Immigrants are essential to Europe’s economic survival. They are needed for doing the jobs that most Europeans no longer want to do. Jobs that involve manual labor in agriculture and industry; or providing home help, care for the elderly; or working un-social hours in the catering business.

Daud Khan

I have previously argued that no one really wants immigration to stop, or for immigrants to leave. What the anti-immigrant parties want to do is to create a new subclass of low paid workers who have no rights and no political power (Europe’s Shift to the Far Right and its Impact on Immigration | Inter Press Service (ipsnews.net). Such a “new immigrant proletariat” would enhance profits of those employing such immigrant workers, as well as raise overall living standards of the general population.

Recent events in Italy appear to confirm my hypothesis that low-paid illegal work in deeply imbedded in the system.

On 17 June, in a farm south of Rome an agricultural worker was critically injured and subsequently died. Satnam Singh’s right arm was caught in an agriculture machine and was chopped off. The owner of the farm placed the truncated arm in a box; he then deposited the box, and the injured Satnam Singh, outside his house and drove off. Satnam was eventually taken to hospital, but the delay in getting him medical aid meant that it was not possible to save his life.

What came to light in the subsequent investigations is that Satnam has no stay permit, no work contract and was paid a pittance for back breaking work in debilitating heat and biting cold. The Minister of Agriculture was quick to denounce the event leading to Satnam Sigh’s death and police are prosecuting the owner of the farm. However, the minister was also pointed out Italy’s agriculture sector is viable, dynamic and law abiding, and should not be criminalized due to a single unfortunate event

However, studies and surveys, mostly done by the trade unions, put a lie to his statement. In the case of the agriculture sector, of the roughly 1 million workers, some 230,000 are estimated illegal ¹. Like Satnam, they are low-paid and badly treated. There are also allegations of different forms of abuse, as well as widespread use of amphetamines and painkillers to make them work harder.

Moreover, what is also emerging from various investigations is how the system, which supposedly aims to create more legal and controlled immigration, actually works to ensure an ample supply of illegal immigrants. The system works as follow:

Under Italian Law (the Bossi-Fini Act of 2002) Italian employers can ask for foreign workers to legally enter Italy to work in specific sectors, including agriculture and the tourism sector. The implicit agreement is the once they are in Italy, the employer who sponsored their entry would provide them a work contract and wages that are in line with industry standards.

However, in many cases the sponsoring employer does not show up to pick up the workers – let alone provide a job or a contract. The arriving workers find themselves in a foreign country where they cannot speak the language, without a job and without papers. The phenomenon is particularly acute in some regions of Italy such as Campagna (around Naples) where only 3% of workers who enter Italy legally actually sign a contract with the employer who sponsored their entry into the country.

It is here that the so called “contractors” step in. These contractors pick up the newly arrived workers providing them with immediate help and assistance. They then act as intermediaries to arrange jobs for them at wages that are a fraction of what Italians doing the same job would be paid. Moreover, these unscrupulous contractors skim off much of what the workers earn for renting them a house and for providing transport to and from work.

And all this is happening in front of everyone’s eyes, including those of various local and national authorities. For example, authorities know which companies sponsored foreign workers to enter Italy. They also know how many work contracts these companies signed with these immigrant workers. Recent reports show that in the Naples area 22,000 sponsored workers entered the country but not one of the signed a contract.

Similarly, the owner of the farm where Satnam Singh died had declared to the local authorities that he had only one tractor and no workers – facts that were patently untrue but no one ever bothered to check.

These and other facts are often well covered in reports done by the trade unions or by investigative journalists particularly after an accident or an untoward event happens. Moreover, there is nothing really clandestine about what is happening. One has only to drive around the agriculturally rich areas around Rome or the central or northern parts of Italy to see an army of workers from South Asia attending to livestock or toiling in the fields that supply the city with fresh fruit and vegetable. In more southern parts of Italy, it is young men from Africa that are picking oranges and tomatoes.

Similarly in cities such as Rome and Milan there are armies of illegals who work as “riders” delivering food to people’s homes; working as cooks, dishwasher and waiters in restaurants and bars; or working as cleaners or caregivers in people’s homes.

The system seems to suit everyone and if every so often a Satnam Singh dies – well so be it.

¹ https://www.fondazionerizzotto.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Sintesi-VI-Rapporto_301122.pdf

Daud Khan is a retired UN staff based in Rome. He has degrees in economics from LSE and Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from Imperial College London.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The recent elections in the Netherlands signals the increasing power of the far right in Europe. The populist party of Geert Wilders, the Party for Freedom, won a decisive, albeit unexpected, victory taking 37 seats out the 150 seat in parliament. Wilders will likely be the head of the next Government. His policies include stopping all immigration into the Netherlands, holding a referendum on leaving the EU, and banning mosques and the Quran.

Daud Khan

So what explains the success of far-right, anti-immigrant parties in countries that have a long history of being relatively liberal and inclusive. And, more importantly what will happen now that they are in power, or are increasingly influential.

A key factor in their rise to power is their ability to peddle the narrative that the problems of the Common People are largely due to immigrants, and to an ill-defined political and economic Elite that is only interested in maintaining their power and profits.

According to the populist right, Europe is being overrun by people of a different skin color, with different language or accents, and with a different culture or religion. These foreign people are taking our jobs and businesses, depriving us of housing and acting as a drain on the welfare system. They are also responsible for most of the crimes, in particular theft, drugs and violence against women.

This narrative had strong appeal in economically deprived areas, among the lesser educated, and among workers who has lost jobs due to the globalization, automation and outsourcing. These people form the core support group of the right wing populist parties. However, their recent successes have been largely due to their appeal to the middle classes that makes up the bulk of the population in Europe.

Leila Yasmine Khan

This middle class has been disillusioned with the traditional parties of the left and of the right. They see little real difference between the two and are looking for what they consider real change. Initially the choice fell to parties that were new, but not too radical – parties such as Emmanuelle Macron’s En Marche! Party, or the Five Star Movement in Italy. However, as perceived problems deepened, the choice has shifted to the more radical right.

But now that the far-right parties have power and influence, what should one expect they will do particularly with regard to immigration which was a major aspect of their appeal. Will they really try to fulfill their election promises to stop or reduce immigration. The scope for maneuver is limited.

Due to slower population growth, there are fewer people of working age in most of Europe. Moreover, they tend to avoid jobs that imply long hours and hard physical effort, such as unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in agriculture, industry, construction and logistics. There is also little interest in jobs that require unsocial hours, such as home help, cleaning, care for the elderly and nursing. Immigrants are essential to fill these gaps.

In addition, immigrants are increasingly propping up the welfare state in most western European countries. Notwithstanding the rhetoric about “scroungers” on the welfare state, immigrants are net contributors to state coffers – they generally pay more in taxes than they draw in benefits. And, as low reproductive rates continue and populations continue to age, Governments expenditures on pensions and health care will rise. The tax contribution of immigrants will be critical to fund this.

For these reasons it is simply not possible to stop immigration or to send immigrants back. Given the limited space for maneuver, anti-immigrant parties will most likely not make any serious attempt to get rid of immigrants or even to reduce immigration. They may soften or even backtrack on their positions on immigration. Maybe they will come up with qualifiers such as “we are only against illegal immigrants; only immigrants involved in criminal activities will be expelled; and actually, all honest, hardworking immigrants are welcome”.

However, explicitly backtracking may be politically risky. It is more likely that these right wing parties will continue with their anti-immigrant rhetoric. This would serve several purposes. It will instill uncertainty and fear in the minds of immigrants; ensure that they do not organize and ask for higher wages or benefits; and that they stay in the shadows and not try to occupy political space.

These actions will very much appeal to unemployed workers and the apprehensive middle classes who voted in the right wing parties. More critically, it will also appeal to “big business” who are now caught between a tight domestic labor markets and rising costs.

If correct, does this mean that the swing to the far-right in Europe is here to stay? It would be such a pity as it would mean that one of the bastions of liberal values will transform into a classist society with a low wage sub-proletariat who have few rights and privileges.

Daud Khan a retired UN staff based in Rome. He has degrees in economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy and in Argumentation and Rhetoric from the University of Amsterdam, as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre). She assisted in the preparation on this article.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

There seems to be no end in sight to the war in Ukraine. On the contrary it continues to escalate. The latest ratchet up has been the decision by the USA to supply the Ukrainian army with cluster bombs. These are nasty weapons which scatter and explode over a wide area. They are specifically designed to kill people rather that destroy infrastructure, military installations or communication hubs. They also have a sting in the tail – some of the bomblets remain unexploded, effectively becoming anti-personnel mines. These can turn wide swathes of territory into virtual no-go areas.

Daud Khan

Cluster bombs have been used by both sides in the current war. This has not only caused high human casualties but already turned many areas into a minefield that will take decades to clear up. But reportedly stocks of such bombs in the Ukraine are running low and the decision of the USA would effectively help them continue a flagging counter-offensive. In particular, it is expected that they would help dislodge Russian forces that are dug in inside Ukrainian territory.

The latest move once again raises awkward questions – what is this war about, how long will it last and will anyone come out a winner.

As in all wars, there are many short-term proximate causes. Depending on the lens which one uses, the war is about protecting the rights of Russian speaking people in the Donbas; or about the rights of all Ukrainians – Russian or Ukrainian speaking – to follow their desire to be part of a liberal democratic Europe. But there are also long-term interests at play. Depending on one’s political views this war is about an irredentist and power hungry Putin. An alternative view is that the war is about Russian resistance to the continued eastern expansion of NATO and the creation of a well-armed, albeit denuclearized, Ukraine – a thorn in the side of Russia.

Whatever view one wishes to take on various causes, this is undoubtedly an existential war for the Russian state, for the Ukraine state, and the unipolar, US dominated world in their current form. If the Ukrainians win, it would be the end the Putin regime. It would also signal the end to his aspirations for a Greater Russia, to his dreams of making Russia once again a global power, and to his hopes of using Russian energy and other mineral resources to build domestic prosperity.

If on the other hand, should the Russians win it would be the end of Ukraine’s aspirations to be a part of a liberal democratic Europe, of the EU and a member of NATO. Russian victory would also mean a serious blow to the USA, its allies and to the existing world order.

The very high stakes implies that none of the major protagonists can afford to walk away without a clear cut victory. This is in contrast to other recent wars such as the Afghan wars that Russia and the USA fought. Strategic interests were at stake even in these wars – Russia wanting access to a warm water port on the Indian Ocean and the USA wanting a friendly regime in Kabul to contain Islamic terrorism. Walking away from those wars certainly involved giving up these strategic objectives as well as a major loss of prestige. But the stakes were nowhere as high as in the current Ukraine Russia war.

And so it is unlikely we will be seeing any serious attempt towards a ceasefire, even less a convening of parties around a negotiating table. Unfortunately the most likely scenario is that the war will continue. Not only that, it is likely to escalate as it has over the last year from an initial dispatch of “defensive weapons”, to supply of long range missiles, modern tanks, and now cluster bombs. The next step will most likely be the dispatch of modern airplanes such as the F-16 on which Ukrainian pilots are already being trained. And then? Maybe use of some sort of battlefield nuclear weapons.

And while the war in Europe drags on and escalates, there is an elephant in the room – China, the archenemy of the USA. How will they behave as the USA and its allies supply increasingly sophisticated weapons to Ukraine? Will they try and bolster Russia with who they have a “friendship with no limits”? Or would they be tempted to make a grab for Taiwan while the USA is tied up in Ukraine.

There are dangerous and uncertain times ahead.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

On March 4 2023, the 193 members of the United Nations reached a major milestone. They agreed on a treaty to manage and protect the high seas– the marine areas that lie outside the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of coastal states. The high seas are an essential part of the global ecosystem. They cover 50 percent of the Earth’s surface, produce half the oxygen we breathe, provide a home to 95 percent of the planet’s biosphere, are a critical sink for carbon dioxide, and help regulate the Earth’s temperature.

Daud Khan

The agreement of the new treaty, the result of decades of work and lobbying, is something to celebrate. However, a review of other international laws and treaties suggests that enthusiasm needs to be tempered with realism. Commonly, developed countries, due to their superior technology and financial heft, are the biggest economic beneficiaries of open access resources such the high seas, the atmosphere and outer space. They are also the worst culprits in terms of damage caused due to pollution and overuse. Getting these benefiting countries to change behavior has proved difficult.

The case of the 1982 Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) is illustrative. . Some of the provisions of Part VII of UNCLOS, which deals with the high seas, work well. For example those related to piracy – maybe because keeping shipping lanes safe is of interest to big countries with large fleets. However, the provisions related to fisheries work much less well.

Stephen Akester

Similarly the International Seabed Authority was set up to oversee and manage the exploitation of the resources on or under the seabed including oil, gas and minerals. However, there is no requirement to carry out any detailed environmental or ecological assessment; no royalties are to be paid; and no requirement for sharing of benefits with the poorer countries that lack the technologies to mine these resources.

The situation is even worse with regard to the disposal of waste in the high seas where there are virtually no regulations. This has resulted in increasing plastic and chemical pollution, much of which emanates from developed countries. Even spent fuel from nuclear power plants and radioactive water from the Fukushima power plant disaster have been dumped there.

The new treaty for the high seas aims to address many of these issues. However, it is essential that developing countries are fully involved in drafting the detailed implementation and enforcement arrangements; and defining responsibilities, as well as sanctions in the case of violation of rules and procedures. Developing countries should also continue to call into question the fact that new treaty does not cover ongoing exploitation of the high seas.

The high seas are common property of mankind and all countries need to be involved in how they are managed. The European Union has already pledged €40m to facilitate the formal ratification of the treaty and its early implementation. This will certainly give them a big say on the evolution of the detailed institutional and regulatory architecture. In order to counter this, developing countries must at least match this amount, with the larger developing countries taking in lead in provision of funding and technical skills.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

Stephen Akester is an independent fisheries specialist working in Indian Ocean coastal countries for past 40 years.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Over the last past several decades marine fish stocks worldwide have been under intense threat. There have been many high sounding declarations and agreements to reduce catch effort, to use more environmentally friendly fishing gear, to prevent illegal fishing and to impose “closed seasons” to allow stocks to recover.

However, these declarations have often been disregarded and ignored, particularly when it comes to the open oceans that are beyond national jurisdictions and are the common heritage of all mankind. And the main culprits have been the developed countries, with their large and sophisticated fishing fleets and super market consumers which instead of being cutback, continue to receive political support and public subsidies.

The story of the yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean well illustrates what has been happening.

Stephen Akester

As juveniles, Yellowfin normally hunt in surface waters in packs although, when they mature, they change their habits and tend to be solitary. They live in tropical and sub-tropical waters and there used to be large stocks in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. But that was before Europeans, Asians and Americans discovered tinned tuna was cheap, and before the Japanese developed technology to very rapidly freeze freshly caught tuna for the Sashimi market in Japan where prize cuts can go for up to hundreds, if not thousands, of US$ per kilo.

During the 1970s and 80s the Europeans, Americans and the Japanese overfished the Atlantic tuna stocks. Their fishing fleets, mainly Spanish and French with several vessels flying “flags of convenience” – then moved to the Indian Ocean. These boats are floating factories with modern radar, sophisticated fishing gear and huge freezing capacity. Over time, more aggressive techniques are being introduced such as drifting Fish Attracting Devises (FADs) -small floating rafts that facilitate the growth of algae and seaweed and which in turn attract surface swimming tunas, skipjack and juvenile yellowfin. FADs, make it easier to increase catches and reduce costs but also are highly destructive as not only facilitate the catching of skipjack, the target species, but also young yellowfin tuna.

The overfishing of yellowfin tuna has triggered various attempts to reduce effort and introduce better management. Spearheading this effort in the Indian Ocean is the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), set up by FAO in 1996 to ensure, the conservation and optimum utilization of tuna stocks in the Indian Ocean. However, the IOTC is not well designed for handling the complexities and political pressures that stand in the way of equitable and sustainable fishing effort in the Indian Ocean. In particular, key aspects such as its membership and distribution of catch entitlement among countries, are deeply flawed.

Daud Khan

Moreover, the division of allowable catch is based on how much each country fished in the past. This results in the poorer coastal states getting a small proportion of the allowable catch as compared to the richer countries that have been operating large, modern vessels capable of overfishing in the Indian Ocean since the mid-1980s. The outcome of this highly inequitable strategy is that 45% of the allowable catch of yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean is allocated to the EU. And the developing coastal countries have not only seen their national fisheries impacted by competition from the developed countries, they are not even entitled to any license or royalty fees from oceanic fisheries adjacent to their Exclusive Economic Zones.

Furthermore, the IOTC has been given a hamstrung decisions making process. Decisions are by consensus which prevents fundamental reforms such as limits on purse seiners or on drifting FADs. And when coastal state attempt is made to push matters to the vote, such as was the case for a proposal to ban drifting FADs, procedural issues prevent them for being adopted.

And so it goes on. Rich countries take the lion’s share of the allowable catch of yellowfin tuna, depriving the coastal states and their artisanal fishing communities of all but crumbs. They also systematically sabotage attempts to place restrictions on fishing and introduce more eco-friendly fishing practices.

As in many other areas, from climate change to the use of coal and the transition to green energy, there is much rhetoric from developed countries but efforts to change the system are not yet working.

Stephen Akester is an independent fisheries specialist working in Indian Ocean coastal countries for past 40 years……

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Developing countries are facing a combination of crises that are unprecedented in recent times. Over the last three years they have had to face the COVID-19 crisis, the food crisis, the energy crisis, the climate change crisis, the debt crisis and, on top of all this, a global recession. The crises have overlapped, and each has added to the problems created by the previous ones.

Daud Khan

There are strong calls for increased aid flows and debt relief, as well as special funds for the countries most affected by high prices, debt burdens or climate change. These actions, much of which will be funded by the developed countries, are needed and necessary to avoid widespread suffering, political turbulence and increased migratory flows.

But these short term actions will not solve underlying problems. There is a need for new thinking; for paradigm shifts; and for new directions by developing countries. So what needs to be done?

Most importantly and most urgently, there needs to be a reform of food systems. Food systems have already shown incredible resilience by coping with COVID related lockdowns, and with the large reverse migrations that took place from urban to rural areas as people lost jobs and incomes. But new directions are needed for food systems to take on the current challenges. Actions are needed in four areas.

• First – developing countries need to reduce their dependence on rice, maize and wheat, three crops which account for half of all calories consumed. For many counties agro-climatic conditions are not suitable for these crops and there is a high reliance on imports. This import reliance has been exacerbated by rapid urbanization that has raised the demand for easily-prepared, convenience food. But there are hundreds, if not thousands of indigenous products – cereals, oilseeds and crops and livestock products that have been ignored by policy makers, researchers and Government extension services. This needs to change.
• Second – food production systems must make increased use of Green Technologies, technologies that are much less reliant on purchased inputs in particular pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Such improved techniques, many of which have been already tried and tested, include integrated pest management, improved crop rotation and multi-cropping, greater use of nitrogen-fixing crops, zero-tillage and mulching. These techniques that make much more intelligent use of the complex interaction between soil, plants, plant residues and livestock waste.
• Third – value chains need to be shortened with monopolies and restrictive practices by traders and middlemen reduced. Progress was made in this regard during the COVID crisis, mainly through greater use of ICT, but this needs to be followed through much more strongly.
• Finally, social safety nets need to be strengthened. Governments cannot cushion the entire population from price increases but does have a responsibility to ensure that children and vulnerable groups are cushioned.

Next in terms of urgency is the energy crisis. A large part of the import bill of many developing countries comprises oil and gas. Reducing this dependence is now more urgent than ever. There are two complementary actions needed:

• First – there has to be a major drive towards increasing production of renewable energy – particularly solar energy. With falling prices of panels, solar energy is now the cheapest form of energy and most developing countries have plenty of space and sunshine.
• Second – solar or wind energy needs to be complemented with other forms of energy that can meet base needs. The most suitable for doing this is through greater use of nuclear energy which, with today’s fourth generation technology, is much safer and less polluting than it used to be. Given high investments costs, as well as the difficulties in setting up suitable regulatory, oversight and contingency systems, smaller countries may need to work jointly to create such nuclear power facilities.

The debt crisis has created a large and growing risk of defaults with the poorest being the most vulnerable. Already in 2019, almost half of low-income and least developed countries (LDCs) were assessed as being at high risk of external debt distress or already in debt distress. Since then, the external debts of developing country have continued to rise and are eating up a growing proportion of export earnings. And this was before the present interest rate hike. Most debt was taken when real interest rate (corrected for perceived risk) were close to zero.

• In addition to ongoing discussions on debt forgiveness, there has to be a discussion between creditors and debtors on repayments especially on interest payments. The burden of the unexpected rise in interest rate needs to be a shared burden.

Finally, developing countries need to find ways to cushion themselves against the recessionary effects of slowing growth world trade. In the current system, global trade flows are dominated by USA, China and Europe.

• In order to break their dependence on these large economies, developing countries need to work to create regional and bilateral trade agreements. Such trade agreements may not be easy. However, the crisis has created conditions where out-of-the-box thinking is essential and cultural and political barriers to regional trade – such as those which limit trade between India and Pakistan – need to be overcome.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Developing countries – in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America and in the Middle East – are facing a combination of crises that are unprecedented in recent times. Over the last three years they have had to face the COVID-19 crisis, the food crisis, the energy crisis, the climate change crisis, the debt crisis and, on top of all this, a global recession. The crises have overlapped, and each has added to the problems created by the previous ones.

Daud Khan

And it is not just an issue of prices. Supplies are hard to come by. In April 2022 Ukraine exported only 1 million tons of grain as opposed to a normal export volume of 5 million tons and Indonesia banned exports of palm oil. On top of this came climate change. Low rainfall and drought-like conditions have also affected production in several major wheat exporting countries such as France and the USA. Scorching temperatures across northern India and Pakistan have reduced wheat output by 20% and in response, India has now banned exports of wheat.

The second crisis relates to the price of energy. Energy prices before the Ukraine crisis has risen 75% in twelve months and another 25% since then. This has raised costs of transport, manufacturing and services. Prices of natural gas, which drives the prices of urea fertilizer, rose by over 140% and this will impact plantings, yields and output of food crops in coming years. The prices of phosphate fertilizers have also risen – by over 200% the last year – with about a third of the increase coming since January 2022, mainly as a result of disruption of supplies.

The next punch in the belly for developing countries came from interest rates increases. Developing country debt has boomed in over the past decades years, fueled by the easy availability of savings and real interest rates of virtually zero. With rising inflation, the US Federal Reserve Board has hiked up interest rates. This has not only increased interest payments but also the value of the US$ in which much developing country debt is denominated. This is making debt servicing vastly more expensive and balance of payments problems are looming large for many countries. Higher debt servicing is also putting pressure on Government budgets and is resulting in large cuts in development and social spending.

And we are not finished yet. Global GDP and trade are slowing down. This reflects the recessionary cocktail of high energy prices, supply bottlenecks, rising interest rates and political uncertainties around the globe, as well as COVID-related lockdowns in China.

This perfect storm is mostly the result of the policies of the big economies – the ongoing US/Russia/China rivalry; rapid globalization followed by the strict COVID-related lockdowns; and easy monetary policies which first pumped in huge sums of money into the economies and are now raising interest rates to rein in inflation. Climate change has much to do with large and continued emission of GHGs, the bulk of which comes from the big economies, including China. And now, speculative capital, mostly originating in the developed world, is further aggravating the situation in food, fuel and other commodity markets.

But the interlinked nature of the globalized world implies that in relative terms the financial and human burden of these actions falls heaviest on developing countries. After all it is one thing for food and energy prices to rise, or for GDP growth to slow in rich countries such as the USA, Europe and Australia, or even in China. In these countries living standards are high, infrastructure and services are well developed, and often well designed social safety nets are in place. It is quite different in developing countries, where large numbers continue to live with poverty and hunger; where basic services such as education, health and clean drinking water are scarce; and those facing old age, illness or loss of earnings can only rely on the goodwill of friends or family.

There is, quite rightly, much concern about the situation. Several high level meetings have been convened, including by the UN, and there are strong calls for increased aid flows and debt relief, as well as for the creation of special funds for the countries most affected by high prices, debt burdens or climate change. These actions are needed and necessary to avoid widespread suffering, political turbulence and increased migratory flows. And the developed countries will likely bear most of the financial burden of these measures.

But many of the measures, even if implemented, are short term palliatives and will not solve underlying problems. Moreover, developing countries cannot continue to rely indefinitely on goodwill and charity. The risk of doing this became very clear during the COVID crisis where little of the vaccines available and none of the vaccine production technology were shared.

However, times of crisis also create opportunities. There is a need for new thinking and for paradigm shifts in developing countries but also for Governments to undertake reforms that they have been postponing for years, if not decades, due to fears that such reforms would hurt vested interests and national elites. It is now time to act bravely.

Part two of this article will discuss some of the concrete measure that developing countries could take to address the various crises.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

This aphorism which dates back to the late 1940s points out that one’s position on issues (where you stand) is shaped by your relationship with the events taking place (where you sit).

Since the start of the Ukrainian war I have been working in a small country very much in Russia’s shadow. Local TV channels are dominated by broadcasts from Russia. Russian is widely understood here, much more than English, and these channels provide a major source of news.

Daud Khan

What is seen in as an invasion of a free democratic country in the West is presented by Moscow as a necessary intervention to halt the interrupted eastern creep of NATO – an issue that threatens their very survival and on which they have repeatedly warned NATO leaders.

The West sees the events as the imposition of Russian rule on freedom loving Ukrainians, while Moscow presents it as the liberation of the Russian speaking people of the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics from Ukrainian bullying and thuggery. The West calls it an invasion and a war; Moscow calls it an operation.

Reporters from each side interview “ordinary citizens” to provide support for their point of view. News agencies such as the BBC and CNN interview ordinary Ukrainians who say how they love their country and want to live in peace but are prepared to defend their homes and families; the other side also interview ordinary people of the Donbas who offer tearful thanks to their Russian liberators.

The arming of ordinary citizens by the Ukrainian Government is seen in western media as giving patriots the means to defend their homeland; in Moscow’s version all this does in armed criminal gangs – some of these have been turning up in pickup trucks to load up dozens of machine guns and thousands of rounds of ammunitions. Moscow say 500 of their soldiers have lost the life, the other side reports a number more than 10 times that.

It is quite futile to ask who is right and about what. Maybe the Russians are right about the eastern creep of NATO but maybe they are lying about the number of deaths. Or maybe both sides are partly right – say about the distribution of arms; it may well be that ordinary patriotic Ukrainians as well as criminal gangs are arming themselves.

In the age of internet and social media, most people have access to both versions of the facts and have a choice about which narrative to believe? And there is where Miles’ Law kicks in – most people will choose the narrative that fits in with their past experiences and their current needs and desires.

At Government level the choice of which narrative to accept, and what positions to take, for example at the UN, will be based on the economic, political and strategic interests of the country or of its rulers. Did Palau (population 18,000) make any objective assessment of facts before cosponsoring the UN motion condemning Russia, or did they simply go along with the wishes of Australia and New Zealand their largest trading partners and donors? Did the Government of Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka assess the evidence or did they abstain in the General Assembly vote in order to have the option to make deals with whichever side offers better terms? And did China abstain because it wants to prepare the ground for its own invasion of Taiwan? And what about Afghanistan? Is their vote condemning Russia based on what they believe are the facts of the matter, or is it simply because their representative at the UN is still the one appointed by the Ashraf Ghani Government and whose salaries and expenses are likely paid by the USA?

And what about “ordinary individuals”? What do they believe? Those who have lived in Iraq or in Afghanistan, or in other places where USA and western countries have played havoc, will tend to have sympathies with the Russian narrative. For them someone is finally standing up to western bullying; someone is prepared to give NATO a bloody nose.

In contrast many in Europe will believe the Western version of facts – that Putin is a power hunger lunatic, a megalomaniac who is single handedly driving the invasion, and he will soon be replaced by the oligarchs who see their wealth and privileges dwindling due to sanctions. Their views and predictions are based not only on cultural ties with the Ukraine but is influenced by the fact that most Europeans have benefited from closer economic links with Russia and in particular on plentiful Russian energy supplies – supplies that are at now at risk. For them the quicker the war is over and Russians booted out of the Ukraine the better for everyone. And what if the war is not over quickly? What if energy supplies are cut off, if prices go on rising, and millions of refugees continue to turn up? Will positions change?

But whatever views we hold, and however strongly we wish to argue about who is right and who is wrong, let us not forget that the vast majority of the people on the planet don’t give a hoot about who is right and who is wrong. They will simply curse the big powers whose ambitions have raised the price of food and fuel, making their life ever harder.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The USA and its allies have repeatedly stated that promoting women’s rights was one of the key reasons they were in Afghanistan. The US military top brass, in a letter to marines stated that they were in Afghanistan “for the liberty of young Afghan girls, women, boys, and men who want the same individual freedoms we enjoy as Americans”.

Daud Khan

There is also much talk in the western press of how the new Government is trampling or women’s rights – girls are not allowed to go to school, working women are being told to stay home, and demonstrations by women are put down brutally. There is also much discussion of the fact that there are no women in the new Government. The position of the US and its allies, and the apparent intransigence of the Taliban, seems to suggest a long stalemate which will bring additional misery to ordinary Afghans.

However, there is also a second narrative on women in Afghanistan that is emerging. The starting point for this alternative narrative is that the vast majority of Afghan women live in rural areas; and have seen their suffering increase many fold during the 20 years of the war. The bombings, the killings, the arbitrary violence by warlords, some of who were allied with US forces, were what defined their daily existence. These rural women saw few, if any, benefits of the efforts by donors and aid agencies to improve living conditions. Corruption siphoned off much of the money and what little did get to the rural areas did not make any significant improvement in public services such as health, education or water supplies. For these women the return of the Taliban means, above all, a cessation of violence and a return to a rule of law – however flawed it may be.

This alternative narrative also points out that the women “who want the same individual freedoms we enjoy as Americans” are a small minority living in Kabul. Moreover, the freedoms they had under US occupation – to wear jeans, play football or cricket – are alien to Afghan society and traditional values. Hence losing such “rights” are quite irrelevant to the much of the country.

Leila Yasmine Khan

For those to who the second narrative holds more appeal, the ceasing of conflict and the departure of the foreign troops were the most important events for Afghanistan. From here onwards, the Afghan people have to decide for themselves what social mores and traditions they want to follow.

And, if they want to change, it has to be at the speed and pace of their own choosing. The international community which has a large responsibility for the misery and mayhem of the last decades should focus on repairing and improving infrastructure such as roads and irrigation; ensuring supplies of essential goods and services including food, water, fuel, health services and electricity; and creating the institutional structure and the trained manpower for the administration of public services such as administration, justice and policing.

Both narratives, as well as the actions deriving from it, are flawed.

Whatever geopolitical or economic interests drove the war, it is disingenuous for the US and allies to say that they were in Afghanistan for 20 years to help the Afghans and in particular Afghan women. The war has cost the US taxpayer US$2 trillion most of which went to the defense contracts with some crumbs to the corrupt Afghan Government officials. Given an average Afghan family size of seven, the US$ 2 trillion spent on the war is equivalent to US$350,000 per family. If even a fraction of this if had been invested properly it would have transformed lives – but this never happened. Now after 20 years of war, to impose further pain on the Afghans in the name of women’s rights seems heartless. Particularly galling is the freezing of Afghan assets in western banks at the time when the country desperately needs this money.

A laissez faire approach towards the new Government is, however, is equally callous. Women’s rights are not just about dressing as one likes, about participating in sports or wearing a veil in public. It is also about giving the right to be educated; to aspire to any job or career they wish; to live without repression; and have to freedom to move, to think and to speak without fear or hindrance.

The fact that 80% of Afghan girls don’t have schools that they can go to, jobs to which they can aspire, or the time, energy or money for sports or recreation, does not negate the rights of the 20% who do have some of these opportunities.

The countries in the region with influence in Afghanistan – countries such as China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey – must not turn a blind eye to women’s rights. On the contrary, they should use all the leverage they have with the Afghan Government to respect women’s rights be it for those who live in Kabul, be it for those who live in the most remote areas.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy of Cognition and one in Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric – both from the University of Amsterdam – as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre).

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

There are several points of similarity between the war in Afghanistan and the war in Viet Nam. The Taliban, like the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, proved to be formidable tacticians and fighters. They managed to contain a far better equipped opponent and mount effective counteroffensives; access sufficient domestic and foreign funding to pay their fighters and support their families; build a formidable intelligence network; and acquire necessary technical capabilities in areas such as repair and maintenance of small arms.

Daud Khan

Like the Vietnamese, the Taliban also proved to be canny strategists. Their approach during the Doha engagement was very similar to that of the North Vietnamese during the Paris talks – negotiate but give away little; continue to fight on the ground and gain territory; and accompany this by a strong propaganda effort to undermine the morale of the weakest element in the enemy ranks (the South Vietnamese army in the one case; the Afghan National Army in the other).

There are also striking similarities in the images of representative moments of the two wars. US soldiers armed with equipment worth tens of thousands of dollars, patrolling villages and hamlets with small children, wide-eyed and ill clad, looking on; scruffy looking Viet Cong or Afghan soldiers armed only with light arms and grenade launchers marching through barren hills or torrid jungles; and, during the last days of the war, the helicopters taking off from Kabul and the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon.

Now that the USA and its allies have left Afghanistan and the Taliban are taking up the reins of Government, it is worth speculating about what kind of regime we are likely to see. Key questions in the coming years will be: how the Taliban would treat their political and military opponents; what systems of administration and justice would they set up; what will be the role of women and how they will be treated; what relations would they have with countries regional players such a Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia and Turkey, as well as with the USA; and, above all how will they bring about a prosperous Afghanistan?

The Taliban appear to have learnt from the Vietnamese in the conduct of the war. Maybe they should also learn lessons from Viet Nam about the conduct of the post-war peace.

After the USA pulled out of Viet Nam, the Communist Party took over a poverty-stricken and ravaged country where much infrastructure was destroyed, basic services were missing and the large swathes of the country side were inaccessible due to landmines or the use of Agent Orange – a chemical defoliant that was aerially sprayed to destroy the forests that the Viet Cong were allegedly hiding in. Deep social and economic divisions separated the north and the south of the country. There was also a huge flight of capital, both financial and human, soaring inflation rates and severe debt problems. Not much different from Afghanistan today?

But despite the disastrous starting point, Viet Nam’s development over the last 45 years has been remarkable. During the first decade after the end of the war, economic progress was slow as priority was given to political consolidation with the Communist Party tightening its hold on power and laying the foundations for systems for administration, security, development and fiscal management. There was also a massive focus on education at all levels, from primary to tertiary, with top students being sent abroad for doing Master’s degrees and Doctorates at top universities around the world.

Another achievement of that period was the establishment of high levels of participation, accountability and competence at commune level – the lowest level of Government. I worked in some of the poorest and most remote areas of Viet Nam and the dedication and organizational skills of Government staff even in these areas was striking. Even more striking was the level of people’s involvement – no one had qualms about berating the Commune Chairman and his team for jobs not done, duties overlooked and problems not given due attention.

The building on the political and administrative efforts made in the first decade after unification, attention turned to economic stabilization and development. Reforms introduced in the mid to late 1980s liberalized much of economy and spurred rapid economic growth, transforming what was then one of the world’s poorest nations into a lower middle-income country with GPD per capita approaching US$3,000.

A major factor in making the reforms work was the commitment of Government staff at all levels and the strong ideology that underpinned the development effort. The Communist Party played a key role ensuring that resources and processes were not captured by local elites; that development efforts focused on meeting real needs; that economic growth was by and large equitable with the result that poverty rates, which were well over 70% at one point, fell to around 5%; and that foreign policy and international relations were pragmatic and subservient to the economic needs at the time. A couple of anecdotes would illustrate the commitment and pragmatism of the some of these people.

My work often involved close interaction with senior Government staff. A routine part of this was a certain degree of socialization – a coffee together, a drink after work, or a pleasant dinner – which created a friendly, informal atmosphere where difficult issues could be discussed and hopefully sorted out. But I was puzzled by the fact that while there were plenty of official “banquets” there was never any personal invitations from our counterparts – neither to their houses nor elsewhere. The reasons became clear to me over time. The salaries of even senior Government employees were simply not enough to cover the costs of dinners or other such events.

And after several years, when I was finally invited to the house of one of my counterparts for dinner, I had the privilege – and I use the word privilege deliberately – to see how senior government staff lived, I also understood why they never invited us home. They were simply embarrassed.

My friend picked me up from my hotel on his 90 cc Honda motorcycle; took me to his modest two bedroom flat where he lived with his family of five; and we had a simple and frugal dinner cooked by his wife and mother-in-law. No big cars, no servants, no fancy electronic equipment. And this was a person who had a PhD. from Harvard University; who at the time was a Director in the ministry I was working with; and who went on to become the Governor of a Province and then a full Minister. And he, like many others, despite their low pay and limited privileges, worked incredibly hard, often sleeping in their offices when major policy changes and decisions were being formulated and implemented.

The second anecdote regards attitudes to the past and the future. Another senior Government officer told me about living in Hanoi during the war – the planes screaming overhead night after night, the rush to the bomb shelters, and the sounds of explosions. Her father was a senior officer in the army and was never at home; and every time the phone rang her mother’s hand used to tremble as she picked up the receiver as she braced herself for bad news. She also told me she still had nightmares about their home being bombed or receiving a telephone call to inform them that her father had been killed – and how she would wake up from these nightmares in a cold sweat with the smell of death and destruction in her nostrils.

I asked her how she felt about present day Viet Nam, where US investments were pouring in, various trade delegations were visiting her ministry, and the young people from US and Europe were thronging the cafes and bars of the city. Without batting an eyelid she said: “We have to close the door to the past, and open the door to the future”. This was a phrase I went to hear many time after that.

Is it at all possible that the Taliban will continue to follow in the footsteps of the Vietnamese over the coming years?

If they were to do so, they would have to overcome a series of political and social challenges such as the turning their fighters into a force for peace and security; overcoming tribal differences; limiting the influence of outside organizations such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS who may wish to make Afghanistan a base for global or regional Jihad; handling the more radical groups within their own ranks; promoting education for everyone; and unleashing the power of Afghan women. They will also have to turn their attention to economic issues such as trade, finance and development and this will involve making links with richer countries, with international financial institutions, and with humanitarian and aid agencies and NGOs.

Do the Taliban have the discipline and dedication to address these and other challenges? The Taliban have overcome immense odds to defeat the mightiest army ever present on the planet. They now have to run the country. Good luck to the Afghan people who, after over four decades of war, deserve four decades of peace and progress as happened in Viet Nam.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan. He has worked extensively in Viet Nam and in Afghanistan.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

There is nothing honourable about murder. And murdering someone of your own family, your own child – a daughter, someone you held in your arms and rocked to sleep when they were babies? This is such a horrifying crime that there are no words to describe it – certainly not the word Honour. And yet it happens! It happens in Pakistan and to the shame of all of us in the diaspora, it has been brought to Italy.

Daud Khan

There are about 150,000 Pakistanis living in Italy – the second largest Pakistani diaspora in Europe after the UK. Many of them came here in the late 1990s and early 2000s when there was a growing demand for cheap labour to work in farms and factories. At this time, the Italian Government also announced several amnesties for illegal immigrants. While this allowed Pakistanis living in Italy to regularise their status, it also brought about a new wave of immigrants from Pakistan who promptly “lost” their passports and claimed that they had been in Italy for some time. Similarly, substantial numbers of illegal immigrants from all over Europe moved to Italy to be able to get their legal stay permits which, inter-alia, allowed them to travel to and from Pakistan.

Leila Yasmine Khan

Quite naturally this means pain and unhappiness, and since every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way, each family reacts differently. But there are two things in this conflict of generations that are deplorable. The first is the double standards applied between the sexes. Males are allowed to socialise, to make choices, and even to transgress. But woe betide any young female who tries does the same. Any sign of independence is seen as wilful mischief and any resistance to the wishes of parents as rebellion. The second deplorable thing is how quickly the demand for conformity – particularly for women – can descend into coercion, and psychological and physical violence.

And in those cases where violence does occur, often Islam is dragged in as a justification. Saman Abbas’ brother said “in the Quran it is written that if one stops being a Muslim, one is buried alive with the head outside the ground and then stoned to death. In Pakistan this is what we do”.

But Islam has nothing to do with murder. There is no concept of forced marriages; no concept of violated honour that needs to be punished by violence; no concept of killing female offspring to gain social status; and no provision for individuals or families to take the law into their own hands to act as judge, jury and executioner. Islamic organization and religious leaders in Italy, as in other diaspora, have repeatedly issued statements condemning such violence. Moreover, such events are rarely if ever seen in other Muslim diaspora communities such as Bangladeshis, Moroccans, Tunisians or those from African countries. And so the question arises – is this somehow part of Pakistanis culture?

Killing of women in the name of honour is a feature of ignorant and retrograde communities. In Pakistan much has been done to highlight this problem and laws have been enacted against it. But laws by themselves do not stop culturally embedded misogynist practices. And the killings continue and continue to haunt us.

To really make a difference we need to think about deep changes in how women live and work in our society. And this will require changes that range from school curricula to how women are portrayed in art and literature. The Prime Minister has done the right thing by launching a debate on Pakistaniat. What is that we want the word Pakistani to invoke in our own mind and in the mind of others? Unfortunately, Kaptaan Sahib has not made a great start to the discussion by talking about immodest dressing and vulgarity by women, and linking these to violence and rape.

However, the challenge of trying to define ourselves does exist and we should take it on. And as this debate moves forward, it is important to bring in the voices from the diaspora. Overseas Pakistanis contribute a lot to the country. Although numbers related to remittances are often cited and recognized, little is done to bring them into the wider political and ideological debate. Maybe first generation of immigrants focused mainly on work, but the second and third generation of overseas Pakistanis are brilliant, articulate and committed. In Italy we have intellectuals, entrepreneurs, businessmen and businesswomen, community leaders and journalists. Let’s find a way to harness this resource.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy and one in Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric – both from the University of Amsterdam – as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre).

This story was originally published by The Express Tribune (Pakistan)

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Roma Capannelle Cricket Ground, home ground of Emi and Zaryan’s cricket club. Photo courtesy: Italian Cricket TV

By Daud Khan and Ahmed Raza
ROME, Jul 21 2021 (IPS-Partners)

Following Prime Minister Imran Khan’s comments about the need to promote ‘Pakistaniyat,’ a debate has been underway on what constitutes this ideology and what unites Pakistanis around the world. While this may be a contentious and polarising debate, one thing is for certain: the game of cricket is something which brings us all together.

Cricket is everywhere – it is present in speeches in the parliament, television shows, family discussions over dinner, and has quickly surpassed other historically important sports in Pakistan, namely field hockey and squash.

Amazingly, cricket is also a conduit for overseas Pakistanis to maintain a cultural and nostalgic link with the home land. Here in Italy, where the Pakistani community numbers close to 150,000 making it the second largest in Europe after the UK, Pakistanis are playing an important in keeping the spirit and passion of cricket alive in a nation where football rules supreme. In Northern Italy, in places like Emilia Romagna, Lombardia, Trentino-Alto Adige and Veneto, club teams feature a significantly large contingent of Pakistani players.

That said, cricket is still in its nascent stages in the country. Although there is a vibrant league which operates under the auspices of the Federazione Cricket Italiana, much remains to be done. For example, it’s important that more games are organized in a calendar year to enable current players to gain greater match practice. There is also a need to make inroads in the Italian school system to encourage young Italians to pick up the cricket bat and ball. Lastly, more sponsors need to come forward to ensure that cricket survives in the country.

At the start of the 2021 cricket season, we meet two young Pakistani cricketers, Emi Ghulam, 26 year old, and Zaryan Ijaz, 17 years old, in Rome to gain an understanding of how cricket plays a role in their identities. Both are all-rounders and are a regular feature in the Roma Capannelle Cricket Club’s (RCCC) 1st XI. Being 10 years apart, their varied outlooks on the game, life in Italy and what means to be a Pakistani in the country makes for a fascinating read.

Tell us about yourself and what got you into cricket?

Emi: ‘I was born in Italy to Pakistani immigrants from androon Lahore. My father used to play cricket in Rome. He was an outstanding wicketkeeper and was praised for his can-do attitude behind the stumps. I was inspired by his approach and passion towards the game and that got me into cricket’.

Zaryan: ‘I was born in Pakistan but have been in Italy for almost 11 years. We are originally from Mandi Bahauddin and we visit Pakistan frequently. My father still plays for the Roma Capannelle Cricket Club and his influence as well as regular trips to Pakistan have been the reason for playing cricket.’

How did you learn the game?

Emi: ‘There was no one to teach me the game, which was frustrating. When I starting playing, I was mocked by other people for the way I played. This riled me up further and pushed me to learn the game independently. I would credit YouTube for teaching me most of what I know. I also have family in Pakistan and England, and during visits to these places, I have had the opportunity to observe the game closely at a higher level. Here I must also mention the valuable contributions made by our club President, Francis Alphonsus Jayarajah, and captain, Leandro Mati Jayarajah, in encouraging me to take up the game seriously and for entrusting me with important responsibilities within the club.”

Zaryan: “Cricket runs in my family! My father still plays the game and my uncle also used to play.”

Emi Ghulam bowling in the nets. Photo courtesy: Roma Capannelle Cricket Club

Who are your influencers in the cricketing world?

Emi: “As a child, my father advised me to identify a cricketer to emulate. While watching TV, I used to like Sachin Tendulkar in the olden days and copy his batting style. Now, the newer exponents of modern batting, Virat Kohli and Babar Azam, are my inspiration. As for bowling, I used to admire Mohammad Aamir for his ability to swing the ball but over time I have found Wasim Akram and Jimmy Anderson to be more effective bowlers to follow.”

Zaryan: “I would have to say my father. He played cricket at a very high level in Mandi Bahauddin and I have always been insipired by his cricketing journey.”

How do you see the perception of Pakistanis in Italy?

Emi: “It’s neither positive nor negative – somewhere in the middle, I would argue. We pop up in the news when there are sad incidents of families choosing to kill their daughters, and that is not a good projection of us as people as there are many of us who are exemplary citizens and are in engaged in respectable professions. I do think that there is still respect for those Pakistanis who do good deeds.”

Zaryan: “My experiences have been positive with Italians and I have only positive things to recall. Plus, I do not think that this treatment is restricted to a big city like Rome, Pakistanis all over the country are regarded and treated well.”

Can cricket promote better integration in the Italian society?

Emi: “Indeed, cricket can be helpful. When Pakistanis play people take notice of them and their mannerisms. They get to interact with numerous Italians, get to travel to various cities to play tournaments, learn the language; as well as and quite importantly, cricket clubs help players get jobs and settle into the Italian way of life. But I do think that any Pakistani who plays the game should play with respect and dignity. Often Pakistanis get into fights on the ground which is not a positive sight. I am all for players earning and giving respect on the ground. That is what it is all about!”

Zaryan: ‘Yes, in principle but the real problem is that very few Italians play cricket. Playing the game therefore can help one to integrate with other migrants, such and Bangladeshis, Sri Lankas, etc., but not with native Italians. In order to get acquainted with the latter, sports such as volleyball, basketball and football, need to be pursued.”

Zaryan Ijaz after completing an innings. Photo courtesy: Zaryan Ijaz

How do you see the role of the Pakistani community (embassy, cultural centres, organizations, ordinary people, etc.) in promoting cricket in Italy?

Emi: “Various things. They can help us in bringing good players into the fold. With good cricketers, the standard in Italy is bound to improve. I also think that should players like me, and others of Pakistani origin in Italy, get a chance to ply their trade in cricket leagues, such as the Pakistan Super League (PSL), it will have positive impacts all around.”

Zaryan: “There is definitely a role that the community can play. Particularly, I think they can help with the publicity of the game. For example, in and around their businesses they can put posters to show support and promote one of the many clubs that play the game.”

What are your most prized accomplishments related to cricket?

Emi: “Once I came in at number seven with wickets tumbling all around. On that day nobody expected me to do anything with the bat but I surprised them all with a quick knock of 40-odd runs. I smashed nearly every bowler receiving accolades from teammates in the process. That one game gave me a lot confidence and put me on an upward trajectory”.

Zaryan: “I have captained the under-13 and under-15 teams for my club. In this role, I helped the team win five games in row which we played all over Italy, in Bologna, Rome, Napoli, etc. I always relish that memory.”

What are your future ambitions related to cricket in Italy?

Emi: “I would like the world to see my family in a good light. I would want people to acknowledge that a quality player has come out of our family. As well, I am motivated to play for the Italian national team.”

Zaryan: ”I need to work on my physique. I feel that if I can surmount this challenge I have it in me to make it to the PSL. I would like to try out for one of the teams there. Plus, I would like to play for the Italian national team.”

Emi Ghulam pictured at the RCCC Ground after scoring a half century and taking three wickets. Photo courtesy: Emi Ghulam

What is the one thing that you dearly miss about Pakistan?

Emi: “FUN. The place is abuzz with energy. I miss walking around in the streets till late at night, seeing how people go about their life, and to enjoy good food.”

Zaryan: “FOOD. I am a fan of seekh kabab and biryani, and miss eating these dished when I am there.”

Zaryan Ijaz with the winning trophy. Photo courtesy: Zaryan Ijaz

The writers are Pakistanis who work and live in Rome. This is fourth in the series of articles on Pakistanis in Italy, and the first one which looks at how sports can be a strong means for integration in the Italian society.

Source: Friday Times (Pakistan)

Italy, as other countries, has been struggling to balance the health and economic challenges posed by COVID-19. Controlling the spread of the virus implied restrictions on economic activity, on school and college attendance, and on personal movement. It also had to deal with the economic and social implications of a fall of almost 10% in GDP. This has been hard for a country which, even before the pandemic, was one of the slowest growing economies in Europe, with unemployment, especially among young people in the South of the country, at alarming levels.

Daud Khan

Fortunately, over the last couple of months there has been good news with regard to the spread of the virus. The rate of new infections been dropping, the pressure on hospital and Intensive Care Units have eased, and COVID-related death rates have been falling. At the same time, vaccination programs have been moving ahead. These trends led to a decision by the Government to start on a gradual easing of restrictions. As of 26 April students were allowed to return to schools, colleges and universities; theatres, cinemas and museums were allowed to have visitors; and restaurants and bars were allowed to stay open also in the evening, provided they had tables in the open air. In addition, a timetable for further easing of restrictions was announced, with a special focus on facilitating tourism in the critical summer period.

However, as many epidemiologists were quick to point out, the Government’s moves may prove premature. Death rates remain significant, much higher than last summer before the second wave hit. Vaccinations are proceeding with 26 million doses administered so far but only about nine million Italians, out of a total of a total population of 60 million (l15% of the population), has had the required two doses.

Moreover there are dangerous new variants lurking in the wings – most worryingly is the B.1.617.2 mutation (the so-called Indian variant). The Government has placed tight restrictions on those travelling back from South Asia asking some of them to quarantine in special COVID hotels. However, there are large communities of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in Italy. Many of these people live in crowded, ghetto-like, conditions, ideal for the spread of the virus. There have already been some cases of the Indian variant near Rome and the Government has imposed strict lockdowns in these areas. But it remains a very worrisome situation.

In announcing the reopening measure, the Prime Minister said that the Government was taking a “calculated risk”. Several leading medical experts were quick to respond that the calculations were done badly and failed to adequately assess costs and benefits.

The outcome of the recent measures will play out in the coming months. The country may plunge back into the pandemic or else move rapidly towards normalization. However, the so called normalization may only be a superficial phenomenon. The Pandemic has created, or often exacerbated, several deeper changes in Italian society. The country will have to struggle with these for several years.

The pandemic and the lockdowns are created a growing unease among the population, especially among younger people. There are strident calls for “Liberty” and this often translates into a strong unwillingness to follow Government SOPs. Despite continuous warnings by authorities, many people simply do not maintain social distancing, do not wear face-masks, and gather in large groups especially on Friday and Saturday nights.

The feeling of oppression, a mistrust of authority, and a search for alternative realties are not new phenomena. However, the pandemic has sharply split society between those who see Government, Science and Rules as things for the common good; and those who are who feel alienated and are constantly searching for conspiracy theories to justify their actions.

The pandemic has also very sharply increased income and wealth inequality, and this has stoked feelings of helplessness and a lack of optimism in the future. One of the consequences of this was a sharp fall in marriages, an increase in divorces, and, most worryingly, an unwillingness to have children. In 2020, the birth rate, already low and lagging behind the death rate, reached its lowest level ever – around 400,000 a fertility rate of only 1.24 – well below the number of deaths (750,000). In a recent speech that touched on this issue, Pope Francis called it a “demographic winter, cold and dark”.

The pandemic has seen the significant faltering of traditional politics and leadership. The political parties have been continuously bickering. After several rather odd coalitions between the strangest of bed-fellows, the President had to ask a non-politician (the former head of the Italian and European Central Banks to take over as Prime minister. The traditional institutions failed even to manage the vaccination campaign and a uniformed serving general, sometimes referred to as the TV general due to his frequent public appearance, was placed in charge of the campaign.

The populist parties, some of which are part of the ruling coalition, continue to fan social and economic tensions and rail against restrictions. For example, when the Government confirmed continuation of the 10:00 pm curfew, one of the Ministers made a statement that no one would be fined if they were out after 10:00pm – provided they could show that they were at a restaurant, returning from work, or a host of other reasons. All of this made a mockery of the curfew as the police and other authorities have confused about what action they are expected to take.

The political tensions are likely to rise in the coming months. The Parliament has approved a Recovery and Resilience Plan in the amount of almost Euro250 billion – more than Pakistan’s annual GDP for a country less than 30% of its size – to be spent in the next 5-6 years. Of this amount, the bulk will come from EU funds and is conditional on a series of deep reforms. Many of these reforms have been in the programme of several Governments but never got implemented due to lack of political will and various entrenched vested interests.

In the past year the country has faced an agonizing period. Recovery now hinges on how things move forward. It will be hard but I remain optimistic.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

This story was first published in The Express Tribune, Pakistan

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Daud Khan
ROME, May 11 2021 (IPS)

We met 22-year old Ali B. in a park in Rome’s city center on a rather cold and windy April evening. We could not share a meal, or even a coffee, as all restaurants were shut due to continuing COVID-19 restrictions. He had travelled down from Cerveteri (a small town about 50km north of Rome) where he works for an old couple. They provide boarding and lodging as well as a decent salary and social security benefits. In return, he has to cook for them and look after the kitchen.

Ali B.

We decided to tell Ali’s story not only because it is moving but also inspirational. Most importantly, he embodies a spirit of independence and of courage for taking destiny in his own hands – making the most of whatever life has given him. He is also an example for Pakistani migrants in Italy. In the few years he has been here, he has shown what one can achieve by opening up to a new culture.

Given that Ali arrived in Italy at an impressionable age, he easily assimilated to the Italian way of life. Unlike many of his compatriots from Pakistan, his language skills and comfort with the Italian norms and customs has helped in integrating with locals and their culture. Talk of Pakistan, his life there or its culture does not invoke any strong nostalgia in him. Rather it reminds him of economic hardships and the life-threatening journey he embarked on a few years ago.

We asked him what the journey to Europe was like.

He told us that the journey started on a bus from his hometown close to Sheikhupura to Lahore, and then by train to Karachi. There, he met up with others and a group of 40 young men and boys was put on a small launch which took them to Iran. From there they travelled on foot, or by car and bus, to Turkey and eventually to Greece. At each leg, the group got larger or smaller as others joined or left – depending on the logistics of the next stage.

The journey to Greece took about three to four weeks and over this period he had about 10 handlers. Luckily for Ali, the handlers, many of whom were Iranians, were a generally humane lot. The travelers were usually provided food, a clean place to sleep and reasonable facilities. Most important, they were not mistreated in any significant way, as happens often on the human trafficking routes through North Africa where depravation, as well as physical and sexual violence are common.

We asked him why he chose Italy once he entered the European Union.

He said that upon arriving in Greece, he stayed in a camp managed by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for over a month. At that time Angela Merkel’s government was making arrangements to allow groups of Syrian refugees to enter Germany. Ali and four other Pakistanis decided to mingle with the Syrians and found themselves on a bus headed to Austria. In Vienna, they were given train tickets to Germany.

The Pakistani boys realized that sooner or later the German authorities would find out that they were not Syrians and they would face an uncertain future. One of them managed to contact a cousin who was an agricultural laborer near Rome. Based on this short call, Ali and his small group decided that they were better off separating from the Syrians. Not having any money, they had to travel without tickets. Quite predictably they got caught by the railway staff and thrown off the train several times before they eventually ended up in Rome.

The “cousin” picked up the four of them and took them to Latina, an important hub for the production of fruits and vegetables for the Rome market. Many Pakistanis, often without any papers, work in the fields there. But Ali was only 16, a “minor” and generally even unscrupulous employers are hesitant to take them on. The next morning, Ali was put on a bus and advised to contact the police, inform them that he was a minor and ask for help.

So here was this 16 year old boy, cold, hungry, reduced to below 50 kilos, with long unkempt hair at Rome’s central railway station. No money, nor a word of Italian – and no documents except a birth certificate (janam pathrii).

We asked him what was the most frightening thing about this journey.

“In Iran we travelled for one night and a day in the boot of a car. I was with another rather big person. It was not only very uncomfortable but also frightening being in the dark for so many hours. Another time, Iranian police chased us and our handlers dumped us in an apple orchard and told us to hide among the trees. The Iranian apples are very nice, and we stuffed our stomachs and pockets.”

“But the really hair-raising part of the journey was when we had to cross a high mountain pass from Iran into Turkey. We joined a number of other small groups and were 40 people, including women, children and old people. The crossing was at night. It was very cold and the paths were icy and treacherous. I recall that a few people fell off the path and given the conditions, it was unlikely that they were rescued. I was terrified of falling off and being left behind.”

His recount is overwhelming and makes us wonder why a teenager from a relatively sound socio-economic background would dare to take such a plunge. So, we ask him what led him to leave home?

He revealed that hostile environments within the household coupled with limited economic prospects in his hometown drove him towards Europe.

“My mother passed away when I was thirteen. My father was preoccupied with managing his small plot of land and five buffaloes and had little time for me and my siblings. He remarried and I was sent to live with my paternal uncle. It was a hard and lonely time.”

“I did not get much schooling and never had time or energy to play with other children, or even to watch TV or listen to the radio. Next came a job in a local factory that manufactured parts for tractors. In addition to the factory work, I had to continue to look after my uncle’s small dairy enterprise. It was an unexciting and dull life and I was always tired.” He does not delve into more details. It is clear that this was a challenging period in his life.

Now in 2021, there is nothing dull or unexciting about Ali. He has friends from all over the globe, some of whom he met in learning centers funded by the government and international NGOs. He owns a smartphone, maintains a healthy social media presence and even runs a small business online selling silk-screened T-shirts.

We asked him when he did make the decision to leave.

“Working all the time, I knew nothing of a wider world. The decision to leave was made for me. One of my uncles, not the one I was staying with, but another one who often traveled and moved around with city folk, suggested we sell my late mother’s jewelry to finance my trip to Europe – I recall hearing we paid about Rs3-4 lakhs (about US$3-4,000 at the time). And so I was given a little case with a few clothes and some cash (I think it was about Rs5-10,000), and was sent off to Karachi. It was the last time I saw my home, my neighborhood or my relatives.”

We asked him what were the most important factors behind integration in Italy.

“The most important factor is language – we must learn Italian,” he said. “I was given the chance to learn in a center called Civico Zero in Rome. It is funded by Save the Children. They also helped me register for the various courses which helped me get a job. With language and a job, I have a chance to build a life for myself.”

We asked him if there was anyone who was instrumental in making him who he was today.

“Many people were kind to me. There were many people from NGOs working in various shelters – their dedication to helping me was incredible. There was a family in Rome who used to come by and take me out on weekends and buy me ice-cream. There were several Pakistanis, some were second generation and others who were here for a long time, who helped me realize how lucky I was to be in Italy and the importance of integration. All these people showed me more love and kindness than I got from my family. Now I have friends from all over the world, many of whom I met in shelters and while doing various courses. I am lucky.”

We asked him what were the activities and things he enjoyed the most.

“When I was at CivicoZero, I discovered theatre. I wrote and performed a 45-minute solo piece on my trip from Pakistan. I had no idea what theatre was or that anyone would be interested in what I had to say. I was wonderful. That was what made me start on my book – I want people to know my story.”

“Also it is nice in the countryside where I live, but I want to move back to Rome or another big city. There is so much to do in a city and so easy to meet people which I really enjoy.”

The writers are Pakistanis who work and live in Rome. This is the second in a series of articles on Pakistanis in Italy

Source: The Friday Times, Pakistan

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Credit: Bigstock

By Daud Khan and Leila Yasmine Khan
AMSTERDAM/ROME, May 5 2021 (IPS)

For several years, a fast growing and assertive China has been challenging the USA’s global dominance.  China’s GDP, taking into account differences in purchasing power, is now greater than that of the USA; its military spending has been expanding rapidly and exceeds by wide margins that of other countries except the USA with which it is catching up; it is the manufacturing power house of the world; it is quickly moving up the technological ladder; and it is the key trading partner for an increasing number of countries.  All this is creating tensions with the USA and its key allies.

The western press is full of talk of how awful the Chinese are. Among the top issues are Chinese violations of human rights, their hounding of Muslim Uyghurs and their trampling of civil rights and other liberties in Hong Kong.

While the western countries continue to do business with China, developing countries are being increasingly asked to make a choice.  The position is similar to that of the USA during the Cold War or the War on Terror – either you are with us or you are against us

This hysteria will grow as China will take more aggressive postures on various issues such as the reunification of Taiwan (which it will surely do sooner or later); claims to various islands off its coastline; and commercial and political agreements around the globe, especially in resource rich countries such as those in the Middle-East and in Africa. 

Despite all the diatribes, and the talk of sanctions and boycotts, for the moment no one is walking away from doing business with China. In 2020 China was the largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI). In fact, while global FDI fell sharply, investment into China grew to a record level of over US$160 billion – and it is the big western multinationals are leading the charge into China.   

It is a similar story with Hong Kong. Despite all the criticism about Chinese repression and how it will destroy confidence, Hong Kong’s financial sector is booming. Forbes, a premier business news and analysis periodical – states that Hong Kong remains “a top choice for raising funds, and the city has ranked as the world’s number one IPO venue in seven of the past 12 years. In 2020 alone, HKEX recorded a 24% year-on-year fundraising increase, raising a total of HK$398 billion (US$51.3 billion) from 154 listings. This was the highest amount in a single year since 2010 ……”. Western financial institutions are heavily involved.  

So, while the western countries continue to do business with China, developing countries are being increasingly asked to make a choice.  The position is similar to that of the USA during the Cold War or the War on Terror – either you are with us or you are against us. 

But developing countries should remain well aware of the history of the last decades.  The USA had no compunctions about starting wars and invasions when it suited them; racism, discrimination and Islamophobia remains a part of the culture in many sections of society in western countries; and the anti-immigrant rhetoric that is fanned by their populist parties has been gaining ground. 

At the same time, developing countries should not have any illusions of what it means to end up in the clutches of the Chinese dragon. The Chinese may not have had a recent colonial history but there has been plenty of mayhem and bloodshed in their past. Moreover, as many countries are beginning to find out, Chinese friendship, aid and investments sometimes comes at a high economic and political cost.

The best strategy for developing countries in the coming years would be to avoid, at all costs, to take sides; to buy time; to hem and haw. But what I call “strategic procrastination” does not simply mean indecision or postponing. It also means looking around to get the best deal possible, trying to play one side off against the other, of negotiating and negotiating and negotiating.  

China’s foreign policy rhetoric is that it does not seek spheres of geopolitical influence. Rather, it seeks shared prosperity and its companies have been told to go out and make deals.  This is good news for developing countries and they should make sure that they use Chinese offers to also try and squeeze better deals from the USA or Europe.

If they have to upgrade their ICT hardware, they need to compare Qualcomm (American), Eriksson (European) and Huawei (Chinese).  If they have to buy or sell agricultural commodities they need to be talking to China’s COFCO, the new kid on the block, as well as the traditional big four grain traders (ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Drefus) who have so far dominated world trade. If they have to build infrastructure they need to talk to the Chinese giants such as China Communications Construction Company as well as Bechtel (USA), or to some of the big Europeans such as Vinci and Skanska.  

However, trying to play off two super powers against each other is not a simple task.  It is certainly risky. And not all Governments may be smart and savvy enough to get this right.  

What would certainly help is greater transparency and public scrutiny of the big Government to Government deals being signed by developing countries – be it with China, the USA or any other country. 

And there is little doubt that given their rich history of NGOs, pressure, advocacy groups, and whistleblowers, western countries are better at this. It is essential that these groups continue their work in developing countries, and that national counterparts continue to be as welcoming and cooperative as they can.    

Another important source of technical assistance and oversight are the various UN agencies and international NGOs such as Transparency International.  The press, academia and intellectuals in developing countries need to strengthen their links with these organizations – not only because of their skills and neutrality, but also because they are in a politically stronger position to speak out and be listened to.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy of Cognition and one in Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric – both from the University of Amsterdam – as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre). She provided research and editorial support. 

Over the past decade anti-immigrant views, and the cultural stereotyping on which it is based, has been elevated to the primary narrative in many political contexts. Credit: UNOHCR.

By Daud Khan and Leila Yasmine Khan
AMSTERDAM/ROME, Apr 8 2021 (IPS)

The notion of “Clash of Cultures” is most frequently used as a justification for anti-immigrant prejudice and, particularly in Europe and in the USA, for islamophobia. The reasoning goes as follows: immigrants, especially Muslims, have a deeply different culture from the hosting communities and these differences create unsurmountable tensions and conflicts.

Moreover, immigrants are accused of stealing jobs from local workers, especially low skilled workers; depriving the local population of social services; and, generally, act as a drag on the economy. The only real solution is to stop, or drastically reduce immigration – particularly what is called economic migration; and, if possible, start expelling immigrants that are already there.

Culture is a mix of norms, modes, conventions, beliefs and ideologies. There are major differences in culture between regions and countries; even neighbouring towns or villages may have very different ways of living joyful and sad experiences, such as marriage and deaths, or addressing issues and conflicts.

There is decades of empirical research that show the negative side effects of migration are exaggerated.  In particular the negative impacts of immigration on the wages of low-skilled native workers in developed countries are relatively small and short-lived

And there are frictions and irritations when people of different cultures live with each other. These frictions, if poorly handled, can explode into arguments, fights and even riots.

But over the past decade anti-immigrant views, and the cultural stereotyping on which it is based, has been elevated to the primary narrative in many political contexts. In the USA, President Trump made the campaign to “stop the rapists and murderers from Mexico” a signature issue and successfully drew in millions of voters.

In the UK it was a key factor in the Brexit vote. In Europe, the birthplace of democracy and liberalism, anti-immigrant movements are taking “hate-politics” to new heights – immigrants are blamed for crime, disease, scrounging state benefits and unemployment.

The success of anti-immigrant movements among voters has shifted the political balance and made even the traditional mainstream political parties hesitant to appear soft on immigrants.

Even Nobel Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi fell into the trap of seeing action against aliens and intruders as justified. She stood by silently while the Myanmar army and vigilante Buddhist monks – often considered as icons of peace and solidarity – committed atrocities against Rohingya Muslims who have been living in Myanmar for several generations, arguing that they were illegally in Myanmar and that their ways polluted the purity of the country.

It is an interesting question to speculate why the anti-immigrant movement has to become so important; particularly as the consensus among analysts is that immigration is generally beneficial for immigrants, as well as for the countries they emigrate from and for the countries they immigrate to.

For those who emigrate, the benefits are clear. Emigration allows them to substantially increase their incomes often several-fold.

It usually also benefits their families and communities as the money they send home triggers higher investments in both physical and human capital. Generally, their countries of origin also benefit due to higher remittance, and due to the skills that they bring back should they return.

Immigration also benefits the host countries. It provides labour for the hardest and most arduous tasks, for example in agriculture and livestock; for the care of the elderly or of young children; or in running small businesses that require long hours for only low returns, such as neighbourhood convenience stores.

This keeps some of these essential services cheap and also releases natives to engage in more productive activities. In many countries immigrants are also net contributors to the tax system, paying significantly more than they draw in benefits though the extent of this depends on the factors such as the fiscal and benefits regimes in these countries, as well as the age profile, skills set and employment status of immigrants.

Immigration also brings in specific skills which may be in limited in the host country. This can range from doctors and health care workers, to highly technical know-how in ICT. In the UK and the USA, second generation immigrants are supplying the mainstream political parties with leadership and strategic thinking – clear indication that the host nations are in short supply of these rather vital skills.

But are there negative side effects? Does immigration cause harm, at least to some sections of the population, in the developed host countries? In particular, do they displace local unskilled workers and drive down their wages?

There is decades of empirical research that show the negative side effects of migration are exaggerated. In particular the negative impacts of immigration on the wages of low-skilled native workers in developed countries are relatively small and short-lived.

In the UK, unrestricted immigration from low income EU countries in Eastern Europe more than tripled and the foreign born component of the workforce increased to about 7%. Instead of creating unemployment among low wage British workers this influx has been accompanied by an expansion of jobs for locals.

Similarly getting rid, or reducing use, of low cost immigrants does little for jobs and incomes of low-skilled domestic workers. When the USA restricted use of seasonal migrant labour in agriculture, instead of hiring native workers, farmers reduced the number of employees by switching crops or investing in new, albeit more expensive technology.

So why has immigration become such an important issue with so much misinformation? One major reason is that it provides a smoke screen for other divisive changes in society, the most important of which is rising inequality.

Over the past three or four decades the world has rapidly become more globalised and interlinked. At the same time technology has drastically changed the employment landscape.

Overall productivity and incomes have increased and most people have seen living standards rise while extreme poverty had declined. But the gains have not been evenly distributed. Some people have done exceedingly well and but there have many losers – people who have lost their jobs or seen their incomes drop.

Particularly at risk are young people, especially those with limited skills and education, who have little prospect for a secure and stable job that would allow them to plan a future for themselves and their families.

These changes have created enormous social stresses and strains. Populist parties and populist leaders have been quick to exploit these feelings of unease and difficulty, and immigrants are an easy target to blame.

In fact they are so easy to blame that you actually don’t really need any. In the UK many of the Brexit voters came from areas where there are few immigrants but that were hard hit by deindustrialization.

In mainland Europe the most virulent and successful anti-immigrant rhetoric is in countries such as Poland and Hungary, despite the fact that immigrant flows are extremely small.

In the coming decades immigration will remain essential to both Europe and North America. Given their low birth rates, which is being driven down further by the COVID-19 pandemic, immigrants are needed to operate their farms and factories, maintain their living standards and, most importantly, to fund the pensions and health care for their aging populations.

It is therefore incumbent on responsible political parties in the development countries, as well as on intellectuals in both sides of the developing/developed country divide, to counter the toxic narrative on immigration, culture and conflict.

At the same time, the Governments of developing countries need to be more forceful and articulate in their defence of rights and treatment of immigrant communities.

And maybe it is time to go even further. Maybe it is time for the developing countries, especially countries from which large numbers of immigrants come – such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Philippines and Romania – to ask to be reimbursed for the costs incurred for educating and caring for the immigrants before they departed.

These countries should request that a part of the taxes their immigrant workers pay should be remitted to their country of origin. And if they are concerns about how the host Governments would use these funds, they could be earmarked for certain activities such as health and education. Maybe even agencies such as the World Bank or the UN could offer to manage these funds.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy of Cognition and one in Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric – both from the University of Amsterdam – as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre). She provided research and editorial support.

Women ragpickers in Delhi scavenging through a pile of refuse for recyclable material. Credit: Dharmendra Yadav/IPS

By Daud Khan and Leila Yasmine Khan
AMSTERDAM/ROME, Jan 25 2021 (IPS)

Developing countries as a group have been growing faster than developed countries for several decades. As a result the ratio between average incomes between the two sets of countries – albeit still very large – has been shrinking.  This is good news. The other piece of good news is that over this period the number of people living in extreme poverty has also been dropping – from 1.9 billion in 1990 to about 650 million in recent years.  China has recently declared an end to extreme poverty. 

The bad news is that much of increased income and wealth in many developing countries has been concentrated at the top with relatively little going to the poor.  This includes big, fast growing countries such as China and India. 

As a result the bulk of the population in developing countries is living in a society where income inequality is increasing.  This matters for two reasons:  

• Firstly, that the increase in average GDP in the developing countries is not translating as fast as it should into generalised well-being indictors such as such as higher education, real wages, average height and life expectancy. This is very disappointing.  
• Secondly, people are not as happy as they could be.  After all happiness is impacted not just by how much they earn and consume, but also about their place in society and how they stand compared to others. The widening gap between the poor and the rich in many countries creates a sense of depravation and injustice. This makes them highly susceptible to political turbulence and instability, both of which have a high cost in terms of economic performance and wellbeing.

Is the increase in inequality an inevitable part of the development process, or at least of the early stages of growth?  Is it true that one “cannot redistribute poverty”? Is it true that rich tend to save and invest more and therefore some concentration of income and wealth is necessary to generate higher growth? Is it true that only a rich and privileged business class has the confidence and appetite for risk and innovation that is a prerequisite for development?  There is strong evidence that the answer to all the above questions is a “NO”. Growth and development can go hand in hand with reduced inequality and better living standards for the poor.

Developing countries are very much on their own in charting out a pathway out of the current situation of inequality and poverty. The developed countries that used to be on the forefront of well balanced growth have for some time abandoned this role

Historic evidence comes from Western Europe which during the early part of the last century, managed to increase wellbeing indicators in line with, or sometimes even faster, than GDP growth.

To some extent this was due to technical innovations such as those in preventive and curative medicines, but a lot had to do with improved social services in health and education, opening up to trade, social protection programmes, and increasing civil rights, particularly to minorities and vulnerable groups.

More recently, experience in several Latin America countries show how more democracy and strong social welfare programmes can reduce inequality and improve the lives of the poor. 

The need to address inequality has been made more urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic.  The past year has exacerbated inequality by increasing unemployment, cutting workers’ wages and hitting the poorest and most vulnerable communities. 

Weak social safety nets and poor public health systems have left the poor in a dramatic situation. COVID-19 has particularly hit women who have reduced access to health services and jobs. There has been a sharp increase in domestic violence against women and girls. 

Given this worsening situation, can anything be done to make growth more equitable?  Most certainly – in fact there are several things that can be done and they fall into two broad categories – more “pro-poor” growth, and well-designed social welfare programmes.  

One of the most important pro-poor policies relates to macro-economic stability. It is often not appreciated how vulnerable the poor are to inflation, recessions, overvalued exchange rates and high interest rates.  Keeping these key macro–economic variables under control is imperative. It is not going to be easy as Governments battle the COVID crisis but has to be done. 

The other major element of a pro-poor growth strategy is increasing access for the poor to the essential prerequisites for a productive life.  These include improved infrastructure that meet the needs of the poor such as clean water and sanitation, as well as improved electricity and transport services. 

Equally important are better access to health and education; and to physical and financial assets, in particular credit and land in both rural and urban areas.  Of increasingly importance is access to digital services which are an essential prerequisite to accessing new technologies and productivity growth.

Finally, it is essential that developing countries work together to maintain an open trading system which allows them to produce in line with their endowments and skill levels.  

Clearly not all the poor will be able to take advantage of the improved opportunities created by pro-poor growth.  Factors that exclude them include geographical isolation, gender bias, disabilities, ethnicity or sometimes pure and simple bad luck where things “just don’t work out”.  

Currently only a fraction of the population of developing countries has access to comprehensive social protections programmes and safety nets.  This needs to increase dramatically – not as a form of charity but as a form of social responsibility.    

Unfortunately developing countries are very much on their own in charting out a pathway out of the current situation of inequality and poverty. The developed countries that used to be on the forefront of well balanced growth have for some time abandoned this role.  

Income inequality in the developed world also started increasing in the 1980s. This happened not only in highly market oriented economies such as the USA, but also in historically egalitarian countries such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden.

And this is not just as a result of technical or market-driven changes that favour for example the “tech-giants”, but also reflects policy choices such as reduced taxes for the richest.  

The tendency for Governments in developed countries to favour the rich was exacerbated during the 2008 financial crisis where vast amounts of public money were provided in the form of support to the financial institutions and large-scale industrial enterprises considered “too big to be allowed to fail”. 

Early indications are that something similar may happen with the post-COVID recovery effort. Substantial amounts of public funds may end up going to large firms – rather than to the poor – which may exacerbate the trends towards rising inequality. 

In the coming decades, the developing countries have a historical chance not only to closing the gap in terms of average incomes gap with developed countries, but also improving the quality of this growth. 

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy and one in Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric – both from the University of Amsterdam – as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre). She provided research and editorial support. 

There is a deep mistrust not only of institutions and big business, but even of the medical establishment. One of the most worrying symptoms of this mistrust and disillusionment is the No Vax Movement. Credit: Bigstock

By Daud Khan and Leila Yasmine Khan
AMSTERDAM/ROME, Oct 8 2020 (IPS)

Around the 16th century there was a radical shift in the way humans perceived nature.  New thinking in physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics heralded a deeper understanding of the world around us.  Between the 17th and 18th century this new thinking had resulted in spate of technological inventions such as the steam engine, railways, electricity and the telephone.

Humans became masters of the world that surrounded us. Complemented with new institutional and financial innovations such the stock markets, banking and insurance this heralded in an unprecedented period of growth.  

These scientific and technological changes were centred in Europe and subsequently in the USA. They not only transformed the daily life and work of people who lived there, but also led to a new mind-set. Science and Technology were held to be supreme and the custodians of scientific knowledge had a right, if not a duty, to rule the world. 

With the underlying problems in the technology based model of development becoming apparent, many people in the advanced countries were themselves questioning the supremacy of science. Greater environmental awareness has also led to questions about the ethics of high consumption lifestyles
Driven by the need for raw materials and markets, and with the help of ever more powerful military hardware, this new thinking resulted in the domination, colonization and exploitation of much of Asia, Africa and South America.

This world view has been eroding for some time due to various changes.  On the military front, it is clear that apart from nuclear weapons, there is little in western arsenals that would enable them to conquer and hold territory against the wish of the local population – however poor and backward they are. 

The war in Viet Nam gave the French and the USA their first bloody nose after the victory of the Allies in the Second World War. In Afghanistan the USA, with all its aeroplanes, missiles and sophisticated electronic equipment, have not made progress against a bunch of “pyjama-clad fighters wearing canvas sneakers”. In Iraq, the Shock and Awe was a prelude to a quagmire from which the USA is still struggling to extricate itself.

On the economic front the OPEC-led oil crisis of the early 1970s demonstrated the dependence of the west on of a handful of middle-eastern Sheikhs.  More recently, China has been happily absorbing technology from the USA and Europe and using this to propel growth.

China is now the biggest economy in the world, surpassing the USA as well as the EU. It is now using its economic muscle to make inroads into western political and military dominance in much of Asia and Africa, as well as parts of South America. 

On the environmental front, the western countries initially had few qualms about using non-renewable resources in a completely unsustainable manner and to create irreversible air, land and water pollution.  Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, one of the main indicators of increasing environmental degradation, have been rising since the industrial revolution in the mid-18th century.

Accelerating climate change, with greater frequency of extreme weather  events, has highlighted the unsustainability of the current technology and energy intensive development. Biodiversity is dramatically dropping as habitats continue to be destroyed. 

With the underlying problems in the technology based model of development becoming apparent, many people in the advanced countries were themselves questioning the supremacy of science. Greater environmental awareness has also led to questions about the ethics of high consumption lifestyles.

There is a deep mistrust not only of institutions and big business, but even of the medical establishment. One of the most worrying symptoms of this mistrust and disillusionment is the No Vax Movement  –  significant numbers of people are now refusing to use tried and tested vaccines such as that for measles and mumps. 

Now a virus, one 10,000th the size of a grain of sand has wreaked havoc.  It will possibly continue to do so as infection rates will most likely spike in the coming months, as is already happening in several European countries. 

A vaccine will certainly help restore some confidence but with winter rapidly approaching, there is a possibility that many families may be spending Christmas in lockdowns and limited by other social restrictions. 

Maybe COVID marks the end of the epoch of Science. Maybe Science and Technology will no longer be the key to power and to global domination. Maybe global and regional power will be a function of land and demographics – as it was before the Scientific Revolution. Maybe the next centuries will belong to Asia and Africa with their fast growing economies and youthful populations.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy and one in Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric – both from the University of Amsterdam – as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre). She provided research and editorial support. 

Wang Yi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, addresses the virtual Security Council summit-level debate on “Maintenance of International Peace and Security: Global Governance post Covid-19”. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe.

By Daud Khan and Leila Yasmine Khan
AMSTERDAM/ROME, Oct 5 2020 (IPS)

Lockdowns, social distancing, face-masks and other restrictions on personal and social behaviour have helped slow the progress of the COVID-19 virus. Enough to allow health systems to start catching their breath, for doctors to work out treatment protocols, and for work to start on a vaccine. There is now a need to take stock of the many other impacts the pandemic is likely to have, particularly at the economic and political level.

In terms of short to medium term impacts, the developed countries have been the hardest hit in terms of mortality, and their economies are projected by the IMF to shrink by 8% over 2020. More critically, the economic contraction will disproportionately impact the poor in these countries and accentuate the inequality that has been rising over the last 30 years.

The US stock market has regained all losses despite the fact that millions are jobless. The tech giants continue to post immense profits. Jeff Bezos, founder and major shareholder of Amazon, is now the richest man on earth with a net worth of over US$200 billion – this means that if he were to live another 40 years, and wanted to use all his money before dying, he would need to spend almost US$14 million a day! This, at a time when a growing number of people cannot afford decent housing, adequate clothing and proper nutrition.

It has become clear that widespread disease and death, helplessly watching one’s loved ones die, and being turned away from hospitals, are not things that happen only in poor countries

In contrast to what is happening in the advanced economies, many developing countries – particularly in Africa and Asia – have experienced lower mortality rates. This differential impact could be due to demographics – with the younger population in these countries proving more resilient.

Or it could be due to their more frequent exposure to other viruses which have built up their immunity levels. In some countries such as China, Viet Nam and South Korea it was clearly due to the Governments’ containment measures and the high levels of conformity to government guidelines.

In other countries it could be that the virus arrived later, after having mutated in to a milder variant which was less aggressive. Or it could be something deeper. For example, it could be that the genetic code of people of European origin makes them more vulnerable than Asians and Africans.

Maybe this is why many countries in South and Central America that have been colonized by Europeans, also suffered heavily. But there are flaws in each of these hypotheses. Surely we will know more as data from hundreds of ongoing studies from around the world are completed, compiled and analysed. Or maybe we will never have a final definitive explanation.

In any case, the lower health impact in developing and emerging economies has meant a lower overall economic impact. According to IMF projections, the GDP in emerging markets and developing countries is expected to fall by 3% in 2020 (as compared to the fall of 8% in developed countries).

Some countries, particularly in South and Central America, have been badly hit, but there are many others which have got off relatively lightly. Among the major economies, China is the only one expected to post a positive GDP growth in 2020. Its exports have already rebounded and it is now running a massive trade surplus.

But in addition to its differential economic impacts, the pandemic has also changed perceptions. In developed countries, it has badly dented the view of many people who felt that they were living in a superior system which could withstand and cope with unforeseeable events.

That their higher standards of living, their state-of-the-art health care systems, their social cohesion, and the superior levels of institutional maturity would have made them less vulnerable. This feeling of comfort and complacency has been badly shaken.

It has become clear that widespread disease and death, helplessly watching one’s loved ones die, and being turned away from hospitals, are not things that happen only in poor countries.

Their self-confidence could be in for other jolts in the coming months. Many countries are seeing a rapid spike in cases in recent weeks especially in several European countries. One of the underlying factors is a phenomenon called compliance fatigue – a feeling of weariness after months of restrictions, and a tendency to ignore government guidance, claiming that the worst is now over.

This happened especially among the youth who started to disregard the repeated warnings of scientists and the authorities also because initially it seemed that only the elderly were at risk. They are now paying the price of this social anarchy and several countries are facing the spectre of new restrictions and lockdowns which is jeopardising the projected recovery for 2021.

The economic inequality and lower levels of confidence in the “system” will accelerate some major social and political trends in the developed world. It is difficult to foresee the details, but the disdain for global, national and local institutions which have failed to deliver for increasing numbers of people will continue to grow.

Populist parties, which have already used this growing disillusionment to increase their influence and to take power in many countries, are likely to grow stronger. A critical consequence will be that the isolationism seen in the past decade or so will increase with slogans such as “America First”, “Make Britain Great Again” and “Prima gli Italiani” gaining traction.

These factors are all pointing to a very different world from what we have been seeing. The traditional powers of the west are neither as strong economically, nor as confident of their social and organizational superiority. China, along with developing countries in Asia and Africa that have better weathered COVID storm, will likely increase their global footprint at a much faster rate that they have been doing in the past decades.

Will this make for a better and more equitable world?

Daud Khan is a former United Nations official who lives between Italy and Pakistan. He holds degrees in Economics from the London School of Economics and Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy and in Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric from the University of Amsterdam, as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre).

By Daud Khan and Leila Yasmine Khan
AMSTERDAM/ROME, Jun 8 2020 (IPS)

As the COVID-19 virus spread rapidly around the globe, so did various theories about what caused the pandemic. According to the standard scientific theory, the virus originated in bats; crossed over to humans, probably via another intermediate host; and then spread rapidly across the globe.

While the mainstream scientific theory sufficed for some, a large number of people saw the pandemic as the work of cold-hearted military or industrial strategists. An equally large number of people saw it as some kind of divine or natural retribution for an increasingly recalcrinant human race. It’s interesting to look at these various alternative theories and to speculate why they have such a strong hold among the public.

In the first of this two part article we looked at the main conspiracy theories – the CIA, the Chinese, Big Pharma, Big Finance, Bill Gates. We suggested that a major factor underlying the popularity of conspiracy theories were primordial fears – fear of illness, of death but, above all, of the unknown.

Given the extent of this fear, which was fanned by the mainstream and social media, many people felt reassured having someone to blame. It meant that someone was in control; that there was a plan; and that once the pandemic had served its purpose, those in control would bring it to an end.

It may take a few cycles while the virus retreats, mutates and returns, but in few years or at most in a decade, we humans will be extinct and the planet will flourish again. The Gaia theory is well captured by some beautiful videos on social media showing how plants and animals are taking over urban areas

In this second part, we turn to look at a second set of theories that we call the apocalyptic theories.  Those who subscribe to these theories see the COVID-19 outbreak as the revenge of God or nature, or both, against the arrogance of humans.

The most radical of these theories is that Gaia – the primordial mother earth of Greek mythology and the self-equilibrating super organism, postulated by James Lovelock in his seminal book – is rebelling against humans.

Rebelling against the pollution and the poisoning of soils, waters and the air; against the plundering of forests and minerals; and against the tens of thousands of aircrafts buzzing around her day and night, and the hundreds of millions of cars constantly crawling all over her. According to this theory, the virus is Gaia’s revenge and marks the end of the age of humans.

It may take a few cycles while the virus retreats, mutates and returns, but in few years or at most in a decade, we humans will be extinct and the planet will flourish again. The Gaia theory is well captured by some beautiful videos on social media showing how plants and animals are taking over urban areas.

Other apocalyptic theorists feel that the pandemic is not a punishment from an ephemeral mother goddess. But rather it is a punishment from an angry and vengeful deity who is seeing his divine project going off track.  Mankind is progressively turning away from religion, from morals and traditions, and from family values.

The pandemic is God’s admonition to us to return to the righteous path.  And, for this reason, it has focused more on the godless and materialistic west, where among other misdeeds, old people are sent to nursing homes rather than being kept in the family.  In these theories, humankind may survive, but in order to do so, they must rediscover their moral compass and return to righteous way of life – whatever that means.

For those who subscribe to these theories, it is anathema to suggest social distancing and the closing of places of worship. In order for humans to survive, we must do exactly the opposite – gather together, preferably in temples, mosques and churches to seeking collective forgiveness from an angry god.  This is despite the fact that mainstream religious leaders, from the Pope to the Grand Mufti of Al-Azhar, have not said a word about Divine Will playing any role in the pandemic.

A more modest version of apocalyptic theories is that humans have overstepped a few boundaries and all we need to do is make some tweaks to our lifestyle to get back on track. One such theory relates to the waves emanating from the 5G telephone systems.

Proponents suggest that these waves facilitate the spread of the virus while also weakening human immune systems.  The fact that Wuhan, where the virus originated, is one of the places with the highest densities of 5G networks, apparently provides clear proof of the link between COVID and telephone waves.  So all we need to do is take a step back and decommission all the 5G towers.  And since the telecom companies will not do this, activists in some countries have taken it on themselves to set them alight.

So why are apocalyptic theories, even the most bizarre ones, so common?  If primordial fear drives conspiracy theorists, what drives the apocalyptic theorists? In our view it is collective guilt.  We have been warned, and warned again, and warned yet again about continued misuse of resources and lack of attention to planetary health.

We have been admonished time and time again about superfluous consumption, about waste of food and other essentials, and of the over use of fossil fuels and plastics.  We all know that our lifestyle is unsustainable and that that we are causing irreversible climate change. But despite this knowledge, and despite thousands of words written, documentaries screened, learned scientific conferences convened,  and hours of speeches by political leaders, we have failed to take the clear and drastic actions needed to make our lifestyles more sustainable. Knowing that we have been collectively misbehaving, it is almost a logical conclusion that a global disaster is a consequence of our bad actions.

Conspiracy and apocalyptic theories are widespread. And if they are related to fear and guilt, then such fear and guilt must also perforce be widespread.  Is this a cause for concern? Very much so. At an individual level, negative thoughts have clear negative effects on our mental and physical wellbeing.

Similarly, collective negative sentiments have quick and direct effect on our collective wellbeing and actions. Conspiracy theories or apocalyptic views of the world create anxiety, fear and depression among millions of people and cause immense harm and pain. More worryingly, this fear, anxiety and depression does not seem to go down as the pandemic abates. It seems it’s here to stay and poison our life for several years, if not decades.

Equally worrying is that there are plenty of local situations where such fears and worries can be easily manipulated as is happening in the USA, where President Trump continues to stroke these fears and uses this to apportion blame; or in India, where Prime Minister Modi is blaming Muslims for deliberately spreading the virus to damage the Hindu nation.

Daud Khan is a former United Nations official who lives between Italy and Pakistan. He holds degrees in Economics from the London School of Economics and Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy and in Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric from the University of Amsterdam, as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre).

By Daud Khan and Leila Yasmine Khan
AMSTERDAM/ROME, Jun 1 2020 (IPS)

As the COVID-19 virus spread rapidly around the globe, so did various theories about what caused the pandemic. According to the standard scientific theory, the virus probably originated in bats and then crossed over to humans, probably via another intermediate host. It then spread rapidly across the globe, piggybacking on the international travel network.

While the mainstream scientific theory sufficed for some, a large number of people saw the pandemic as the work of cold-hearted military or industrial strategists. An equally large number of people saw it as some kind of divine or natural retribution for an increasingly recalcrinant human race. It’s interesting to look at these various alternative theories. It is even more interesting to speculate why they have such a strong hold among the public.

In the first of this two part article, we will look at conspiracy theories; in the second part, at the apocalyptic theories.

Why are conspiracy theories so popular? Why do they persist despite statements by the scientific community that the virus has natural origins and was not humanly manufactured? Why do the President and the Secretary of State of the most powerful nation on earth, with the best universities and research capabilities, continue to maintain that the whole thing was a Chinese plot with connivance of the World Health Organization?

At the start of the pandemic, the most popular candidate for the villain was the USA. According to this set of conspiracy theories – I use the word “set” deliberately, as there were many variants – the CIA had developed and released the virus. It was an easy and low cost way to limit China’s growing economic and political clout. The theory gained support as the next hotspot was Iran – another problematic country for the USA.

However, as the COVID-19 virus spread to other countries, the blame spotlight turned on the Chinese. It was the Chinese who had developed and released the virus to bring the USA and Europe to its knees, and usher in the biggest recession of the century. One objective was to impact western economic and military presence around the globe.

Another was to undermine the soft power of these countries as their democratic systems of governance and their traditions of open debate would inevitably lead to squabbling between and within countries – something that would show the limitations of western democracy in today’s globalized world. At the same time, the fall in stock prices around the world allowed Chinese investors to buy massive quantities of shares in US and European markets with discounts of 30% to 50%. And if all this was not convincing enough, one only had to ask: who is the world’s largest importer of oil and gas? Who stands to benefit most from the collapse of petroleum prices? China!

Of course, there are other candidates for the role of the villain in the COVID saga, including Big Pharma and Big Finance. According to first of these, the big pharmaceutical companies not only developed the virus but already have a vaccine ready.

They are only waiting for sales of standard medicines and medical supplies to peak before announcing the vaccine. They would then sit back and watch the money pouring in. A sub-plot in the big-pharma narrative is that the illness can easily be avoided, or even cured, by low cost interventions such as lemon juice, honey, garlic, hot water or the Artemisia plant. However, these low cost cures are not in the interest of the pharmaceutical companies. Big Pharma is therefore working with the medical profession to discredit such low cost therapies.

According to the second theory, it the big pension funds and insurance companies whose projected earnings and valuations have been badly eroded by the progressive increase in life expectancy. By targeting the old and chronically ill, COVID-19 has been a silver bullet for them. So surely they must be behind it.

Most recently the conspiracy theorists have also found a new villain. Bill Gates, who in a video several years ago – at the time of the Ebola crisis – talked about the risks of a global pandemic. Apparently, his goal is to place a computer chip inside each of us so that we can be monitored at all times. Why in the world Bill Gates would want to do such a thing remains unexplained.

But why are conspiracy theories so popular? Why do they persist despite statements by the scientific community that the virus has natural origins and was not humanly manufactured? Why do the President and the Secretary of State of the most powerful nation on earth, with the best universities and research capabilities, continue to maintain that the whole thing was a Chinese plot with connivance of the World Health Organization?

There is certainly a personality type that would choose a good conspiracy theory over other explanations any day. It is a way of demonstrating that they know more than others and that they can see through the smoke screens and disinformation fed to the general public. It is a way of asserting inserting intellectual superiority.

But in the case of COVID-19, there is also a huge amount of collective anxiety that feeds on a primordial fear of the unknown, of death and of economic deprivation. This anxiety is like a virus that lives in our minds and is spread through millions of messages on Facebook and WhatsApp, by dramatic images on TV, and by graphs and statistics in the print media.

Although this fear is universal, it has a particularly strong hold in Europe and the USA where consistent improvements over the last 50 years in living standards, health care and life expectancy has created a feeling of invincibility which COVID-19 has badly shaken.

This collective anxiety is much placated through having a clear target on whom to pin blame. The assumption is that by unmasking the villains and by punishing them, the problem will likely go away. Clearly this is what is happening in the USA and why so many believe whatever untruths the President and his team is feeding them. There is also a huge risk that populist political parties in Europe, as well as Asia, Africa and Latin America will also find it expedient to take the same tack: give us a chance and we will take strong and determined action that will solve the problem. This is a time to beware!

Daud Khan is a former United Nations official who lives between Italy and Pakistan. He holds degrees in Economics from the London School of Economics and Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy and in Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric from the University of Amsterdam, as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre).

By Lars Hein and Daud Khan
WAGENINGEN, Netherlands / ROME, May 5 2020 (IPS)

Globalization has been a driver for increased prosperity world-wide, but it has been in reverse in the last years due to the growth of populism in the USA and Europe. The COVID-19 pandemic may well provide further momentum to increasingly national-interest oriented policies in the west.

Nevertheless, a common response to COVID-19 is needed, where rich countries support developing countries in alleviating the impacts on the poor. COVID-19 offers an opportunity to revive collaboration world-wide, but the public and political leaders in North America and Europe need to broaden their perspective on mitigating the pandemic’s impacts.

The last decades have seen the emergence of a highly interlinked world. There has been a massive increase in global trade, travel and tourism and this has brought major benefits to most of the world’s population with incomes rising and poverty dropping.

However, as with all such major trends there have also been losers in the rapid process of globalization. In developed countries, income inequality which had been falling since the Second World War, started rising again. Combined with this was a growing resentment from workers who were unable to shift out of dying industries, such as steel and textiles, where imports from developing countries were better and cheaper.

The COVID-19 pandemic may well be the last nail in the coffin of globalization. Firms in USA and Europe will step away from the long supply chains and just-in-time deliveries that helped drive down costs. All countries will attempt to build up production of “essential goods” including medical supplies and possibly even food items

The globalized system has been increasingly under threat for the past several years, particularly from populist parties working on fears and resentment of those who feel left behind by globalization.

The COVID-19 pandemic may well be the last nail in the coffin of globalization. Firms in USA and Europe will step away from the long supply chains and just-in-time deliveries that helped drive down costs. All countries will attempt to build up production of “essential goods” including medical supplies and possibly even food items.

All this will impact trade, especially from developing countries. At the same time credit and investment flows will be largely focused to helping domestic enterprises in developed countries with little left for flows to developing countries.

This reversal of globalized production chains is bad news for developing countries, coming at a time when the medical emergency responses to COVID-19 are drawing heavily on public and private resources, and lockdowns are hitting output and employment, both in the formal and informal sectors.

While globalization has many faults, it is useful to understand it did allow both developed and developing countries to substantially raise living standards. But much was built on the backs on workers in developing countries.

Many workers, often women, worked for long hours in unhygienic and unsafe factories producing clothing and manufactured components; in Africa, thousands toiled in mines to extract minerals needed for production of laptops and smartphones.

These workers were the silent victims of globalization who only came to the news when there was a fire in a garments factory or the collapse of a mine shaft. They are better off – many above the poverty line – but it remains a grim existence with the risk that even a small shock will send them spiraling back into poverty and destitution.

With the pandemic likely to lead to severe recession in the USA and Europe, much Government attention will turn to supporting those affected in their own countries and within the EU. This will certainly be the case in the USA where the coming presidential election will find the Republicans beating the drum of America First.

But there is likely to be similar rhetoric across Europe. Many have learned from their handling of the refugee/immigration issue that solidarity does not win votes. The economic impacts of COVID-19 are particularly high in Southern European countries.

In the coming year, a lot of the political energy in the EU will be wasted on a debate on how to balance support for dealing with the impacts of COVID-19 and pointless transnational funding of outdated institutional and economic models. Despite this political turbulence, efforts to alleviate the economic impact of crisis in OECD countries will take off. These will include increasing credit to businesses and the self-employed, delaying tax collection and ensuring basic income support.

However, in the emergency, there is hardly any mention in the policy and public debate of the impacts of COVID-19 in developing countries, let alone the economic impacts on the poor in these countries. But turning the backs on developing countries will be an epochal mistake for the USA and Europe for moral, economic and political reasons.

It is quickly becoming clear that the economic and social impacts of COVID-19 in developing countries will stretch far beyond the immediate medical and social costs. Currently, the WHO is reporting some 255,000 deaths from COVID-19 globally, and more than 3.6 million confirmed cases.

These numbers are very likely to underreport cases and fatalities in developing countries, where COVID-19 is rapidly spreading, but medical and testing equipment are in short supply. However, the secondary impacts may well go far beyond these primary effects. Hundreds of millions of people, many of who work in the small scale services sector will suddenly find themselves without jobs.

Traditionally, many of these people relied on informal networks in time of stress and hardship. However, safety nets that work through family and friends are unlikely to be sufficient: many relatives that could otherwise provide support will also have lost their job.

Family relations may be under strain from the lock-down: a doubling of domestic violence has been reported as a consequence of people’s confinement to their houses and neighborhoods in combination with job losses – putting further strain on social networks. Many of the poor will lose an important part of their savings to cope with the current crisis, affecting all phases of life including schooling, marriage and pensions.

Throughout developing countries, government, NGOs and private charities are rapidly gearing up to meet the immediate food and medical needs of the poorest and vulnerable sections of the population. But what is needed goes beyond the life-saving relief and survival support that is currently being offered.

Governments in developing countries will soon need to start to think about what are the key next steps to minimize damage to their economies and societies. In spite of the current crisis, it is crucial that OECD countries reach out to these governments and offer their support: the challenges to rebuild institutions and economies will exceed the capacities of many developing countries.

The support needed is diverse. Clearly, in the short term there is a need for medical assistance and, in the poorest countries, food support. This is immediately to be followed by debt relief – government and companies need to be able to survive the crisis so that economies can be built up quickly when COVID-19 has started receding.

A main priority for the poor in developing countries relates to reentering the labor market. In the short term, increased competition for jobs can be expected, potentially affecting pay levels. In addition, there is a need to rebuild financial buffers for events such as funerals, weddings and sickness, and for old age; ensure the continuation of education opportunities; address domestic violence, and sustain the psychological health of those affected by COVID-19 or its indirect impacts.

These responses would need to involve a broad range of national and multinational bodies including the IMF and UN agencies, NGOs and development aid agencies. Given the complexity and scope of the task, substantial funding and careful planning and coordination would be required. Also the private sector should take its responsibility. Potentially debt relief for companies could be made conditional on assisting employees coping with COVID-19 impacts.

Unfortunately, there is as yet very little attention in the West for mitigating the impacts of COVID-19 in developing countries. There is very little if any debate on how developing countries can be assisted in dealing with the various impacts of COVID-19.

Nevertheless, a slow response will only exacerbate the economic and social aftermath of the crisis in these countries. We are at a turning point: poverty reduction, pandemics, climate change and other global challenges require immediate and coordinated responses.

The COVID-19 crisis offers a choice: rebuilding global collaboration based on shared interests, education, respect and support for those in need, or an increasing focus on own short-term interests that will only lead to building up the next crisis and reduce capacities to cope.

Hence, we call for an urgent start of the debate, in particular in the West, on the various efforts needed to deal with COVID-19 focusing on those that need this support the most, i.e. the poor in developing countries.

Lars Hein is professor in environmental systems analysis at Wageningen University, the Netherlands. He worked in over 30 developing countries as UN staff and while employed in the private sector.

Daud Khan is a former senior United Nations official who now lives between Italy and Pakistan. He read Economics at the London School of Economics and Oxford University where he was a Rhodes scholar. Khan holds a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.

By Daud Khan and Leila Yasmine Khan
AMSTERDAM/ROME, Apr 6 2020 (IPS)

What is likely to be the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on developing economies? In the first of this two part article  we looked at possible short term disruptions and discussed actions by the private sector and Governments.

These included mobilizing available public resources to augment what private citizens are doing to help the poor and vulnerable; working on some of the national macro-economic levers to sustain businesses; and discussing with international creditors about cancelling – or rescheduling – repayments, of some of their debts. 

This second part will look at possible medium to longer term developments. 

Clearly, it is too early to say how long this first phase of infections will last; if there will be return waves; how many people will be infected; and how many will have mild or severe symptoms. Most likely we will not get a precise number even for deaths.

Whatever its medical trajectory, the fear and anxiety it has generated is unprecedented and will most likely mean the end of globalization as we know it. It will very likely also accelerate the isolationist trends in the USA and Europe

This is partly due to a lack of accurate data, especially from developing countries that often lack adequate testing facilities; and partly as many victims may have pre-exiting conditions, and establishing the primary cause of death is difficult. 

However, we need to stay positive and believe that the COVID-19 outbreak will run its course as other pandemics have done.  Resources are being allocated to cure the sick, and both Governments and private companies are working together to find a cure, improve diagnostic tests and develop a vaccine.

Moreover, lessons from previous pandemics, as well as lessons from the current pandemic coming from China, South Korea and Singapore about early containment and social distancing are being mainstreamed in all countries. And there is a lot of international cooperation on all fronts.  

Provided that countries take the right steps, the number of deaths is likely to be much smaller than the three great pandemics of the 20th century – the “Spanish Flu” in 1918–1919 (20–50 million deaths); the “Asian Flu” in 1957-58 and the “Hong Kong Flu” in 1968 (1–4 million deaths each).

A first guess is that the death toll, at least for this year, could be similar to that for the 2009 “Swine Flu” pandemic which caused between 100,000–400,000 deaths worldwide. But whatever its medical trajectory, the fear and anxiety it has generated is unprecedented and will most likely mean the end of globalization as we know it. It will very likely also accelerate the isolationist trends in the USA and Europe.  

There is little doubt that the pandemic will result in a very large cut in international trade as a result of falling global demand, both for consumption as well for investments. Sectors such as travel, tourism and construction would be particularly hard hit.

There may be some recovery as Governments in the USA and Europe launch expansionary fiscal and monetary interventions to counter the expected recession, but the positive impact of these interventions on international trade may be limited. 

A key factor is that expansionary measures would likely favor domestic production and employment. In particular, Government support funds would be focused on employment intensive activities which have been hardest hit, such as the retail trade, catering and entertainment – which have limited import needs. 

Trade will also be affected by changes in production patterns. Over the last two decades the thrust for improved efficiency and productivity has driven manufacturing, as well as many service industries, towards minimizing costs.

Two key elements of this have been just in time delivery which meant firms holding minimum stocks and inventories; and outsourcing to reduce costs, which meant long supply chains.  The crisis has brought to the fore the vulnerability of both these processes.

With disrupted supply chains and low stocks, firms are already finding it hard to maintain operations. As time goes on, supply shortages will become a major constraint in Europe and USA. 

As firms make future investment decisions in the post-COVID world, diversifying risk is something that they will be obsessed with and this will mean a strong push to reduce dependence on suppliers in other countries. 

The countries most likely to be hit hardest by the changing international trade patterns are China and India, who are major suppliers of components and services to the international markets.

However, a number of other countries, irrespective of whether they are exporters of raw materials or finished good, from Viet Nam to Bangladesh, and from Nigeria to Mexico, will suffer as a result of lower export revenues and balance of payments difficulties.  

These trade problems will be exacerbated by developments on the monetary side. Falling sales and liquidity shortages are beginning to hit companies around the world.  Many risk having to lay off workers or even close down completely.

Central banks everywhere are trying to push money into the system and cut interest rate. However, its impact may be limited in the USA and Europe where base interest rates are already close to zero, and further cuts may not be enough to overcome pessimistic market sentiments. 

Nevertheless, banks and other lenders may maintain or expand lending as a result of Government guarantees or pressure, or a combination of the two. However, they will almost certainly curtail lending to firms in developing countries who may see even normal lines of credit being restricted and foreign direct investments drying up.

The combination of trade and monetary problems emanating from Europe and the USA will put severe strain on Governments in developing countries which are already battling with soaring medical costs, pressing demands to provide emergency assistance to the poorest sections of the population, and assistance to bail out faltering firms. 

It will also put tremendous pressures on banks and firms in these countries. With their backs to the wall, there is a serious risk of defaults. 

External debts of developing countries, by both Government and the private sector, have risen sharply in the last decade as a result of low interest rates, high commodity prices and availability of credit due to quantitative easing by developed countries.

For middle and low-income countries external debt (excluding China) now stands at around US$6 trillion – more than the combined GDP of France and UK.  The poorest countries (those with Gross National Income per capita of below US$1,175) have doubled external debt since 2008.

A World Bank report issued late last year pointed out their debt-vulnerability and stated  that “with increased access to international capital markets, many low- and middle-income countries shifted away from traditional sources of financing and experienced a sharp rise in external debt, raising new concerns about sustainability”.

If, due to problems caused by the COVID-19 crisis, there is widespread defaults among poor countries this would pose serious problems for the global economy. It is therefore imperative that requests for debt forgiveness or rescheduling do not fall on deaf ears. 

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and for international agencies including the World Bank and several UN agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy and one in Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric – both from the University of Amsterdam – as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre). She provided research and editorial support for this article. 

Credit: UN Population Fund (UNFPA)

By Daud Khan and Leila Yasmine Khan
AMSTERDAM/ROME, Apr 1 2020 (IPS)

What is likely to be the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on developing economies? It is difficult to make predictions, because much will depend on the spread of the disease, especially in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East, and the measures various Governments will take in the coming weeks and months. 

This two part article looks at possible economic impacts and what actions may be required to minimize disruptions on the poor and vulnerable. The first part looks at short term actions, whereas the second will look at possible medium to longer term developments. 

In the short term there is likely to be a sharp drop in domestic consumer demand in most developing countries. 

Demand for food, medical assistance and other essential items may rise, but this would be more than offset by lower demand for non-essential goods such as apparel and various services.

Demand would also fall due to other factors such as foreign buyers delaying or withdrawing orders; tourists, both local and foreign, canceling trips; and the declines in the stock market which erodes peoples’ wealth and their willingness to spend.

For countries with large numbers of overseas workers such as Philippines, India and Pakistan, or with large diasporas such as Somalia, remittances would slow down due to layoffs and delayed salary payments in Europe, the Middle-East and USA where most of these people live and work.

Lower overall domestic consumer demand will have a negative impact on production and employment. The drop in consumer demand may have a lower effect in manufacturing, where companies could, if they have access to credit, build up stocks of finished goods rather than reduce production and lay off staff.  However, the effects on the small-scale services sector are likely to be dramatic.   

For countries with large numbers of overseas workers such as Philippines, India and Pakistan, or with large diasporas such as Somalia, remittances would slow down due to layoffs and delayed salary payments in Europe, the Middle-East and USA where most of these people live and work

On the supply side, there are also likely to be disruptions in developing countries, as there may be shortages of imported raw materials and spare parts. However, this is likely to be less of a factor than in developed countries, where long supply chains are now the norm rather than the exception.   Moreover, lower fuel prices would help the developing countries, most of who are net importers of energy.      

The severity and duration of the short term demand and supply impacts depends on the measures various governments take to contain the spread of the virus.  If the pandemic shows signs of spreading rapidly as it doing in Europe and the USA, Governments will start to close factories and shops selling nonessential items. 

In India and parts of Pakistan a lockdown has already been imposed. In such a scenario the cut in GDP and incomes would be severe. It may even reach the 3-5% projected for Italy.  Such a fall would cause severe hardship on the poorest section of the population, such as day-laborers in cities and in rural areas.     

Many developing countries do not have Government run social safety nets. In times of need most people turn to friends, neighbors and relatives for help. 

Private charity tends to rise sharply in situations such as the current one. Private help includes direct assistance in cash and food items to affected people, continued salaries despite the inability to come to work, and assistance with medical expenses.

However, the largest part is in the form of donations to civil society organizations, NGOs, mosque or church committees, and to religious groups.  In many countries these organizations have very well developed capacities to reach the poorest, and are already well on the way to set up food distributions and other relief systems in big cities such as Karachi.

Although there are still many uncertainties about how the pandemic will develop, it is clear that private support mechanisms may not be able to fully cope. Moreover, such mechanisms tend to be relatively weak in rural areas as the scattered nature of the population makes it difficult to reach effected people.  

To complement private initiatives, the Government will need to mobilize its own institutional machinery, particularly those with presence in rural areas. These include police stations, health clinics and agriculture/livestock offices which could provide logistic bases to reach the rural poor with medical assistance, as well as income and food support. 

These facilities should be brought into play with funds being diverted from other ongoing activities. However, with Government struggling to meet rising medical care expenses, their financial capacity is likely to be severely limited. International organizations should be mobilized to help.

It is worth mentioning that the World Bank has set aside US$12 billion, the Asian Development Bank US$6.5 billion and the IMF US$50 billion for the helping countries with COVID-19. Others, including International NGOs, need to also be brought in.  A special role has to be played by the World Food Programme which has much needed expertise in dealing with the logistics of crisis as well as in raising resources.  

In addition to stepping up immediate relief actions, Governments should also bring into play the two major policy instruments at its disposal – the rate of interest and the exchange rate.  The central banks need to cut interest rates and require commercial banks to make corresponding decreases in interest rates on outstanding loans to consumers and businesses.

They should also encourage commercial banks to allow customers and enterprises to delay payments, and at the same time increase liquidity in the system by reducing the deposits commercial banks are required to hold with the central banks. Central banks and ministries of finance also need to recognize that devaluation of the currency may be necessary to keep them competitive in the face of falling global demand. 

The Government should try and take advantage of the lower international price of oil. As mentioned above, these cuts should be passed on to consumers, particularly industrial and commercial users, through lower prices for fuel and electricity.  Prices cuts should also prioritize diesel which is mostly used in agriculture, industry, and truck and bus transporters.  

Will these measures be enough?  Probably not. The developed countries should, where possible, help.  China is certainty playing its part by providing equipment and technical assistance to many countries in Asia and Africa. 

The USA and countries in Europe should also step up their level of assistance outside their borders. One way to quickly and effectively do this has been suggested by Imran Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan: – cancel, or at least reschedule, some of the debt of developing countries affected by the pandemic.  Debt repayment takes a large proportion of public expenditures. At this time, this money would be far better spent at helping people survive the crisis.    

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and for international agencies including the World Bank and several UN agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s degrees in Philosophy and one in Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric – both from the University of Amsterdam – as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre). She provided research and editorial support for this article. 

Excerpt:

Getting the measure of water in a southern Indian village. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS.

By Daud Khan
ROME, Mar 24 2020 (IPS)

Most developing countries have good policies, programmes and projects in place. Many of these have been prepared with assistance from development partners or international financing institutions such as the World Bank, the regional development banks, the UN agencies or bilateral aid agencies.

Most of these are of high quality and have gone through intensive review and quality control.  The major challenge is to effectively implement these policies, programmes and projects. Unfortunately this does not often happen and leads to huge lost opportunities. This is particularly the case in the poorest countries, many of which are conflict affected. 

To improve things, there are three major problems which need to be addressed: Political Will, Technical Efficiency and, what I call, Last Mile Issues. 

Little is likely to improve unless there is Political Will at the highest levels of Government to raise incomes across the board, and not just for the few who have political power; address poverty and improve food and nutrition security. 

Very often at international meetings and conferences it is often the delegates from the poorest countries that stay in the most expensive hotels, wear the most expensive clothes, and are driven to the meeting in the most expensive cars. Surely some “shaming” would be in order
 
The principal reason why this does not happen is capture of political and economic power by small groups of people, who then misappropriate funds meant for projects and programmes, or put in place policies which directly benefit them.  Very often the money thus stolen is transferred to banks in developed countries.  

Can anything be done in such a situation?  Possibly very little. But there may be a few actions by the international community that might help. 

More openness on the part of banks in developed countries about large deposits from developing countries – known for their lack of transparency – might help. 

Another could be to better link international processes, such as prosecutions at the International Criminal Court, with financial sanctions such as blocking of bank accounts of those under trial or sentenced.

Yet another, which would be effective, but politically difficult, is to “name and shame” the worst offenders in international fora such as at the United Nations. Very often at international meetings and conferences it is often the delegates from the poorest countries that stay in the most expensive hotels, wear the most expensive clothes, and are driven to the meeting in the most expensive cars. Surely some “shaming” would be in order. 

The next set of problems relate to Technical Efficiency.  Getting projects and programmes implemented requires effective and transparent management; good monitoring systems; and an accountability system that holds people responsible for reaching well-defined milestones.

These relatively simple and well understood management practices are spelt out in most project and programme documents. Usually ample financial provisions are made for these actions and for associated ICT systems.

However, in practice, getting effective implementation is very difficult.  Good implementation means constantly making decisions, frequent mid-course corrections, and, above all, taking risks which range from financial to reputational to operational.  

Most development projects and programmes are implemented by salaried public employees.  For many of them working as a project or programme manager is only one step in a long career which tends to be highly competitive – not so much in terms of rank or salary, but in terms of getting prestigious assignments. 

In such an environment reputation is critical and officers tend to be highly risk averse. Far better to miss a project milestone than break a bureaucratic rule, or take action against a non-performing but politically connected team member. 

Solutions?  Well it is difficult but there are a few. One is subcontract the entire work to a private company.  At times this works well, especially in large infrastructure projects where performance and milestones are relatively easy to define; and where foreign funding and companies are involved, which make them less subject to political interference.

In other cases it may be possible to bring in managers from the private sector but often bureaucrats tend to obstruct, or at times even actively sabotage, their work.   A relatively recent innovation is to set up “Delivery Units” – a small dedicated group of highly-skilled people assigned to help a set of projects of programmes achieve their objectives.

Their focus is on data-led decision making and they typically report directly to senior management, proposing solutions to untangle barriers. Staff for these units is usually recruited from among mid-career professionals working in the private sector on a contract basis.

These units work best when reporting to a strong senior management team which has decision making powers and is above bureaucratic infighting.  

Last, but by no means least, are the “Last Mile Issues”.  This refers to the challenge of making the connection between the lowest levels of project or programmes activities, and the individual households and communities who are the final targets of development work.

Thus a Government irrigation project may take water down to village level but then the water needs to get to individual fields. This requires famers to invest in local water conveyance and control systems, and create and manage water distribution schedules.

Similarly, a credit programme may enhance the supply of funds to the local bank branch, which may be a district or commune level. But then potential borrowers will need to be informed and, if they are unfamiliar with banking procedures, provided help to complete the necessary paperwork and chose the financing package best suited to their needs.  

There have been many attempts to address such last mile issues.  These include efforts by NGOs to build community organizations; efforts by Governments to extend the outreach of public institutions and initiatives; and, most recently, efforts by the corporate sector, as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. 

All three approaches have had their success and failures. Their impact could be improved if NGOs, governments and the corporate sector talked more to each other about learning from these successes and failures and to seek synergies. 

Government programmes would certainly benefit from the social capital built up by NGOs and the management systems of the corporate sector.  NGOs would be more accountable if a greater proportion of their funding was channelled through Government and if they conducted the audits and financial and effectives reviews that are commonplace in large companies.

Similarly, the corporate sector’s CSR efforts would be more leveraged if they were to draw on Government staff, buildings and other facilities already existing in the areas where they work and on the community organizations developed by the NGOs.  

Daud Khan is a retired UN staff who lives partly in Rome and partly in Pakistan. He has degrees in economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.

FAO Director-General Elect Qu Dongyu. Credit: ©FAO/Alessia Pierdomenico.

By Daud Khan
ROME, Jul 10 2019 (IPS)

On 23 June 2019 Mr Qu Dongyu of China was elected as the new Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO is one of the largest UN specialized agencies with a budget for 2018-19 of  US$2.5  billion,  offices in over 130 countries and more than 11,000 employees.  

Mr Qu takes over from José Graziano da Silva who has been in the post since 2012 and completes two terms in July 2019.  Mr Qu has a doctorate in agricultural and environmental sciences from Wageningen Agricultural University in the Netherlands, and has held several senior positions including as vice president of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. His most recent job was that of Vice Minister of Agriculture. He will take over his new position on 1 August 2019.

In his speech to the Member States prior to the election, Mr Qu outlined some of his key priorities.  These include “a focus on hunger and poverty eradication, tropical agriculture, drought land farming, digital rural development and better land design through transformation of agricultural production”. Over the coming weeks Mr Qu and his team will be translating these ideas into action plans.  The article below provides thoughts on a few big issues mainly related to production and trade, which should have high priority on their agenda.

Mr Qu will need to mediate changes in the power relations underlying global trade. In doing this he will need to ensure that greater competition is generated, that the fears and apprehension of the smaller developing countries are allayed, and that mercantilist pressures in the USA and Europe do not impede this process.

With regard to the first set of issues related to production, Mr Qu and his team will need to develop a vision for global agriculture in the coming decades.  Climate change is bringing about new temperature and rainfall patterns across the world. At the same time, rising incomes and larger populations mean that demand for agricultural products will increase. This will be accompanied by shifts in demand patterns. In most countries this will mean a move away from staple foods, such as wheat, rice and maize towards higher-value food products, particularly livestock and horticultural products; as well as towards agricultural raw materials, including animal feeds.

Critical questions that need answers include: how these emerging demands will be met; what changes in production systems and technologies will be needed; how domestic and international trade patterns for agricultural inputs and outputs will develop; and what impact that this would have on soils, air and water quality. Within this context, the new Management will need to identify the roles of governments, private sector and civil society and to start a conversation with these actors at global, regional and country level about what role FAO could play to support these changes.

Although no blue-print may emerge from these discussions, it is likely that many of these issues will require smart, tech-based solutions. The ICT revolution in agriculture has barely started and in the coming years new approaches such as precision agriculture and “smart” value-chain logistics will play a leading role.

Mr Qu will doubtless be aware that much of the needed technologies are imbedded in machinery, inputs and software that have been developed in the rich countries of Europe and in the USA, and come at high cost with large profit margins for the companies that developed them.

In the short run these costs will need to be lowered – the kind of negotiations done by the World Health Organization with the big pharmaceutical companies to lower medical drug prices for poor countries provides a good model to follow. However, in the medium to long run alternatives sources of technology will need to be developed. Countries with large agriculture research systems such as Brazil, India and China must lead this. Equally complex issues surround the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMOs).

GMOS have a massive potential but issues about its proper and safe use have become mired in a poorly informed political debate.  Mr Qu will need to draw on his technical knowledge and experience, as well as his instincts as a scientist, to develop new strategies and approaches for FAO.

With regard to international trade, the shift to greater and more diversified consumption will require specialization across countries and regions, and a rapid increase in international trade. Global food imports have already tripled since 2000 to US$1.47 trillion.

Strong growth will continue as production of field crops, particularly food staples and feed (particularly soybean), will likely shift to countries with abundant land areas such as in North and South America, and Russia & Eastern Europe.

However, many countries are apprehensive about increased reliance on food imports – and for good reason.  Currently, the bulk of world grains trade is handled by four companies – the so called ABCDs: ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfuss.

These companies have been in the grain trade business for over a century and their network of silos, ports and ships gives them a virtual stranglehold on the business.  However, their dominance is now being challenged by the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Corporation (COFCO) and its international trading arm (COFCO International).

Mr Qu will need to mediate changes in the power relations underlying global trade. In doing this he will need to ensure that greater competition is generated, that the fears and apprehension of the smaller developing countries are allayed, and that mercantilist pressures in the USA and Europe do not impede this process.

If FAO has to play a catalytic role in the above mentioned issues, Mr Qu will need to articulate and start implementing a new HR and staffing strategy for FAO.  Mr Qu will need to rebuild the cohort of highly experienced technical staff who can dialogue on policy and programmatic issues with countries and in global forums.

They need to be able to lead FAO’s work related to standards setting, creation of global public goods and international surveillance of pests, disease and emissions related to agriculture.  As part of this he also needs to rebuild the rift that has developed between staff and management, and with the decentralized offices which often work in a fragmented and opportunistic manner with little strategic focus.  To do this, Mr Qu will need to draw his experience as a senior manager in the Ministry.

Mr Qu takes over at a time when the global order is changing rapidly.  As he moves forward, including on some of the issues above, there will be opposition.  Some of this will play on the fears of an emergent “non liberal” China. He will also likely be accused of being a puppet of the Government.  Mr Qu will need to rise above past these criticisms and courageously take on a dynamic agenda.

Good luck Mr Qu.

Daud Khan is a retired UN staff based in Rome and Pakistan. He has degrees in economics from the London School of Economics and the University of Oxford; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. At Oxford he was a Rhodes Scholar. 

A U.S. soldier stands watch at the Kindi IDP Resettlement Center near Baghdad, Iraq, Nov. 16, 2009. Credit: U.S. Navy Photo

By Leila Yasmine Khan and Daud Khan
AMSTERDAM/ROME, Jun 24 2019 (IPS)

As China rapidly replaces Europe and the USA as the key player in developing countries, the Western press is full of articles about the dangers of dealing with the Chinese.

China, it is said, is not liberal and not democratic and hence is not a trustworthy partner in strategic and economic matters. An often cited example is that of Hambantota – a strategically located port that was handed over by the Sri Lankan Government to the Chinese in lieu of repayment of loans.

Of course closely corresponding examples of what was done by western countries is not mentioned such as Diego Garcia. This is a strategically located island in the middle of the Indian Ocean. In the late 1960s the USA and United Kingdom forcibly removed the local population and established a miltiary base.

Acts like that of Diego Garcia are justified by the excuse that they were necessary to dafeguard democarcy and liberalism. The most glaring recent example for western countries going to war to defend democracy is in Iraq.

Diplomatic pressure, collusion, corruption and, when necessary, war are justified by the fact that these other societies have systems and values distinct from the liberal ones

The USA invaded Iraq to save democratic countries (read Israel) from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and to liberate the Iraqi people from an undemocratic regime. This narrative had strong resonance in Congress, in the Senate, in the popular media and among the general public and created a groundswell of support for the Shock and Awe campaign.

In a few weeks over 1,500 air strikes were launched against Iraq and almost 7,000 civilians were killed. A triumphant President Bush was able to proudly announce “Mission Accomplished” to an adulating public and pave the way to a second term in office.

An important question for developing countries is:  are these patterns of behavior aberrations in what are otherwise free, peaceful and caring societies; or are they an integral part of the political systems of these countries?

Would things be different if more leaders of the western world were like Justin Trudeau? Would things be different if Hilary Clinton had won the election instead of Donald Trump? Will things be different if the aggressive tendencies of the deep state and occult elites, such as the military-industrial complex, are harnessed by more democratic institutions? In order to answer this we need to look a little into the political philosophy and social consensus that underpins these societies.

Over the last two to three centuries, the values espoused by the Enlightenment – freedom, equality, dignity and independence – have come to dominate the political and socio-economical mainstream in Europe and the USA.

This classical liberalism was complemented by shared views on social justice, the welfare state, and a reliance on the free market for the allocation of a society’s resources.  The view that the liberal, democratic, free-market system is the best way to organize society is now widely shared in the West.

A somewhat deeper look suggests that aggression and exploitation are not an aberration but are very much part of western liberalism. In their critique to John Rawls’ liberal theory, modern political philosophers such as Charles W. Mills, Leif Wenar and Branko Milanovic point out that a liberal society is “a cooperative venture for mutual advantage” regulated by rules for advancing the interests “of those taking part in it”.

The practical manifestation of this is that the social commitment to liberal beliefs often tends to translate into a belief that if the system is under threat, or perceived to be under threat, it is legitimate to defend it against others – by violence when necessary.

As a result the values of peace, freedom and liberty, which are the pillars of western liberal society, tend not to be extended to countries outside this system. Diplomatic pressure, collusion, corruption and, when necessary, war are justified by the fact that these other societies have systems and values distinct from the liberal ones.

As in the case of the Iraq war, the 9/11 attacks and the perceived threat to democracy, and the western way of life, created an unprecedented wave of popular indignation.  It was considered more than sufficient cause to bomb Afghanistan back to the stone-age and to threaten other countries with a similar fate.

History abounds with similar examples where liberal societies have had no qualms about going to war with the excuse of bringing civilization, trade or democracy to other countries. In the same vein, western democracies have no second thoughts about making alliances with repressive and undemocratic regimes whenever it suited them.

The fact that western liberal societies are capable of colonialism and war does not mean that China is going to be a heaven-sent, or that developing countries should abandon our progress towards liberal values such as tolerance, freedom and equality. However, it does mean that they should not get swayed by the anti-China rhetoric of the western press but take a pragmatic approach way for the good of the country.

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s in Philosophy and a Master’s in Argumentation and Rhetoric from the University of Amsterdam, as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre).

Daud Khan a retired UN staff based in Rome. He has degrees in economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.

Reclamation of desertified, sandified land on either side of the Sudu desert road in Wengniute County, China. Credit: Manipadma Jena/IPS

By Daud Khan
ROME, Apr 18 2019 (IPS)

As China has moved from a poor isolated country to a major player in the world economic and political sphere, developing countries need to learn how to engage.  

In the first of this two part article I explored how best developing countries could benefit from the ongoing and planned flow of investments into their countries.

In this second part I look at some of the critical elements of China’s development experience and discuss what lessons could be drawn for policies and programmes in other developing countries. Given my background and experience I shall look at this issue from the perspective of agriculture and rural development, although the key ideas most likely also apply to other sectors.

Overall growth in China over the past 25 years has years has averaged 9% per year!!  This is while many other developing countries have struggled to keep growth above population increases.

The key to this fast economic growth is China’s amazingly high investment rate – over 40% in the past two and a half decades.  In comparison, most other developing countries struggle to reach investment rates of 15%.

Much of the investment and the associated growth occurred in manufacturing and associated services which is what make the country the workshop of the world.

However, it is important to recall that one of the key factors underpinnings China’ performance was strong agricultural performance with growth of around 4-5%. – this rate of growth in the agriculture sector is now a benchmark rate for other developing countries who wish to achieve rapid economic development.

It is important to recall that one of the key factors underpinnings China’ performance was strong agricultural performance with growth of around 4-5%. - this rate of growth in the agriculture sector is now a benchmark rate for other developing countries who wish to achieve rapid economic development

This relatively high growth had two consequences. Firstly, it helped maintain low prices, particularly for food and agricultural raw materials, and secondly, it allowed a massive release of labour from agriculture.

The proportion of total labour employed in agriculture in China dropped from around well over 50% in 1991 to around 16% in 2018, a transformation that only a few other countries in the world, such as Thailand and VietNam even come close to.

The low prices of food and agricultural raw materials, along with the transfer of labour out of agriculture, provided the cheap manpower and inputs that laid the foundation for China’s competitive growth in manufacturing and services.

China’s agriculture growth reflects higher yields and productivity improvements, rather than an increase in inputs.  Productivity increases took place along the full value chain, from postharvest handing to processing, packaging and marketing.

This was the result of investments in machinery, equipment, irrigation, storage and logistics, as well as a strong push on research and technology diffusion.   There were also changes in the structure of production which reflect changes in demand patterns particularly of richer, more urbanised consumers.

Output of traditional cereals such as wheat and rice fell, while that of fruits, vegetables, livestock products and fisheries increased rapidly.    China also integrated well with the world trading system, importing crops which were cheaper on the world market such as soyabean, needed for the rapidly expanding livestock sector; and cotton, needed for the textile industry.

Several factors stand out from China’s experience that are of importance to other developing countries. The most important of these are: high levels of public investments in key infrastructure, which eased and facilitated private investments; a strong push for technological change and innovation; and a dynamic approach to institutional reforms and critical policy issues such as liberalization of trade and markets. However, other developing countries may find that implementing these lessons will not be easy and will require substantial changes in their governments do business.

Developing countries need to raise investment rates, including in agriculture. However, low saving rates and poor taxation capacity limit the extent that this can be done. The funds needed to make transformative change will have to come from foreign sources and the only country that can do this at the scale required is China.

The saving’s rate in China is around 50% of GDP and continues to outpace investment providing huge resources to invest overseas. Ensuring that developing countries attract, and then make the best use of Chinese investments is thus critical. This is a topic I dealt with in my preceding paper.

At the same time, Governments in developing countries need to make far better use of the limited available public funds. In a number of countries, public funds from Government or donors are not spent in a timely manner due to bureaucratic and administrative inefficiencies.

When they are spent, much goes into corruption; on appeasing political constituencies particularly by providing low-skill, unproductive jobs; or funding activities that are best left to the private sector.  Developing countries also need to spend much more on research and technological innovation.

Overall China spends over 2% of GDP on research and development – a massive US$200 billion/year. Spending on agriculture is lower – about 0.6% of Agriculture GDP – but this still makes it the largest public agricultural research system in the world. The only other developing countries which have anything similar in size and complexity are Brazil – which spends over 1.5% to 2% of agriculture GDP on research, – and India which spend around 0.3%.

Actions to improve public spending, including larger allocations to research and technological innovations, require a mix of administrative and political actions which are the capacities of Governments of developing countries to implement if they so wish.

However, getting the right mix of policies especially with regard to broad development visions and strategies is more complex. In the unipolar world which emerged after the fall of the USSR, neo-liberalism provided the dominant development paradigm. The success of China, and countries such as Viet Nam, are providing an alternative to this neoliberal paradigm where the role of the state is stronger, and markets are used to guide local decisions but with strategic directions and key economic levers in the hands of the Government.

Most western academic institutions, traditional donor agencies and international UN agencies aligned themselves with the neoliberal view.  However, developing countries faced with a successful and emergent China need to think harder about their development strategies and policies.

This will require them to work closely not just with traditional donors and UN agencies but increasingly with academia, civil society and research institutions, at home as well as in China. As mentioned in the first of these two articles, this is something that developing country governments need to still need to learn how to do.

Daud Khan has more than 30 years of experience on development issues with various national and international organizations. He has degrees in economics from the LSE and Oxford; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.  

The harbour expansion in Colombo seeks to tap into the lucrative Indian shipping trade, with Chinese help. Credit: Amantha Perera/IPS

By Daud Khan
ROME, Apr 3 2019 (IPS)

Fifty years ago China was a poor country with little influence in the international sphere and without even a seat at the United Nations. Since then rapid economic growth in China has made it an economic powerhouse that increasingly plays a leading role on the world stage as a trade partners as well as a source of investment.

China’s development trajectory has been much different from most other developing countries which have been often been buffeted by political and economic problems and have failed to grow at anywhere near their potential.

In the first of this two part article we would like to explore how best developing countries can benefit from the ongoing and planned flow of Chinese investments into the country. In the second part we will look at some of the key element of China’s development experience and, see what lessons we can draw for policies and programmes.

The most iconic and discussed manifestation of China’s increased economic and political clout is the Belt and Road Initiative that aims to link China with markets in Europe and Asia.

The impact of Chinese investments is likely to be enormous and transformational in developing countries, especially in those countries that have been stuck in a trap of slow growth and low investment. This is a huge opportunity but in order to maximise its benefits it is essential that these investments are well managed and regulated.

The Initiative is largely about improving trade and logistics. At the same time, major investments are also being made in mining, manufacturing, agriculture and services – both for export to the Chinese markets as well as for sale in domestic markets. These investments are being made in both developed and developing countries.

However, their impact is likely to be enormous and transformational in the latter, especially in those developing countries that have been stuck in a trap of slow growth and low investment. This is a huge opportunity but in order to maximise its benefits it is essential that these investments are well managed and regulated.

Most Chinese firms investing overseas tend to be middle to large enterprises. Many are state owned, or subsidiaries of state owned companies, and, as such, enjoy good government connections and backing.

These factors give them superior bargaining power vis-a-vis local counterparts and there is risk that the terms of agreement may be tilted in their favour. Such risks are particularly acute in countries where counterpart local enterprises tend to be small with limited financial and administrative skills.

There is an urgent need for laws, regulation and guidelines that ensure that contracts and agreements signed are fair and equitable. This is critical for all sectors, but especially so for activities such as mining, which require massive investment and long gestation periods, where agreements can be for decades.

A number of critical aspects require public oversight including royalty payments and financial parameters, such as interest rates, depreciation rates and insurance fees.

There is also a need to ensure that prices charged for the output of Chinese firms sold in local markets are fair and within reach of domestic consumers;  that there is no “transfer pricing” in the case of exports – this is a practice where companies sell at low prices to parent companies overseas in order to reduce profits and tax liabilities, while at the same time reducing the inflow of foreign exchange into the host country; that taxes, duties and other levies are fully paid in time; that negative environment impacts are mitigated and, when necessary, remedial actions are put in place; that workers are paid fair wages and that essential services such as medical assistance and education are provided to them; and that current land owners, farmers and tenants are not displaced from their lands and houses.

It may appear that these conditions are harsh and risk alienating Chinese investors.  However, Chinese investment should not be simply an opportunity to make a quick return but as a long-term partnership that is based on mutual benefits that are shared, also with workers.

These conditions, including on transfer pricing, are common for transnational investors in most developed countries and in these countries Chinese companies have no problem adhering to them.  There is no reason that similar condition are not set in developing countries and that Chinese firms should comply with them.

Moreover, over the last couple of decades, under pressure from consumer lobbying, boycotts and law suits in their countries of origin, many US and European companies, including the large multinationals, are increasingly conforming to such laws and regulations.

Many of them now also have significant Corporate Social Responsibility programmes. Chinese companies, if they expect to complete in the medium to long-term with Western corporations, must be prepared to do the same.

It is Government’s prerogative and duty to make laws, regulations and guidelines to manage overseas investment.  However, such laws are notoriously difficult to implement in developing countries with limited governance capacities.

It will be more so in the case of Chinese investors which, as mentioned above, tend to be big and well connected.

Moreover, it is unlikely that NGOs, pressure groups and civil society groups in China will take it upon themselves to lobby against unfair trade or manufacturing operations of Chinese companies in other countries, as happened in the case of US and Europeans companies.

In this situation, much responsibility rests with the civil society, the press and the judicial system in developing countries.  These institutions need to take up the challenge.

This will not be easy and help would be required from the international development community. At political level, the UN and other official agencies need to help governments to daft laws and regulations; and international NGOs, lobby groups and consumer associations will need to create and help counterpart organizations in developing countries.

However, the most difficult hurdle will be for Governments in developing countries to start seeing civil society organizations, the press and the judicial systems as key partners in the development process and not as impediments to trade and financial partnerships.

Daud Khan has more than 30 years of experience on development issues with various national and international organizations. He has degrees in economics from the LSE and Oxford; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.  

A Rohingya girl goes to fetch water in Balukhali camp, Bangladesh. Credit: Umer Aiman Khan/IPS

By Leila Yasmine Khan and Daud Khan
AMSTERDAM/ROME, Jan 9 2019 (IPS)

The Rohingya are a minority community living in Rakhine State in Myanmar. The Muslim Rohingya are considered intruders into Buddhist Myanmar – illegal immigrants from bordering Bangladesh. They have been always discriminated against, looked down upon, ostracized, and denied any civil and judicial rights.

In August of 2017, a small group of Rohingya militants launched an attack against local police forces. This incident triggered the worst ever reaction against the Rohingya in which the local non-Rohingya population, Buddhist monks and the local police participated.

The official security forces then took over and undertook mass killings, abuses and abductions. Most of the Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh where about 900,000 refugees now live in camps where they receive essential assistance and basic medical care.  Efforts are being made to negotiate their return to Myanmar but these appear to have little chance of success.

The violence towards the Rohingya, and their displacement from their homes and villages, is likely to wipe out their traditions, culture and lifestyle as well as their mental and cultural constructs. This combination of physical and psychological violence is likely to lead to the elimination of the Rohingya’s identity.

These acts against the Rohingya constitute genocide as set out in the Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed by the United Nations in 1948 – which define genocide as actions taken to “destroy, in whole and in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.

The violence towards the Rohingya, and their displacement from their homes and villages, is likely to wipe out their traditions, culture and lifestyle as well as their mental and cultural constructs. This combination of physical and psychological violence is likely to lead to the elimination of the Rohingya’s identity.

The Rohingya Crisis has been subject to attention at international level; the international press has given the matter considerable coverage; and the UN Human Rights Council has recommended that the commanders responsible for the violence be brought to trial.

However, much more needs to be done given the number of people affected, the fact that the Rohingya, always a poor and vulnerable group, are being pushed into inhuman suffering; and that the brunt of refugee burden is being borne by a single country (Bangladesh).

Logistic and financial help is needed to address immediate needs, and political and diplomatic pressure is needed to help the Rohingya to return to their homes and to bring to justice those responsible for criminal acts.

This relative lack of attention reflects different factors in developed and developing countries. The rich countries, particularly the USA and European countries, are currently grappling with their own immigration and refugee crisis which largely emanates from problems in the Middle East, Africa and Central America.

Among the increasingly sovereignist governments in many countries, there is a limited appetite for addressing crisis that do not directly affect their economic or social interests. Another possible factor is that the Rohingya crisis, which involves Buddhists as oppressors and Muslims as victims, does not fit well with the current dominant narrative where Muslim fundamentalists are the root cause of terror and violence in the world and provide the political justification for repressive laws and large spending on security and on the military.

Given the lack of interest by the developed world, much responsibility falls on developing countries, especially large neighbors such as China, India, Pakistan and Thailand. These countries should be helping Bangladesh cope with the economic burden of dealing with the refugees and pressurizing Myanmar to take back the Rohingya, grant them civil rights and bring press charges against those that have committed crimes and atrocities.

However, little is being done and this reflects a misguided sense of solidarity among developing countries which results in a reluctance to criticize each other on human rights matters. This is unfortunate.

Bangladesh and its neighbors have experienced rapid economic growth that has raised average incomes and reduced poverty.  However, development is about much more than just increased economic wellbeing. It is also about upholding values, allowing citizens to lead dignified lives free from arbitrary violence, and having access to speedy and reliable justice systems.  This needs to be done domestically and internationally.

Some progress has been made on the domestic front. In India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, the judiciary has taken the lead in establishing religious, personal or political rights. Recently high profile judgements by Supreme Courts in these countries include the case of Asia Bibi – a Christian lady accused of blasphemy in Pakistan where the Supreme Court threw out the baseless allegations against her; the ruling by the Supreme Court in India that stated that discrimination on the basis on sexual orientation was against the Constitution and those that felt discrimination could seek redress from a court of law; and the ruling by the Supreme Court in Sri Lanka against the recent constitutional coup and the dissolving of parliament.

In other countries, such as China and Viet Nam, social media activists are taking the lead on rights and justice issues addressing issues such as corruption, cronyism and human rights abuses.

These steps are excellent and timely.  However, there is a moral void in the global system with the traditional upholders of the rule-based international order – particularly northern Europe and the USA- taking a less proactive role.

The most glaring recent example relates to the limited political and economic fallout of the Kashoggi murder. As developing countries, especially in Asia, account for an increasing share of global GDP, they should also take up an increasing share of the task of creating a better and more just world.

Given the nature of what needs to be done, NGOs, social media or the national judicial systems which have played a critical role in the domestic sphere, cannot take the lead. The responsibility for this falls squarely on the shoulders of Governments – they must not fail.

Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and journalist based in the Netherlands. She has Master’s Degrees in Philosophy and in Argumentation and Rhetoric from the University of Amsterdam; and a Degree in Philosophy from the University of Rome (Roma Tre).

Daud Khan has more than 30 years of experience on development issues with various national and international organizations. He has degrees in economics from the LSE and Oxford; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.  

Credit: Mauricio Ramos/IPS

By Ahmed Raza and Daud Khan
ROME, Dec 17 2018 (IPS)

Robert W. Fogel, the 1993 Nobel Prize Laureate for Economics, through his work on “efficiency wages”, pointed out that hungry and undernourished workers are not as productive as well fed and healthy workers.   At the level of an individual firm, it would thus make sense for an employer to pay wages that are high enough to allow workers access to food and other necessities – even if such wages are higher than the going market rate.

Some iconic and highly successful firms have in fact done this. Henry Ford, in 1914, caused quite a stir when he decided to offer his workers five dollars a day – double the going market pay at the time. This allowed him to not only have a healthy and satisfied work force but also to pick and choose his employees; to ensure that they stayed with the company; did not spend time looking for other opportunities as their experience and skill levels improved; and felt a stake in the success of the firm.

Other companies such as Guiness, Cadbury’s and Tata’s followed the same route providing not only good salaries but also housing, medical services and schools, as well as scholarship for the brightest children of their employees.

A food-secure, well-nourished, well-housed and educated labor force can enable countries to spur and sustain economic growth and foster shared prosperity.

In Karachi, a friend runs one of the most successful engineering companies in the country. He tells of how two fresh graduate engineers came looking for a job and asking for a salary of Rupees 10,000/month (about US$75 at today’s exchange rate).

My friend told them that this was “a ridiculous demand” and that as qualified engineers from a reputable university he was not prepared to pay a penny less than Rupees 20,000. This was 20 years back and much of the success of the firm was the result of the dedication and hard work on these two “overpaid” engineers.

For countries, the same principles and practices hold. A food-secure, well-nourished, well-housed and educated labor force can enable countries to spur and sustain economic growth and foster shared prosperity.

This was one of the key principles underlying the creation of the welfare state. Unfortunately, in Pakistan, the rates of food insecurity and malnutrition are extremely high with approximately 60 percent of the population vulnerable to food insecurity.  Moreover, nearly half of children under the age of five suffering from stunted growth, which implies that their will most likely not reach their full physical and mental potential.

Prime Minister Imran Khan highlighted this issue in his inaugural speech and committed his Government to addressing the country’s nutrition emergency.  However, given the Government’s generally weak implementation capacity and tight fiscal situation there is a need to find suitable low cost means to achieve this goal. On such means is by reducing the price of food.

The staple food of Pakistan is wheat with an annual per capita consumption of 124 kgs/head/year.  The world price of wheat currently hovers around US$ 234 per tonne (as of 01 November 2018). In Pakistan, the Government, during the last wheat harvest in May/June 2018, paid farmers Rupees 1,300 per 40 kilograms.

This was a price approaching US$ 300/tonne (US Dollar to Pakistan Rupee exchange rate of Rupees 110 which was the rate prevailing at the time of the last wheat harvest) paid at farm-gate.  This is a price well above what farmers in most countries get.

To keep the price of wheat at Rupees 1,300 per 40 kilograms, the Government imposes import tariffs which currently stand at 60%. In addition huge outlays are incurred to buy, store and then dispose of this wheat. As wheat production has increased beyond domestic need and there is a subsidy given to exporters.

The impact of high wheat prices on consumers, particularly the poor, is very significant. Often it is argued that high prices for wheat and other food items help reduce poverty in rural areas.   This is simply not correct as the bulk of Pakistan’s poor rural population comprises of small scale farmers and landless who are net buyers of food.

High prices favor large farmers who have surpluses to sell; the big flour millers who get subsidized wheat from the Government; the large bureaucracy that has been created to run the wheat procurement system; and the banks, who lend to the Government for the purchase of wheat.  Direct budgetary costs of administering the system, according to the Government’s own estimates, amount to Rupees 200 billion (US$1.5 billion)/annum.

If the import restrictions on wheat are removed, domestic prices could fall considerably. In big centers such as Lahore and Karachi, where prices are 11% to 21% higher compared to international prices, a family of six people, consuming about 744 kilograms of wheat per year would save around Rupees 5,000 (almost US$40) per year.

In addition, the Government would save the costs incurred in running the system would amount to another Rupees 6,000 (over US$45) per family. This money could be used to fund targeted food assistance to the poorest and most vulnerable.

It would take some political courage to take on the lobbies of those who benefit from the current system of wheat procurement.  But if this can be done it would make a huge dent in addressing a fundamental problem without any extra outlay of public funds.

Ahmed Raza Gorsi works in international development specializing in food, agriculture and nutrition. Views expressed here are his own.

Daud Khan has more than 30 years of experience on global food security and rural development issues. Until recently, he was a staff member at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. He has degrees in economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.  

The sufi shrines, which are scattered around the country, feed large numbers of people on a regular basis. Credit: Daud Khan

By Ahmed Raza and Daud Khan
ROME, Nov 26 2018 (IPS)

The new government in Pakistan has now been in office for over 100 days and has started work on its reform and socio-economic agenda. There is a growing realization that being in government is far more difficult than it first appeared, and that in order to move forward there is an urgent need to build national and international partnerships.

Of the challenges facing the country, food insecurity and malnutrition are high on government’s priority as was evident from the Prime Minister’s inaugural speech. The focus on food security and nutrition is warranted. Nearly half of children under the age of five in the country are suffering from stunted growth, which implies that they will most likely not reach their full physical and mental potential. In addition, approximately 60 percent of the population is vulnerable to food insecurity.

Given the scale of the food insecurity and malnutrition problem in the country, government and donor assisted schemes will not be sufficient and there is a need to look for innovative and low cost mechanisms that would strengthen partnerships with private initiatives. One such partnership could be with the Sufi shrines in Pakistan

Past governments and donor agencies have been making strong efforts to address food insecurity and malnutrition. The United Nations’ agencies,  in particular the World Food Programme, has been working on the malnutrition problem by providing supplements to children, pregnant and lactating women, in addition to leading a wheat and oil fortification programme.

The government, on the other hand, has focused on augmenting incomes of the poorest households and providing affordable flour and bread.  The Benazir Income Support Programme provides cash support to poor families with the aim of meeting basic needs; the Sasti Roti programme provided inexpensive bread to urban dwellers; and the government continues a long standing subsidy, albeit a rather inefficient one, to flour mills to supply affordable wheat flour to the public – a programme that could be replaced by allowing imports of cheaper foreign wheat.

However, given the scale of the food insecurity and malnutrition problem in the country, government and donor assisted schemes will not be sufficient and there is a need to look for innovative and low cost mechanisms that would strengthen partnerships with private initiatives. One such partnership could be with the Sufi shrines in Pakistan.

The sufi shrines, which are scattered around the country, feed large numbers of people on a regular basis. One of the largest and most important of these shrines of that of Lal Shabaz Qalandar in the province of Sindh – not far from Karachi, the country’s main port, financial center and largest city – where hundreds of thousands of pilgrims visit every year.

At Sehwan Sharif, there are a number of charity-funded kitchens where food is prepared for free distribution.  At one of the bigger kitchens, about 1,600 kgs of flour is baked into bread every day – enough to feed 5,000 people.

Charitable activities are an integral part of Pakistani culture and take many forms. For example, ordinary families routinely pay for food, as well as school fees and medical expenses for employees, helpers and poorer relatives. Many hotels and restaurants will distribute leftover food to the poor; a number of industrial units, more commonly the larger and more organized ones, will provide a free lunch to their workers; and successful business houses will set up charitable foundations.

The amount of help provided increases during times of national emergency and crisis.  After the 2005 earthquake which killed over 80,000 people and the floods in 2010 which caused damages of around US$10 billion, a large part of the relief effort was taken on by ordinary citizens on an individual or collective basis.  They provided money, clothing, food and medicines while skilled professionals such as doctor and engineers travelled to affected areas to help.

Inter country studies confirm the importance of charity in Pakistan.  In a review done by the Charities Aid Foundation (the World Giving Index 2017) with the help of Gallup, Pakistan stands 78 out of 137 countries in the global ranking of countries by how much they give to charity. While this is a respectable ranking, a more detailed look at the statistics shows that some 41 million Pakistanis donated money for charity (5th largest number among all countries) and 61 million helped a person they did not know directly (7th largest number in the world).

There is a lot that the government can do to improve the impact of these charitable works.  In the case of the free kitchens at the Sufi shrines there a couple of very quick and simple things that would improve impact:

• Hygiene and food safety.  The nutritional benefits of the food provided are severely diminished due to contamination by bacteria and parasites at all stages of storage, preparation and serving. The cloths used to cover the food are often filthy; plates and other utensils are poorly washed; there are a large number of flies and other insects that deposit contamination; and often rats, mice and cockroaches infest the areas where food is stored.  Simple training and awareness-raising are low cost methods to address this. Local officials, or university or high school students, should be drawn upon to help.
• Food Fortification.  In Pakistan various micronutrient deficiencies are highly prevalent and cause problems such as anemia, especially among women. Fortifying wheat and other foods served at the shrines is a very low cost way to raise levels of nutrition. Additives could be provided through local public health staff or by involving local doctors and pharmacies.

As in the case of food, better government guidance and oversight would considerably improve the impact of private initiatives in many other areas.  For example, following natural disasters, providing guidelines on what is needed by impacted populations would improve effectiveness; providing psychiatrists and psychologists to charitable institutions providing homes to the mentally ill or to orphans; and helping build providing specialized teacher training to working with handicapped children.

The Government has access to top quality expertise and international best practices – it should use to leverage the work of others rather than trying to do much itself.

Ahmed Raza Gorsi works in international development specializing in food, agriculture and nutrition. Views expressed here are his own.

Daud Khan has more than 30 years of experience on global food security and rural development issues. Until recently, he was a staff member at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. He has degrees in economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.  

Farmers spread their produce under the sun in the courtyard of their home in Ghool village of the Chakwal district, Pakistan. Credit: Saleem Shaikh/IPS

By Ahmed Raza and Daud Khan
ROME, Nov 12 2018 (IPS)

Despite the fact that Pakistan’s industrial and services sector continue to grow in importance, what happens in the agriculture sector remains critical to the performance of Pakistan’s economy and the wellbeing of its people.

According to data by the Government of Pakistan almost 60% of the country’s population live in rural areas.  For most of them agriculture forms the basis of their livelihood and spending on health, education, housing and clothing are critically dependant on the performance of the sector.

Poverty also tends to be more concentrated in rural areas and, as a consequence of the migration of many young males to urban areas, the bulk of tasks in agriculture and related rural activities are now carried out by women.

Better agriculture performance therefore also means greater wellbeing for a large segment of the population, less poverty and more money in the hands of women – something that is critical in bringing about a more gender balanced society.

In recent years the performance of agriculture has been lackluster. Since 2011/12 growth has averaged only 2.4% per year and in 2015/16 the agricultural GDP actually fell for the first time in Pakistan’s history. This resulted in strong protests from farmers and rural populations about the low priority given to agricultural and rural development by the outgoing PML-N government.

In recent years the performance of agriculture has been lackluster. Since 2011/12 growth has averaged only 2.4% per year and in 2015/16 the agricultural GDP actually fell for the first time in Pakistan’s history

Pakistan does not have a national level Ministry of Agriculture or of Rural Development.  Most of the responsibilities for agricultural development have been devolved to the provinces as part of the decentralization process that started in 2010 under the 18th Constitutional Amendment.

However, there is a Federal Ministry for National Food Security and Research (MNFSR) and it has a critical role to support and guide agriculture development across the four provinces.  In addition, a number of key policy levers related to trade, tariffs, support prices and regulations related to seeds and fertilizers remain under their control.

A new minister, Sahibzada Muhammad Mehboob Sultan, was appointed to the MNFSR in early October.  The new Minister has an important but uphill task ahead of him. This should not daunt him as many of the critical elements of an action plan are in place and it needs some strong political lobbying to get things moving.

More critically, as argued below, what he does will not require is more money and in fact a review of the current subsidies may actually reduce public outlays – something for which his counterpart the Minister of Finance will be grateful in these tough times.

Below is a list of four things the new minister should do:

First, operationalize the National Food Security Policy. A new National Food Security Policy was approved at the end of the tenure of the last Government – just before the dissolving of the assemblies. The new Minister should not see the National Food Security Policy as a legacy document of the previous regime.

The Policy has taken several years to complete and the exercise has been consultative and holistic, with strong involvement of the provinces, development partners and other stakeholders. It provides the necessary framework for visualizing the role of agriculture and food systems in the production and consumption of adequate, safe and nutritious foods without compromising the country’s natural resources while at the same time improving the incomes of vulnerable populations.

The new Minister should focus on translating the Policy into action. The focus should be on better managing trade and pricing policies – in particular liberalising trade in products such as wheat and sugar which are important to the poor and which can be imported at low prices, and, at the same time freeing up domestic markets for fruits, vegetables and livestock which are still subject to government monopolies and price caps; improving legislation particularly those related seeds and other inputs as well as to intellectual property rights which act as a brake on national and international investment in machinery, equipment and inputs; leading the way on top-end basic research especially with regard to new and emerging issues such as climate change;  maintain international collaborative agreements especially with regard to transboundary pests and disease control.

Second, support provinces with managing public expenditure in agriculture. Almost all development expenditures for agriculture and rural development are in the hands of the Provincial Governments.

Often much of these funds are inefficiently spent with poorly planned projects, slow implementation and high expenditures on recurrent costs, the bulk of which are salaries of support staff. All four provinces have formulated their own agricultural plans and strategies to relaunch growth in the agriculture sector which reflect the growing demand for horticultural and livestock products from the expanding urban population.

Public expenditures, both development and recurrent, will play a large role in bringing about this change. The new Minister should work with his provincial counterparts, supporting and helping them with the more technical complex and difficult tasks such as the restructuring of the public services, revamping their research systems and reforms of land tenancy arrangements.

Third, advocate for the phasing out of inefficient subsidies. Presently, inefficient subsidies in the agriculture sector, particularly on fertilizers and the procurement, storage and distribution of wheat, curtail its growth potential.

By the government’s own admission in the National Food Security Policy document, the subsidy on wheat costs the national exchequer close to 200 billion Pakistan rupees, and should be revisited. According to a recent report by the International Food Policy Research Institute, the gradual phasing out of subsidies could allow reallocation of public funds towards higher investments in rural infrastructure (such as roads and markets), agro-processing, food logistics and distribution, research and development, and extension services.

In addition, redistributive policies could provide the necessary impetus for enhancing inclusivity in the agriculture sector through better targeting of social safety nets to smallholder family farmers, leading to improved human and social capital in rural areas.

Fourth, foster coordination with other sector and related ministries.  Alleviating poverty, eradicating hunger and malnutrition and transforming food systems are challenges that require coordinated and coherent actions across food, healthcare and education sectors. The MNFSR should take on this task , taking advantage of international agreed and supported initiatives such as the national Zero Hunger Programme which integrates agriculture, nutrition and social welfare.

Ahmed Raza Gorsi works in international development specializing in food, agriculture and nutrition. Views expressed here are his own.

Daud Khan has more than 30 years of experience on global food security and rural development issues. Until recently, he was a staff member at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. He has degrees in economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology.