The panic resulting from the events starting with the deaths in Wuhan keeps spreading globally faster than the spreading of the virus itself. Quite apart from the immediate health dangers, now a new economic danger looms large globally. We are facing the prospects of a deep and lasting global recession regardless of the health policy and economic policy measures taken by China, the US and other countries unless there is timely global cooperation and coordination. What will be the global economic impact of COVID-19 if swift and effective action is not taken globally? Is there a way to find out through some kind of rigorous model-based economic analysis?

Haider A. Khan

In order to assess the impact, I have derived several sets of model-based counterfactual results. My work which is ongoing can be seen as a first step in analyzing the impact of COVID-19 rigorously. Aggregate consequences for the Global, Middle-Eastern(ME), EU and US economies in terms of output and employment losses are estimated from several models for several scenarios. These are both the containment costs and costs stemming from global panic with higher and lower bounds and an in-between scenario. Finally, a more complex economic systems model with explicit banking and financial sectors is used to analyze the financial systems scenarios.

It is clear that China will suffer the most. But so will Japan, the Middle East, the US and EU economies along with many other smaller economies. Hence there is no reason for the rivals of China to rejoice.With maximal containment costs and panic, Chinese GDP will decline by several percentage points. EU will lose about two percentage points and US about between one and one and a half per cent.But some of the model results already at hand should give thoughtful ME, US and EU citizens pause. With declining oil prices, the oil producing economies are already experiencing economic downturns. The direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 will worsen this trend.

As a first approximation, my current modeling results show that the easing of monetary policy and implementing expansionary fiscal policies—even if they are imposed immediately and coordinated globally— will take about six months to kick in and will lead towards the very low loss scenario, especially for China. But for EU and the US financial firms, the loss will be considerably more than what we have seen so far. The corresponding loss in global employment in these and other sectors should also give all countries pause.

While medical and public health professionals struggle to understand the nature of the virus and devise antidotes, strong economic measures need to taken globally and within countries to protect vulnerable groups. A coordinated interest rate cut will most probably happen; but monetary policy can not by itself help increase global investment and output. Tax cuts will help but will take time even if they are wisely designed to help not just the global rich but the middle class and the low income groups. Fiscal policies through direct government expenditures targeted to specific sectors and groups will be necessary.

Furthermore, trade policies are important too. If trade barriers go up because of this panic reinforcing earlier hostilities then all countries will be losers. The hostilities against China may well be heading in that direction. Likewise, some countries might try to counteract the loss in exports by devaluing their currencies. Such moves can rapidly expand through the international system creating a competitive devaluations scenario where no one will ultimately win.

Consider also the role that trading networks have always played. Clearly, with globalization these networks of firms across the globe are even more important than before. With a large scale disruption the dynamics of network trade may easily break down. Since networks require time to build up again, such large scale disruptions will result in longer term malfunction of the global trading system.

The world leaders must act quickly and resolutely before it is too late. We are facing the possibility of a vicious downward cycle in the global economy. Single countries can act and indeed have acted unilaterally, for example the US by cutting interest rates citing an emergency situation. But global coordination of monetary, fiscal, trade and exchange rates policies is sorely needed. If there was ever a time to devise globally coordinated policies through cooperation among US and China(G-2), the G-7 and more broadly, the G-20, it is now.

*John Evans Distinguished University Professor and Professor of Economics, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver

Contributor: Conversations, Huffington Post, Christian Science Monitor, European Economic and Social Committee, Current History, Cosmopolis, Al-Jazeera Online

When I decided to become a US citizen in 1990s, it was a deliberate decision to spend my life fighting for preserving and deepening democratic freedoms at a place where I have spent all my adult life. Having struggled against a brutal military dictatorship while I was a teenager, I knew that democracy is something you have to fight hard for. Therefore, when I became a citizen, for the swearing in event I took with me key documents of US democratic heritage. These included the constitution, the federalist papers and related documents from the 1780s. Since that ceremony I have tried to learn as much as I could about the crucial idea of democratic checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of our government. I have come to realize how prescient some of the revolutionaries from the 1770s and 1780s were in identifying the potential sources of tyranny and corruption of democracy. I have always looked at the impeachment provisions in this light.

Haider A. Khan

It was his fellow revolutionary from Virginia, James Madison who helped Mason to develop a separate class of impeachable offenses. This was what by now should be familiar to us from the House Judiciary Committee hearings— “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” It was clear also from the seeming lack of understanding of the Republican house members why this phrase has been so contentious. It also underlined how the inclusion and interpretation can offer people fighting against tyranny of a dangerous executive power as the one at present some crucial assistance.

We have to thank the foresight and insight of three Virginians—Mason, Madison and delegate Edmund Randolph for this inclusion. These three men had very different positions on the Constitution; but their arguments in the debates in Philadelphia and at Virginia’s ratifying convention in Richmond produced crucial definitions of an impeachable offense. Ultimately, the delegates agreed that a president could and should be impeached for abuses of power that subvert the Constitution, the integrity of government, or the rule of law.

These three Virginians—Mason, Madison, and Randolph— all defended vigorously the rights of the legislative branch to carry on procedures of impeachment if the evidence pointed towards abuses of power that subvert the Constitution, the integrity of government, or the rule of law. Thus on July 20, they opposed the arguments of Charles Pinckney of South Carolina and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania who had moved to strike the impeachment clause. The argumens of Charles Pinckney of South Carolina and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania were remarkably similar to what many Republican members of the House said during the debate on Dec. 18, 2019. In 1787 Morris had argued: “[If the president] should be re-elected, that will be sufficient proof of his innocence,”. “[Impeachment] will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach.” Mason’s response was forthright :“Shall any man be above justice? Shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice? Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?”

Consistently, James Madison argued that the Constitution must provide “for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” “He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression.” Furthermore, Madison presciently warned. “He might betray his trust to foreign powers.” This has turned out to be the key issue in the recent impeachment investigations and hearings dividing the pro- and anti-impeachment house members. At the end, as we also know, the delegates voted, 8 states to 2, to make the executive removable by impeachment thus following up on the English parliamentary model of impeachment.

We may debate whether the Founders got the balance on impeachment just right or settled for a vague standard that is often too weak to stop abuse of power by the president. This is clearly an issue in the current situation. Johnson’s acquittal—in spite of Kennedy’s defense of it in his 1955 book— may have enabled him to disable progressive legislation during the reconstruction.

But when as an ordinary citizen I look back on these debates and further practices in the US history, the brighter side of our historic legacy stands out. There have always been sincere and serious fighters for institutionalizing checks and balances to guarantee freedom. But the application is a complex process. The current situation looks bleak because of the more than usual dose of lies, half truths and plain ignorance of our constitution by some of our law makers. However, the constitutional arguments offered defending the right of the ordinary citizens’ representatives to take the task of impeachment seriously shows that the spirit and wisdom of Mason, Madison and Randolph are still alive among the majority of the house members.

The Venezuelan crisis is festering. For the moment the elected President Maduro has hung onto power against the machinations of Bolton and his crew. However the pressure from the imperialists continues with the propaganda machines of the “liberal” North in full operation.The situation for the Venezuelan people is bleak but a right wing coup will not settle this problem.

Haider A. Khan

According to the Guardian at that time:

The head of Venezuela’s armed forces has thrown his weight behind the embattled president, warning that the country could be thrust into a devastating civil war by what he called a US-backed “criminal plan” to unseat Nicolás Maduro.

The most recent crisis was precipitated when on Wednesday, January 23, President Trump announced that the United States will recognize the Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido who had just declared himself as the legitimate president of Venezuela unconstitutionally. President Maduro was quick to respond. He announced immediately that Venezuela was cutting off diplomatic ties with the US. Venezuela gave the embassy’s diplomatic staff 72 hours to leave the country.

Juan Guaido claims that Nicolas Maduro, the current president of Venezuela, is illegitimate.According to him since the president and the vice president both are illegitimate, he is the next in line for the presidency. His unprecedented declaration based on his own claims were set in motion in no small measure, one suspects, by the US Vice President Mike Pence’s announcement directed at Venezuelans, urging them to rise up against President Maduro.

The quick recognition of what appears to be a calculated move to up the ante and the orders for the US diplomats to stay put seemed consistent with a US plan for regime change. However, that did not succeed and diplomats eventually left. Nest, the US asked Venezuelan diplomats to leave so that Guido’s diplomats could occupy the Venezuelan embassy in Washington DC. However, the local US anti-imperialist activists occupied the embassy against US opposition. Indeed this part has turned out to be a tragi-comic farce.

Domestically, Venezuelans are divided. Clearly the government has mismanaged the economy, creating hyperinflation. Furrthermore, it did not take firm timely countervailing steps to circumvent the sanctions. But it still has support among 30 percent at least of the poor and working people. While Maduro’s rating has dived to 20 percent, the Bolivarian revolution of Chavez and the Chavezistas are supported by a significant segment who have seen a rapid improvement of their position in the past. Also, for the first time, they have been part of the political process.

The opposition is not united behind the oligarchy and big business which the US wants to see in power. The National Assembly which has just one house—a reform carried out by the Chaezistas— is not controlled by them although their agents are in key positions.

As a result fewer than 30 percent of the masses support the assembly. Thus Juan Guaido’s claim that he represents the will of the people is less than impressive and lacks credibility.

What about the international situation?

Although Canada and Colombia quickly echoed the US position, by now Russia, Cuba, China, India many others have either declared themselves for the status quo or are noncommittal. Thus short of US military intervention, the external support for Juan Guaido’s claims at present seems tenuous. Short of US military intervention, or a domestic coup, there will either be a negotiated solution or civil war.

Most analysts with expertise on Venezuelan politics tell us that Maduro’s survival depends on the backing of the military. In the past Maduro has rewarded the top brass with senior positions in government and the state oil company PDVSA. Some of these appointments are also part of the mismanagement problem. For the moment though, the top echelon in the army seems to be with Maduro. As Padrino declared:

“We are here to avoid, at all costs … a conflict between Venezuelans. It is not civil war, a war between brothers that will solve the problems of Venezuela. It is dialogue….We members of the armed forces know well the consequences [of war], just from looking at the history of humanity, of the last century, when millions and millions of human beings lost their lives….I have to alert the people of Venezuela to the severe danger that this represents to our integrity and our national sovereignty.”

The so-called special envoy, Eliott Abrams so far has not delivered a Nicaraguan style counterforce to revolution. It is certainly not for lack of trying or generous expenditure of US resources. A combination of a lack of grassroots support in the region, internal strength of Venezuelan revolution and the weakness of Guido’s illegitimate coup all combine to produce the current frustrations for Abrams. However, he is hoping to foster a counterrevolution nevertheless.

The role of corporate media is all too clear and pro-imperialist.”It’s obvious that the corporate media has been following U.S. policy,” says Venezuelan sociologist Edgardo Lander. “It happened during the Iraq War. It’s happened in Libya. It’s happened in all over the place.” Without exonerating the incompetence of Maduro, analysts like Lander point to other factors from sanctions to fostering counterrevolution. Deepening the crisis hoping for a regime change to US liking is not the solution that the Venezuelans and the world need.

One thing is clear. Venezuela is dangerously close to a civil war with the real possibility of direct US intervention upping the ante. The US policy has already worsened the situation. Apart from a Benghazi-like tragedy for the US, the greater tragedy for Venezuela and the region looms large. We can only hope that the domestic forces in Venezuela will find a just solution to this crisis through peaceful negotiations.

The writer is a Professor of Economics, University of Denver. Josef Korbel School of International Studies and former Senior Economic Adviser to UNCTAD. He could be reached by email hkhan@du.edu

With the further recent escalations involving US and Saudi accusations of Iran’s involvement in damaging four commercial carriers in the Persian Gulf, and the US military plans to send 120, 000 troops, the US has raised the stakes in the dangerous game of trapping Iran to take steps that can justify US attack on Iran. Some US politicians like the Republican senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas talk about “two strikes—the first strike and the last strike,” that will presumably lead to the end of the current detestable rulers of Iran. How plausible is this scenario and what is likely to happen geopolitically if and when the US belligerence leads to an actual military confrontation with Iran? Furthermore, even if an Iraq-like initial scenario results— not a sure bet, to say the least— will ordinary Iranians greet the North American invaders as liberators?

Haider A. Khan

Although many Iranians hate the regime of the Islamic Republic, the threat of a foreign invasion with memories of 1953, will present them with a cruel dilemma at best. To support the US invaders with the prospects of a long civil war, or to resist the invaders as patriotic citizens of Iran will put them between the rock and a hard place, or for those who prefer classical analogies—- between Scylla and Charybdis.Given Iran’s history and the cruel record of perfidy of the US, many will choose the latter option.Thus a US invasion will most probably result in a bloody Battle of Tehran, resembling the battle of Stalingrad, or at the very least, the battle of Algiers.

Furthermore, although it may not be so clear to Bolton, Pompeo or Trump and neocon chauvinists, the US power relatively speaking is in decline. It is highly unlikely that US will get any diplomatic leverage over Russia or China. More likely, these two powers will support Iran diplomatically, logistically and behind the scenes even militarily.

With this further escalation using not just bullying rhetoric but also accompanying military moves by the US fleet and semi-lunatic invitations to Iran to make conciliatory telephone calls to the White House through the Swiss intermediaries, the situation is likely to worsen. If the most recent episodes are accurate indications of things to come , then there will soon be other manufactured incidents and allegations. No proof will be offered by the US rulers even to the allies or responsible committees in the congress.

Senator Sanders and a few other voices are so far the only voices of sanity in the US legislature. Will the Trump administration be transparent? Will Bolton allow an open debate before manipulating the administration to launch a strike against Iran? His record with Iraq and his consistent support for the neoconservative program of regime change can not be very reassuring for those who support a more pragmatic US foreign policy.

Any sane person would wish things to be different from what they appear to be in Washington. But as matters stand, the above is pretty close to the scenario we have now with potential for rapid deterioration. It is a reasonably good guess that the Iranian hardliners are also doubling down and are preparing for an asymmetric war—something they have announced already as a possible scenario. Given Iran’s military weakness vis- a- vis the US and its regional allies, such a response will seem to these military minds to be eminently rational in terms of military tactics. Anyone familiar with the recent developments in non-cooperative game theory will be able to understand this response as a logical deduction in the environment that the US has created with the series of moves that began with the US unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. One can only hope that Iran will not make the first move inviting disaster for the Iranian people and the region.

And what will the US, Israel or Saudi Arabia really gain geopolitically from a war with Iran? A long drawn out bloody war will destabilize all. Saudi Arabia is much weaker than Israel. So is UAE. These polities will face severe internal strains and external threats. Israel may be able to contain things better in the short run; but it too will face problems with many of its adversaries in the region. Thus, it is hard to see a clear geopolitical winner once a shooting war begins even if Iran is invaded and partially occupied by the US troops.

The writer is a Professor of Economics, University of Denver. Josef Korbel School of International Studies and former Senior Economic Adviser to UNCTAD. He could be reached by email hkhan@du.edu

With the most recent spat between China and the US—not uncharacteristically if unintentionally engineered by Trump’s announcement of increasing tariffs from ten per cent to twenty five percent unless China agrees to his “deal”whatever that may be we seem to be back to the drawing board in the ongoing US-China trade war. Last week I received news from many experts including our own China watchers that a deal was imminent. Although my esteemed colleague Prof. Zhao was also in this group, he sagely pointed out even such a deal and seeming end of the trade war will not resolve the fundamental rivalries between US, the status quo power and China, the rising power. Now it seems that he had left out of the equation the unpredictable nature of Trump’s behavior.

Haider A. Khan

China is not a weak opponent. It also has more than a minimum defense capability and plenty of political will to withstand pressure from bullies like Trump and his cronies. Trump and his gang may have met more than their match in Chinese leadership under Xi. Such is also the verdict of experts in psychological warfare.

According to them Trump’s default negotiating style that consists of bombast, threats and litigation domestically may be largely ineffective internationally against leaders like Xi. All evidence also points to another major difference between Trump and Xi. While the latter seems to be good at focused listening that may be the key to dealing with tense negotiations, Trump seems inattentive to details, narcissistic and intent on humiliating his adversaries. That is not the surest path to global leadership when the relative power of the US is nowhere near what it was immediately after WW2. A reality-check should suggest working multilaterally with other global leaders in mutually respectful and beneficial partnership. Unfortunately, that is not the art of the deal that Trump administration cares about very much.

So, what is likely to happen? I am not so eager to predict possibilities especially in light of how wrong my colleagues have been in this fraught area. But if I had to bet, I would put my money on the proposition that China will keep the doors open for negotiation, but will never submit to bullies like Trump. There must be analysts in Washington and in the US universities and think tanks who have read the history of the Chinese revolution and the role both nationalist and anti-imperilalist ideas played in this process. The Chinese fought patiently a long political and military anti-imperialist war to liberate their country. Whatever differences may exist among the leadership and within the people, they will be united against foreign bullying and pressure. Meaningful negotiations with China can begin only if the US and other powers recognize this historically based cognitive reality.

With the recent military moves announced uncharacteristically by the White House first, the world is witnessing with grim fascination what could turn out to be the early moves towards a war against Iran. How plausible is this scenario and what is likely to happen geopolitically if and when the US belligerence leads to an actual military confrontation with Iran?

Haider A. Khan

We have already seen this process of downward spiraling of US-Iran relations beginning with the US unilateral exit from the historical Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) without the consent from our European allies with the resulting division between the US and Europe regarding policies towards Iran. US also restored sanctions against Iran but gave some time for energy-needy allies to import energy from Iran against a deadline. Some like Japan complied grudgingly with the US orders. Others, particularly China and India went on importing Iranian energy.

Recently, the US has escalated the pressure on Iran by banning those countries still importing Iranian oil from doing so. If anyone does sanctions-breaking business with Iran they will be properly punished, the Trump administration has warmed. The sanctions may not work as well as Trump’s analysts and US propaganda machine have claimed; but even their partial effects could be a call for Iran to wake up. However, contrary to the wishful thinking of Trump, this wake-up call for Iran will mean in all likelihood, not to negotiate by capitulating to US demands. The sanctions together with the most recent military moves have already produced— according to all neutral observers’ reports— a “rallying-around-the flag” response by the majority of people of Iran. Contrary to the claims of some pro-US Iranian dissident groups abroad, pro-Israel lobbyists and Saudi-UAE propagandists, the sanctions have not weakened the regime politically in Iran at all. Ironically, the sanctions have isolated—indeed divided— the genuine pro-democracy critics of the Islamic Republic within Iran and have strengthened the hardliners politically.

As this further escalation using bullying rhetoric accompanied by confirming bullying behavior continues with more military moves by the US fleet and announcements from the White House— led by Bolton— the situation can only worsen. If the most recent episode is an indication after Bolton’s mpvesfirst, there will soon be echoes from other parts of the US government more directly in charge of foreign policy and military matters. If that keeps happening, the Iranian hardliners will surely double down and prepare for an asymmetric war—something they have announced already as a possible scenario. Given Iran’s military weakness vis- a- vis the US and its regional allies, such a response will seem to these military minds to be eminently rational in terms of military tactics. Anyone familiar with the recent developments in non-cooperative game theory will be able to understand this response as a logical deduction in the environment that the US has created with the series of moves that began with the US unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The asymmetric response by Iran—the Iranian military strategists have made clear—will also draw in the Hezbollah and other Iranian military assets in the region outside of Iranian borders. Thus further future involvement of Syrians and even Turkey can not be ruled out at this point. Given the geopolitical strategic importance of both Iran and Syria to Russia, even if Turkey does not get involved, Russia will surely have to consider its options in terms of its long term geopolitical strategic interests. As a rising power, PRC may not become directly involved, but it is a safe bet that China will aid Iran financially and like Russia also by supplying some categories weapons—particularly aircrafts and surface to air missiles. If Trump thinks that attacking Iran will bring Chinese to the negotiating table to make further real concessions to the US, he is surely fantasizing.

This being the case, what will the US really gain geopolitically? According to political analysts, there are two groups in US high level policy making arena. Trump, it is claimed, is a transactions oriented leader and wants Iran to come to the table after suffering losses with a better deal for the US. But the details of how this could happen or what kind of deal the US could expect have not been revealed.

The second group centered around Bolton—according to the geopolitical analysts— wants to draw Iran into a military confrontation if economic sanctions by themselves do not lead to a regime change. Even in my worst case economic scenario for Iran a regime change from sanctions alone does not seem likely. So will the US or its proxies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia then engage in an actual military operation?

The very possibility is worrying. But sober calculations in light of outcomes of interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya do not seem encouraging. There is no prospect of a quick victory against Iran and any lengthy intervention will destabilize the region further. It is also not clear what the Chinese and Russian military responses in the medium run will be. The conflict may escalate into a regional war and even an extra-regional war depending on some of these responses.

Therefore, without sounding alarmist, one has to hope that Trump is bluffing even though Bolton and the neocons are not. But even if Trump exercises a false brinkmanship even when it is not necessary and will ultimately not work, in order to get the US a better deal— whatever that means— according to military logic, the Iranians will be foolish to act on the assumption that there is a substantial difference between Trump and Bolton leading to Trump’s putting an end to US moves towards a war or warlike situation. To be clear-eyed about this danger, from all available evidence, the Iranian strategists are preparing to not fall into a US laid trap by acting first and provoking a US military response that will start a war. However, once they think that US is about to start bombing Iran, they will surely take what they consider to be appropriate asymmetric actions. And therein lies the dangers of a conflagaration that can easily get out of any great power’s control.

The writer is a Professor of Economics, University of Denver. Josef Korbel School of International Studies and former Senior Economic Adviser to UNCTAD. He could be reached by email hkhan@du.edu

Sophocles in his tragedy Antigone has the line “evil[folly] appears as good in the minds of those whom god leads to destruction”. First came the US unilateral exit from the historical Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA without the consent from our European allies with the resulting division between the US and Europe regarding policies towards Iran. US also restored sanctions against Iran but gave some time for energy-needy allies to import energy from Iran against a deadline. Some like Japan have complied grudgingly with the US orders. Others, particularly China and India have gone on importing Iranian energy.

It seems that US has just dropped the other shoe now by banning those countries still importing Iranian oil from doing so after early May. If anyone does sanctions-breaking business with Iran they will be properly punished, the Trump administration has warmed. Much has been made of the role of dollar-dominated world trading system and financial arrangements through SWIFT etc. What will be the geoeconomic and geopolitical impact? Is there a way to find out through some kind of rigorous model-based analysis?

Indeed there may be a sober reality-based way of looking at the possible economic consequences and draw out the plausible geopolitical scenarios. Recently, I used the best available data from the World Bank, the IMF and other national and international sources about the Iranian economy to do precisely this exercise.. My results pertain both to the overall effects for the Iranian economy, and specific sectors. More importantly, they also give us some rough insights into what the sanctions might mean for the EU and US firms.

In order to assess the impact using this consequentialist logic, I derived several sets of model-based counterfactual results. My work which is ongoing can be seen as a first step in analyzing the impact of US sanctions rigorously. Aggregate consequences for the Iranian, EU and US economies in terms of output and employment losses are estimated from several models for several scenarios. These are sanctions with high and low bites and an in-between scenario. Finally, a more complex economic systems model with explicit banking and financial sectors is used to analyze the financial systems scenarios.

It is clear that Iran will suffer. But so will the US and EU economies. With maximal enforcement, Iranian GDP will decline by several percentage points. EU will lose about half a percentage point and US about two-tenths of a per cent.But some of the model results already at hand should give thoughtful US and EU citizens pause. As a first approximation, my current modeling results show that the alternative financial ararngements will take about six months to kick in and will lead towards the very low loss scenario, especially for Iran.But for EU and the US financial firms, the loss will be considerably more than that inflicted on Iran by the US.

This being the case, what will the US gain geopolitically? According to political analysts, there are two groups in US high level policy making arena. Trump, it is claimed, is a transactions oriented leader and wants Iran to come to the table after suffering losses with a better deal for the US. But the details of how this could happen or what kind of deal the US could expect have not been revealed.

The second group centered around Bolton—according to the geopolitical analysts— wants to draw Iran into a military confrontation if economic sanctions by themselves do not lead to a regime change. Even in my worst case economic scenario for Iran a regime change from sanctions alone does not seem likely. So will the US or its proxies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia then engage in an actual military operation?

The very possibility is worrying. But sober calculations in light of outcomes of interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya do not seem encouraging. There is no prospect of a quick victory against Iran and any lengthy intervention will destabilize the region further. It is also not clear what the Chinese and Russian responses will be.

However, historical evidence shows that wars are not always—at least at the beginning— results of such rational long term calculations. Usually, like the beginning of World War 1 or 2, a small incident leads to a wider conflagaration. If the situation is already fraught and tensions among the big powers are sufficiently high this could happen. One then has to hope that we have not reached that level of tension and in particular the current tensions among the US, China and Russia can be defused through appropriate diplomatic steps. That is our only hope to avert an Antigone-like tragedy in the 21st century.

Rohingya refugees who were forced to leave their country by Myanmar security forces arrived in Bangladesh to save their lives. Photo Mostafizur Rahman.

By Haider A. Khan*
Apr 6 2019 (IPS-Partners)

According to UN investigators in late 2018 and early January 2019, genocide against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar has hardly stopped . All objective reports indicate that the government is demonstrating by its inactions that it has no interest in preventing genocide and establishing a genuine democracy for all in Myanmar.

Marzuki Darusman, chair of the UN fact-finding mission on Myanmar, is on record stating that thousands of Rohingya are still fleeing to Bangladesh. Furthermore, those who remain in Myanmar even after last year’s brutal military campaign against Rohingyas — an estimated 250,000 to 400,000—- “continue to suffer the most severe” restrictions and repression. “It is an ongoing genocide,” according to the chair of the UN fact-finding mission.

It would appear according to the statements by Yanghee Lee, the UN special investigator on human rights in Myanmar that Aung San Sun Kyi , the Nobel peace prize laureate and former political prisoner who now leads Myanmar’s civilian government, “is in total denial” about accusations that the military in Buddhist-majority Myanmar raped, murdered and tortured Rohingya and burned their villages. One consequence has been the forced migration of Rohingyas fearing for their lives. About 700,000 have fled to Bangladesh since last August, she stated.

“The government is increasingly demonstrating that it has no interest and capacity in establishing a fully functioning democracy where all its people equally enjoy all their rights and freedoms,” according to Lee. “It is not upholding justice and rule of law”, is the judgment of experts such as Lee. She further pointed out that Sun Kyi who “repeatedly says[that all people enjoying equal rights and freedom] is the standard to which all in Myanmar are held” is being less than truthful about the Rohingya situation. It is tragic for the Rohingyas and hypocritical and disgraceful behavior for a former human rights activist like Sun Kyi.

For historical record, it should be mentioned that the British colonialists were the originators of the problem and Pakistani policies from 1947 onwards exacerbated the problems created by colonialism.

The future of Northern Arakan (Rakhine) became a subject of diplomatic spat between Pakistan and Burma because Pakistan would not give up its support for the faction of Arakanese Muslims who were put under the leadership of a pro-British leadership during WW2. In Northern Arakan, which shared its border with British India from 1937 when Burma was detached from the latter, and after 1947 with the then East Pakistan, the Muslims formed 60% of the population of Buthidaung Township and 45% of the Township of Maungdaw. To make matters worse, these Muslims as a group were punished by the Burmese government after the independence of Burma in 1948, and were classified in the then Burmese census as Pakistanis. Justifiably, the external affairs department of the Pakistani government disagreed with this view.

In fact, primarily because of the British machinations, the rivalry between the two communities in Burma had intensified during World War 2. A good part of the nationalist Burmese population rendered assistance to the Japanese. On the other hand, a segment of the Muslims in Northern Arakan were armed by the British for anti-Japanese guerrilla warfare. Even after the formal independence of Burma, the guerrilla activities of Muslims did not cease but continued under the name of “Mujahid Movement” which resisted Burmese central government control. The Burmese press accused Pakistan a number of times of giving not only sanctuary to the rebels in East Pakistan but also of rendering material and moral assistance to them. The issue of these “Mujahids” or “freedom fighters,” became the subject of intense discussion in the Burmese Parliament. Pakistan responded diplomatically and Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hamidul Huq Chowdhury spoke in the national assembly on 26 March 1956. Chowdhury informed the assembly that a Pakistani delegation to Burma had been sent “to discuss and settle certain matters of mutual interest.” He referred to “the problem of the[Northern] Arakanese Muslims” as “an offshoot of the Mujahid problem.” Thus Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hamidul Huq Chowdhury went on record by calling upon the Burmese government to “do their utmost to create a sense of confidence and security in the mind of the[Northern] Arakani Muslims now living in [Northern] Arakan” and to take back all [Northern] Arakanese refugees staying in East Pakistan.

Maulvi Zahiruddin Ahmad, who was declared “President” of a ‘Republic’ of the Buthidaung and Maungdaw areas during the days of resistance to the Japanese invaders in World War 2, continued to assert that 99% of the population of Northern Arakan had close cultural, racial, and religious affinities with the people of Chittagong in then East Pakistan. He also added that during the war, the Burmese showed hostility to the Muslims of this area and indulged in mass massacres. His position was that the people of [Northern] Arakan be given the right of self-determination. The logical corollary of his position was that a plebiscite should be held to determine whether the area where the Muslims lived should continue to be a part of Burma or be merged with Bengal.

The New York Times reported in December 1951 that during the previous three years almost 250,000 Northern Arakanese Muslims had crossed into East Bengal. According to the NYT, the latest influx, which started in May 1951, resulted in the entry of 30,000 more Muslims into the then East Pakistan. The continued influx of these Northern Arakanese Muslims into East Pakistan, the NYT report said, was the subject of a strong protest note addressed by the Pakistani government to the Burmese government. This note warned the Burmese government against the possibility of disturbances by the refugees on the international border. The note also asked for the immediate repatriation of the Northern Arakanese Muslims. Later, in the summer of 1959, about 10,000 Muslims were said to have crossed into East Pakistan. However, so far as Burmese newspapers and authorities were concerned, the problem was one of illegal entry of Pakistanis into Burma and their repatriation. Historical records show, for example, that the columnist U Yan Gon wrote in the Burmese paper, The Rangoon Daily, on 17 January 1964

There are some 200,000 people who have illegally migrated from Pakistan into Burma. A large number of these illegal immigrants have been interned and fed in the Akyab prison by the Burmese government as the Pakistan government refused to recognize them as its citizens. It is surprising that Pakistan did not accept them, although they actually belong to that country. We are afraid that the illicit Pakistanis entry into Burma may in future become a problem like the illegal migration of Pakistanis into India. These people have moved into Assam, Tripura and West Bengal.

This Burmese columnist, U Yan Gon denied the existence of a problem between Pakistan and Burma like the Kashmir issue. However, he expressed serious concerns about Pakistani infiltration into Akyab district. The historian W. Norman Brown who had studied the problems of Northern Arakanese Muslims observed.

The community has felt itself insufficiently represented in Burma government affairs, considered itself discriminated against by the majority Buddhist community – as did the Muslims of India in relation to the Hindus – and some of its members have indicated a desire to be part of Pakistan.

In fairness to Burma, it needs to be admitted that there had been many areas of friction between Burma and Pakistan, for instance, the smuggling of rice from Burma into East Pakistan, which resulted in the loss of foreign exchange to Burma. And there was always the border problem, which was the subject of much discussion between the two governments from 1959 onwards. However, it was the demand of some of the leaders of the Northern Arakanese Muslims on the Arakan Coast for separation from Burma and merger with Pakistan that fuelled the desire of Pakistan to inject its two-nation theory into all neighboring areas. Accordingly, a faction of Pakistani foreign policy makers pushed for such a policy. This was to change albeit briefly, with the liberation of Bangladesh that demonstrated the hollowness of the Pakistani version of the two nations theory on the basis of just religion.

Haider A. Khan

Regarding Myanmar’s current position, Darusman has already told the reporters ominously: “Its continued denials, its attempts to shield itself under the cover of national sovereignty and its dismissal of 444 pages of details about the facts and circumstances of recent human rights violations that point to the most serious crimes under international law” strengthens the need for international action because “accountability cannot be expected from the national processes”.

A great human tragedy like the one involving Bangladesh, India and Pakistan in 1971 has been continuing for many years, gaining in intensity and ferocity. When will the civilized nations of our international society respond in favor of protecting all that stands for decent respect for humanity?

Notes: The writer is a Professor of Economics, University of Denver. Josef Korbel School of International Studies and former Senior Economic Adviser to UNCTAD. He could be reached by email hkhan@du.edu