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
  

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 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
  

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 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:

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.

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.