Monday, June 30, 2025

 IMPERIALISM

India Tightens Hold Over Sri Lanka With Its Defence Ministry Acquiring Colombo Dockyard – Analysis

Sri Lanka's Colombo Dockyard. Photo Credit: Colombo Dockyard PLC

By 

With the acquisition of the Colombo Dockyard PLC (CDPLC) by the Indian Defence Ministry’s Mazagaon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd., (MDSL) last week, India’s position in Sri Lanka’s maritime domain vis-à-vis rival China, has been strengthened. 

\

Given Colombo port’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean, it has been eyed by regional powers India and China since 2010. And the competition has manifested itself in various forms.      

The Colombo Dockyard PLC(CDPLC) had been a joint venture of the Sri Lankan government and the Japanese Onomichi Dockyard Company Ltd., (Onomichi for short) since 1974. The CDPLC had been a success all along until the Sri Lankan financial crisis in 2022, when the country defaulted on its loans and its economy tanked. 

According to Lloyd’s List, the CDPLC had been a major asset as it was capable of handling vessels up to 125,000 dwt. It has serviced more than 200 ships annually. Even last year, the yard delivered two 5,000 dwt bulk carriers and was awarded contracts for four more, Lloyd’s List said. 

But 2023 proved to be a disastrous year for CDPLC. It registered a loss of Sri Lank ₨.11.1bn (U$ 38.2m). This was attributed to “poor performance in the shipbuilding sector and the economic crisis which saw exchange rates tumble and inflation skyrocket.” 

According to The Sunday Morning, requests made on behalf of the Japanese company for government intervention to curb the impact of debt servicing went unanswered. However, seeing the gravity of the situation, the government, at the end of 2024, began to search for a suitable partner to keep CDPLC going. 

\

But according to The Sunday Morning several “powerful nations were expressing concern” about which entities were wanting to acquire control of the port. Be that as it may, on its part, Onomichi’s condition was that it would sell its shares to “any strategic investor willing to commit to the CDPCL’s business.” 

Enter Mazagaon Dock Shipbuilders .

Last week, the Indian Defence Ministry-owned Mazagaon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd.,(MDSL) announced that it had acquired 51% of the stake in CDPCL previously held by Onomichi. According to Llyod’s List, the deal is worth US$ 52.96 million. 

This marked MDSL’s first international acquisition. “MDSL begins its transformation from a domestic shipbuilder to a regional maritime player with global ambitions. This move strengthens India’s regional maritime influence and expands MDSL’s global reach,” the company said in a social media post on X on June 27. 

The MDSL’s credentials are impressive. It has built 805 vessels since 1960, including 30 warships, ranging from advanced destroyers to missile boats as well as 8 submarines. For its Indian and global clientele, it has built cargo and passenger ships, supply vessels, multipurpose support vessels, water tankers, tugs, dredgers, fishing trawlers, and barges. MDL reported strong financial results in the third quarter of 2024, showing a net profit that had surged by 29% Year on Year.

Geopolitical Dimension 

India, which was already in the race to acquire control over Colombo port, had seized the opportunity created by Onomichi’s exit with alacrity, before China could seize it. 

After China got to set up a container terminal (the Colombo Container Terminal or CCT), India wanted to build and run the Eastern Container Terminal (ECT) and the Sri Lankan agreed to the proposal. But the decision to give it to India clashed with the policy of not giving ports to foreign counties. This caused tension with India especially because India saw the hidden hand of India in the controversy.

However, given India’s geopolitical heft, which was bigger thanb China’s, the project to build the Western Container Terminal (WCT) was given to the Indian group, the Adanis in 2021. 

In 2022, when Sri Lanka defaulted on replaying loans, India bailed the Sri Lankan government out by promptly giving aid to the tune of US$ 4 billion, while China was dragging its feet. With that New Delhi’s influence over Sri Lanka increased. 

In July 2023, a Joint statement issued at the end of Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s visit to New Delhi said that the two countries would ” cooperate in development of ports and logistics infrastructure at Colombo, Trincomalee and Kankesanthurai with an aim to consolidate regional logistics and shipping, as per mutual understanding.”

More importantly, the statement said that the two countries would “establish land connectivity between Sri Lanka and India for developing land access to the ports of Trincomalee and Colombo, propelling economic growth and prosperity in both Sri Lanka and India, and further consolidating millennia-old relationship between the two countries. A feasibility study for such connectivity will be conducted at an early date.”

However, in the December 2024, the joint communique issued after President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s visit to New Delhi omitted the land connectivity part but spoke about cooperation in ensuring maritime security.

The December 2024 joint communicate said – “Recognizing shared maritime security interests in the Indian Ocean Region, both leaders agreed to jointly pursue strengthening regional maritime security, both bilaterally and through existing regional frameworks. In this regard, the leaders welcomed the recent signing of the Founding Documents of the Colombo Security Conclave headquartered in Colombo. India reiterated its support to Sri Lanka in advancing the objectives of the Conclave.” 

The omission of the land connectivity plan did not come as a surprise, as the National Peoples’ Power (NPP) government led by Dissanayake was expected to be cautious about agreeing to connectivity projects. The leaders of the NPP have had a long background of anti-Indian politics and were also ideologically pro-China.

But over time, the Dissanayake regime grasped the geopolitical power of India in the region and yielded to Indian sensitivities. In deference to India’s security concerns, the NPP government does not allow foreign oceanographic research vessels to do any work in Sri Lankan waters. Recently, the government disallowed the Food and Agricultural Organization’s research vessel Nansen, though it had requested a visit in 2023. The decision might have been, at least partly, due to the fact that India and Sri Lanka had formally agreed to cooperate in hydrographic surveys.



P. K. Balachandran

P. K. Balachandran is a senior Indian journalist working in Sri Lanka for local and international media and has been writing on South Asian issues for the past 21 years.




 

How to refocus in the age of distraction



New survey reveals what Americans believe contributes most to a short attention span




Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center

News Package 

video: 

New survey reveals what Americans believe contributes most to short attention spans

view more 

Credit: The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center




COLUMBUS, Ohio – Studies show that the average attention span is now only eight seconds. That’s about as much time as it takes to read a few sentences before being distracted. 

A new national survey of 1,000 American adults commissioned by The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and College of Medicine finds that stress and anxiety contribute most to a     short attention span (43%), followed by lack of sleep (39%) and digital devices (35%). 

Other contributing factors include boredom or lack of interest (31%); multitasking (23%); lack of physical activity (21%); poor diet/hydration (20%) and medical conditions such as ADHD (18%). 

Only 25% of survey respondents said they don’t have trouble with their attention span.

Evita Singh, MD, a psychiatrist with Ohio State’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health said this is something she sees often. 

“The stress and the ruminating and thinking about things over and over in your mind can certainly impact attention span and the ability to focus,” said Singh. “Often when patients come to see me, they're worried about their ability to focus, and there's a good chance that it ends up being because they're so stressed out or they're anxious. So we work on treating that.” 

Short attention spans can have long-term consequences, she said. 

“When people are multitasking, when they have so many things in their mind that they're thinking about, they can get exhausted,” Singh said. “And then it's really hard to enjoy things, which can then lead to depression or anxiety.” 

To help improve attention spans and the ability to focus longer, Singh created a tool to help. 

It’s called Take Five:

  • T – Take frequent breaks.

  • A – Actively engage in the one task at hand. 

  • K – Keep distractions to a minimum. 

  • E – Eliminate multitasking. 

  • Five – Take five minutes to refocus.
     

“For example, can we do five minutes of a small workout practice, or a little bit of mindfulness or something else that we enjoy?” Singh asked. 

If techniques such as “Take Five” are not working, and a lack of focus or short attention negatively impacts day-to-day life, Singh encourages people to seek help from a mental health professional. 

“There are many different things that can lead to why we're having a hard time focusing or having trouble with attention,” Singh said. “But being able to recognize that while also giving grace to ourselves that we don't need to be ‘on’ and focusing 100% of the time is also really important.”

###

Survey Methodology

This study was conducted by SSRS on its Opinion Panel Omnibus platform. The SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus is a national, twice-per-month, probability-based survey. Data collection was conducted from May 2 – May 5, 2025, among a sample of 1,008 respondents. The survey was conducted via web (n=978) and telephone (n=30) and administered in English. The margin of error for total respondents is +/-3.6 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus data are weighted to represent the target population of U.S. adults ages 18 or older. This report provides information about the sampling procedures and the methods used to collect, process, and weight data for this study.

Tests to detect marijuana-impaired driving based on ‘pseudoscience’




Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

"Police ahead" sign photo 

image: 

"Police ahead" sign photo

view more 

Credit: Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (www.jsad.com/photos)





PISCATAWAY, NJ – For years now, U.S. police departments have employed officers who are trained to be experts in detecting “drugged driving.” The problem is, however, that the methods those officers use are not based on science, according to a new editorial in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

With marijuana now legal in many U.S. states, the need for reliable tests for marijuana impairment is more pressing than ever. Police can evaluate alcohol-intoxicated drivers by using an objective measure of breath alcohol results. But there is no “breathalyzer” equivalent for marijuana: The drug is metabolized differently from alcohol, and a person’s blood levels of THC (the main intoxicating chemical in marijuana) do not correlate with impairment. 

So law enforcement rely on subjective tactics—the roadside tests and additional evaluations by police officers specially trained to be so-called drug recognition experts, or DREs. These officers follow a standardized protocol that is said to detect drug impairment and is said to even determine the specific drug type, including marijuana. The process involves numerous steps, including tests of physical coordination; checking the driver’s blood pressure and pulse; squeezing the driver’s limbs to determine if the muscle tone is “normal” or not; and examining pupil size and eye movements.

But while the protocol has the trappings of a scientific approach, it is not actually based on evidence that it works, said perspective author William J. McNichol, J.D., an adjunct professor at Rutgers University Camden School of Law.

Instead, McNichol said, the DRE process is a product of “police science”—techniques created by police officers to use in their work. Few scientific studies have tried to determine how often DREs get it right. But the existing evidence suggests they’re “not much better than a coin toss,” McNichol said.

Despite that, DRE programs and training are federally funded, and more than 8,000 DREs work in police departments nationwide, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police. In addition, McNichol points out, a “spinoff” of the DRE has recently made its way into job sites: workplace impairment recognition experts, or WIREs, who are certified to detect and prevent on-the-job drug impairment.

Not long ago, when marijuana was uniformly illegal in the U.S., people would land in hot water for simple possession or use of the drug. Now that it’s legal in many states, McNichol said, there is an urgent need for scientifically valid, reliable methods for detecting marijuana impairment. And that, he added, will require scientists in the substance abuse field to get involved.

A related commentary published in the same issue of JSAD echoes that last sentiment. Collaborations between law enforcement and scientists who are not invested in either supporting or refuting the status quo is the best path forward, write Thomas D. Marcotte, Ph.D., and Robert L. Fitzgerald, Ph.D., from the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California San Diego. “Developing more robust tools to identify cannabis-impaired drivers in an unbiased fashion is essential to keeping our roadways safe,” they write. These authors also provide recommendations for improving detection of drug impaired driving.

As for how to fund that type of research, McNichol said a source already exists: taxes from legal marijuana sales. “The money is there,” he said, “if only it can be allocated properly.”

-----
McNichol W. J. (2024). Perspective: Pseudoscience and the detection of marijuana-based impairment: We can and must do better. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 86(4), 503–509. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.24-00307

Marcotte, T. D., & Fitzgerald, R. L. (2025). Robust Validation of methods for detecting driving under the influence of cannabis: Paths forward. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 86(4), 510–514. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.25-00110

 

Researchers identify genetic bottlenecks that explain the emergence of cholera




Universidad Miguel Hernandez de Elche

Evolutionary history of the pandemic Vibrio cholerae lineage 

image: 

The evolutionary history of the pandemic Vibrio cholerae lineage shows that its emergence has not been linear, but shaped by several key genetic bottlenecks that explain its rarity. From a group of bacteria with pre-adaptations for virulence (A), new lineages arise with key gene clusters such as CTXΦ or VPI-1 (B), specific modular arrangements within those clusters (C), and unique allelic variations (D). The right combination of all these elements in this genetic mosaic allows the emergence of pathogenic clones from environmental V. cholerae populations (E).

view more 

Credit: López-Pérez et al. (2025), PNAS, 122(22), e2417915122.





A new study by the Genomics and Microbial Evolution Group at the Miguel Hernández University of Elche (UMH) together with the Department of Host-Microbe Interactions at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, USA, sheds light on one of the great enigmas of microbiology: why only certain strains of common bacteria become pandemic pathogens. The work, published in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), focuses on Vibrio cholerae, the bacterium that causes cholera. It reveals that its most dangerous form arises from a specific combination of genes and allelic variants that give it an advantage in the human intestine. This research could pave the way for new strategies to predict and prevent future cholera outbreaks.

The study results from a collaboration between UMH researcher Mario López Pérez and Professor Salvador Almagro-Moreno of the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. It also involved UMH Professor José M. Haro Moreno and predoctoral researcher Alicia Campos López, affiliated with the Department of Plant Production and Microbiology.

Through an extensive analysis of over 1,840 Vibrio cholerae genomes, the researchers identified eleven distinct phylogenetic clusters, with the pandemic group belonging to the largest and located within a lineage shared with environmental strains. Their findings suggest that the emergence of pandemic strains, responsible for global cholera outbreaks, is largely dependent on the acquisition of unique modular gene clusters and allelic variations that confer a competitive advantage during intestinal colonization.. These act as nonlinear filters that prevent most environmental strains from becoming human pathogens.

“As a result, only a small group of Vibrio cholerae strains can cause cholera in humans, despite the species’ vast natural diversity,” explains UMH researcher Mario López, lead author of the study. “We wondered why only this small subset has ever triggered pandemics.”

The study reveals that the emergence of pandemic V. cholerae clones is constrained by specific genetic bottlenecks. These require: a genetic background pre-adapted for virulence, the acquisition of key gene clusters such as CTXΦ and VPI-1, their organization into specific modular arrangements, and finally, the presence of unique allelic variants. “Only when all these elements come together can a strain evolve into a pandemic-capable pathogen,” the researchers explain.

These features are absent in most environmental V. cholerae strains and appear to grant pandemic clones a key competitive advantage: enhanced ability to colonize the human gut.

“Interestingly, the genetic traits that enable V. cholerae to infect humans don’t benefit the bacteria in their natural aquatic environment,” López notes. In the wild, V. cholerae typically lives freely or in association with cyanobacteria colonies, mollusks, or crustaceans.

Cholera is endemic in parts of the world with poor water, sanitation, and hygiene infrastructure. Outbreaks can also occur after natural disasters that disrupt these systems. The disease is characterized by sudden, severe episodes of watery diarrhea, leading to rapid dehydration and, if untreated, potentially death.

“Our analytical model could be applied to other environmental bacteria to understand how pathogenic clones emerge from non-pathogenic populations,” López emphasizes. The study also opens the door to more precise surveillance of strains with pandemic potential—an approach that could be highly useful for future public health preparedness.

The research was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) through the CAREER program (#2045671) and by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund’s Investigator in the Pathogenesis of Infectious Disease program (#1021977). It also received funding from the Spanish “MICRO3GEN” project (PID2023-150293NB-I00), co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) and managed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness.

 

Australia Backs US Strike on Iran


A Vassal’s Impulse


The initial statement from Australian government sources was one of constipated caution and clenching wariness. Senator Penny Wong’s time as head of the Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs has always been about how things come out, a process unsatisfyingly uncertain and unyielding in detail. Stick to the safe middle ground and sod the rest. These were the cautionary words of an Australian government spokesperson on June 22: “We have been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security.”

That insipid statement was in response to Operation Midnight Hammer, a strike on three nuclear facilities in Iran by the US Air Force, authorised by US President Donald Trump on June 22. With such spectacular violence came the hollow call for diplomatic prudence and restraint. There was an important difference: Tehran, not Israel or Washington, would be the subject of scolding. Iran would not be permitted nuclear weapons but jaw jaw was better than war war. “We note the US president’s statement that now is the time for peace,” stated the spokesperson. “The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”

Within twenty-four hours, that anodyne position had morphed into one of unconditional approval for what was a breach of the United Nations Charter, notably its injunction against the threatened or actual use of force against sovereign states in the absence of authorisation by the UN Security Council or the necessity of self-defence. “The world has long agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent this. That is what this is,” accepted Wong.

This assessment was not only silly but colossally misguided. It would have been an absurd proposition for the US to make the claim that they were under imminent threat of attack, a condition seen as necessary for a pre-emptive strike. This was a naked submission to the wishes of a small, destabilising and sole (undeclared) nuclear power in the Middle East, a modern territorial plunderer celebratory of ethnonational supremacy.

The Australian position, along a number of European states, also failed to acknowledge the General Conference Resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (in particular GC(XIXI)/RES/444 and GC(XXIV)/RES/533) declaring that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.”

Wong also misrepresented the circumstances under which Iran was told they could negotiate over their nuclear program, erroneously accepting the line from the Trump administration that Tehran had “an opportunity to comply”. Neither the US diplomatic channel, which only permitted a narrow, fleeting corridor for actual negotiations, nor Israel’s wilful distortion of the IAEA’s assessment of Iran’s uranium enrichment plans and prevarication, ever gave chance for a credible resolution. Much like the calamitous, unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003 by a crew of brigand nations – the merry trio of US, UK and Australia stood out – the autopilot to war was set, scornful of international law.

Wong’s shift from constipated caution to free flow approval for the US attack, with its absent merits and weighty illegalities, was also a craven capitulation to the warmonger class permanently mesmerised by the villain school of foreign relations. This cerebrally challenged view sees few problems with attacking nuclear facilities, the radioactive dangers of doing so, and the merits of a state having them in the first place.

The US attack on Iran found hearty approval among the remnants of the conservative opposition, who tend to specialise in the view that pursuing a pro-Israeli line, right, wrong, or murderous, is the way to go. Liberal Senator and former Australian ambassador to Israel, David Sharma, thought the Albanese government’s initial response “underwhelming and perplexing”, claiming that support for this shredding of international law “a straightforward position for Australia to adopt”. Sharma is clearly getting rusty on his law of nations.

His side of politics is also of the view that the attacked party here – Iran – must forgo any silly notion of self-defence and retaliation and repair to the table of diplomacy in head bowed humiliation. “We want to see Iran come to the negotiating table to verify where that 400 kilos of enriched uranium is,” stated a very stern opposition home affairs minister, Andrew Hastie. “I’m very glad to see that Penny Wong has essentially endorsed our position and I’m glad we have bipartisanship on this.”

Australia’s response has been that of the weary poltroon. Little has been asked about Canberra’s standout complicity in assisting the US imperium fulfil its global reach when it comes to striking targets. The role of the intelligence signals facility in Pine Gap, cutely and inaccurately called a joint venture, always lends its critical role to directing the US war machine through its heavy reliance on satellite technology. Wong, when asked about the role played by the facility in facilitating the attacks on Iran, had little to say. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was also cold towards disclosing any details. “We are upfront, but we don’t talk about intelligence, obviously. But we’ve made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States.”

At least on this occasion, Australia did not add its forces to an illegal adventure, as it all too wilfully did in 2003. Then, Iraq was invaded on the spurious grounds that weapons of mass destruction not only existed but would somehow be used either by the regime of Saddam Hussein or fictional proxies he might eventually supply. History forever shows that no such weapons were found, nor proxies equipped. But the Albanese government has shown not only historical illiteracy but an amnesia on the matter. Unfortunately, it’s the sort of amnesia that has become contagious, afflicting a goodly number of Washington’s satellites, vassals and friendly states.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.