- India revoked a provision that gave the state of Kashmir autonomous powers.
- By revoking this, India’s central government now has more power over the region, which has long been at the center of disputes between India and Pakistan.
- India claims that this decision was made for the security of the region, but many are criticizing the move saying it was a power grab.
India Revokes Article 370
India’s government revoked the constitutional provision that gave the state of Kashmir certain autonomous powers in a highly controversial move announced Monday.
For context, Kashmir refers to both a state and a region. As a region, Kashmir has been a flashpoint of conflict in the area since India and Pakistan gained independence from Britain in 1947.
Originally, Kashmir had wanted to be independent from the two countries, but they ultimately decided to join India under the condition that they would be able to have some autonomy.
That autonomy was granted under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution which is the provision that India revoked Monday.
Under that provision, Kashmir was allowed their own constitution, flag, and to make their own laws, with the exception of laws regarding defense communications and foreign affairs, which were left to India’s central government to decide.
After Kashmir joined India, India and Pakistan went to war over the region. The two nations eventually agreed to divide Kashmir along a ceasefire line called the Line of Control.
Today, the region is divided between India, Pakistan, and China, though India and Pakistan each claim the region fully belongs to them.
India controls the largest part of the region, which until now was the Indian state called Jammu and Kashmir. However, there has still been a lot of violence and clashes both internally and between India and Pakistan.
Since the 1990s, separatists in Indian-controlled Kashmir have been fighting against Indian rule, a conflict that has killed tens of thousands of people.
Then in February, India and Pakistan clashed in the region after a militant group reportedly killed dozens in an attack on Indian-controlled Kashmir.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi later claimed his government had struck a large terrorist training camp in Pakistan’s part of Kashmir, but Pakistani authorities denied that occurrence.
What Does It Mean?
Given Kashmir’s significance both historically and contemporarily, India’s announcement Monday represents a significant shift.
On the very top-level, the Indian government said it is going to break up the state of Kashmir into two federal territories.
One of those territories will still be called Jammu and Kashmir, and it will have a state legislature. The other will be called Ladakh and will not get its own legislature.
Now that the article has been removed, Kashmir will have to abide by the Indian Constitution and Indian laws. Essentially, the move will give the central government in India a lot more control over Kashmir while simultaneously gutting much of its previous autonomy.
Also of note, the Indian government additionally said Monday that they are revoking another provision that had prevented nonresidents from buying property in Kashmir.
That is massively consequential because Kashmir is India’s only Muslim-majority state. Now that other Indians can buy property and move to Kashmir, some experts are worried the demographics of the region will change, creating tensions between Hindus and Muslims not just in the region but all over India.
Others believe that making Kashmir more Hindu is exactly what Modi, who is a staunch Hindu Nationalist, wants. During his recent re-election campaign, one of Modi’s promises was that he would revoke Article 370.
At least right now, Indian authorities are more concerned about the spike in tensions that the annoucement itself will cause in Kashmir. According to local media reports, the central government sent 35,000 troops to the region last week in anticipation.
The Indian government also evacuated tourists, closed all schools, and cut off internet access entirely. Currently, the people of Kashmir are essentially on lockdown and in a media blackout.
While the Indian government claims it made the move in order to better ensure security in the region, many argue it is just a blatant power grab.
When the decision was announced, it was met with loud jeers from opposition leaders.
Many in India have also argued that the move is illegal and unconstitutional, pointing out the fact that under the Constitution, Article 370 cannot be unilaterally removed and could only be changed with the consent of the state government.
The constitutional argument could set up a scenario where the government’s decision is brought to the country’s Supreme Court.
The government of Pakistan responded by condemning the decision, and saying it violates international law and United Nation resolutions.
In a statement, Pakistan’s foreign ministry said it would “exercise all possible options to counter the illegal steps.”
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan also condemned the move and noted in a tweet that President Donald Trump had offered to mediate the crisis.
It is time to end the long night of suffering for the people of Occupied Kashmir. They must be allowed to exercise their right to self determination according to UN SC resolutions.The only road to peace & security in South Asia runs through a peaceful & just settlement of Kashmir— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) August 4, 2019
India for its part has repeatedly said it does not want Trump to intervene.
A U.S. State Department spokeswoman responded in a statement Monday, saying that the U.S. is “closely following” the situation, which she added was a “strictly an internal matter.”
“We are concerned about reports of detentions and urge respect for individual rights and discussion with those in affected communities,” the spokeswoman said. “We call on all parties to maintain peace and stability along the Line of Control.”
China, which also controls part of Kashmir, has also condemned the move.
Many experts and political leaders anticipate that India’s move will just create more violence and conflict in the region. While Kashmir is essentially under lockdown, protests have broken out all over Pakistan, where protestors reportedly yelled: “down with India!”
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Khan said he expects terrorist violence to increase because of the move. Khan also accused India’s leadership of promoting “racist ideology,” continuing, “I fear they may initiate ethnic cleansing in Kashmir to wipe out the local population.”
“If India attacks us, we will respond. We will fight until the last drop of blood,” he added
See what others are saying: (Vox) (The Washington Post) (BBC)
Egypt Seizes Ship That Blocked Suez Canal Until Owners Pay Nearly $1 Billion
- Egyptian authorities seized the Ever Given, a mega-ship that blocked the Suez Canal for nearly a week last month, after a judge ruled Wednesday that the owners must pay $900 million in damages.
- The ship was seized just as it was deemed fit to return to sea after undergoing repairs in the Great Bitter Lake, which sits in the middle of the Suez Canal.
- The vessel’s owners said little about the verdict, but insurance companies covering the ship pushed back against the $900 million price tag, saying it’s far too much for any damage the ship actually caused.
Ever Given Still in Egypt
An Egyptian court blocked the mega-ship known as the Ever Given from leaving the country Wednesday morning unless its owner pays nearly $1 billion in compensation for damages it caused after blocking the Suez Canal for nearly a week last month.
The Ever Given’s ordeal started when it slammed into the side of the canal and became lodged, which caused billions of dollars worth of goods to be held up on both sides of the canal while crews worked round the clock to free the vessel. An Egyptian judge found that the Ever Given becoming stuck caused not only physical damage to the canal that needed to be paid for but also “reputational” damage to Egypt and the Suez Canal Authority.
The ship’s Japanese owner, Shoei Kisen Kaisha, will need to pay $900 million to free the ship and the cargo it held, both of which were seized by authorities after the ship was transported to the Great Bitter Lake in the middle of the canal to undergo now-finished repairs. Shoei Kisen Kaisha doesn’t seem to want to fight the judgment in court just yet. It released a short statement after the ruling, saying that lawyers and insurance companies were working on the claims but refused to comment further.
Pushing Back Against The Claim
While Shoei Kisen Kaisha put in a claim with insurers, those insurance companies aren’t keen on just paying the bill. One of the ship’s insurers, UKP&I, challenged the basis of the $900 million claim, writing in a press release, “The [Suez Canal Authority] has not provided a detailed justification for this extraordinarily large claim, which includes a $300 million claim for a ‘salvage bonus’ and a $300 million claim for ‘loss of reputation.’”
“The grounding resulted in no pollution and no reported injuries. The vessel was re-floated after six days and the Suez Canal promptly resumed their commercial operations.”
It went on to add that the $900 million verdict doesn’t even include payments to the crews that worked to free the ship, meaning that the total price tag of the event could likely be far more for Shoei Kisen Kaisha and the multiple insurance companies it works with.
See what others are saying: (Financial Times) (CNN) (The Telegraph)
Treated Radioactive Water From Japanese Nuclear Power Plant Will Be Released Into Ocean
- The Japanese government confirmed Tuesday that it will officially move forward with plans to dump millions of gallons of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.
- The government spent a decade decontaminating the water, only leaving a naturally occurring isotope in it that scientists recognize as safe for people and the environment.
- Despite the safety claims, protesters took to the streets in Tokyo to show disapproval of the decision. Local business owners, in particular, have expressed fears that more municipalities worldwide could ban Fukushima products, including fish, because of distrust in the water.
- Meanwhile, officials have insisted that the dump is necessary as the water takes up a massive amount of space, which is needed to store highly radioactive fuel rods from the remaining cores at the now-defunct nuclear facility.
Editor’s Note: The Japanese government has asked Western outlets to adhere to Japanese naming conventions. To that end, Japanese names will be written as Family Name followed by Given Name.
Radioactive or Bad Publicity?
After years of discussions and debate, the Japanese government announced Tuesday that it will dump radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.
Government officials consider the move necessary, but it’s facing backlash from local businesses, particularly fisheries, over potential consequences it could have. Many are especially concerned that the decision will create bad press for the region as headlines about it emerge. For instance, a headline from the Guardian on the issue reads, “Japan announces it will dump contaminated water into sea.”
While the water is contaminated and radioactive, it’s not nearly what the headlines make it out to be. The government has spent the last decade decontaminating it, and now it only contains a trace amount of the isotope tritium. That isotope is common in nature and is already found in trace amounts in groundwater throughout the world. Its radiation is so weak that it can’t pierce human skin, meaning one could only possibly get sick by ingesting more than that has ever been recorded.
According to the government, the decontaminated water at Fukushima will be diluted to 1/7 of the WHO’s acceptable radiation levels for drinking water before being released into the ocean over two years.
Something Had To Eventually Be Done
Over the last decade, Japan has proposed this plan and other similar ones, such as evaporating the water, which the International Atomic Energy Agency said last year met global standards.
The water has been sitting in containers for years, so why is there a push to remove it now? Space and leakage seem to be the primary reasons.
The water containers are slowly being filled by groundwater, and the government expects to run out of space relatively soon. Space is sorely needed, as Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide has pointed out in the past that the government wants to use the space to store damaged radioactive fuel rods that still need to be extracted from the plant. Unlike the water, those rods are dangerously radioactive and need proper storage.
Regardless, Suga reportedly recognizes that removing the water is going to end up as a lose-lose situation.
“It is inevitable that there would be reputational damage regardless of how the water will be disposed of, whether into the sea or into the air,” he said at a press conference last week. As expected, the government’s decision did trigger backlash, prompting many demonstrators to take to the streets of Tokyo Tuesday in protest.
To this day, eleven countries and regions still ban many products from the Fukushima prefecture despite massive clean-up efforts that have seen people returning to the area to live.
Greta Thunberg To Skip U.N. Climate Change Conference, Citing Vaccine Inequality
- Young environmental activist Greta Thunberg will not attend the U.N.’s climate change conference set to take place in Glasgow, Scotland this November.
- “Inequality and climate injustice is already the heart of the climate crisis. If people can’t be vaccinated and travel to be represented equally that’s undemocratic and would worsen the problem,” the 18-year-old tweeted Friday, adding, “Vaccine nationalism won’t solve the pandemic. Global problems need global solutions.”
- Since rollouts began late last year, 40% of vaccines have been administered in wealthy and Western countries, according to The Washington Post.
- Scientists have warned that the longer the virus continues to circulate widely, the more chances it will have to change and potentially develop vaccine resistance.
Thunberg Points To Vaccine Inequality
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has said she is skipping the UN’s climate change conference.
The COP26 summit is set to take place in Glasgow, Scotland in November, but 18-year-old Thunberg told BBC she won’t attend because she’s concerned about the impact COVID-19 will have on attendance.
In a Twitter thread Friday, she responded to a headline about her plans to miss the summit.
“Of course I would love to attend…But not unless everyone can take part on the same terms. Right now many countries are vaccinating healthy young people, often at the expense of risk groups and front line workers (mainly from global south, as usual…),” she wrote.
“Inequality and climate injustice is already the heart of the climate crisis. If people can’t be vaccinated and travel to be represented equally that’s undemocratic and would worsen the problem.”
“Vaccine nationalism won’t solve the pandemic. Global problems need global solutions,” the teen continued.
Thunberg went on to say that if the summit is delayed, it doesn’t mean urgent action should too.
“We don’t have to wait for conferences nor anyone or anything else to dramatically start reducing our emissions. Solidarity and action can start today,” she added before noting that digital alternatives for the conference would also be insufficient.
“High speed internet connection and access to computers is extremely unequal in the world. In that case we would lack representation from those whose voices need to be heard the most when it comes to the climate crisis,” she wrote.
Data on Global Vaccine Distribution Efforts
According to The Washington Post, nearly 20% of people in the United States are now vaccinated, but many other countries are unlikely to hit that same metric by the end of the year, even with international assistance through the Covax program.
Current projections predict it could be years before developing countries distribute enough doses to come close to herd immunity, which scientists say requires inoculating around 70-80% of a population.
Since rollouts began late last year, enough shots have been distributed to fully vaccinate about 5% of the world’s population, but The Post reported that the vast majority have been administered in wealthy and Western countries.
Around 40% of vaccines have been given in 27 wealthy nations that include only 11% of the world’s population, according to the Bloomberg Vaccine Tracker.
That’s pretty concerning because scientists also warn that the longer the virus continues to circulate widely, the more chances it will have to change and potentially develop vaccine resistance.
Thunberg’s comments are a blow for U.K. organizers, who have already postponed the conference once from last November because of the pandemic. Even now, there has been speculation that it could be delayed again this year.
Thunberg would not play a formal role at the conference but her decision not to attend is a significant symbolic moment.
At COP25, the young climate change activist gave a headline speech and she typically attends major climate events of this nature. On top of that, reports say this summit was slated to be one of the most consequential climate conferences since the 2015 Paris accord.
On the agenda for this year’s conference discussions were country-level plans for cutting carbon emissions, along with progress on the Paris agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.