian , as his running mate .
But there has been very little data to understand how Indian Americans , who comprise nearly 1 percent of registered U.S. voters , might vote .
A new study by Sumitra Badrinathan , Devesh Kapur , and Milan Vaishnav seeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 72 percent of Indian Americans plan to vote for Biden , while only 22 percent signaled their intention to vote for Donald Trump .
Read the full report .
India ’ s coronavirus stimulus plan .
New Delhi has announced a plan to pump $ 10 billion into its economy in a bid to revive growth after a 24 percent year-on-year contraction last quarter .
The money is expected to give federal employees advance wages , among other measures designed to boost consumer spending ahead of the traditional festival season in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister Nirmala Sitharaman tried to head off criticism of the relatively small stimulus with a call for fiscal prudence , saying that “ today ’ s solution should not cause tomorrow ’ s problem.
” Pakistan bans TikTok .
While countries such as India have banned TikTok over national security concerns , Pakistan ’ s telecommunications regulator blocked the Chinese-owned app last Friday for failing to block “ immoral and indecent ” content .
The ban is not permanent : If TikTok puts a system in place to filter what Pakistan deems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be allowed to operate once again .
TikTok has 20 million active users in Pakistan , and the move against it is likely not geopolitical .
Last month , Islamabad also banned the dating apps Tinder and Grindr amid a broader national campaign to set conservative mores on the internet .
As Netflix continues to invest billions of dollars in international content for its growing global audience , it has a lot of new shows and movies from India .
A couple worth trying : Bad Boy Billionaires : India , a four-part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down by allegations of fraud , and Serious Men , a movie based on the novel by Manu Joseph starring the Bollywood actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui .
The series about the country ’ s failed tycoons reveals the growth of a brash new India in which making—and enjoying—big money is celebrated .
The former liquor baron and airline owner Vijay Mallya , for example , was a self-styled “ King of Good Times ” who peddled a version of the Indian Dream until his rash decisions and bad loans caught up with him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectrum , Serious Men tells the story of a Dalit man whose rash decisions also caught up with him .
Siddiqui plays a lower-middle-class father who will do anything to see his son become a celebrity—including falsely parading him as a child genius researching alien life in space .
The story feels improbable and bizarre , but I think it gets to the heart of something that Bad Boy Billionaires also tried to reveal : a citizenry with oversized , unlikely dreams .
That ’ s it for this week .
We welcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can find older editions of South Asia Brief here .
For more from FP , subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters .

Welcome to Foreign Policy’s South Asia Brief. Today: What to make of the controversy over an Indian jewelry brand’s withdrawn advertisement , Sri Lanka turns to China amid a growing debt crisis, a new survey predicts how Indian Americans will vote on Nov. 3 , and what we’re watching on Netflix .
Welcome to Foreign Policy’s South Asia Brief. Today: What to make of the controversy over an Indian jewelry brand’s withdrawn advertisement, Sri Lanka turns to China amid a growing debt crisis, a new survey predicts how Indian Americans will vote on Nov. 3, and what we’re watching on Netflix.
If you would like to receive South Asia Brief in your inbox every Thursday, please sign up here.
Why a Commercial About Unity Splits Indians
It was a seemingly innocuous TV commercial. A Hindu woman and her Muslim husband are expecting a baby. The Muslim man’s mother—trying to make her daughter-in-law feel welcome—organizes a baby shower in a traditional Hindu manner. It’s a feel-good family moment. (And cue the advertisement for Tanishq jewelry, which the Hindu woman happily receives.)
The controversy. Almost immediately after the commercial aired over the weekend, #BoycottTanishq began trending on social media in India. Things escalated quickly. Tanishq stores around the country received threatening calls, and some Twitter users accused Tanishq of promoting so-called “Love Jihad”—a debunked conspiracy theory that Muslim men forcibly convert Hindu women.
By Tuesday, Tanishq had had enough. It took down the advertisement and issued a statement saying the company was “deeply saddened with the inadvertent stirring of emotions” and that it would remove the advertisement “keeping in mind the hurt sentiments and well being of our employees, partners, and store staff.”
What it means. The speed with which the simple video celebrating an interfaith relationship was brought down is stunning, especially considering that Tanishq is owned by the Tata Group, one of the country’s biggest conglomerates with interests in industries as diverse as steel, information technology, and tea.
The calls to ban the advertisement reveal the growing dominance of an ugly side of Indian culture and politics. “Love Jihad” is not only a bizarre conspiracy theory built around a false notion of Hindus under siege, but it is also underpinned by the backward view that a woman is a man’s property—hence the anger over a beautiful Hindu bride in a Muslim family.
The weaponization of Hinduism in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s India encourages such beliefs. Last year, the government adopted a new citizenship law that allowed refugees from neighboring countries to naturalize as long as they weren’t Muslim. India’s 200 million Muslims now have ample reason to feel threatened despite the fact that secularism is enshrined in the country’s constitution. The controversy over the Tanishq commercial will only make things worse.
Secular is becoming a dirty word. On Monday, Maharashtra Gov. Bhagat Singh Koshyari wrote a letter to the state’s chief minister, Uddhav Thackeray, mockingly asking if he had turned secular after Thackeray shut down places of worship because of the coronavirus pandemic. Thackeray, as president of the right-wing Shiv Sena party, hardly needed to be goaded on his Hindu-nationalist credentials.
But such is the moment India finds itself in. In the absence of viable national alternatives, Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party will continue to equate secularism—a calling card of the opposition Indian National Congress—with weakness and the appeasement of minorities. And with it, a more muscular brand of Hindu nationalism is cementing its mainstream presence.
What We’re Following
Coronavirus update. The good news is that the growth rate of coronavirus infections seems to be slowing in India. The bad news is that it’s difficult to believe the data, and several models show that the real number of new cases is orders of magnitude greater than those confirmed. Either way, India is still on track to surpass the United States as the country with the most recorded cases of the coronavirus sometime in November. Below is our four-week snapshot of total cases and deaths across South Asia.
Sri Lanka’s economic woes. Sri Lanka is increasingly turning to China to help it combat a worsening financial crisis and debt problem. On Sunday, the Chinese Embassy in Colombo tweeted that Beijing was considering a $500 million loan to the island country, adding mysteriously that “Haters never understand love”—likely a reference to fears that China may expect too much in return.
Sri Lanka doesn’t have too many options left, given its weak credit rating. As Nikkei Asia reports, Colombo has $50.8 billion of foreign debt on its books and has required 16 bailouts from the International Monetary Fund in the last 55 years. Only Pakistan has needed more help.
Meanwhile, the Hindu reports that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo may visit Sri Lanka at the end of October, around the time of a scheduled visit to India with Defense Secretary Mark Esper. And that brings us to…
Biegun’s India visit. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun was in New Delhi this week, where he told an audience at the India-U.S. Forum that in addition to increased defense sales and intelligence sharing with India, he believed Washington could help in “strengthening India’s ability to defend itself and by promoting interoperability among our militaries.” But he added that “as we advance in this direction, there is an elephant in the room: China.”
Biegun’s visit closely followed the so-called Quad meetings in Tokyo last week between high-level delegations from Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.
Bangladesh and capital punishment. Bangladesh’s cabinet has approved a bill allowing courts to sentence convicted rapists to death. Previously, the maximum allowed punishment was a life sentence. The decision comes after large protests in Dhaka and other cities over rape and sexual assault. While the threat of capital punishment adds a theoretical deterrent, it is no solution: The vast majority of rapes go unreported in Bangladesh, and less than 1 percent end in conviction.
On Thursday—just a few hours ago and just two days after the new law was announced—a court in the northern district of Tangailby sentenced five men to death for the 2012 gang rape of a 15-year-old girl.
How will Indian Americans vote on Nov. 3? There has been much discussion on this topic in recent weeks, especially since U.S. Democratic nominee Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris, whose mother was Indian, as his running mate. But there has been very little data to understand how Indian Americans, who comprise nearly 1 percent of registered U.S. voters, might vote. A new study by Sumitra Badrinathan, Devesh Kapur, and Milan Vaishnav seeks to redress this gap.
The highlights: 72 percent of Indian Americans plan to vote for Biden, while only 22 percent signaled their intention to vote for Donald Trump. Read the full report.
South Asia Inc.
India’s coronavirus stimulus plan. New Delhi has announced a plan to pump $10 billion into its economy in a bid to revive growth after a 24 percent year-on-year contraction last quarter. The money is expected to give federal employees advance wages, among other measures designed to boost consumer spending ahead of the traditional festival season in November.
Speaking about the move, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman tried to head off criticism of the relatively small stimulus with a call for fiscal prudence, saying that “today’s solution should not cause tomorrow’s problem.”
Pakistan bans TikTok. While countries such as India have banned TikTok over national security concerns, Pakistan’s telecommunications regulator blocked the Chinese-owned app last Friday for failing to block “immoral and indecent” content. The ban is not permanent: If TikTok puts a system in place to filter what Pakistan deems to be unlawful content, then it may be allowed to operate once again.
TikTok has 20 million active users in Pakistan, and the move against it is likely not geopolitical. Last month, Islamabad also banned the dating apps Tinder and Grindr amid a broader national campaign to set conservative mores on the internet.
What We’re Watching
As Netflix continues to invest billions of dollars in international content for its growing global audience, it has a lot of new shows and movies from India. A couple worth trying: Bad Boy Billionaires: India, a four-part documentary series about four billionaire tycoons brought down by allegations of fraud, and Serious Men, a movie based on the novel by Manu Joseph starring the Bollywood actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui.
The series about the country’s failed tycoons reveals the growth of a brash new India in which making—and enjoying—big money is celebrated. The former liquor baron and airline owner Vijay Mallya, for example, was a self-styled “King of Good Times” who peddled a version of the Indian Dream until his rash decisions and bad loans caught up with him.
A film still from Serious Men.
On the other end of the social spectrum, Serious Men tells the story of a Dalit man whose rash decisions also caught up with him. Siddiqui plays a lower-middle-class father who will do anything to see his son become a celebrity—including falsely parading him as a child genius researching alien life in space. The story feels improbable and bizarre, but I think it gets to the heart of something that Bad Boy Billionaires also tried to reveal: a citizenry with oversized, unlikely dreams.
That’s it for this week.
We welcome your feedback at newsletters@foreignpolicy.com. You can find older editions of South Asia Brief here. For more from FP, subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-15--To Prevent Proliferation, Stop Enrichment and Reprocessing in the Middle East

To Prevent Proliferation , Stop Enrichment and Reprocessing in the Middle East If Washington is serious about blocking the further spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East , it must apply a firm rule : no spent reactor fuel reprocessing or uranium enrichment—by anyone in the region .
Uranium enrichment allows production of bomb-grade uranium , and spent fuel reprocessing extracts plutonium , the other important nuclear explosive .
Washington insiders , including nuclear lobbyists and nuclear enthusiasts within the Trump administration , oppose such a restriction .
The nuclear power industry is still dangling deals before receptive Middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prince , Mohammed bin Salman , and pressing Congress to allow accommodative “ agreements for cooperation ” with Middle Eastern countries to make the deals more attractive .
Although the United Arab Emirates accepted the gold standard—obligating it to forgo enriching or reprocessing—Saudi Arabia , with more on its mind than the generation of electricity , detests this condition .
Middle East experts claim it is offensive to Riyadh ’ s pride , and Washington should therefore take a softer approach .
The problem is , softer approaches are inconsistent with nonproliferation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ admit there is a “ security dimension ” to the Saudi interest in nuclear power .
It leaked this summer that the Saudis secretly contracted with China to help the kingdom mine and process uranium , which suggests interest in an independent fuel cycle .
Combined with the brutality the world knows the crown prince is capable of , and his proven dishonesty , the U.S. government should not even be thinking of supplying Saudi Arabia with nuclear technology .
Washington will soon face other decisions : U.S. agreements for civilian nuclear cooperation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Morocco in 2021 , and with Turkey in 2023 .
The nuclear industry will try to keep Congress from imposing strict rules—industry seldom has to worry about the executive branch , as both Democratic and Republican administrations traditionally support U.S. nuclear exports—but it is vital to maintain the of the gold standard for all three .
Ideally , it should be U.S. policy to eliminate fuel facilities that can produce nuclear explosives from Algeria to Iran .
This would have to include Israel .
It would not affect Israel ’ s existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point the way for its security to depend less on nuclear weapons .
Enforcing the gold standard for the region would signal a serious effort to end the spread of nuclear weapons there as opposed to the standing policy of minimizing proliferation—in effect , acquiescing to it so long as it proceeds at a slow pace .
In past Middle East agreements ( with the exception of the one with the UAE ) , the United States controlled reprocessing and enrichment , but only of U.S.-origin nuclear materials .
That ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ban covering nuclear materials from any source .
Nuclear export boosters argue no country will agree to these conditions , especially when states could get easier terms from Russia and China .
The result of being so principled , they say , would be to lose export income and the ostensible influence and nonproliferation oversight they insist comes with being a nuclear supplier .
The truth is the United States has more to gain from being firm than not .
The prospects for major U.S. nuclear reactor exports are nearly nonexistent ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear reactor vendors .
Westinghouse , which is often put in this category , hasn ’ t been U.S.-owned for 20 years .
Its last two nuclear construction projects drove it into bankruptcy and almost bankrupted its Japanese owners .
A Canadian firm , Brookfield Asset Management , bought what remained of it .
Westinghouse ’ s U.S.-based division exports fresh reactor fuel and earns fees for managing and advising nuclear operators .
It is a shadow of its former self .
Nuclear lobbyists and boosters are pushing for federal financial support to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grant generous loan terms for foreign customers .
The argument that Middle Eastern states will not accept the gold standard ignores the strategic incentives for countries to seal U.S. nuclear cooperation agreements even if the United States is not the main reactor vendor for any project .
As the UAE has learned , staying close to the United States by agreeing to firm nonproliferation standards provides security ties and military benefits including intelligence sharing and top-end tech arms sales most Middle East countries would not receive from Russia or China .
What ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraction and use would impose no penalty on the production of electricity .
Plutonium was once thought to be the fuel of the future , powering so-called fast reactors .
But that dream was punctured long ago .
It was based on the assumption that uranium was scarce , that huge numbers of uranium reactors would rapidly use it up , and that reprocessing spent fuel to extract plutonium would be cheap .
All three assumptions turned out to be completely wrong .
As for enriching uranium , none of the Middle Eastern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to justify domestic enrichment programs for any commercial purpose .
The international commercial market in enrichment has ample capacity .
The only penalty restricting this technology would impose is to these countries ’ sense of scientific national pride .
This sensitivity , however , is misplaced .
In fact , nuclear power is no longer a pathbreaking technology that defines a country ’ s scientific status , nor is it commercially competitive .
For example , large light-water reactors will never be built again in the United States—they ’ re simply too expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they will likely be even more expensive per unit of energy .
The Middle East ’ s energy future lies in investments in renewables , natural gas , and the integration of pipelines and electric grids .
That should be part of Washington ’ s message .
The main U.S. objective , however , should be to make the Middle East ’ s security consistent with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty .
Earlier this month , Egypt ’ s Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry called for a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposal for a no-enrichment and no-reprocessing zone for all countries in the area may be more feasible , and if achieved , have more lasting significance—it would preclude the possibility of non-nuclear states making nuclear weapons and would thereby undercut the argument for any state in the region to possess such weapons to defend itself .

If Washington is serious about blocking the further spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, it must apply a firm rule: no spent reactor fuel reprocessing or uranium enrichment—by anyone in the region. Uranium enrichment allows production of bomb-grade uranium, and spent fuel reprocessing extracts plutonium, the other important nuclear explosive.
If Washington is serious about blocking the further spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, it must apply a firm rule: no spent reactor fuel reprocessing or uranium enrichment—by anyone in the region. Uranium enrichment allows production of bomb-grade uranium, and spent fuel reprocessing extracts plutonium, the other important nuclear explosive.
Washington insiders, including nuclear lobbyists and nuclear enthusiasts within the Trump administration, oppose such a restriction. The nuclear power industry is still dangling deals before receptive Middle Eastern rulers, notably the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, and pressing Congress to allow accommodative “agreements for cooperation” with Middle Eastern countries to make the deals more attractive. Although the United Arab Emirates accepted the gold standard—obligating it to forgo enriching or reprocessing—Saudi Arabia, with more on its mind than the generation of electricity, detests this condition. Middle East experts claim it is offensive to Riyadh’s pride, and Washington should therefore take a softer approach.
The problem is, softer approaches are inconsistent with nonproliferation. Even proponents of relatively lax nuclear deal-making admit there is a “security dimension” to the Saudi interest in nuclear power. It leaked this summer that the Saudis secretly contracted with China to help the kingdom mine and process uranium, which suggests interest in an independent fuel cycle. Combined with the brutality the world knows the crown prince is capable of, and his proven dishonesty, the U.S. government should not even be thinking of supplying Saudi Arabia with nuclear technology.
Washington will soon face other decisions: U.S. agreements for civilian nuclear cooperation are coming up for renewal with Egypt and Morocco in 2021, and with Turkey in 2023. The nuclear industry will try to keep Congress from imposing strict rules—industry seldom has to worry about the executive branch, as both Democratic and Republican administrations traditionally support U.S. nuclear exports—but it is vital to maintain the of the gold standard for all three.
Ideally, it should be U.S. policy to eliminate fuel facilities that can produce nuclear explosives from Morocco to Iran. This would have to include Israel. It would not affect Israel’s existing nuclear arsenal but would cap it and point the way for its security to depend less on nuclear weapons.
Enforcing the gold standard for the region would signal a serious effort to end the spread of nuclear weapons there as opposed to the standing policy of minimizing proliferation—in effect, acquiescing to it so long as it proceeds at a slow pace. In past Middle East agreements (with the exception of the one with the UAE), the United States controlled reprocessing and enrichment, but only of U.S.-origin nuclear materials. That’s not good enough. Washington must insist on a ban covering nuclear materials from any source.
Nuclear export boosters argue no country will agree to these conditions, especially when states could get easier terms from Russia and China. The result of being so principled, they say, would be to lose export income and the ostensible influence and nonproliferation oversight they insist comes with being a nuclear supplier.
The truth is the United States has more to gain from being firm than not. The prospects for major U.S. nuclear reactor exports are nearly nonexistent; there are no longer any major U.S. nuclear reactor vendors. Westinghouse, which is often put in this category, hasn’t been U.S.-owned for 20 years. Its last two nuclear construction projects drove it into bankruptcy and almost bankrupted its Japanese owners. A Canadian firm, Brookfield Asset Management, bought what remained of it.
Westinghouse’s U.S.-based division exports fresh reactor fuel and earns fees for managing and advising nuclear operators. It is a shadow of its former self. Nuclear lobbyists and boosters are pushing for federal financial support to revive U.S. nuclear reactor manufacturing and to grant generous loan terms for foreign customers.
The argument that Middle Eastern states will not accept the gold standard ignores the strategic incentives for countries to seal U.S. nuclear cooperation agreements even if the United States is not the main reactor vendor for any project. As the UAE has learned, staying close to the United States by agreeing to firm nonproliferation standards provides security ties and military benefits including intelligence sharing and top-end tech arms sales most Middle East countries would not receive from Russia or China.
What’s more, the restriction on plutonium extraction and use would impose no penalty on the production of electricity. Plutonium was once thought to be the fuel of the future, powering so-called fast reactors. But that dream was punctured long ago. It was based on the assumption that uranium was scarce, that huge numbers of uranium reactors would rapidly use it up, and that reprocessing spent fuel to extract plutonium would be cheap.
All three assumptions turned out to be completely wrong. As for enriching uranium, none of the Middle Eastern countries are going to have enough reactors to justify domestic enrichment programs for any commercial purpose. The international commercial market in enrichment has ample capacity. The only penalty restricting this technology would impose is to these countries’ sense of scientific national pride.
This sensitivity, however, is misplaced. In fact, nuclear power is no longer a pathbreaking technology that defines a country’s scientific status, nor is it commercially competitive. For example, large light-water reactors will never be built again in the United States—they’re simply too expensive. Small reactors have some advantages, but they will likely be even more expensive per unit of energy. The Middle East’s energy future lies in investments in renewables, natural gas, and the integration of pipelines and electric grids. That should be part of Washington’s message.
The main U.S. objective, however, should be to make the Middle East’s security consistent with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Earlier this month, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry called for a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East to help bolster the treaty.
Our proposal for a no-enrichment and no-reprocessing zone for all countries in the area may be more feasible, and if achieved, have more lasting significance—it would preclude the possibility of non-nuclear states making nuclear weapons and would thereby undercut the argument for any state in the region to possess such weapons to defend itself.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-15--The President of Belarus Has Been Stalling. Now It’s Crunch Time.

The President of Belarus Has Been Stalling .
Now It ’ s Crunch Time .
In the two months since rigged presidential elections jolted Belarus out of a deep political slumber after a quarter-century of authoritarian rule , a stalemate appeared to be setting in .
Demonstrators continued to fill the streets in numbers that until recently would have been unthinkable , while President Aleksandr Lukashenko showed no sign of stepping down .
But then Lukashenko blinked—setting off a chain of events that could cause the situation to escalate in the weeks to come .
On Saturday , he made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a four-and-a-half-hour meeting with jailed members of the political opposition , including the former banker Viktor Babariko , Lukashenko ’ s most formidable rival until he was arrested in June .
The president ’ s press office said that details of the roundtable were to remain secret , but that the goal was to “ hear everyone ’ s opinion.
” The meeting was a dramatic about-face from a president who previously accused the opposition of trying to mount a coup against him , and it was a tacit acknowledgement of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has no shortage of political prisoners , but none has ever been granted an audience with the president .
“ This is unprecedented for him to do anything like this , ” said Nigel Gould-Davies , a former British ambassador to Belarus .
It “ suggests a lack of confidence on his part.
” The meeting , which the opposition saw as a sign of weakness , could rattle the country ’ s elite , who have remained largely loyal to Lukashenko .
“ It will puzzle and sow confusion in parts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persuaded and rallied round his view on the nature of the opposition and the causes of it , that it ’ s something illegitimate being sown from the West , ” said Gould-Davies , now a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies .
What the meeting was not , observers say , was a genuine attempt at dialogue .
“ It is disturbing that it was perceived in the western media as Lukashenko signaling that he was ready for a dialogue , ” said Katsiaryna Shmatsina , a political analyst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ What kind of dialogue can it be ?
These people are facing criminal charges , ” she said .
Rather , the meeting was widely seen as a way to split the opposition and create a puppet opposition for negotiations .
Two prisoners—Yury Vaskrasenski , a member of Babariko ’ s election campaign team , and Dzmitry Rabtsevich , the director of the Belarus office of the IT company PandaDoc—were released on house arrest shortly after the meeting .
In an interview with state media , Vaskrasenski said he had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though some suspected he was reading from a prepared statement .
The very next day , Lukashenko shattered any pretense he was extending an olive branch when police arrested over 700 people during protests on Sunday , cracking down with a degree of violence not seen since the immediate aftermath of the disputed election in August .
On Monday , the deputy minister of internal affairs warned that police were prepared to use lethal weapons against protestors .
“ I think these are two logical and connected steps on behalf of Lukashenko @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition for a dialogue on the one hand , and to end the protests on the other , ” said Shmatsina , the Belarusian political analyst .
But this past weekend could prove a turning point in the two-month standoff between the president and protesters .
It prompted exiled opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya to demand that Lukashenko resign by Oct. 25 , or face a paralyzing general strike , setting the stage for a dramatic escalation in the weeks to come .
“ Each side is sort of brandishing a big new weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on either side , ” Gould-Davies said .
Tikhanovskaya is a political novice , the only member of the opposition allowed to register to run against Lukashenko .
Her candidacy quickly became a lightning rod for Belarusians upset with years of economic stagnation and the president ’ s callous handling of the pandemic .
But since she fled Belarus for Lithuania shortly after the election in August , Tikhanovskaya has faced calls from other members of the opposition to dial up pressure on the regime , said Franak Viacorka , Tikhanovskaya ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balancing act : injecting more leadership into a protest movement that ’ s largely been leaderless , but without dialing up the confrontation with the regime too much .
The massive protests—including 100,000 this weekend in Minsk—despite the lack of organized leadership show how widespread the discontent is with Lukashenko ’ s rule .
“ They want their dignity to be respected .
That ’ s more than just a political demand or an economic demand .
This is about human rights , ” said Hanna Liubakova , a journalist from Minsk and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the opposition is acutely aware that the uprising ’ s international legitimacy would be undermined if the so-far peaceful protests became violent .
“ Tikhanovskaya on one hand must prevent violent escalation , but on the other hand she must give people hope and a task , an instruction to do , ” Viacorka said .
After claiming victory in the August elections that were nearly universally condemned as fraudulent , Lukashenko was inaugurated in a secret ceremony last month—another move that suggested he fears his restive public .
The United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recognize Lukashenko as the country ’ s president and have imposed sanctions on a number of senior Belarusian officials in the wake of the election .
Earlier this month the Trump administration announced it was imposing sanctions on eight Belarusian officials believed to be involved in the fraudulent election .
On Friday , the United Kingdom became the eighth European country to recall its ambassador to Belarus in solidarity with Poland and Lithuania ; Belarus had ordered the two countries to pare back the size of their embassies in the country after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting the opposition .
On Monday , European Union foreign ministers agreed to reimpose personal sanctions on Lukashenko .
But international opprobrium and personal sanctions are unlikely to pry Lukashenko out of an office he ’ s held for 26 years—which suggests the showdown in Belarus is about to enter a critical phase .
“ It ’ s hard to see him stepping down voluntarily , even if it was safe to do so , so wedded to power he has become , ” Gould-Davies said .
“ There ’ s a potentially @ @ @ @ @

In the two months since rigged presidential elections jolted Belarus out of a deep political slumber after a quarter-century of authoritarian rule, a stalemate appeared to be setting in. Demonstrators continued to fill the streets in numbers that until recently would have been unthinkable, while President Aleksandr Lukashenko showed no sign of stepping down.
In the two months since rigged presidential elections jolted Belarus out of a deep political slumber after a quarter-century of authoritarian rule, a stalemate appeared to be setting in. Demonstrators continued to fill the streets in numbers that until recently would have been unthinkable, while President Aleksandr Lukashenko showed no sign of stepping down.
But then Lukashenko blinked—setting off a chain of events that could cause the situation to escalate in the weeks to come.
On Saturday, he made an unexpected visit to a KGB-run prison for a four-and-a-half-hour meeting with jailed members of the political opposition, including the former banker Viktor Babariko, Lukashenko’s most formidable rival until he was arrested in June. The president’s press office said that details of the roundtable were to remain secret, but that the goal was to “hear everyone’s opinion.”
The meeting was a dramatic about-face from a president who previously accused the opposition of trying to mount a coup against him, and it was a tacit acknowledgement of the political nature of their detention. Belarus has no shortage of political prisoners, but none has ever been granted an audience with the president.
“This is unprecedented for him to do anything like this,” said Nigel Gould-Davies, a former British ambassador to Belarus. It “suggests a lack of confidence on his part.”
The meeting, which the opposition saw as a sign of weakness, could rattle the country’s elite, who have remained largely loyal to Lukashenko. “It will puzzle and sow confusion in parts of the elite who until now have been persuaded and rallied round his view on the nature of the opposition and the causes of it, that it’s something illegitimate being sown from the West,” said Gould-Davies, now a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
What the meeting was not, observers say, was a genuine attempt at dialogue.
“It is disturbing that it was perceived in the western media as Lukashenko signaling that he was ready for a dialogue,” said Katsiaryna Shmatsina, a political analyst with the Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies. “What kind of dialogue can it be? These people are facing criminal charges,” she said.
Rather, the meeting was widely seen as a way to split the opposition and create a puppet opposition for negotiations. Two prisoners—Yury Vaskrasenski, a member of Babariko’s election campaign team, and Dzmitry Rabtsevich, the director of the Belarus office of the IT company PandaDoc—were released on house arrest shortly after the meeting. In an interview with state media, Vaskrasenski said he had been asked to make suggestions for constitutional changes, though some suspected he was reading from a prepared statement.
The very next day, Lukashenko shattered any pretense he was extending an olive branch when police arrested over 700 people during protests on Sunday, cracking down with a degree of violence not seen since the immediate aftermath of the disputed election in August. On Monday, the deputy minister of internal affairs warned that police were prepared to use lethal weapons against protestors.
“I think these are two logical and connected steps on behalf of Lukashenko. He wants to create a puppet opposition for a dialogue on the one hand, and to end the protests on the other,” said Shmatsina, the Belarusian political analyst.
But this past weekend could prove a turning point in the two-month standoff between the president and protesters. It prompted exiled opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya to demand that Lukashenko resign by Oct. 25, or face a paralyzing general strike, setting the stage for a dramatic escalation in the weeks to come.
“Each side is sort of brandishing a big new weapon, there’s a stepping up on either side,” Gould-Davies said.
Tikhanovskaya is a political novice, the only member of the opposition allowed to register to run against Lukashenko. Her candidacy quickly became a lightning rod for Belarusians upset with years of economic stagnation and the president’s callous handling of the pandemic. But since she fled Belarus for Lithuania shortly after the election in August, Tikhanovskaya has faced calls from other members of the opposition to dial up pressure on the regime, said Franak Viacorka, Tikhanovskaya’s international relations advisor.
Tikhanovskaya faces a balancing act: injecting more leadership into a protest movement that’s largely been leaderless, but without dialing up the confrontation with the regime too much. The massive protests—including 100,000 this weekend in Minsk—despite the lack of organized leadership show how widespread the discontent is with Lukashenko’s rule.
“They want their dignity to be respected. That’s more than just a political demand or an economic demand. This is about human rights,” said Hanna Liubakova, a journalist from Minsk and nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council.
But the opposition is acutely aware that the uprising’s international legitimacy would be undermined if the so-far peaceful protests became violent.
“Tikhanovskaya on one hand must prevent violent escalation, but on the other hand she must give people hope and a task, an instruction to do,” Viacorka said.
After claiming victory in the August elections that were nearly universally condemned as fraudulent, Lukashenko was inaugurated in a secret ceremony last month—another move that suggested he fears his restive public. The United States and the European Union have refused to recognize Lukashenko as the country’s president and have imposed sanctions on a number of senior Belarusian officials in the wake of the election. Earlier this month the Trump administration announced it was imposing sanctions on eight Belarusian officials believed to be involved in the fraudulent election.
On Friday, the United Kingdom became the eighth European country to recall its ambassador to Belarus in solidarity with Poland and Lithuania; Belarus had ordered the two countries to pare back the size of their embassies in the country after the two countries took a leading role supporting the opposition. On Monday, European Union foreign ministers agreed to reimpose personal sanctions on Lukashenko.
But international opprobrium and personal sanctions are unlikely to pry Lukashenko out of an office he’s held for 26 years—which suggests the showdown in Belarus is about to enter a critical phase.
“It’s hard to see him stepping down voluntarily, even if it was safe to do so, so wedded to power he has become,” Gould-Davies said. “There’s a potentially significant phase ahead.”


foreignpolicy--2020-10-15--No, Drones Haven’t Made Tanks Obsolete

No, Drones Haven’t Made Tanks Obsolete

In 1897 , the American author Mark Twain replied in a letter to a London journalist , “ The report of my death was an exaggeration.
” The same applies to the recent claims of the death of the tank , and by implication all major armored vehicles .
The overinflated claims of both sides in the recently reignited two-week-long fight between Azerbaijan and Armenia in their long-standing conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region have caused a rash of new claims of the tank ’ s demise .
The social media battlefield is hotly disputed between both sides , with each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve caused to the other side ’ s armor .
These would indeed be stunning claims—if they were true .
As of this week Armenia was claiming that the forces it supports destroyed literally a division ’ s worth of tanks , while Azerbaijan asserted a more qualified total of a division ’ s worth of “ tanks and amphibious vehicles.
” The rumor mill created the tales of Twain ’ s death out of the illness of an English cousin of his .
It ’ s now spinning at full speed over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deploying numerous digital stills and videos to support their extraordinary claims of the numbers of opposing armored vehicles destroyed in battle .
Taken at face value , this seems to point to an obvious conclusion : Tanks ( and other protected vehicles ) can not last , as they are death traps on a modern battlefield dominated by cheap drones .
This is wrong .
The tank may die , but the fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh region doesn ’ t offer any evidence of an incoming demise .
At the core of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and tactics—and one underpinning fallacy : the false assumption that new technology , in particular the much-touted rise of unmanned aerial vehicles , more commonly known as drones , trumps the old technology of the armored vehicle .
Azerbaijani and Armenian claims that they destroyed mechanized systems in huge numbers using drones are vacuous .
One need not look too deep to realize that the press releases on both sides are flatly ridiculous , rather like the World War II U.S. Army Air Forces claims of how many German fighters their bombers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ releases , each side asserts they “ destroyed ” somewhere between 130 ( Armenian ) and 137 ( Azerbaijani ) armored vehicles in just the first 10 days of the current conflict .
A simple review of the combat forces each side had prior to the conflict shows these claims are exaggerated .
For either side that would be an incredible percentage of their overall forces .
Azerbaijan likely had somewhere between 500 and 600 tanks before the recent fighting , and while Armenian forces are smaller , they too had no more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outset .
The cherry-picked supposed video evidence also shows another aspect .
Not all of these hits stem from high-end technology .
Some of the most retweeted videos clearly show tanks being destroyed by anti-tank land mines , a technology that is over 100 years old , while others are hit by indistinct munitions .
But for perhaps the most comprehensive review of the respective tank ( and other vehicle ) losses it would be a good idea to look toward an amateur South African summation here .
Yes , drones and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vehicles , but against what quality of forces ?
This phenomenon is not new .
Non-military historians often talk about how it was the rise of gunpowder that led to the end of the mounted knight in Western Europe .
The reality was that it was the rise of mass , disciplined , pike-wielding infantry such as the Swiss Eidgenossen and later the German Landsknechts that doomed the armored knight on horseback starting in the 1200s and accelerating from there .
Mounted and armored knights , once the kings of the battlefield , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new technology but by one of the oldest .
Coherent and single-minded infantry formations are an idea dating back at least to the Greeks from 2,000 years earlier .
Training , not technology , was the dominant force .
That ’ s extremely visible on the Nagorno-Karabakh battlefield .
The videos presented , on both sides , demonstrate that neither seems to have a grasp on the idea that the cost of the physical weapon system is a fraction of the value of training people to use that system competently .
Both sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even supplying their best T-90 battle tanks to Azerbaijan , though Moscow is friendly to both countries .
Neither seems to have grasped the idea that even the most high-tech tank ( or armored fighting vehicle ) is only so much scrap metal if you do not have a trained and disciplined fighting force inside those vehicles .
Having a parade with your shiny , new tanks is one thing .
Being able to use them , competently , on the battlefield is another .
In video after video we see armored vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an administrative , not combat , movements .
They are not maneuvering while dispersed widely as the conditions in combat would warrant .
Similarly , vehicles seen in static fighting positions are almost universally observed without any serious attempt at camouflage in their final seconds .
When it comes to terrain , the dry mountains of Nagorno-Karabakh are not good “ tank country ” as my fellow soldiers in U.S. Army tanks , past and present , would agree .
The land is desiccated , without concealment in the form of vegetation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes tanks , especially those operating without infantry or other elements of what we would call a “ combined arms team , ” particularly vulnerable—as has been the case throughout armored vehicles ’ history .
Terrain can be overcome , but that requires a disciplined force that has specifically prepared itself for operations in that area .
In 1965 , the U.S. Army was unready for the jungles of Vietnam .
By 1968 , the Americans were tactically prepared but incapable or incompetent at the higher levels of war .
In 1991 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Training Center in the deserts of California , U.S. forces were uniquely ready to destroy the Iraqis in Kuwait and southern Iraq , ditto to 2003 .
But then they dropped the ball .
When the conditions of battle in Iraq shifted from one of conventional warfare to confronting an unconventional insurgency beginning in late 2003 , the Americans were once again unprepared to deal that form of war for almost half a decade .
Technology and terrain can be overcome by tactics .
A professional military force , with a defined area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explicit responses to the terrain and the threat they believe they will face .
They then train , and importantly equip , their forces to obviate the limitations they may face ( such as open terrain without obvious concealment ) or exploit their potential advantages .
But in almost every video shown by both Armenia and Azerbaijan , the opposing forces were behaving like amateurs—clumped together , not using combined arms tactics , and leaving themselves vulnerable to attacks from the air .
Air defense artillery is a crucial component for the combined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly one without significant airpower of its own .
As U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said , in reference to the Nazi defenses , “ Hitler built a fortress around Europe , but he forgot to put a roof on it.
” Much the same could be said in this conflict .
The drones in this conflict are not exactly stealth aircraft or ones dropping munitions from 50,000 feet up .
They can be shot down , relatively easily , with the right equipment and training .
The Nagorno-Karabakh skirmishing doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of armor .
All it shows is two incompetently trained and equipped military forces that left themselves clumsily open , and the power of quickly produced video making extravagant claims in the social media age .
But there are conclusions to be drawn .
Western European forces , and to a degree the United States as well , undervalue air defense artillery .
Drones will be an increasing threat—but cheap drones are cheap to shoot down as well .
Competent modern combined arms combat forces , even without air dominance , can sweep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with parade-ground forces that have not devoted the majority of their budgets to training , but instead to buying the newest toys , any modern professional force will prevail .

In 1897, the American author Mark Twain replied in a letter to a London journalist, “The report of my death was an exaggeration.” The same applies to the recent claims of the death of the tank, and by implication all major armored vehicles.
In 1897, the American author Mark Twain replied in a letter to a London journalist, “The report of my death was an exaggeration.” The same applies to the recent claims of the death of the tank, and by implication all major armored vehicles.
The overinflated claims of both sides in the recently reignited two-week-long fight between Azerbaijan and Armenia in their long-standing conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region have caused a rash of new claims of the tank’s demise. The social media battlefield is hotly disputed between both sides, with each posting videos of the destruction they’ve caused to the other side’s armor. These would indeed be stunning claims—if they were true. As of this week Armenia was claiming that the forces it supports destroyed literally a division’s worth of tanks, while Azerbaijan asserted a more qualified total of a division’s worth of “tanks and amphibious vehicles.”
The rumor mill created the tales of Twain’s death out of the illness of an English cousin of his. It’s now spinning at full speed over the Armenia-Azerbaijan fight. Both sides are deploying numerous digital stills and videos to support their extraordinary claims of the numbers of opposing armored vehicles destroyed in battle. Taken at face value, this seems to point to an obvious conclusion: Tanks (and other protected vehicles) cannot last, as they are death traps on a modern battlefield dominated by cheap drones. This is wrong.
The tank may die, but the fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh region doesn’t offer any evidence of an incoming demise. At the core of the issue are three battlefield elements—training, terrain, and tactics—and one underpinning fallacy: the false assumption that new technology, in particular the much-touted rise of unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones, trumps the old technology of the armored vehicle.
Azerbaijani and Armenian claims that they destroyed mechanized systems in huge numbers using drones are vacuous. One need not look too deep to realize that the press releases on both sides are flatly ridiculous, rather like the World War II U.S. Army Air Forces claims of how many German fighters their bombers shot down.
In their respective press releases, each side asserts they “destroyed” somewhere between 130 (Armenian) and 137 (Azerbaijani) armored vehicles in just the first 10 days of the current conflict. A simple review of the combat forces each side had prior to the conflict shows these claims are exaggerated. For either side that would be an incredible percentage of their overall forces. Azerbaijan likely had somewhere between 500 and 600 tanks before the recent fighting, and while Armenian forces are smaller, they too had no more than a few hundred operational tanks at the outset.
The cherry-picked supposed video evidence also shows another aspect. Not all of these hits stem from high-end technology. Some of the most retweeted videos clearly show tanks being destroyed by anti-tank land mines, a technology that is over 100 years old, while others are hit by indistinct munitions. But for perhaps the most comprehensive review of the respective tank (and other vehicle) losses it would be a good idea to look toward an amateur South African summation here. Yes, drones and small guided munitions are racking up destroyed vehicles, but against what quality of forces?
This phenomenon is not new. Non-military historians often talk about how it was the rise of gunpowder that led to the end of the mounted knight in Western Europe. The reality was that it was the rise of mass, disciplined, pike-wielding infantry such as the Swiss Eidgenossen and later the German Landsknechts that doomed the armored knight on horseback starting in the 1200s and accelerating from there. Mounted and armored knights, once the kings of the battlefield, were not degraded and dismounted by a new technology but by one of the oldest. Coherent and single-minded infantry formations are an idea dating back at least to the Greeks from 2,000 years earlier. Training, not technology, was the dominant force.
That’s extremely visible on the Nagorno-Karabakh battlefield. The videos presented, on both sides, demonstrate that neither seems to have a grasp on the idea that the cost of the physical weapon system is a fraction of the value of training people to use that system competently. Both sides have similar technology, with the Russians even supplying their best T-90 battle tanks to Azerbaijan, though Moscow is friendly to both countries. Neither seems to have grasped the idea that even the most high-tech tank (or armored fighting vehicle) is only so much scrap metal if you do not have a trained and disciplined fighting force inside those vehicles. Having a parade with your shiny, new tanks is one thing. Being able to use them, competently, on the battlefield is another. In video after video we see armored vehicles clumped together in tight clusters as though on an administrative, not combat, movements. They are not maneuvering while dispersed widely as the conditions in combat would warrant. Similarly, vehicles seen in static fighting positions are almost universally observed without any serious attempt at camouflage in their final seconds.
When it comes to terrain, the dry mountains of Nagorno-Karabakh are not good “tank country” as my fellow soldiers in U.S. Army tanks, past and present, would agree. The land is desiccated, without concealment in the form of vegetation, and constraining to armor. That makes tanks, especially those operating without infantry or other elements of what we would call a “combined arms team,” particularly vulnerable—as has been the case throughout armored vehicles’ history. Terrain can be overcome, but that requires a disciplined force that has specifically prepared itself for operations in that area. In 1965, the U.S. Army was unready for the jungles of Vietnam. By 1968, the Americans were tactically prepared but incapable or incompetent at the higher levels of war. In 1991, after years of training at the National Training Center in the deserts of California, U.S. forces were uniquely ready to destroy the Iraqis in Kuwait and southern Iraq, ditto to 2003. But then they dropped the ball. When the conditions of battle in Iraq shifted from one of conventional warfare to confronting an unconventional insurgency beginning in late 2003, the Americans were once again unprepared to deal that form of war for almost half a decade.
Technology and terrain can be overcome by tactics. A professional military force, with a defined area of threat or concern, develops very explicit responses to the terrain and the threat they believe they will face. They then train, and importantly equip, their forces to obviate the limitations they may face (such as open terrain without obvious concealment) or exploit their potential advantages. But in almost every video shown by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, the opposing forces were behaving like amateurs—clumped together, not using combined arms tactics, and leaving themselves vulnerable to attacks from the air. Air defense artillery is a crucial component for the combined arms team of a land force, particularly one without significant airpower of its own. As U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, in reference to the Nazi defenses, “Hitler built a fortress around Europe, but he forgot to put a roof on it.” Much the same could be said in this conflict. The drones in this conflict are not exactly stealth aircraft or ones dropping munitions from 50,000 feet up. They can be shot down, relatively easily, with the right equipment and training.
The Nagorno-Karabakh skirmishing doesn’t tell us anything about the death of armor. All it shows is two incompetently trained and equipped military forces that left themselves clumsily open, and the power of quickly produced video making extravagant claims in the social media age. But there are conclusions to be drawn. Western European forces, and to a degree the United States as well, undervalue air defense artillery. Drones will be an increasing threat—but cheap drones are cheap to shoot down as well. Competent modern combined arms combat forces, even without air dominance, can sweep that threat from the sky. Faced with parade-ground forces that have not devoted the majority of their budgets to training, but instead to buying the newest toys, any modern professional force will prevail.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-15--Clean Energy Can’t Have Dirty Roots

Clean Energy Can’t Have Dirty Roots

On the face of it , the recent news that California will ban the sale of petrol cars in 2035 and favor electric vehicles is a positive development toward a greener , safer , and more sustainable world .
And yet this announcement brings as many questions as answers , not least whether electric vehicles really are the best and easiest solution to the climate crisis .
The reality is far more complicated .
The electrification of transport and the construction of new clean energy like solar are vital components of curing the carbon problem .
But they come with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ethical costs , and these must urgently be grappled with by those of us who call for climate action at a rapid rate .
Everyone who expected climate policy to cool in the year of COVID-19 has been sorely disappointed .
A flurry of announcements is increasing as the end of the year approaches , mostly relating to either general climate ambition , the accelerated deployment of mature technologies , or innovation to create new ones .
China ’ s plan to hit net zero by 2060 took the climate policy wonks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s new climate ambitions are locked in political struggles but will be solidified soon .
The materials required for new technologies , such as lithium and copper , are shaping maps of influence .
Even one of the poorest nations on the planet , Afghanistan , is being drawn into the geopolitical struggle over these resources .
A constant barrage of reports from corporations , consultancies , and agencies around the world all point to a single requirement for decarbonizing our species : machines made from materials mined from the Earth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s recent Energy Outlook report , a conservative take on the transition , predicts a tripling of output from new wind and solar ( in line with most other net zero emission forecasts of this type ) : Curing the carbon problem raises a plethora of related mining and resource challenges that must be grappled with before they become unmanageable .
The International Energy Agency ’ s ( IEA ) recent Energy Technology Report suggests global lithium production will grow twice as fast in a lower emissions scenario due to the manufacturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The pathway to solving climate is , potentially , lined with lithium and copper , and far too few climate and environment groups are successfully taking the lead in dealing with its problems .
The Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology in Sydney , Australia released a striking report in 2019 that outlined the ways in which the transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy sources could be done ethically and without causing unnecessary damage to the planet .
It argued that recycling was one of the best solutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ car battery metals , such as lithium , cobalt , nickel , and manganese , though responsible sourcing of minerals would be required if supply couldn ’ t be met with recycling .
It was important to remember , the report explained , the “ impacts associated with the mining of key metals used in renewable energy and storage include pollution and heavy metal contamination of water and agricultural soils , and health impacts on workers and surrounding communities .
When supply can not be met by recycled sources , engaging in responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diligence of supply chains is needed to reduce potential negative social and environmental impacts.
” There are already signs of major problems around the mining of the required metals .
Cobalt mining has caused immense suffering to some of the poorest people on the planet in the Democratic Republic of Congo ( DRC ) .
A landmark lawsuit against Apple , Google , Tesla , Microsoft , and Dell , launched in late 2019 , alleged that the tech giants contributed to the injury and death of children in DRC who were working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Demand for cobalt has tripled in the last five years and is expected to rise five-fold in the coming years .
About 60 percent of the world ’ s cobalt is in the DRC .
Swiss-based miner Glencore this year announced an alliance to support small-scale cobalt mining in the DRC in what the company claimed was a desire to improve working and environmental conditions in the African nation .
It ’ s hard not to conclude that Glencore was trying to distract attention from its relationship with disgraced Israeli mining tycoon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. blacklist due to his corrupt dealings with the DRC government .
Nevertheless , DRC will continue to be a major source of the world ’ s cobalt as just this year Tesla signed a major deal with Glencore for up to 6,000 tons every year for use in its rechargeable electric car batteries .
Some battery manufacturers are scrambling to find alternatives to cobalt , but the IEA says “ their timescales are uncertain.
” Despite Tesla claiming otherwise , cobalt is clearly a resource it ’ ll rely on for years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ubiquitous around the mining of rare metals .
Indigenous communities are missing out on Bolivia ’ s abundant lithium reserves .
Mining lithium and copper in Chile is largely ruining the nation ’ s ecosystem .
Australia has some of the highest lithium reserves in the world and yet its industry has largely stalled ( not helped by uncritical media coverage ) and too little attention is paid to the metal being processed in China and the associated human rights issues .
In 2019 , Amnesty International released a scathing report on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuses associated with it .
Amnesty urged the design of an “ ethical battery.
” Car manufacturers like Volkswagen claim they ’ re working to ensure an ethical supply chain for its batteries , and many companies are now working to develop a cobalt , nickel , and lithium free battery .
One frequent objection to this is that renewables and electric vehicles are significantly less mining intensive than their carbonized predecessors .
This is true ; the fuel for these technologies does not require extractive processes and is distributed more evenly across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being two important exceptions ) , as explored recently by Jason Bordoff .
Yet the imperative for climate action ought to be a safe and sustainable energy system that is not harmful , rather than one that is simply less harmful than fossil fuels .
Conversely , opponents of climate action have , in bad faith , placed emphasis on the material requirements for the energy transition in an attempt to taint a decarbonized world as just as mining intensive as the carbonized one .
This is not a constructive move , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be viewed as such .
The ways forward are simple .
Broader awareness of supply chain issues for these machines , particularly across climate and environmental groups , means greater skill at grappling with the coming decades .
Learning constructive criticism over technologies they support is a new skill for climate activists , but it ’ s vital for this transition .
As anthropologist Jason Hickel recently wrote , significant reductions in demand for energy through degrowth and decreased consumption are supercharged boosts to climate action , giving technology breathing space to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of being forced into the world at an incredible rate .
As explored in the aforementioned Earthworks study , massive ramp-ups in recycling and re-use of mined materials are essential .
Engaging directly and frequently with the environmental and human-rights risks of the best-case scenario will only be a good thing for climate action .
It defuses bad faith criticism and most importantly seeks to buttress this rapid change against the recreation of preexisting injustices .
It is , of course , the protection of both the Earth ’ s environment and human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first place , so it makes perfect sense to bake this into the heart of the new , sustainable energy world being built .
In a future where this principle is neglected , failure becomes more likely and any success will be incomplete and ugly for millions of people around the world who don ’ t receive media attention .
In a world where the growth of clean energy is infused with a clear responsibility to do no harm , success becomes sustainable and soaked in justice .

On the face of it, the recent news that California will ban the sale of petrol cars in 2035 and favor electric vehicles is a positive development toward a greener, safer, and more sustainable world. And yet this announcement brings as many questions as answers, not least whether electric vehicles really are the best and easiest solution to the climate crisis.
On the face of it, the recent news that California will ban the sale of petrol cars in 2035 and favor electric vehicles is a positive development toward a greener, safer, and more sustainable world. And yet this announcement brings as many questions as answers, not least whether electric vehicles really are the best and easiest solution to the climate crisis.
The reality is far more complicated. The electrification of transport and the construction of new clean energy like solar are vital components of curing the carbon problem. But they come with their own novel and potentially show-stopping environmental and ethical costs, and these must urgently be grappled with by those of us who call for climate action at a rapid rate.
Everyone who expected climate policy to cool in the year of COVID-19 has been sorely disappointed. A flurry of announcements is increasing as the end of the year approaches, mostly relating to either general climate ambition, the accelerated deployment of mature technologies, or innovation to create new ones.
China’s plan to hit net zero by 2060 took the climate policy wonks by surprise. The European Union’s new climate ambitions are locked in political struggles but will be solidified soon. The materials required for new technologies, such as lithium and copper, are shaping maps of influence. Even one of the poorest nations on the planet, Afghanistan, is being drawn into the geopolitical struggle over these resources.
A constant barrage of reports from corporations, consultancies, and agencies around the world all point to a single requirement for decarbonizing our species: machines made from materials mined from the Earth’s crust. Oil and gas major BP’s recent Energy Outlook report, a conservative take on the transition, predicts a tripling of output from new wind and solar (in line with most other net zero emission forecasts of this type):
Curing the carbon problem raises a plethora of related mining and resource challenges that must be grappled with before they become unmanageable. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) recent Energy Technology Report suggests global lithium production will grow twice as fast in a lower emissions scenario due to the manufacturing of batteries for cars and clean power. The pathway to solving climate is, potentially, lined with lithium and copper, and far too few climate and environment groups are successfully taking the lead in dealing with its problems.
The Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia released a striking report in 2019 that outlined the ways in which the transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy sources could be done ethically and without causing unnecessary damage to the planet. It argued that recycling was one of the best solutions to the surge in demand for electric car battery metals, such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese, though responsible sourcing of minerals would be required if supply couldn’t be met with recycling.
It was important to remember, the report explained, the “impacts associated with the mining of key metals used in renewable energy and storage include pollution and heavy metal contamination of water and agricultural soils, and health impacts on workers and surrounding communities. When supply cannot be met by recycled sources, engaging in responsible sourcing through verified certification schemes and due diligence of supply chains is needed to reduce potential negative social and environmental impacts.”
There are already signs of major problems around the mining of the required metals. Cobalt mining has caused immense suffering to some of the poorest people on the planet in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). A landmark lawsuit against Apple, Google, Tesla, Microsoft, and Dell, launched in late 2019, alleged that the tech giants contributed to the injury and death of children in DRC who were working in mines closely tied to the firms.
Demand for cobalt has tripled in the last five years and is expected to rise five-fold in the coming years. About 60 percent of the world’s cobalt is in the DRC. Swiss-based miner Glencore this year announced an alliance to support small-scale cobalt mining in the DRC in what the company claimed was a desire to improve working and environmental conditions in the African nation. It’s hard not to conclude that Glencore was trying to distract attention from its relationship with disgraced Israeli mining tycoon, Dan Gertler, currently on a U.S. blacklist due to his corrupt dealings with the DRC government.
Nevertheless, DRC will continue to be a major source of the world’s cobalt as just this year Tesla signed a major deal with Glencore for up to 6,000 tons every year for use in its rechargeable electric car batteries. Some battery manufacturers are scrambling to find alternatives to cobalt, but the IEA says “their timescales are uncertain.” Despite Tesla claiming otherwise, cobalt is clearly a resource it’ll rely on for years to come.
Human rights abuses are ubiquitous around the mining of rare metals. Indigenous communities are missing out on Bolivia’s abundant lithium reserves. Mining lithium and copper in Chile is largely ruining the nation’s ecosystem. Australia has some of the highest lithium reserves in the world and yet its industry has largely stalled (not helped by uncritical media coverage) and too little attention is paid to the metal being processed in China and the associated human rights issues.
In 2019, Amnesty International released a scathing report on the electric car battery industry and the gross abuses associated with it. Amnesty urged the design of an “ethical battery.” Car manufacturers like Volkswagen claim they’re working to ensure an ethical supply chain for its batteries, and many companies are now working to develop a cobalt, nickel, and lithium free battery.
One frequent objection to this is that renewables and electric vehicles are significantly less mining intensive than their carbonized predecessors. This is true; the fuel for these technologies does not require extractive processes and is distributed more evenly across the Earth (with hydropower and nuclear being two important exceptions), as explored recently by Jason Bordoff. Yet the imperative for climate action ought to be a safe and sustainable energy system that is not harmful, rather than one that is simply less harmful than fossil fuels.
Conversely, opponents of climate action have, in bad faith, placed emphasis on the material requirements for the energy transition in an attempt to taint a decarbonized world as just as mining intensive as the carbonized one. This is not a constructive move, but an attempt at sabotage, and ought to be viewed as such.
The ways forward are simple. Broader awareness of supply chain issues for these machines, particularly across climate and environmental groups, means greater skill at grappling with the coming decades. Learning constructive criticism over technologies they support is a new skill for climate activists, but it’s vital for this transition. As anthropologist Jason Hickel recently wrote, significant reductions in demand for energy through degrowth and decreased consumption are supercharged boosts to climate action, giving technology breathing space to grow sustainably and be deployed fairly instead of being forced into the world at an incredible rate. As explored in the aforementioned Earthworks study, massive ramp-ups in recycling and re-use of mined materials are essential.
Engaging directly and frequently with the environmental and human-rights risks of the best-case scenario will only be a good thing for climate action. It defuses bad faith criticism and most importantly seeks to buttress this rapid change against the recreation of preexisting injustices. It is, of course, the protection of both the Earth’s environment and human welfare that drive this transition in the first place, so it makes perfect sense to bake this into the heart of the new, sustainable energy world being built. In a future where this principle is neglected, failure becomes more likely and any success will be incomplete and ugly for millions of people around the world who don’t receive media attention. In a world where the growth of clean energy is infused with a clear responsibility to do no harm, success becomes sustainable and soaked in justice.