- Boris Johnson's New Plan Would Sideline Parliament And Guarantee A 'No Deal' Brexit
The British pound tumbled to its weakest level in more than two years on Tuesday as fears of a ‘no deal’ Brexit continued to weigh on GBP, which has been steadily sinking during the Tory leadership contest that many expect will send Boris Johnson, a committed Brexiteer, to No. 10 Downing Street.
And on Tuesday, Johnson – who said last night that he wouldn’t accept any time limits (both he and his rival Jeremy Hunt ruled out such a measure), unilateral escape hatches or any other kind of elaborate device to make the Irish Backstop more palatable – gave investors one more reason to worry: Sky News reports, citing anonymous sources from within Johnson’s campaign, that the candidate could delay a customary speech by the Queen that marks the beginning of the Parliamentary session – this would render MPs unavailable on Oct. 31, the day the UK is set to leave the EU. Though Johnson’s rival Jeremy Hunt has said he’s open to another brief delay, Johnson’s position is that on Halloween, Brexit will finally mean Brexit.
There have been some negotiations to work out an alternative to Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, but thanks to the inevitability of dealing with the hated Irish Backstop – which conservatives argue would effectively allow Europe to annex Northern Ireland – talks have once again been fraught.
As Sky explains (for our American readers), Parliament is typically out of session for between one and two weeks ahead of the Queen’s speech – meaning MPs would in effect be unavailable to stop a no-deal Brexit immediately before October 31.
Johnson’s campaign confirmed that the delay is one option being explored, but insisted that no final decision had yet been made. But others pointed out that this move would scupper the chances of a last-minute deal, since Parliament wouldn’t be there to approve it.
With an orderly Brexit is looking less likely by the day – even as some remainer Tories join the struggle to thwart their own future leader. And for anybody trying to discern what might happen next, well, BBG has put together yet another complicated Brexit flow chart.
- What Can Italy And China Acquire Along The BRI?
By Matteo Giovannini, Matteo Giovannini finance professional at ICBC in Beijing and a member of the China Task Force at the Italian Ministry of Economic Development. The article was first published at CGTN.
On July 10, the First China-Italy Finance Dialogue was held in Milan, Italy’s financial center, in the presence of the Minister of the Economy and Finance of the Italian Republic, Giovanni Tria and the Minister of Finance of the People’s Republic of China, Liu Kun.
This event follows the Strengthening the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreed by the two Heads of State on March 23, 2019 on the “China-Italy Finance Ministers Dialogue Mechanism” and the agreement reached in the Memorandum of Understanding for the China-Italy Finance Dialogue signed by the two sides on November 29, 2018.
This meeting is another major step in the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding between the two governments on jointly promoting the development of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), where Italy joined as the first G7 country, identifying synergies between the BRI and the EU Strategy on Connecting Europe and Asia on project cooperation.
The two countries have historically been bound by a long-lasting mutual friendship and recently this commitment has been deepened and broadened through bilateral and economic relations to enhance macroeconomic policy coordination and cooperation on economic and financial issues.
The cooperation between the two countries has been frequently described as a model for the dialogue between East and West.
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte shake hands after signing trade agreements at Villa Madama in Rome Italy and China have expressed “their commitment to uphold the rules-based international economic system, to support multilateralism and the multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core, and to foster participation in the reform of global economic governance with a view to promoting high-quality, strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth, improving living standards and boosting employment”.
In my view, it is important to stress the commitment the two countries have expressed to openness, cooperation, multilateralism and accountability in a globalized 21st century.
Responsible countries cannot deny the importance of international bodies such as the G20, the International Monetary Fund, and multilateral developments banks, such as the World Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). These should be the venues where countries are expected to make decisions in an increasingly interconnected world instead of acting unilaterally.
During the discussions, the importance of infrastructure for growth and development to fill the gap in developing countries has been underlined. In this context, Italy and China expect the AIIB to continue expanding its business and enhancing international influence, exploring projects and third market cooperation opportunities, especially in Africa.
Probably the most important outcome of this event has been the agreement on the first issuance in China of the so-called “Panda Bond” for an initial amount of 150 million euro, which will be issued by Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (CDP), the Italian sovereign wealth fund and distributed in the Chinese mainland by Italian and local commercial banks.
Italy’s economy is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and, due to their size, these companies struggle to expand their business overseas. The issuance of the bond has the significance of supporting the expansion of Italian SMEs in China that have enormous potential but do not have easy access to financing.
A footwear store in Milan, Italy, December. 10, 2013. This is not the first time that a foreign entity has been allowed to issue bonds in local currency. In 2005, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) received the green light from the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) to issue over 1 billion Chinese yuan.
The same happened with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and in 2016, the PBOC through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) authorized Poland to become the first European country to issue Panda Bonds. In 2018, Philippine and Portugal issued the debt security.
China and Italy are demonstrating to the world how a constructive relationship can be successfully managed. Most commentators described the signing of an MOU between the two countries as pure theater and as an empty contract. I do believe that both countries consider that document a stepping stone to future shared common goals.
The expressed intent to meet again next year for the second China-Italy Finance Dialogue in China and the ongoing preparation for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties in 2020 clearly demonstrate that there is a bright future in the relationship between these two countries.
- Merkel Ally Narrowly Elected To Top EU Post, Averting "Major Institutional Crisis"
Germany’s Ursula von der Leyen, considered a key and close ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, has been narrowly elected president of the EU Commission, becoming the first woman to fill Europe’s most powerful policy-making post, and the first German at the helm in over half a century.
The 60-year old center-right German defense minister will replace Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker starting November 1st after receiving votes from over half of the members of the European parliament on Tuesday evening. 383 European lawmakers voted in favor of von der Leyen assuming the EU’s most visible post, surpassing the 374 votes needed to confirm her. Chief Economist at Berenberg Bank, Holger Schmieding said the EU had “averted a major institutional crisis” by securing the appointment.
Germany’s Ursula von der Leyen has been elected the new President of the European Commission, set to take office Nov. 1, via Reuters Schmieding pointed out further that there’s now no doubt that Christine Lagarde, who just announced her resignation as head of the IMF, will be next President of the European Central Bank.
Ursula von der Leyen’s succeeding Luxembourg’s Juncker means the top policy job will remain in Christian Democratic party hands (CDU) for another five years. Her nomination over two weeks ago was generally considered a “total surprise”. She’s long been considered among the strongest pro-EU voices in Merkel’s cabinet.
A BBC political analyst pointed out that “European leaders will be breathing a sigh of relief,” given it “took days of fraught negotiations and a difficult compromise among EU countries to nominate von der Leyen.
“Our most pressing challenge is keeping our planet healthy,” she had told the EU Parliament prior to the vote. “This is the greatest responsibility and opportunity of our times.” She also vowed to push for more social welfare oversight by the EU, to advance women’s rights, and to root out poverty.
Bloomberg noted,
She also pledged to turn parts of the European Investment Bank, the EU’s lending arm, into a “climate bank” in a bid to unlock 1 trillion euros of investment ($1.12 trillion) over the coming decade.
On commerce, she’s warned against the dangers of protectionism and upheld the World Trade Organization’s multilateral vision. “We defend the rules-based order because we know it is better for all of us,” she said.
The BBC summarized her positions outlined in her speech given in European parliament Tuesday as follows:
- She would push to give the European Parliament “the right of initiative” – meaning the Commission would have to legislate on MEPs’ resolutions; currently only the Commission can draft laws
- On irregular migration to the EU, she said she would boost the EU’s border force Frontex to 10,000 staff by 2024, but said “we need to preserve the right to asylum through humanitarian corridors”
- She offered an EU “reinsurance scheme” to bolster national insurance schemes for the unemployed.
“The trust you placed in me is confidence you placed in Europe,” she said after securing the vote Tuesday.
Congratulations Ursula @vonderleyen. Congratulations Europe.
— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) July 16, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“Your confidence in a united and strong Europe, from east to west, from south to north,” she continued “It is a big responsibility and my work starts now,” she added. “Let us work together constructively.”
Interestingly, Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki pointed out at press conference in Warsaw that votes from Law & Justice MPs had “tipped the balance” in von der Leyen’s favor, and that she sees eye to eye with Poland concerning the “threat from Russia,” as related by Bloomberg. In other words, it was the Poles who assured that Germany maintains its supreme dominance over Europe, and did everything in their power to weaken Russian influence in Europe.
In light of historical events, it would be ironic if that particular twist comes back to bite Poland some day in the not too distant future.
- Trump Risks China-Taiwan Conflict For Leverage In Trade War
Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
The Trump administration last week cut its fourth and biggest arms sale to Taiwan, sparking a furious condemnation from Beijing that the US was undermining its sovereignty and “grossly interfering in China’s internal affairs”.
The weapons deal reportedly worth some $2.2 billion is expected to be given final approval by Congress in the next few weeks. It follows three other major arms sales since 2017 to Taiwan conducted by the Trump administration.
Beijing slammed the latest military transaction as a “violation of international law and the One China policy” – the latter referring to the long-established US consensus with China that Taiwan island is under Beijing’s sovereignty.
Since the Chinese communist revolution in 1949 Taiwan has always been viewed as a renegade province by Beijing, having sheltered retreating anti-communist nationalist forces. Previous US administrations have sold weapons to Taiwan since 1979 when Washington and Beijing normalized diplomatic relations.
However, the Trump administration appears to be blatantly exploiting secessionist tensions between Taiwan and mainland China. By massively arming the island, there is a danger that Taiwanese separatists will feel emboldened to declare independence, a move which Beijing has always said would trigger it to deploy military force in order to assert its sovereignty.
China’s Global Times reported this week:
“The latest US approval of arms sales to the island of Taiwan will hurt delicate China-US relations at a sensitive time when China and the US are to resume trade talks, and Taiwan secessionists should know that they are only being used as a card by the US… China and the US are stuck in a trade war and the US is playing all kinds of cards to create trouble and pressure China. Taiwan is one of them and nothing more.”
The dynamics over Taiwan have resonance with how the Trump administration has used sanctions to hamper commercial market access for Chinese tech giant Huawei, allegedly on the grounds of protecting US “national security”. There is also the suspicion that Washington and its Western allies have exploited political unrest in Hong Kong as another means to undermine Beijing’s sovereignty and meddle in China’s internal affairs. Trump’s dealings with Taiwan thus seem to be part of a broader tactic to antagonize and pressure China.
Last month, American media reported White House sources as saying that President Trump was deliberating using Taiwan as a “bargaining chip” in his trade dispute with China.
The timing of the latest arms sale comes only two weeks after Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping appeared to strike an amicable agreement at the G20 summit to resolve the long-running trade war between the world’s two biggest economies. Over the past year, Trump has been piling tariffs on Chinese exports in a bid to extract concessions from Beijing favoring American interests. China has responded with its own sanctions on US trade and appears unwilling to unilaterally accommodate Trump’s economic demands.
Selling weapons to Taiwan and inflaming nationalist tensions on the island would serve Trump’s negotiating agenda for making “America First” in his trade dispute with Beijing.
A look at the weapons being sold to Taiwan begs questions. The mainstay of the recent sale is an inventory for over 100 Abrams tanks. As Chinese military experts point out, these 60-ton vehicles are unsuited to Taiwan’s dense river network and weak roads. The strategic military value is therefore questionable. But the political value is immense, if the real purpose is to antagonize Beijing.
Moreover, the latest proposed purchase is unlikely to be the last. Earlier this year, the Taiwanese authorities requested to buy 66 F-16 fighter jets from the US. That deal was put on hold by the Trump administration seemingly to mitigate tensions with China over the ongoing trade war. If Trump doesn’t get the far-reaching economic concessions he is seeking from China, one can expect the sale of F-16 squadrons to be green lighted in another act of exerting leverage on Beijing.
The grave trouble is that Trump is recklessly provoking China by using Taiwan as a pawn. Already US warships have increased patrolling through the Strait of Taiwan, the narrow strip of sea separating it from the mainland. The Pentagon cynically calls these maneuvers “freedom of navigation” exercises.
By arming Taiwan with audacious weapons inventories, the danger is that secessionist politicians on the island will adopt a more belligerent position towards Beijing, feeling that they have Washington’s backing if a conflict were to break out.
Thus the Trump administration is shamelessly using Taiwan as a form of blackmail against China. The fiendish American logic is: “do as we say on trade policies or else expect more trouble in your own backyard.”
But in this pursuit, Trump is risking war with China from his egotistical desire to be the winner on trade. It’s a reprehensible reckless tactic that this president is using elsewhere with regard to Iran, Russia, Venezuela and anyone else whom Trump wants to roll over. It’s hardly smart business acumen. It’s simply criminal use of state terrorism as a negotiating technique.
- This Is How You Will Pay For Things In 2025
A startup in Sweden called Biohax International has microchipped more than 4,000 people across the country who can use their hands to open secured doors, replace credit cards and cash, pay for transportation tickets, and share emergency information with medical personnel, reported New York Post.
The microchip is about the size of a grain of rice, and the procedure to inject it into a hand costs about $180 — is similar to getting a vaccination.
“It’s very ‘Black Mirror,'” Swedish scientist Ben Libberton told The Post.
Biohax founder Jowan Österlund told Fortune magazine that his chips are considered “moonshot” technology — has sparked institutional interest in the last 6 to 8 months. Some have even said they want to take the technology of microchipping humans to a global level.
“Tech will move into the body,” Österlund said. “I am sure of that.”
Österlund said the tiny microchips are implanted in the hand allows people to unlock doors or gym lockers, operate office printers, pay for lunch, or purchase a train ticket, all with their hand.
The company has positioned itself for the cashless society, expected to flourish in Europe in the next several years.
Österlund insists the technology is completely safe — but said some people fear the chips could fall victim to cybercriminals.
Libberton told The Post that the potential health benefits of internal microchips would be accurate health metrics taken from within the body.
“Think if the Apple Watch could measure things like blood glucose,” he said.
Libberton suggested that if big corporations got a hold of this highly personalized data – it would be super invasive.
“The problem is, who owns this data?” he asked. “Do I get a letter from my insurance company saying premiums are going up before I know I’m ill? If I use the chip to buy lunch, go to the gym and go to work, will someone have all of this info about me? Is this stored and is it safe?”
Libberton added, “It’s not just about the chip, but integration with other systems and data sharing.”
Those who have been chipped don’t have to worry about being followed by the government or corporations, that is because the chips aren’t powered, thus cannot support GPS or 3G, LTE, and or 5G.
There are a handful of companies progressing human microchipping at the moment, such as Cyberise. Me, in Melbourne, Australia, Three Square Market in Wisconsin and Dangerous Things in Seattle.
The proliferation of human microchipping and the cashless society could become more widespread when governments ban cash after the next global reset.
So basically Biohax is an eyeopener into how you will pay for things in 2025.
- What Was It All For: Veterans Have Finally Turned On America's Endless Wars
Authored by Danny Sjursen via AntiWar.com,
It is undoubtedly my favorite part of every wedding. That awkward, but strangely forthright moment when the preacher asks the crowd for any objections to the couple’s marriage. No one ever objects, of course, but it’s still a raw, if tense, moment. I just love it.
I suppose we had that ubiquitous ritual in mind back in 2007 when Keith – a close buddy and fellow officer – and I crafted our own plan of objection. The setting was Baghdad, Iraq, at the start of the “surge” and the climax of the bloody civil war the U.S. invasion had unleashed. Just twenty three years old and only eighteen months out of the academy, my clique of officers had already decided the war was a mess, shouldn’t have been fought, and couldn’t be won.
Me and Keith, though, were undoubtedly the most radical. We both just hated how our squadron’s colonel would hijack the memorial ceremonies held for dead troopers – including three of my own – and use the occasion of his inescapable speech to encourage we mourners to use the latest death as a reason to “rededicate ourselves to the mission and the people of Iraq.” The whole thing was as repulsive as it was repetitive.
So it was that after a particularly depressing ceremony, perhaps our squadron’s tenth or so, that we hatched our little defiant scheme. If (or when) one of us was killed, the other promised – and this was a time and place where promises are sacred – to object, stand up, and announce to the colonel and the crowd that we’d listen to no such bullshit at this particular ceremony, not this time. “Danny didn’t believe in this absurd mission for a minute, he wouldn’t want his death to rededicate us to anything,” Keith would have said! Luckily it never came to that. We both survived, Keith left the army soon after, and I, well, toiled along until something snapped and I chose the road of public dissent. Still, I believe either of us would have actually done it – even if it did mean the end of our respective careers. That’s called brotherhood…and love.
I got to thinking on that when I read a story this week which was both disturbing, refreshing, and sickening all at the same time. A major opinion poll’s results were released which demonstrated that fully two-thirds of post 9/11 veterans now think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “weren’t worth fighting.” That’s a remarkable, and distressing, statistic and one that should give America’s president, legislators, media, and people as a whole, serious pause. Not that it will, mind you, but it should! It’s doubtful that US military combat vets – who are more rural, southern, and conservative than the population at large – have ever so incontrovertibly turned on a war, at least since the very end of Vietnam.
On one level I felt a sense of vindication for my longtime antiwar stances when I read about the study – in the Military Times no less. But that was just ego. Within minutes I was sad, inconsolably and completely melancholy. Because if, as a “filibuster-proof” majority of my fellow veterans (and maybe even our otherwise unhinged president) believes, the Iraq and Afghan wars weren’t worth the sacrifice, then consider the unsettling implications. It would mean, for starters, that the US flushed nearly $5.9 trillion in hard-earned taxpayer cash down the toilet. It means that 7,000 American soldiers and upwards of 244,000 foreign civilians needn’t have lost their ever precious lives. Hundreds of thousands more might not have been injured or maimed. 21 million people wouldn’t have become refugees. The world, so to speak, could’ve been a safer, better place.
Those ever-so-logical conclusions should dismay even the most apathetic American. They should make us all rather sad, but, more importantly, should inform future decisions about the use of military force, the role of America in the world, and just how much foreign policy power to turn over to presidents. Because if we, collectively, don’t learn from our country’s eighteen year, tragic saga, then this republic is, without exaggeration, finished, once and for all. Benjamin Franklin, that confounding Founding Father, wasn’t sure the American people could be trusted to “keep” the republic he and other elites formed. It’d be a devastating catastrophe to prove him right, especially in this time of rising right-wing, strongman populism in the Western world.
So consider this a plea to Congress, to the corporate media establishment, and to all of you: when even traditionally more conservative and martial military veterans raise the antiwar alarm – listen! And next time the American war drums beat, and they undoubtedly will, consider this article encouragement to do what Keith and I promised way back when. Object! Refuse to fight the next ill-advised and unethical war. Remember: to do so demonstrates brotherhood and love. Love of each other and love of country…
* * *
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge.
- China's New Icebreaker Ship Ready For 'Polar Silk Road'
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative to the Arctic was outlined last year in an official Arctic policy white paper that detailed China’s push to build infrastructure and conduct commercial shipping travel in the Arctic.
China hopes to establish a ‘Polar Silk Road‘ through developing the Northern Sea Route would save commercial vessels 20 days versus that traditional route through the Suez Canal.
China’s growing influence in the Arctic has led to the new commissioning of the 13,996-ton Xuelong 2 (Snow Dragon II), was transferred last week to the Polar Research Institute of China, part of the natural resources ministry, in Shanghai, after undergoing two weeks of sea trials, reported South China Morning Post.
China’s 1st domestically-built polar research vessel and icebreaker “Xuelong 2” has started its 12-day trial voyage pic.twitter.com/tuF6OcwjqA
— China Xinhua News (@XHNews) June 1, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Qin Weijia, director in charge of polar research with China’s State Oceanic Administration, told journalist during a press conference that the new icebreaker will be Station on the 36th Chinese scientific expedition to Antarctica, where it would carry out “scientific research.”
Snow Dragon II is China’s second icebreaker and the first to be domestically built.
Experts believe the icebreakers could pave the way for China to become a dominant player in the Arctic, which would be met with severe Western backlash.
The commissioning of the new icebreaker coincides with an escalating economic war between China and the US.
China’s increasing presence in the Arctic, especially its partnership with Russia, recently triggered US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He described China as having “aggressive behavior” and has transformed the region into “an arena of global power and competition.”
Last Wednesday, Defence One reported that US’ top naval commander in Europe, Admiral James Foggo III, said early estimates show China is rapidly increasing its presence in the Arctic.
“Though it [China] sits more than 900 miles south of the Arctic Circle, the country has long been interested in the region’s resources,” he said.
Foggo said it’s essential for the US Navy to continue modernization efforts and ramp up patrols in the Arctic as the region becomes “more accessible, to protect the American people, our sovereign territory and rights, and the natural resources and interests” of the US and its allies.
China has zero territorial claims in the Arctic, but that hasn’t stopped the rising power of the world from establishing footholds in the regions.
China’s long game is setting up the ‘Polar Silk Road’ by using icebreakers to clear shipping channels in the Arctic would allow for quicker shipping between China and Europe.
- The World Needs A Water Treaty
Authored by Conn Hallinan via Counterpunch.org,
During the face-off earlier this year between India and Pakistan over a terrorist attack that killed more than 40 Indian paramilitaries in Kashmir, New Delhi made an existential threat to Islamabad.
The weapon was not India’s considerable nuclear arsenal, but one still capable of inflicting ruinous destruction: water.
“Our government has decided to stop our share of water which used to flow to Pakistan,” said Indian Transport Minister Nitin Gadkarikinon February 21.
“We will divert water from eastern rivers and supply it to our people in Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab.”
India controls three major rivers that flow into Pakistan.
If India had followed through, it would have abrogated the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT) between the two counties, a move that could be considered an act of war.
In the end, nothing much came of it. India bombed some forests, and Pakistan bombed some fields. But the threat underlined a growing crisis in South Asia, where water-stressed mega-cities and intensive agriculture are quite literally drying the subcontinent up. By 2030, according to a recent report, half the population of India — 700 million people — will lack adequate drinking water. Currently, 25 percent of India’s population is suffering from drought.
“If the wars of this century were fought over oil, the wars of the next century will be fought over water,” warns Ismail Serageldin, a former executive for the World Bank.
Bilateral Strains
While relations between India and Pakistan have long been tense — they have fought three wars since 1947, one of which came distressingly close to going nuclear — in terms of water sharing, they are somewhat of a model.
After almost a decade of negotiations, both countries signed the IWT in 1960 to share the output of six major rivers. The World Bank played a key role by providing $1 billion for the Indus Basin Development Fund.
But the ongoing tensions over Kashmir have transformed water into a national security issue for both countries. This, in turn, has limited the exchange of water and weather data, making long-term planning extremely difficult.
The growing water crisis is heightened by climate change. Both countries have experienced record-breaking heat waves, and the mountains that supply the vast majority of water for Pakistan and India are losing their glaciers. The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment report estimates that by 2100, some two-thirds of the area’s more than 14,000 glaciers will be gone.
India’s response to declining water supplies, like that of many other countries in the region, is to build dams. But dams not only restrict downstream water supplies, they block the natural flow of silt. That silt renews valuable agricultural land and also replenishes the great deltas, like the Ganges-Brahmaputra, the Indus, and the Mekong. The deltas not only support fishing industries, they also act as natural barriers to storms.
The Sunderbans — a vast, 4,000 square-mile mangrove forest on the coasts of India and Bangladesh — is under siege. As climate change raises sea levels, upstream dams reduce the flow of freshwater that keeps the salty sea at bay. The salt encroachment eventually kills the mangrove trees and destroys farmland. Add to this increased logging to keep pace with population growth, and Bangladesh alone will lose some 800 square miles of Sunderban over the next few years.
As the mangroves are cut down or die off, they expose cities like Kolkata and Dhaka to the unvarnished power of typhoons, storms which climate change is making more powerful and frequent.
The Third Pole
The central actor in the South Asia water crisis is China, which sits on the sources of 10 major rivers that flow through 11 countries, and which supply 1.6 billion people with water. In essence, China controls the “Third Pole,” that huge reservoir of fresh water locked up in the snow and ice of the Himalayas.
And Beijing is building lots of dams to collect water and generate power.
Over 600 large dams either exist or are planned in the Himalayas. In the past decade, China has built three dams on the huge Brahmaputra that has its origin in China but drains into India and Bangladesh.
While India and China together represent a third of the world’s population, both countries have access to only 10 percent of the globe’s water resources — and no agreements on how to share that water. While tensions between Indian and Pakistan mean the Indus Water Treaty doesn’t function as well as it could, nevertheless the agreement does set some commonly accepted ground rules, including binding arbitration. No such treaty exists between New Delhi and Beijing.
While relations between China and India are far better than those between India and Pakistan, under the Modi government New Delhi has grown closer to Washington and has partly bought into a U.S. containment strategy aimed at China. Indian naval ships carry out joint war games with China’s two major regional rivals, Japan and the United States, and there are still disputes between China and India over their mutual border. A sharpening atmosphere of nationalism in both countries is not conducive to cooperation over anything, let alone something as critical as water.
And yet never has there been such a necessity for cooperation. Both countries need the “Third Pole’s” water for agriculture, hydropower, and to feed the growth of mega-cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Beijing.
Stressed water supplies translate into a lack of clean water, which fuels a health crisis, especially in the sprawling cities that increasingly draw rural people driven out by climate change. Polluted water kills more people than wars, including 1.5 million children under the age of five. Reduced water supplies also go hand in hand with waterborne diseases like cholera. There is even a study that demonstrates thirsty mosquitoes bite more, thus increasing the number of vector borne diseases like zika, malaria, and dengue.
Regional Pacts Won’t Cut It
South Asia is hardly alone in facing a crisis over fresh water. Virtually every continent on the globe is looking at shortages. According to the World Economic Forum, by 2030 water sources will only cover 60 percent of the world’s daily requirement.
The water crisis is no longer a problem that can be solved through bilateral agreements like the IWT, but one that requires regional, indeed, global solutions. If the recent push by the Trump administration to lower mileage standards for automobiles is successful, it will add hundreds of thousands of extra tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which, in turn, will accelerate climate change.
In short, what comes out of U.S. auto tailpipes will ultimately be felt by the huge Angsi Glacier in Tibet, the well spring of the Brahmaputra, a river that flows through China, India, and Bangladesh, emptying eventually into the Bay of Bengal.
There is no such thing as a local or regional solution to the water crisis, since the problem is global. The only really global organization that exists is the United Nations, which will need to take the initiative to create a worldwide water agreement.
Such an agreement is partly in place. The UN International Watercourses Convention came into effect in August 2014 following Vietnam’s endorsement of the treaty. However, China voted against it, and India and Pakistan abstained. Only parties that signed it are bound by its conventions.
But the convention is a good place to start. “It offers legitimate and effective practices for data sharing, negotiation, and dispute resolution that could be followed in a bilateral or multilateral water sharing arrangement,” according to Srinivas Chokkakula, a water issues researcher at New Delhi’s Center for Policy Research.
By 2025, according to the UN, some 1.8 billion people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water shortages, and two-thirds of the world’s population could be under “water stress” conditions. There is enough fresh water for seven billion people, according to the UN, but it is unevenly distributed, polluted, wasted, or poorly managed.
If countries don’t come together around the conventions — which need to be greatly strengthened — and it becomes a free for all with a few countries holding most of the cards, sooner or later the “water crisis” will turn into an old-fashioned war.
- PFAS Crisis Expands As Millions Of Americans In 43 States Are Exposed To Toxic Chemicals
Tens of millions of Americans in 43 states may have been exposed to toxic fluorinated compounds known as PFAS in their drinking water.
In a report from May, the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) showed how PFAS had exposed upwards of 19 million Americans through contaminated groundwater. EWG found 610 contaminated locations ranging from public water systems, military bases, military and civilian airports, industrial plants, dumps, and firefighter training sites.
Now the environmental advocacy group has identified 58 more military sites where high levels of PFAS used in firefighting foam have been detected in groundwater or drinking water, from Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson, Alaska to Fort Eustis, Virginia, reported the Military Times.
Many of the new locations contain PFAS levels over 100,000 parts per trillion.
“The EPA and the Department of Defense have utterly failed to treat PFAS contamination as a crisis demanding swift and decisive action,” said Ken Cook, president of EWG, in a statement announcing the additional contaminated sites.
“‘It’s time for Congress to end new PFAS pollution and clean up legacy contamination,” Cook said.
For decades, the military and other civilian agencies used firefighting foams that contained PFAS. These dangerous chemicals are also in hundreds of everyday household products.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has warned that the toxic chemicals are present in the blood samples of the general population. Prior studies have shown the dangerous chemicals have been linked to weakened childhood immunity, thyroid disease, cancer, and other major health issues.
DoD officials are prioritizing cleanup operations for 401 of the sites, said Deborah Morefield, manager of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program in the office of the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the environment.
The cleanup process occurred under a law known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, she said. “‘It’s a long process, and it ‘doesn’t happen overnight.”
Under new DoD policy, the firefighting foam has been banned from training, maintenance, or testing exercises, Morefield said. “It’s only being used for real fire emergencies, and even in those cases, we’re treating it as a spill response. We’re collecting and trying to make sure it ‘doesn’t get into the environment further,” she said.
Morefield said Congress had allocated additional monies for cleanup sites. “We are trying to get our hands on this, trying to make sure we get the appropriate funding to move forward to take care of our cleanup responsibilities.”
Congress introduced new legislation earlier this year that would require the EPA to set new limits for PFAS by 2021-22.
EWG’s reports reveal that America’s drinking water crisis goes way beyond Flint.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/97875db541264defacac9d470ce8fcf8.jpg?itok=RbwNLcfm){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/5fcf84427c8841c6963814e93271c513.jpg?itok=lqTSWyyt){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/eu%20commission%20pres%20election.jpg?itok=30m8cW64){kind=link}