crosshairs

Islamabad, Pakistan – India on August 20 announced that it had successfully test-fired Agni-V, its intermediate-range ballistic missile, from a test range in Odisha on its eastern Bay of Bengal coast.

The Agni-V, meaning “fire” in Sanskrit, is 17.5 metres long, weighs 50,000kg, and can carry more than 1,000kg of nuclear or conventional payload. Capable of travelling more than 5,000km at hypersonic speeds of nearly 30,000km per hour, it is among the fastest ballistic missiles in the world.

The Agni test came exactly a week after Pakistan announced the formation of a new Army Rocket Force Command (ARFC), aimed, say experts, at plugging holes in its defensive posture exposed by India during the four-day conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours in May.

But experts say the latest Indian test might be a message less for Pakistan and more for another neighbour that New Delhi is cautiously warming up to again: China.

The Agni’s range puts most of Asia, including China’s northern regions, and parts of Europe within reach. This was the missile’s 10th test since 2012 and its first since March last year, but its timing, say analysts, was significant.

It came just ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trip to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, amid a thaw in ties – after years of tension over their disputed border – that has been accelerated by United States President Donald Trump’s tariff war against India. On Wednesday, the US tariffs on Indian goods doubled to 50 percent amid tensions over New Delhi’s oil purchases from Russia.

Yet despite that shift in ties with Beijing, India continues to view China as its primary threat in the neighbourhood, say experts, underscoring the complex relationship between the world’s two most populous nations. And it’s at China that India’s development of medium and long-range missiles is primarily aimed, they say.

India’s missile advantage over Pakistan

While India acknowledged losing an unspecified number of fighter jets during the May skirmish with Pakistan, it also inflicted significant damage on Pakistani military bases, particularly with its supersonic BrahMos cruise missiles.

The BrahMos, capable of carrying nuclear or conventional payloads of up to 300kg, has a range of about 500km. Its low altitude, terrain-hugging trajectory and blistering speed make it difficult to intercept, allowing it to penetrate Pakistani territory with relative ease.

Many experts argue that this context shows the Agni-V test is not directly linked to Pakistan’s announcement of the ARFC. Instead, they say, the test was likely a signal to China. Indian and Chinese troops were in an eyeball-to-eyeball standoff along their disputed Himalayan border for four years after a deadly clash in 2020, before Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Russia in October 2024 to begin a process of detente.

Modi’s visit to China for the SCO summit on Sunday will be his first to that country since 2018. In the past, India has often felt betrayed by overtures to China, which, it claims, have frequently been followed by aggression from Beijing along their border.

“India’s requirement for a long-range, but not intercontinental, missile is dictated by its threat perception of China,” Manpreet Sethi, a distinguished fellow at the New Delhi-based Centre for Air Power Studies, told Al Jazeera.

“Agni-V is a nuclear-capable ballistic missile of 5,000km range, which India has been developing as part of its nuclear deterrence capability against China. It has no relevance to Pakistan,” Sethi added.

Christopher Clary, assistant professor of political science at the University at Albany, agreed.

“While the Agni-V might be usable against Pakistan, its primary mission would involve strikes on China,” he told Al Jazeera. “China’s east coast, where its most economically and politically important cities are situated, is hard to reach from India and requires long-range missiles.”

Missile race across South Asia

India and Pakistan have been steadily expanding their missile arsenals in recent years, unveiling new systems with increasing reach.

Before announcing the ARFC, Pakistan showcased the Fatah-4, a cruise missile with a 750km range and the capability to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.

India, meanwhile, is working on Agni-VI, which is expected to have a range exceeding 10,000km and carry multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), a capability already present in Agni-V.

MIRV-enabled missiles can carry several nuclear warheads, each capable of striking a separate target, significantly boosting their destructive potential.

Mansoor Ahmed, an honorary lecturer at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, said India’s latest test demonstrates its growing intercontinental missile capabilities.

“With India working on different variants of Agni with multiple capabilities, this test was a technological demonstrator for India’s emerging submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) capability,” Ahmed said.

“Depending on the configuration of the warheads for India’s SLBMs, India will be able to deploy anywhere between 200-300 warheads on its SSBN force alone over the next decade,” he added. SSBNs (ship, submersible, ballistic, nuclear) are nuclear-powered submarines designed to carry SLBMs armed with nuclear warheads. India currently has two SSBNs in service, with two more under construction.

Pakistan, by contrast, does not possess long-range missiles or nuclear submarines. Its longest-range operational ballistic missile, the Shaheen-III, has a range of 2,750km.

“Pakistan also has South Asia’s first MIRV-enabled ballistic missile called Ababeel, which can strike up to 2,200km range, but it is the shortest-ranged MIRV-enabled system deployed by any nuclear-armed state,” Ahmed said.

Tughral Yamin, a former Pakistani army brigadier and nuclear policy scholar, said the countries’ missile ambitions reflect divergent priorities.

“Pakistan’s programme is entirely Indian-specific and defensive in nature, while India’s ambitions extend beyond the subcontinent. Its long-range systems are designed for global power projection, particularly vis-a-vis China, and to establish itself as a great power with credible deterrence against major states,” said Yamin, author of The Evolution of Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia.

But some experts say Pakistan’s missile development programme isn’t only about India.

Ashley J Tellis, the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), said that while “India wants to be able to range China and Pakistan,” Islamabad is building the capability to keep Israel – and even the US – in its range, in addition to India.

“The conventional missile force in both countries is designed to strike critical targets without putting manned strike aircraft at risk,” Tellis told Al Jazeera.

US concerns over Pakistan’s ambitions, quiet acceptance of India’s rise

Pakistan’s missile programme came under intense spotlight in December last year when a senior White House official warned of Islamabad’s growing ambitions.

Jon Finer, serving in the then-Biden administration, described Pakistan’s pursuit of advanced missile technology as an “emerging threat” to the United States.

“If the trend continues, Pakistan will have the capability to strike targets well beyond South Asia, including in the United States,” Finer said during an event at the CEIP.

By contrast, Tellis said India’s growing arsenal is not viewed as destabilising by Washington or its allies.

“Pakistan’s capabilities in contrast are viewed as unsettling because the early history of its nuclear programme had anti-Western overtones, sentiments that have taken on a specific anti-US colouration after 9/11 and the Abbottabad raid,” Tellis explained, referring to the US capture of Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan in 2011.

Ahmed, the Canberra-based academic, said India’s long-range missile development is openly supported by Western powers as part of the US-led Asia Pacific strategy.

“The US and European powers have viewed and encouraged India to act as a net security provider. The India-US civil nuclear deal and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver effectively gave India de facto nuclear weapons status without signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” he said.

The NPT is a Cold War-era treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy and advancing the goal of nuclear disarmament. It formally recognises only the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain as nuclear weapons states.

But the 2008 waiver from the NSG – a club of 48 nations that sell nuclear material and technology – allowed India to engage in global nuclear trade despite not being an NPT signatory, a unique status that elevated its global standing.

Clary from the University of Albany, however, pointed out that unlike the Biden administration, the current Trump White House has not expressed any concerns about Pakistan’s missile programme – or about India’s Agni-V test.

“For now, so long as Pakistan keeps its missile tests limited to ranges already demonstrated by the Shaheen-III and Ababeel, I don’t expect Western governments to concern themselves overly with South Asia’s missile developments,” he said. “There are more than enough other problems to keep them busy.”

NEW YORK — Christine Farro has cut back on the presents she sends her grandchildren on their birthdays, and she’s put off taking two cats and a dog for their shots. All her clothes come from thrift stores and most of her vegetables come from her garden. At 73, she has cut her costs as much as she can to live on a tight budget.

But it’s about to get far tighter.

As the Trump administration resumes collections on defaulted student loans, a surprising population has been caught in the crosshairs: hundreds of thousands of older Americans whose decades-old debts now put them at risk of having their Social Security checks garnished.

“I worked ridiculous hours. I worked weekends and nights. But I could never pay it off,” says Farro, a retired child welfare worker in Santa Ynez, Calif.

Like millions of debtors with federal student loans, Farro had her payments and interest paused by the government five years ago when the pandemic thrust many into financial hardship. That grace period ended in 2023 and, earlier this month, the Department of Education said it would restart “involuntary collections” by garnishing paychecks, tax refunds and Social Security retirement and disability benefits. Farro previously had her Social Security garnished and expects it to restart.

Farro’s loans date back 40 years. She was a single mother when she got a bachelor’s degree in developmental psychology and when she discovered she couldn’t earn enough to pay off her loans, she went back to school and got a master’s degree. Her salary never caught up. Things only got worse.

Around 2008, when she consolidated her loans, she was paying $1,000 a month, but years of missed payments and piled-on interest meant she was barely putting a dent in a bill that had ballooned to $250,000. When she sought help to resolve her debt, she says the loan company had just one suggestion.

“They said, ‘Move to a cheaper state,’” says Farro, who rents a 400-square-foot casita from a friend. “I realized I was living in a different reality than they were.”

Student loan debt among older people has grown at a staggering rate, in part due to rising tuitions that have forced more people to borrow greater sums. People 60 and older hold an estimated $125 billion in student loans, according to the National Consumer Law Center, a six-fold increase from 20 years ago.

That has led Social Security beneficiaries who have had their payments garnished to balloon by 3,000% — from approximately 6,200 beneficiaries to 192,300 — between 2001 and 2019, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This year, an estimated 452,000 people aged 62 and older had student loans in default and are likely to experience the Department of Education’s renewed forced collections, according to the January report from CFPB.

Debbie McIntyre, a 62-year-old adult education teacher in Georgetown, Ky., is among them. She dreams of retiring and writing more historical fiction, and of boarding a plane for the first time since high school. But her husband has been out of work on disability for two decades and they’ve used credit cards to get by on his meager benefits and her paycheck. Their rent will be hiked $300 when their lease renews. McIntyre doesn’t know what to do if her paycheck is garnished.

She floats the idea of bankruptcy, but that won’t automatically clear her loans, which are held to a different standard than other debt. She figures if she picks up extra jobs babysitting or tutoring, she could put $50 toward her loans here and there. But she sees no real solution.

“I don’t know what more I can do,” says McIntyre, who is too afraid to check what her loan balance is. “I’ll never get out of this hole.”

Braxton Brewington of the Debt Collective debtors union says it’s striking how many older people dial into the organization’s calls and attend its protests. Many of them, he says, should have had their debts canceled but fell victim to a system “riddled with flaws and illegalities and flukes.” Many whose educations have left them in late-life debt have, in fact, paid back the principal on their loans, sometimes several times over, but still owe more due to interest and fees.

For those who are subject to garnishment, Brewington says, the results can be devastating.

“We hear from people who skip meals. We know people who dilute their medication or cut their pills in half. People take drastic measures like pulling all their savings out or dissolving their 401ks,” he says. “We know folks that have been driven into homelessness.”

Collections on defaulted loans may have restarted no matter who was president, though the Biden administration had sought to limit the amount of income that could be garnished. Federal law protects just $750 of Social Security benefits from garnishment, an amount that would put a debtor far below the poverty line.

“We’re basically providing people with federal benefits with one hand and taking them away with another,” says Sarah Sattelmeyer of the New America think tank.

Linda Hilton, a 76-year-old retired office worker from Apache Junction, Ariz., went through garnishment before COVID and says she will survive it again. But flights to see her children, occasional meals at a restaurant and other pleasures of retired life may disappear.

“It’s going to mean restrictions,” says Hilton. “There won’t be any travel. There won’t be any frills.”

Some debtors have already received notice about collections. Many more are living in fear. President Trump has signed an executive order calling for the Department of Education’s dismantling and, for those seeking answers about their loans, mass layoffs have complicated getting calls answered.

While Education Secretary Linda McMahon says restarting collections is a necessary step for debtors “both for the sake of their own financial health and our nation’s economic outlook,” even some of Trump’s most fervent supporters are questioning a move that will make their lives harder.

Randall Countryman, 55, of Bonita, Calif., says a Biden administration proposal to forgive some student debt didn’t strike him as fair, but he’s not sure Trump’s approach is either. He supported Trump but wishes the government made case-by-case decisions on debtors. Countryman thinks Americans don’t realize how many older people are affected by policies on student loans, often thought to be the turf of the young, and how difficult it can be for them to repay.

“What’s a young person’s problem today,” he says, “is an old person’s problem tomorrow.”

Countryman started working on a degree while in prison, then continued it at the University of Phoenix when he was released. He started growing nervous as he racked up loan debt and never finished his degree. He’s worked a host of different jobs, but finding work has often been complicated by his criminal record.

He lives off his wife’s Social Security check and the kindness of his mother-in-law. He doesn’t know how they’d get by if the government demands repayment.

“I kind of wish I never went to school in the first place,” he says.

Sedensky writes for the Associated Press.

Joe Biden was the first president to join a union picket line and support labor’s side in a number of major disputes. His appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, the principal administrative agency handling labor-management conflict, interpreted the 90-year old National Labor Relations Act so as to enhance the rights of workers to organize. The Biden board promoted workplace democracy more effectively than any of its predecessors.

As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished.

President Trump’s second term presages the most anti-labor labor board appointees ever (his first-term NLRB had that same distinction). And equally or more troublesome, Trump, through his arbitrary dismissal of Biden-appointed board member Gwynne Wilcox has joined a position advanced by management labor lawyers at Starbucks, Trader Joe’s and Elon Musk’s Space X, among others. Together they wish to take a wrecking ball to labor law, asserting that the 90-year-old National Labor Relations Act and the independent agency it established are unconstitutional.

On March 6, in a sweeping opinion both eloquent and scholarly, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell pushed back against the president’s unlawful firing of Wilcox. Now, as was surely the plan all along, the question of control of the NLRB can and will go to the Supreme Court. If the conservative, Trump-appointed majority agrees with the president — instead of upholding nearly a century of precedent — independent due process for labor and management will be wiped away.

Of course, politics and labor law have always had an uneasy coexistence. By virtue of the National Labor Relations Act’s system of five-year staggered appointments to the NLRB, presidents are able to influence the board’s direction during their four-year terms, but they cannot dominate it or dictate the outcome of a particular case that is before the labor board.

If, however, board members can be dismissed by a president any time he or she disagrees with their votes on the reinstatement of a dismissed worker, say, or a conclusion that labor or management has not bargained in good faith, the rule of law can easily be denied, along with well-accepted principles of independent conflict resolution.

Such a prospect is an ominous cloud over a labor movement that even during the friendly Biden era lost ground. Today unions represent only 11.1% of employees in the workforce. Does all of this mean that organized labor law is a doomed dinosaur, irrevocably headed toward irrelevance? Not necessarily.

First, as important as legal protections have been to organizing, law has proved to be a subordinate factor in union growth or decline. In the 1930s, union militancy was in place at least four years before the National Labor Relations Act became effective. The 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the act placed restrictions on unions and workers, yet unions continued to grow for nearly a decade after its enactment. Labor won considerably more of its workplace elections in the George W. Bush era than under a more pro-labor board during the Obama administration.

As important, according to U.S. Labor Department data, unions hold $42 billion in financial assets. They can use these monies to finance costly and protracted campaigns in many different businesses, hiring dedicated workers who will give their wholehearted attention to the difficult, time-consuming work of organizing. And these positions could be made more attractive by the promise of advancement to union leadership positions, now too often the province of those who process membership grievances rather than working to widen unions’ reach.

The stage has been set for just such organizing, with recent effective uses of the strike weapon. In 2023, the United Auto Workers new rolling strike strategy against the Big 3 auto companies produced substantial wage and benefit increases. In January, the International Longshoremen’s Assn. obtained more than a 60% pay increase over six years, plus an apparent ban on automation, on the basis of a short stoppage last fall at ports on the East and Gulf coasts.

Further, if Trump is even partially successful in his attempt to rid the country of immigrants, a result will be a shortage of workers, which will slant the labor market toward the sellers. The impact in construction, for instance, a sector that is already short hundreds of thousands of hires, will only improve the prospects for unions.

And lastly, if the Supreme Court uses Wilcox’s case to deem the National Labor Relations Act and an independent NLRB unconstitutional, or contrives to consign them to irrelevance, states such as New York, California, Michigan, Illinois and others can work to occupy the vacuum with more robust labor legislation.

The fight is not over.

William B. Gould IV , a professor of law emeritus at Stanford Law and chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, is the author of “Those Who Travail and Are Heavy Laden: Memoir of a Labor Lawyer.”

President Trump signed orders to put tariffs on U.S. neighbors Canada and Mexico, as well as China, starting Tuesday. Canada and Mexico quickly announced retaliatory tariffs, while China said it would take “necessary countermeasures.”

U.S. trade with the other North American nations totaled $1.8 trillion in 2023 and now surpasses that with China. In comparison, U.S. commerce with China totaled $643 billion that year.

Trump declared an economic emergency Saturday in order to place duties of 10% on all imports from China and 25% on imports from Mexico and Canada. Energy imports from Canada, including oil, natural gas and electricity, would be taxed at a lower rate, 10%.

Here are a few imported goods whose prices may be hit first:

A ‘grenade’ lobbed into auto production

For decades, auto companies have built supply chains that cross the borders of the United States, Mexico and Canada. More than 1 in 5 of the cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. were built in Canada or Mexico, according to S&P Global Mobility.

In 2023, the United States imported $69 billion worth of cars and light trucks from Mexico — more than any other country — and $37 billion from Canada. An additional $78 billion in auto parts came from Mexico and $20 billion from Canada. The engines in Ford F-series pickups and the Mustang sports coupe, for instance, come from Canada.

“You have engines and car seats and other things that cross the border multiple times before going into a finished vehicle,’’ said Scott Lincicome, a trade analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. “You have American parts going to Mexico to be put into vehicles that are then shipped back to the United States.

“You throw 25% tariffs into all that, and it’s just a grenade.’’

China is also a major supplier of auto parts to the U.S.

In a report Tuesday, S&P Global Mobility reckoned that “importers are likely to pass most, if not all, of this [cost] increase to consumers.’’

TD Economics notes that average U.S. car prices could rise by around $3,000 — this at a time when the average new car already goes for $50,000 and the average used car for $26,000, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Higher prices at the pump

Canada is by far America’s biggest foreign supplier of crude oil. From January through November last year, Canada shipped the U.S. $90 billion worth of crude, well ahead of No. 2 Mexico at $11 billion.

For many U.S. refineries, there’s not much choice. Canada produces the “type of crude oil that American refineries are geared to process,’’ Lincicome said. “It’s a heavier crude. All the fracking and all the oil and gas we make here in the United States — or most of it — is a lighter crude that a lot of American refineries don’t process, particularly in the Midwest.’’

Of the tariffs on Canadian oil imports, Lincicome said, “How the heck does that shake out? My guess is that it shakes out just through higher gas prices, particularly in the Midwest.’’ TD Economics figures that Trump’s tariffs could push up U.S. gasoline prices by 30 cents to 70 cents a gallon.

Computers, Clothes and Toys

Tariffs on China could affect a wide variety of consumer goods that Americans depend on. Cellphones, computers and other electronic devices were among the top imports from China last year, according to Commerce Department data.

The U.S. also imported more than $32 billion in “toys, games and sporting goods” from China last year, data shows.

And Americans import billions of dollars a year in clothing from China. That includes more than $7.9 billion in footwear last year, according to Commerce Department data.

Trouble in Margaritaville

Tariffs could raise the price for those raising a glass of tequila or Canadian whisky.

In 2023, the U.S. imported $4.6 billion worth of tequila and $108 million worth of mezcal from Mexico, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, a trade group. The U.S. imported $537 million worth of Canadian spirits, including $202.5 million worth of whisky.

Canada and Mexico were also the second- and third-largest importers of U.S. spirits in 2023, behind the European Union, the council said.

The council said the U.S. is already facing a potentially devastating 50% tariff on American whiskey by the European Union, which is set to begin in March. Imposing tariffs on Mexico and Canada could pile even more retaliatory action on the industry.

Chris Swonger, the spirit council’s president and chief executive, said he appreciates the goal of protecting U.S. jobs. But tequila and Canadian whisky — like Kentucky bourbon — are designated as distinctive products that can be made only in their country of origin.

“At the end of the day, tariffs on spirits products from our neighbors to the north and south are going to hurt U.S. consumers and lead to job losses across the U.S. hospitality industry, just as these businesses continue their long recovery from the pandemic,” Swonger said.

Expensive avocados, just in time for the Super Bowl

For American consumers still exasperated by high grocery prices, a trade war with Canada, Mexico and China could be painful.

In 2023, the U.S. bought more than $45 billion in agricultural products from Mexico — including 63% of imported vegetables and 47% of fruits and nuts. Farm imports from Canada came to $40 billion. A 25% tariff could push prices up.

“Grocery stores operate on really tiny margins,’’ Lincicome said. “They can’t eat the tariffs … especially when you talk about things like avocados that basically all of them — 90% — come from Mexico. You’re talking about guacamole tariffs right before the Super Bowl.’’

U.S. farmers are nervous, too, that Canada and Mexico will retaliate by slapping tariffs on American products such as soybeans and corn. That’s what happened in the first Trump administration. China and other targets of Trump tariffs hit back by targeting the president’s supporters in rural America. Exports of soybeans and other farm products dropped, so Trump spent billions of U.S. taxpayer money to reimburse farmers for lost sales.

“President Trump was as good as his word,’’ said Mark McHargue, a Central City, Neb., farmer who grows corn and soybeans and raises hogs. “It did take the sting out of it. That’s for sure.’’

But he would prefer to see the government push to open foreign markets to American farm exports.

“We would rather get our money from the market,’’ said McHargue, president of the Nebraska Farm Bureau. “It doesn’t feel great to get a government check.’’

Wiseman writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Josh Boak in Washington, Dee-Ann Durbin in Detroit and Alan Suderman in Richmond, Va., contributed this report.