Since its inception in 1967, the World Intellectual Property Organization has been launching numerous initiatives either to stimulate creativity or to inspire many in the periphery to surge ahead. Hope this mission to innovate will be able to show the humanity a new road for hope and prosperity. However,unless the global liberal order takes charge amid the Covid-19 crisis, the WIPO’s mission for innovating sustainable future is not possible

The “World World Intellectual Property Day” is celebrated today (April 26) on the theme, “Innovate for Green Future”. Unlike the past, this year, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the special agency of the UN, has urged people to spread awareness purely through virtual campaign because of the global pandemic Covid-19, widely believed to be originated in China. Otherwise each year, the WIPO celebrates this day with a new mission and vision only to inspire and show pragmatic means to realise the goal.

The WIPO has adopted a very unique path this time. This World IP Day is simply bringing innovation and the IP rights that support it to herald a green future. The very idea of IP rights is embedded with innovation.

Further, these rights make it absolutely possible for the creators and innovators to receive their dues with fair legal global regime. Of course countries do vary in their legal practices and statutes, but the basic tenets of enforcing IP rights remain almost uniform across the world.

With globalisation and post-globalisation, we all have almost forgotten to sustain nature, resulting in irreparable losses to humanity. Last year we all saw the rise of youngsters like Greta Thunberg to bring back the planet to sustainability. She has called out the global leaders to save the earth. And this Times Person of the Year has categorically warned the UN saying how the world leaders or elders can spoil the future of the coming generations. She has added more strength to the warriors who have been fighting to save this planet. What we all are yearning for is sustainability that has lots to do with what the WIPO on this World IP Day is doing. Our joint efforts to innovate for a green future can definitely save the earth.

Creating a global IP regime, equally applicable to all, poses a serious concern between the developed and developing nations. Since the birth of the WTO and its historic Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement in 1995, the fight between these two groups of nations has been going on. The central controversy around the TRIPS for developing countries is all about the protection of indigenous rights, traditional knowledge-related resources and standardisation of the IP governance systems to the level of advanced nations. Herein Peter Drahos rightly underlined this struggle way back in 2002: “The reality of standard setting for developing countries is that they operate with an intellectual property paradigm dominated by the US and the EC and international business interests…TRIPS sets minimum standards. Bilaterally the bar of IP standards continues to be raised. When developing countries turn to WIPO for legislative assistance it steers them down the TRIPS-plus path. They are not in a position to mobilise webs of coercion and have to rely on webs of dialogue.”

And in this war for survival, the global governance of IP has clearly divided the nations into two mutually exclusive camps. Unfortunately the major chunk of the war revolves around sheer corporate greed of the top global corporations of the advanced nations. Therefore, the very purpose and vision rightly emphasised by the articles of the TRIPS is not leading to a global IP regime wherein all nations can have a shared future. To tackle such imbalance, the need of the hour is to move international IP policy from IP cooperation mostly informed by narrow corporate and national interests of the developed nations to global governance that squarely balances public and private interests in knowledge creation and distribution around the globe.

The role of private actors need to be minimised in international fora such as the UN, WTO, WIPO, World Bank, the IMF, etc. It is to be done just to secure a shared vision of the globalisation wherein the developing countries and the less developing nations could find a commonplace to survive along with the developed countries and definitely forge ahead.

Though sceptics argue that this global governance is doomed to fall when notions of governance are fluid and susceptible to customary dynamics, where notions of globalism, democracy and individual rights are divergently interpreted, where notions of fairness, justice, participation and welfare are irreconcilable and where limited national and corporate interests dominate. But we need to move much beyond this and proved the naysayers wrong.

We sincerely need to flash back why we all have become so greedy. What has contributed to our sudden desire for accumulating more wealth, space and power is nothing but the trio-junction of liberalisation, globalisation and privation (LPG). At the centre of this, acceleration is the comfort and ease of doing almost everything under the superior grip of excellent application of information and communication technology.

Technological innovation has played a significant role in erasing our territorial boundaries in the recent past. It has largely affected the broad contours of our economy, trade, political order, identity formation and warfare at the moment. This has necessitated the remapping of the post-international global political order on an urgent basis.

While altering this global order, many more actors have tried to occupy their spaces or the existing powers have tightened their hold over it to remain there wherever they are. This has led to a continuous power struggle worse than the yesteryears Cold War. And this virtual war, so to say, has moved us to a no point of return.

The US sponsored liberal international order has seen cracks as of now. The problem is that both the order and its sponsor are in crisis today. With President Donald Trump at the helm of affairs and again hoping to come back to the White House next year, the declinists have only predicted gloom for this order and its leader. Is it so? To many as the liberal order is fast decaying, its position is all up for grabs. But then who will grab it? Is it China under Xi Jinping number one in the list? Of course not. China needs to manage its own borders before it tries to grab the rest of the world. It has too many problems though it pretends to overcome all. Starting from Xinjiang to Hong Kong through Taiwan to South China Sea, its plate is absolutely full of thorns. Why to get obsessed to compete with the US? In that case, many experts say China is not trying to replace the US as a global hegemon. Precisely it is working hard with both its money and muscle power to resist the US coming to its own sphere of influence, particularly in the India-Pacific. And for some the unipolarity dominated by the US after the Cold War has just vanished. The much awaited new bi-polarity has once again returned with China at one end and the US at the other pole. By only looking at the Covid-19 crisis and its serious impact on the globe, it would be unwise to project China as a re-emerging power to counter the US.

The American leadership, its long held influence and the superior leadership it has offered in the past would simply not vanish as the naysayers say as it is. Building up a green and sustainable future, demand a definite world order to persist. In such an order, nations must feel secure and converge their interests so as to surge ahead. When China’s much talked about rise has been questioned by many and particularly by its immediate neighbours, the advocates of the liberal order led by the US must rethink how to re-arrange it or so to say re-fashion it. The planet demands a stable leadership. Certainly rise and fall of such orders are part of the game. To celebrate basic democratic values and credentials enunciated by liberalism, an order based on a democratic framework is what the world is looking for.

Human faculties need space to pursue research, innovation and development in a free atmosphere. Not the one bound and encircled by horrors of authoritarianism and single party structure as the one we see now in China under the Communist Party of that country. It simply negates the underlying philosophy of multilateralism.

China is vying for top global leadership position without even guaranteeing the basic human rights to its own people. In an atmosphere as brought by this Covid-19, China is not coming up transparent.

It is resisting opening up how the virus has originated in the Wuhan city if at all it has started there. Its movements seem to be doubtful when the whole world is witnessing simply disaster. It was a rare opportunity for China to demonstrate its leadership, but it has already lost it. It has once again offered the West to take charge of the globe and offered hope back to this planet. Unless the global liberal order takes charge amid the crisis of the Covid-19, the WIPO’s mission for innovating green future would not be possible. Such a mission demands free access to knowledge, information and communication. This lies at the heart of a progressive humanity.

World is now a civilisation with no time even for ourselves. To cut short our greed, and to open up our creativity, we all have to somewhere enhance our human connectivity wherein we minimise the role of technology to a great extent. Technology will surely guide us but we it should not take us to that point wherein it simply dictates our life cycle. Arguably, technological change has always been necessary, but not sufficient to infuse innovation and creativity at all time.

The yammering of a “Green Future” is long felt by humanity. Indeed the green cover across the world has increased in the last one or two decades. This is not enough to offer a sustainable solution to humanity.

At a time when the world is grappling with an unprecedented coronavirus crisis that is leading us to the death of almost two lakh people and affecting nearly 28 lakh globally, the WIPO can certainly show us a unique road to counter this menace. But then we all need to resolutely stand behind the shared objectives enunciated in the basic framework of the WIPO.

The hurdle for us today is our madness to achieve our target before time. In this race, we are simply gulping what even we cannot digest. Whether we respond to Covid-19 or any such catastrophe in future, the international community needs to stay united. But practically speaking, marshaling our actions towards such a course of action is full of hurdles either conditioned by ideological pathways or competitive rivalries.

Thus countries such as the US, China, Russia, India, Germany, Japan, etc, can no way think of linking their goals and visions to a single point. And even if they can, they are again racing for reaching the same point at the same time.

Much beyond traditional rivalries, China and America today are fighting a massive trade war wherein their mutual stake lies. Hence global experts opine that China’s quiet rise can no more be peaceful. It’s going to shake the global status quo for sure. This should not come on the way to realise a sustainable future of humanity. Chinese leadership must be able to visualise a future wherein all the nations have a future. It’s not just expanding a regime of international grab and it is all about directing the world to survive.

Finally, a Covid-19 of this magnitude can largely be minimised by the noble initiatives of the WIPO. Since its inception in 1967, the organisation has been launching numerous initiatives either to encourage creativity or to inspire many in the periphery to surge ahead. Hope this mission to innovate for a green future will be able to show humanity a new road for hope and prosperity.

We have witnessed many more crises in the past. Covid-19 is not an exceptional one. But what we need is pure innovation either from the international scientific and health community or from our leaders a path-breaking solution to stamp this virus out from this planet. Global economic slump may soon be stropped once its drivers that is humanity becomes fit and fine. At this juncture, only innovation can offer options. This innovation can rightly indicate the keys to unlocking the solutions and approaches to create a green and sustainable future for humanity.

(Writer: Makhan Saikia; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The last cruise ships sailing the open seas have docked and disgorged their passengers. What next for this industry? 

Anews story published by the BBC spoke about the cruise ship MSC Magnifica as the last one on planet earth. Well, the story itself said that this was not technically true as there are two other ships, the Pacific Princess and the Costa Deliziosa that are about to disembark their passengers and crew. By the time this goes to print, it is likely that all three ships would have docked and emptied out. But the question is whether this will be the last ship sailing with passengers. As is known, for many tourists, cruises are the ideal vacation. Be that as it may, the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak has also proved that as much convenience and luxury it offers, cruises also provide a golden opportunity to get sick. The cruise ship industry, like every other part of the travel and tourism sector, is under immense stress at this point of time. But given that cruise ships such as the notorious Diamond Princess that docked at Yokohama, Japan, became a focal point of the viral outbreak, is there going to be a return of the floating cities? Some of the largest ships across the world have a combined passenger and crew complement of close to 10,000 souls. Yet, by their very size and the fact that they are self-contained spaces, the ships became a harbour for disease. This followed a few years when huge outbreaks of diarrhoea overtook ships, particularly in the US. This has led to speculation that this particular part of the travel and tourism sector might take a lot longer time to revive than others. The bad public relations that the industry has suffered might mean that the golden age of the cruise ships, which constantly got larger and larger and brushed off disasters like the Costa Concordia with ease, is over. Hopefully when the COVID-19 pandemic is over, the cruise industry will do its best to lure the passengers with cheaper prices.

Back home, there will be a huge impact on employment. Here, it must be kept in mind that the cruise industry’s economic model is one that hires people from poor countries, who are willing to endure exploitation and mistreatment. Thousands of Indians had been working onboard such ships, which included the cleaning staff, those in the kitchens and even entertainers. Of course, there were the merchant navy officers running the ships, too. Many of them, like millions of other Indians, will not have a job to return to anytime soon. With the entire travel industry expected to be in the doldrums for a couple of years, there maybe be very few options as well. India would do well to encourage smaller cruise lines to operate in and around its shores once this crisis is over. If for nothing else but to get its people working again. It must use the post-COVID-19 situation as an opportunity to grab a larger slice of the tourist trade whenever it does recover.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

It is perhaps the first time in history that the entire human race, without any exception, is combatting a common enemy, the COVID-19 virus

In the prevailing period of uncertainty, unpredictability and ambiguity of every aspect of human life, in fact, of life itself, is it a war that we are fighting and what kind of a war is this? The traditional understanding of conflict is violent activity between two or more nations or groups over a period of time, bringing death and destruction in its wake. The world has, however, seen other types of battles. For instance, the war on poverty, class wars, trade wars and so on. So, is our ongoing fight for existence against COVID-19 to be termed a war? The significance is not merely of the word but the principles which should govern this fight.

In the spectrum of conflict, at the lower end is low-intensity engagement and at the highest level there is nuclear warfare. Chemical and biological  warfare can also be grouped with nuclear conflict. While chemical weapons have repeatedly been used in some conflicts in the 20th century, the use of biological weapons is relatively less and mostly unproven. But biological weapons are the easiest and cheapest to manufacture and can adversely affect the entire enemy population. (A biological weapon can be as simple as dropping a body in the village well or a town’s water supply.) However, possibly due to morality aspects and more importantly, the inability to control the fallout of a biological weapon, its use on a large scale has been precluded, though many countries are reported to have had biological weapons programmes in the past.

The present crisis would definitely fall under the category of biological warfare. The commencement of this war could be both, natural or man-made. At this point of time, due to inadequate credible information, it would be inappropriate to pronounce a decision as to who is responsible for the commencement of this war. However, it is of extreme importance to analyse inputs when available and reach a conclusion on its genesis because, many aspects of the post-COVID world, including possibly the world order, would depend on it. If this be a biological war, we need to see the scale of it. It is perhaps the first time in history that the entire human race, without any exception, is combatting a common enemy, the COVID-19 virus. Though there have been pandemics in the past, like the Spanish Flu in 1918 and the Asian Flu in 1957, a global catastrophe of this scale is unprecedented. It is not only the sickness and death which the virus-affected world suffers, seemingly at an exorbitantly large scale, but also the economic devastation that is likely to ensue in its wake in the globalised world, which makes this crisis a truly unparalleled one. Additionally, in all previous battles whether conventional or otherwise (war on terror, price wars and so on), there have always been “sides.” In this unprecedented situation, the entire mankind is on one side and the virus is on the other. It is therefore, a true Global War On a Biological Threat (GWOBT).

Considering this to be a war, the “Principles of War” need to be applied to defeat it. While these fundamentals have been enunciated by different military theorists from Sun Tzu to Clausewitz and different countries have adopted their own dictums based on their national and strategic requirements, it is intended to elucidate these principles which are generally acceptable. Let’s deliberate upon them in the context of the GWOBT.

Selection and maintenance of aim: This is the single-most important maxim as all actions will depend upon the aim selected. My experience in the Siachen Glacier and other battle situations is that, it is necessary first to survive to defeat the enemy. A dead man is good to nobody. In the existing situation wherein no treatment is available, the aim must remain focussed on survival.

Concentration of force: Since the entire human race has one deadly enemy, all national boundaries, religions, beliefs, ethnicities, caste, creed and gender are irrelevant in this war. All efforts of the human race must, therefore, be concentrated on defeating the virus. Solidarity and synergy of all resources of the world would be necessary to defeat this enemy, which has humbled mankind.

Administration/sustainability: To be able to fight the war successfully, the human race, especially the economically deprived, has to be able to sustain itself through the entire period that the battle is fought. The administration has to be perfected to take care of essential needs, especially food and medical assistance. Though this is already partly visible but it has to be ensured over a long period till it is business as usual.

Security: In military terms, it means that an appropriate environment must be created and maintained, which will enable necessary freedom of action to achieve objectives. In the GWOBT, it would entail creating an overall international environment wherein those scientists, doctors and researchers, who are involved in finding a solution, feel fully energised and motivated to find a vaccine/solution/drug/protocol, to end this crisis. One of the perils identified by the UN Secretary General on April 9 was of extremist threats, including bio-terrorist attacks. Such dangers need to be dealt with through an effective international response and nipped in the bud. Otherwise these will seriously hamper our efforts at finding a solution.

Economy of effort: With limited resources, especially in the less developed nations and the end not clearly in sight, all efforts must be economised. This would be applicable to both, employment of manpower as also utilising resources, including foodgrain. The inability to implement this dictum will result in serious social disturbances, which will adversely affect preventive measures to contain the virus.

Offensive action: The key to military victories lies in relentless offensive action. In the current situation, too, bold decisions by the leadership, which are in tune with the selected aims and based on available data, would be the drivers of victory. Complacency or delay in decision-making can prove catastrophic.

Flexibility: The world is mostly groping in a relatively unknown domain. The outcome, results and impacts that emerge in the changing situation, must be factored in by the leadership in finding the road ahead. One example is how the ubiquitous anti-malaria drug Hydroxychloroquine has changed the way the world is looking at possible future prevention.

Cooperation: Partnership among all, cutting across boundaries, political ideologies and religion, will hold the key to a solution. It is also very important that, post-COVID financial benefits accruing to a nation or company, must not be the key criterion. A competition at this stage has the potential to ruin or delay success whereas, collaboration will speed up the process, which in turn can benefit all nations.

Morale: These are times which most of the present generation would not have ever faced earlier. A positive state of mind in this situation needs to be created. A sense of well-being, group cohesion and the feeling that the nation is firmly behind every individual, need to be reiterated. An inspired leadership — at the international, national, State and local level — is the need of the hour.

India has a lot to contribute to the world in the current situation. The way the second-most populous country on the planet is controlling the pandemic, will definitely be watched globally. The lockdown decision, albeit delayed, is being appreciated by many the world over. The sense of discipline in most areas and a high state of morale, despite the extended shut down which the country can ill-afford right now due to its precarious economic situation, are examples for the world to follow.

India has also set the example of international cooperation by releasing the Hydroxychloroquine tablets to many nations. In the field of research and finding a vaccine/treatment as also finding a solution through traditional methods, India can be a world leader.

Despite all the challenges that the nation is facing today, especially the economically deprived citizens, India could be at the forefront in this GWOBT and thereby be an important contributor in the post-COVID world.

As in war, leadership in all spheres and at all levels — political, judicial, executive, legislative, military and at the national, State and local levels, will be judged by the manner in which they handle the crisis.

History has also shown us that from the ashes of war, great economic giants have risen. Remember Germany, Japan and more recently Vietnam?

(Writer: Aniruddha Chakravarty; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Will New York city rise again from the shadow of COVID-19? It did from the trauma of 9/11. Will there now be a second coming? Those familiar with NYC’s resilience know there will be

Peering through the window, I could see the iconic Manhattan landscape with its tall towers soaring into the sky. I was on an American Airlines flight from Washington DC that was set to land at what was then Idlewild Airport and is now John F Kennedy International Airport. That was my first view of New York City (NYC) and the date, if memory serves, was March 2, 1960.

Over the years, New York has become my second-most favourite city, the first being Kolkata, where I was born and where I grew up, and which remains home despite my decades in Delhi. I, therefore, deeply mourn the tragedy that has struck both NYC and New York state in the form of a massive COVID-19 attack, sending thousands to the hereafter and paralysing a throbbing megacity with its vibrant diversity of peoples and cultures, waxing along its wide avenues and in the shadows of its concrete canyons, epitomised by the Wall Street.

I am not the proverbial New Yorker who has lived in the city for years and feels the richness of its life in his/her viscera. I am an outsider whose many visits, none more than a month long at a time, have left behind a string of warm memories of exciting encounters with people, visits to galleries and museums, of the buzz of many voices in bars, varied fares in restaurants and hours of bookshop browsing (alas most of them have now closed down). The variety of people one sees is stunning — ranging from White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS) to African Americans, from those of European origin to those of Chinese, Latin American, Sri Lankan, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian stock, from those in dark suits scurrying around in the financial district in lower Manhattan, to residual hippies lounging around in the Village’s Washington Square Park.

My memories, too, are diverse. I remember the West End Bar on the Broadway opposite Columbia University. Later closed down, it was frequented by the university’s faculty members and students and, often, by celebrities and writers. It was here that Jack Kerouac (On the Road, The Dharma Bums, The Subterraneans et al), William S Burroughs (of Naked Lunch and Junkie and much else) and Allen Ginsberg (Howl and Other Poems and Kaddish and Other Poems) held court, gave identity to Beat writing and shaped its emerging contours, with the word “Beat” being first used by Hubert Edwin Huncke (Guilty of Everything: The Autobiography of Herbert Edwin Huncke and The Evening Sun Turned Crimson among others).

Prior to gentrification in the last couple of decades or so, the area around Columbia University and the West End Bar was marked by poverty and a high crime rate. Now the Beats and kindred souls have left along with junkies, hustlers and muggers; the Yuppies (young, upwardly-mobile professionals) and the university authorities have taken over much of it. A sigh for that. But then NYC has seen many transient bursts of literary and artistic excellence under the canopy of its fervid creativity. The area around the Columbia University and the West End Bar is a part of West Harlem which, in turn, is included in the wider sprawl of Harlem, enveloping the central and eastern part of the latter, in the northern reaches of NYC.

In the 1920s and early 1930s, the entire area was the venue of what has come to be known as the Harlem Renaissance, which saw a flowering of African American culture in the spheres of literature, music, theatre, visual art and sculpture. There was an explosion of music, particularly jazz. Paul Robeson was a towering presence. Many others, who became tall eminences later, cut their teeth at the Cotton Club, for a long time a Whites-only nightclub at the heart of Harlem, which featured promising African American performers. Duke Ellington, composer, pianist and jazz orchestra leader, made his mark here. Louis Armstrong, trumpeter, who profoundly influenced the evolution of jazz, played here. Lena Horne, singer, dancer, actress and civil rights activist, made her mark here, as did Ethel Waters, celebrated for her mellifluous rendering of the blues and Adelaide Hall, the noted jazz singer who later migrated to Britain.

The visual and plastic arts flourished. Aaron Douglas’s paintings and Augusta Savage  and Meta Warrick’s sculptures were widely and critically applauded. It was equally a time for intellectual ferment, which owed much to the collection of essays, The Soul of Black Folk (1903) by WEB Du Bois, sociologist, historian, civil rights activist, author and editor. He played a major, if not defining, role in shaping the Harlem Renaissance, as did Marcus Garvey, founder of the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and the African Communities league. The widely-circulated weekly newspaper, Negro World, which he founded and ran on behalf of the UNIA, and The Crisis, the quarterly mouthpiece of the NAACP which Du Bois founded in 1910 and edited until 1934, played a critically important role in publishing African American writers and giving them much-needed visibility.

Langston Hughes was, perhaps, the most important literary figure of the Harlem Renaissance. Countee Collen left behind his mark as a poet. Arna Bontemps and Jean Toomer were important writers whom The Crisis gave salience. While the Renaissance’s role in enabling individual writers to be recognised and successful is important, much more so its contribution to laying the groundwork for the evolution of African-American consciousness and literature and defining its ethos. Du Bois wanted African American artists to remember their moral responsibility projecting the issue of racial equality in their work. James Baldwin, the novelist and essayist whose writings shook the United States in the 1960s, did this in all his works, and, particularly tellingly, in Nobody Knows My Name and The Fire Next Time.

Unfortunately, the Great Depression delivered a crippling blow; other factors like internal squabbling worsened matters. The Harlem Renaissance hobbled to an end in the early 1930s. As they say, sic transit Gloria mundi (Thus goes worldly glory). Before waning, however, it projected the ethos and culture of African Americans on their terms and not in terms of the stereotypes many Whites had imposed on them. With its creative reverberations spreading far and wide, it made the world sit up and take note. It aroused the latent pride of African Americans in their own accomplishments, culture and capabilities and made them progressively unwilling to suffer the discrimination that had continued to be heaped on them despite the abolition of slavery. The road was prepared for the movement for equality, an issue that was gaining increasing momentum, to swell into the tidal wave of the civil rights movement of the 1960s when many barriers collapsed.

The 1960s were a turbulent period. Besides the peaking of the civil rights movement, the one against the United States’ participation in the Vietnamese War (as David Elliott calls it in his definitive book the by the same name), convulsed the campuses and streets. NYC was no exception and the highest point in the multiplicity of protest meetings, marches and sit-ins was clearly the April 15 Spring Mobilisation march against the war in Vietnam, which attracted several hundreds of thousands of participants.

In NYC, the civil rights, anti-war and the Beat movements, which often overlapped, flowed parallelly in the 1960s. The three subsided in the early1970s. The reasons were several. The civil rights legislation of the 1960s seemed to have taken some of the edge of the African American drive for equality. The Vietnamese war limped to a close in 1972. Internal feuds split the Left-leaning Students for a Democratic Society, which was active in both the anti-war and civil rights movements. All involved were tired of the prolonged campus unrest.

The Beat movement had also lost steam. The East Village Other, the shrill voice of counter-culture and protest, died in 1972. The Village Voice, a sober platform of creative dissent founded in 1955, ceased publication in 2017, surviving online till 2018.  The Bohemians moved out of the village. Yet New York was not bereft of excitement. The village had its jazz and restaurants. Until the COVID-19 horror struck, performances and exhibitions drew thousands to the Lincoln Centre for the Performing Arts, which now houses the New York Philharmonic, the Metropolitan Opera, the New York City Ballet and the Julliard School of Music. The Museum of Modern Art and the American Museum of Natural History drew streams of visitors.

Over the whole city now hangs the sinister shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. Will it ever recover? It did from the trauma of 9/11. Will there now be a second coming? Those familiar with NYC’s resilience know there will be.

(Writer: Hiranmay Karlekar; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The US withdraws funding to the world body for promoting Chinese propaganda on COVID-19. Trump has a point

Donald Trump has ripped to shreds a lot of the US-backed multilateralism that has powered the world through an era of peace and prosperity following the end of the Second World War. It nurtured the idea from the United Nations to the World Bank, and as the world enters the first truly global crisis since the end of the Pacific War in August 1945, the World Health Organisation (WHO). However, the US President has some justification for his attacks on the WHO and its leader Tedros Adhanom, whom he has accused of being a Chinese lapdog. Finally, he has stopped funding the organisation. While many anti-Trump political and social leaders as well as philatrophists backing global public health initiatives, like Microsoft founder Bill Gates, have criticised this decision, it is evident that power politics played its part in obfuscating the true face of the virus. The WHO, for all its good intentions, was swayed, failed in its duties by not taking China to task sooner and parroted the Chinese line. It bungled notoriously on the human-to-human transmissibility of the Covid-19 virus when it claimed in a tweet that it was not possible, even though Chinese doctors already knew that was the case and Taiwanese public health officials were letting the world know the same. The problem is that Taiwan, which is the Republic of China but claimed by the People’s Republic of China, is not a member of the WHO. Dr Tedros, in particular, has been criticised for being far too close to the Chinese administration. The fact is the WHO has not covered itself with glory in this case. Previously, during the original SARS outbreak at the turn of the century, the WHO had been critical of Chinese decisions. This time round it did not take a critical look at China’s warnings and systems. However, that is not the fault of the WHO completely as it depends on its member states to give it more accurate information. The Chinese administration under President Xi Jinping has a carefully cultivated sense of news and only fed the WHO what it wanted it to know. No representative was really allowed to interact with Chinese medical staff without Communist Party of China officials present. Given China’s growing influence in the UN, the WHO’s reverence or kowtowing to China aren’t surprising. Its control over the WHO is the result of a much longer lobbying, one that seeks to influence global governance on its terms. Already, China is commanding the post-Covid economy, with both US and Europe dependent on its medical supplies line. Chinese infrastructure projects are already dotting southern Europe. So it will continue its diplomatic manoeuvrings.

Here, even the US has admittedly been off the ball. Trump, who has renounced a leadership role in international bodies, allowed the US seat on the WHO board to remain empty for years. Such a representative could have shared US intelligence with the WHO. For all the comical ineptitude of its President at the start of the crisis, the US did have intelligence of the Chinese virus and what was happening in Wuhan well before the rest of the wide world had an idea of the virulence of the disease. Yielding ground means letting China use its economic heft to secure its primacy instead. The world has until now done a fabulous job of messing up its response to the virus, which has wreaked havoc in southern Europe in terms of lives and hollowed out the global economy. We cannot be petulant in our response to the crisis nor lie about what we are doing. Here both China and the US have let the rest of the world down. They have to step up and act responsible, else the world will leave them both behind.

(Writer: Karan bhasin; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Attacks on the Afghan security forces, who remain in active defence posture, targetted suicide and IED attacks and wartime criminality —including kidnapping and armed robberies — have hampered the rapid implementation of the Government’s Coronavirus strategy

COVID-19 has emerged as the single-most dangerous enemy of humanity in this century. Most of the fatalities have occurred in developed and developing countries, including the US, Italy, Spain, France, China and Iran. Looking at the scope and scale of  emergency preparedness, the containment and mitigation measures undertaken by these countries to defeat COVID-19, one immediately begins worrying about a lack of resources, a severe shortage of essential commodities and services, as well as widespread human vulnerabilities in the countries of the “bottom billion.” There, State institutions remain weak, healthcare systems are non-existent or dysfunctional, demographics unchecked, coping mechanisms severely eroded and economies stagnating or in a state of gradual collapse.

This grim situation is further exacerbated by protracted and often imposed conflicts, which continue to be fuelled by geopolitical tensions and rivalries in regions such as the Middle East and South Asia where State actors exploit impoverished youth by brainwashing them ideologically and militarily arming them to advance State-specific geostrategic goals.

These intertwined and ever-growing vulnerabilities of the least-developed and war-ravaged societies remain a cause for grave global concern, as expressed by the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who urged warring parties across the world to lay down their weapons in support of the bigger battle against COVID-19. Indeed, no country needs an immediate cessation of  conflict as much as Afghanistan. Even before the advent of the many and sometimes overlapping conflicts of the past four decades, Afghanistan had been a least developed country with meagre resources to address its dismal socio-economic indicators and abject poverty. The following decades, including the past 19 years, have hardly been kind to the suffering people of Afghanistan. Last year alone saw the killing and maiming of over 10,000 civilians while “conflict-related civilian casualties with more than 100 killed and many more injured” were recorded in March, says  the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA). On March 27, the UN Security Council condemned the “heinous and cowardly terrorist attack that took place at the Dharamshala Sikh Temple in Kabul” when 25 citizens, including children, were killed and wounded.

In addition to these attacks, the improvised explosive devices (IEDs), planted in urban and rural Afghanistan, indiscriminately kill and cripple citizens. This tragedy is further compounded by the adverse effects of climate change, including droughts, floods, landslides and avalanches. The UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) says that, “More than 14,000 people have been affected by floods, landslides  and avalanches in more than 12 provinces across Afghanistan.” Plus humanitarian efforts have been hindered by attacks on aid workers.

Moreover, the destruction of critical service-delivery infrastructure remains a tactic often used to further victimise people. Millions have been deprived of electricity as transmission lines, importing electricity from Uzbekistan, have been cut in northern Afghanistan where such attacks recur often. Extended power cuts disable the few hospitals and clinics that respond to the basic medical needs of the population. Indeed, this is killing and maiming Afghans by other means than direct acts of violence, which are often overlooked for holding to account those UN member-State/s that directly cause or indirectly contribute to such complex humanitarian crises.

It is clear and well-documented that the Taliban are responsible for the frequent and largescale civilian deaths due to direct and indirect acts of violence and destruction of critical infrastructure. But they are not alone in committing these war crimes. Since their creation as an instrument of external strategic influence in 1994, the Taliban have enjoyed safe havens, an operational infrastructure, diplomatic support, as well as medical treatment for their wounded fighters in our neighborhood — from where they continue to run a terror campaign across Afghanistan.

At the same time, their killing machine has enabled other regional and transnational terrorist networks—such as the Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (IS) — to destabilise Afghanistan. In turn, this has enabled the Taliban to run a multi-billion-dollar illicit drug business that has not only addicted jobless young Afghans but has also fed drug demand in the wider region where millions are dying of addiction.

In the face of the rapid spread of the Coronavirus, the Taliban must reconsider their efforts to maintain status quo: To keep killing Afghans and destroying critical service-delivery infrastructure, whose extended dysfunction will cause further death, pain and destruction. Indeed, as they know all too well, this stands against the core teachings of Islam. This also violates the basic principles of international human rights and humanitarian laws, which uphold the right of all Afghans —including those in the Taliban-controlled areas — to unfettered access to  COVID-19 tests and treatment. 

As of now, 784 Afghans in over 20 provinces across the country have contracted the deadly virus and 25 people have died. These figures hardly reflect the ground reality, considering that thousands of Afghans have recently returned from Iran and Pakistan which are also battling COVID-19. Indeed, attacks on the Afghan security forces, who remain in active defence posture; targetted suicide and IED attacks and wartime criminality —including kidnapping and armed robberies — have hampered the rapid implementation of the Afghan Government’s COVID strategy, including containment, mitigation and socio-economic relief and recovery measures. To avert a COVID-19 catastrophe in Afghanistan, the Taliban must respond positively to calls by the international Ulema, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Afghan people and the international community, to cease violence immediately across Afghanistan.

Cessation of violence during this national hour of acute need for a humanitarian response to the global pandemic will automatically build confidence on all sides, allowing the recently-announced inclusive negotiation team and the Taliban to begin making progress towards peace, which all Afghans desire, demand and deserve. In the eyes of the Afghan people, choosing the path to peace over continued bloodshed will undoubtedly demonstrate the Taliban’s independence of any foreign influence while establishing their Islamic credentials based on the key tenets of a peaceful, tolerant, compassionate and merciful faith as enshrined in the Constitution of Afghanistan.

(Writer: Ashraf Haidari; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

China bank’s stake in HDFC shouldn’t set alarm bells ringing. The Govt must be wary of the Chinese industry

Let us be honest, the collapse in the value of several top-notch companies over the past two months has meant that there are some very good value blue chip stocks available in the market. So, one should see the People’s Bank of China (PBoC)’s acquisition of one per cent stake in the country’s largest private home loan lender, HDFC, as a savvy move. In fact, the PBoC only acquired 0.2 per cent of HDFC this time round, to add to the 0.8 per cent it already held. PBoC, which manages the People’s Republic of China’s sovereign wealth fund, must have felt that the 40 per cent reduction in HDFC’s share price represented good value, just like ordinary punters, who are doubling down on blue chips right now. Shouldn’t India be worried about Chinese investments in Indian companies? Yes it should be but not in this particular case. Because China’s sovereign wealth fund isn’t the single-largest holder of financial assets to own a stake in HDFC. That would be Singapore with 3.3 per cent. In fact, the Abu Dhabi Government and the Norwegian Central bank hold larger stakes in HDFC than China. So China’s extra investment should actually be seen as a vote of confidence in Deepak Parekh, the promoter of HDFC, and in the Indian economy, once we emerge from the Coronavirus episode.

That said, there are some worrying trends about China that Indian policymakers should be wary of. The first is that there is a genuine fear among Indian manufacturers, large and small, that Chinese companies will use their head-start in opening from the lockdown to dump products on them. The Indian economy, particularly small and medium scale manufacturing, may take time, perhaps, till the end of the monsoon, to get back to normalcy. And while countervailing duties are anti-consumer, the Government should look long and hard at imposing such duties if for nothing else to protect manufacturing in the country. Then there is the other issue. Chinese firms have an overweight investment presence in several areas that are strategically important, such as in the financial services space with Jack Ma’s Alibaba Group being the largest shareholder in PayTM. Similarly, in educational technology and several other start-ups, India has allowed wanton investment by China. While Chinese money will bail out the world to a great extent after this incident, India is no exception. We should welcome those investments like the recent one in HDFC. But we have to protect industries and sectors, which are strategically important for India, from undue Chinese influence. This requires strategic thinking as well as an understanding of China, which is buying influence across the world. As the saying goes, there’s no free lunch.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The race to win the White House this November has come down to two old, White men. Not a perfect match

So Bernie Sander’s second shot at a political revolution was stillborn yet again. Some may blame the Democratic Party’s establishment for sidelining him, others will point to the fact that Sanders was backed by polarising figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, the two rookie members of the US Congress, whose views are considered an anathema to “middle” America, a very important vote-bank which propelled President Donald Trump to power. However, Joe Biden, the winner of the race to stand against Trump, the 45th President of the US, may not be the best candidate. Sure, he will have the backing of former President Barack Obama, the man under whom Biden served as Vice President, and the entire Democratic Party establishment as well as much of the celebrity and media world, who are desperate to see the back of Trump. But say what you will about Trump and the Republican Party, the ground game that “team Trump” has is tremendous as is his ability to focus the media narrative on himself.

The fact is that the longer Trump stays in power, the more focussed his voters become on keeping him there. He is a lightning rod for many media issues and say what you will about his often mindless foreign policy and his verbal gaffes, Trump always has had a point about the duplicitous nature of the Chinese dragon, which is now on full show during the Coronavirus crisis. The fact is also that strangely for a Republican President, he has never had to actually resort to huge acts of American military aggression. Indeed, he has been less trigger happy than his predecessor, the aforementioned Obama. Defeating Trump will take a sharp focus and gritty determination. And Biden, who is actually older than Trump, despite his five decades of public life, might not have what it takes to beat Trump. However, even a day is a long time in politics and the American response to the Coronavirus crisis might help either side much more than they expect.  And then there is the American Presidential election system, flawed but fair at the same time, giving some smaller States an outsize responsibility in choosing the winner and discarding larger ones completely. Voting is not at all easy for some minorities across the US; some States have actually made it harder. And if Bernie Sanders supporters or “Bros,” as they were pejoratively known, don’t come to the polls this time as they did in the last election, things will definitely not be all that great for Biden.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Despite all the propaganda trotted out by Beijing, some scars may remain for decades, bringing the most drastic changes to China’s image in the world

Moustapha Dahleb, the Chadian doctor and author, gave one of the most touching descriptions of  COVID-19, the pandemic that is presently plaguing the earth. In his blog titled, “Humanity Shaken by a Small Thing (Un Petit Machin)”, he argues, “A small microscopic thing called coronavirus is upsetting the planet. Something invisible has come to make its law. It questions everything and upsets the established order. Everything is put back in place, otherwise, differently.”

Among other collaterals, “the Small Thing” has triggered two wars on a scale not seen since World War II and the subsequent Cold War between the Western and Soviet blocks. The first war is against the “Small Thing” itself as to how to stop its worldwide spread and find a vaccine. China and the US, the world’s two super powers, are competing to win the battle. In China, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been working harder than anybody to find a solution. Is it because the PLA was no stranger to the first spread of the virus? It may take years or even decades to know the truth. Meanwhile, as early as January 26, a 54-year-old PLA General, Chen Wei, headed to Wuhan “to fight the epidemic” and take over the civilian Wuhan Institute of Virology (partially funded by France).

Further on March 16, China announced that the lady General had developed a vaccine for the Coronavirus and it had entered the first stage for clinical trials. According to Chinascope, a Chinese website based in the US, it is the first recombinant Coronavirus vaccine (adenovirus vector) approved for clinical trial. Volunteers, organised in three groups with 36 people in each, were given injections; Gen Chen was the first to be injected. The Global Times called Chen “a real pathfinder.” Before taking charge of the Wuhan lab, Chen was associated with the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS).

It was, however, pointed out that it would have taken at least five months to develop the recombinant vaccine approved today by Beijing. Chinascope explained, “The US has also developed a vaccine in a short period but it was based on a different technology (mRNA technology), which could take about 40 days to do. The traditional recombinant vaccine could provide a permanent cure but the mRNA vaccine is like a flu shot that needs to be done every year.” The question, therefore, is, when did the PLA start developing the vaccine to be able to complete the research in five months? Did China know about the “Small Thing” earlier than announced (end of December)? It’s difficult to answer this question but China will probably win the first war.

The second war triggered by the “Small Thing” is to do with information warfare, though this isn’t new. The US website, War on the Rocks, explained, “Several countries are employing disinformation and messaging campaigns around COVID-19 in a branding effort to ensure they are not blamed for the pandemic in the history books.”

For the Communist Party of China (CPC), it is a question of life and death. War of the Rocks asserted: “As the number of COVID-19 cases in China has reportedly declined, Chinese State-run media and diplomats have waged a disinformation campaign against the US in an attempt to distract from Beijing’s mismanagement of the crisis.”

It cites historical examples from the Soviet era, when the same tactics were used, attempting to bring a new narrative: “The origin of the virus is unknown. It could have come from anywhere in the world. China has been a model in handling the sensitive issue. Beijing can now advise the world how to go about it.”

Zhao Lijian, the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, started to use vitriolic Twitter attacks against critics of his country. He alleged that the American military was at the origin of the virus. The argument went so far that China’s Ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai, had to contradict his spokesperson. Cui said that it was “crazy” to spread rumors about the Coronavirus originating from a military laboratory in the US.

China may lose the second war. In a few months or years, the “Small Thing” will have eventually dissolved or disappeared (it has already to a great extent in China if one is to believe the Chinese propaganda) but some scars may remain for decades, bringing the most drastic changes to China’s image in the world.

Take Italy, they trusted Chinese President Xi Jinping and agreed to participate in his Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). As a the result, more than three lakh Chinese came to work in Northern Italy, where the tragedy started. Then the case of Holland; the Dutch Health Ministry announced it had recalled 600,000 face masks from China. Ditto was the case for Spain. Its Government encountered similar problems with testing kits ordered from a Chinese company and withdrew a batch of rapid test kits manufactured by China. Turkey and the Czech Republic also announced that they had found some testing kits, ordered from Chinese companies, were not sufficiently accurate.

Examples could be multiplied. China imported about 2.5 billion healthcare items, including visors, masks, gloves and ventilators from Australia between January 24 and February 29, leaving Australian frontline medical staff without protective equipment when the virus struck that country. Masks and other items have to be bought back at often highly inflated prices.

Critics have also accused Beijing of trying to split the European Union (EU) by shipping equipment to certain nations on more favourable terms than others, while leaving the US, the present epicenter of the pandemic, in the lurch. This scar will remain for a long time despite Beijing’s all-out propaganda. Eventually, Xi will have to answer some hard questions from those in Beijing, who were or are in favour of a softer and more human approach to other nations in difficulty.

But the most valuable lesson of the “Small Thing’s” strike is well described by Moustapha Dahleb: “Suddenly the pollution has dropped, people have started having time, so much time that they don’t even know what to do with it. Parents get to know their children, kids learn to stay with their families, work is no longer a priority, travel and leisure are no longer the norm for a successful life. Suddenly, in silence, we turn around in ourselves and understand the value of the words solidarity and vulnerability. Suddenly we realise that we are all on the same boat, rich and poor.”

Let us hope that the “Small Thing” can bring more humanity to this planet despite the high price paid by all nations.

(Writer: Claude Arpi; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Dictatorship was clearly where Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán was heading — and now he has arrived with the passage of an ‘emergency’ law

Hello, dictator!” said Jean-Claude Juncker cheerily to Hungary’s leader, Viktor Orbán, at a European Union summit a couple of years ago. The president of the European Commission was only joking, of course, but it was gallows humour. Dictatorship was clearly where Orbán was heading — and now he has arrived.

Recently the Hungarian Parliament passed a new law, allegedly to deal with the Coronavirus crisis. The law declares a state of emergency and allows Orbán to rule by decree for the duration of the crisis — but it doesn’t say when that state of emergency will end. That will be decided by the man who has just been granted supreme power. Orbán’s spokesman, Zoltán Kovács, helpfully explained, “Just as in wartime, a state of emergency could extend until the end of hostilities. Today we confront not a military power but are in a war-like state to defend our people against a pandemic the likes of which we have not seen in a century.”

“Never waste the opportunity offered by a good crisis,” as Machiavelli allegedly said 500 years ago. So is what we are seeing in Hungary now the tip of the iceberg? Will governments in other democracies whose leaders have dictatorial ambitions use the Coronavirus crisis as an excuse to give themselves absolute powers? Will Rodrigo Duterte take “emergency” powers to get around the one-term Filipino presidential limit that obliges him to quit in two years’ time? Will Narendra Modi copy Indira Gandhi’s 1975 “Emergency” and set up as the “temporary dictator” of India? Will Recep Tayyip Erdogan destroy what remains of Turkey’s democracy to save himself if his popularity declines further? For that matter, will Donald Trump use the great wave of American Coronavirus deaths in the coming months and an alleged threat of mass disorder as an excuse for postponing the November election, especially if his prospects for re-election are not looking bright? It’s a toss-up with Duterte, who is responsible for so many murders that he can never safely retire. But for the rest, the answer is almost certainly “no.”

Both Modi and Erdogan have created solid blocs of religious supporters, who practically guarantee their political futures (at great cost to the unity and future prospects of their respective countries). They don’t need to destroy democracy to survive. As for Trump, whose “base” is too narrow to assure him a political victory in November if other elements of his victorious 2016 coalition defect, he doesn’t really have the option of cancelling the election. Americans’ loyalty to their ancient Constitution is still too strong to let that happen. In any case, Trump probably won’t need such extreme measures to hold on to office. He is already re-writing the script so that his heavy responsibility for the silent carnage that awaits the country is erased in the public’s mind by his last-minute swerve towards a strong policy of social distancing that averts a much greater loss of life. Hail the saviour!

Which leaves us, then, with the question of why Orbán is going to such political extremes when he already had all the power he could possibly want. He has already fiddled with the Constitution so that his party can win a two-thirds majority of the seats in Parliament on only 44 per cent of the votes.

Hungary is effectively a one-party State and the media and the judges both serve Orbán’s Fidesz Party, not the general public. He even had a “state of emergency” in place already, declared in 2016 during the great refugee flood of that year (though none of the refugees came to Hungary) and he has never rescinded it. True, he can now hand out five-year prison sentences to Hungarians who spread “false” information but the courts were already giving his critics multiple shorter sentences if they got too noisy. Why go to this extra trouble when it might even tip the European Union into expelling Hungary as a non-democratic country (although I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one)?

I once spent a day with Orbán in Budapest, when we were both much younger men. He was a student leader who had just got famous for defying the Communists with a fiery nationalist speech and I had spent the summer in the Soviet Union interviewing the emerging democratic Opposition. (We were introduced by Hungarian-born philanthropist George Soros, then Orbán’s mentor and later a prime target of his rabid anti-Semitism.) We had much to talk about and I enjoyed his company. What struck me, though, was that he really thought like a lawyer. Maybe a radical one and certainly later a corrupt one. But a lawyer by character and by training. So maybe what he’s doing now is just tidying up the law. Hungary was already a dictatorship in practice. Now it’s also one in theory.

(Writer: Karan bhasin; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Even if the initial downplaying and non-evacuation of the Coronavirus-ridden USS Theodore Roosevelt was a practical necessity, the US naval leadership did not handle it properly

A cruel irony plays out as the powerful Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Theodore Roosevelt, succumbs precariously to what the US President had cuttingly called the “Chinese virus” or Coronavirus. The irony gets magnified with the ship’s call sign, “Rough Rider” and its motto, Qui Plantavit Curabit, or, “He, who has planted, will preserve.” With more than 100 sailors infected with the Novel Coronavirus, the mighty battle platform has been rendered ineffective like never before. The gargantuan warship with over 1,17,000 tonne displacement capacity to carry 90 aircraft and 5,000 crew members had been leading a China-centric strike group encompassing an air wing, cruiser and six destroyers before it figuratively ran aground with the first COVID-19 case being reported on any US naval vessel deployed overseas. The sheer apathy and indecisions surrounding the crisis in the US Navy are obvious from the fact that the first reported case came on March 24 and the request to contain the predicament went unheeded till it led to a spiralling of infected cases aboard. An embarrassing SOS followed from the Captain of the battleship.

Captain Brett Crozier wrote a desperate and blunt four-page letter to the naval leadership asking for “decisive action” and warned that the continuing dilly-dallying was “unacceptable.” His moving words, “We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset — our sailors”, hit at the soul of the seafaring nation with a proud naval tradition. The US’s legendary politician, the former Secretary of the Navy, Frank Knox, had famously said, “No matter what happens, the US Navy is not going to be caught napping.”

Seemingly, it was caught napping in this incident as the optics were almost similar to the Japanese civilian cruise liner, Diamond Princess. Confusion led to the onboard quarantining of the ship with 712 out of the 3,711 passengers and crew infected with Coronavirus. Inaction on the part of the US Navy in responding to the initial request for containment measures onboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt led to a similar multiplication of infection. The $10 billion platform has now become a breeding ground for Coronavirus.

Living conditions on these platforms are extremely constrained to say the least.  Sailors are placed cheek-by-jowl across a labyrinth of decks lined by steep ladder-like stairs and very narrow corridors. Armed to the teeth, the free space available is at a super-premium with up to 60 sailors sharing a sleeping compartment that is in bunk or rack formation, crammed together in stacks of three. All 60 of them could be sharing one bathroom with a very sparse common area. Workplaces are similarly constricted. The space to maintain the prescribed social distancing or to have proper decontamination is not possible without full evacuation.

However, evacuation has been the bone of contention with the Captain suggesting a residual force of 10 per cent or 500 members to stay on board to perform sustenance duties; whereas the Chief of Naval operations has insisted on 1,000 sailors in order to maintain the safety and security of the ship.

At stake is the nuclear power plant, four squadrons of Boeing F-18 fighter aircraft, one squadron of Growler electronic warfare aircraft, two squadrons of Seahawk multi-mission helicopters, one squadron of Grumman E-2 Hawkeye early warning aircraft and another squadron of Greyhound cargo aircraft. Besides, the aircraft carrier’s own munitions, including three Phalanx CIWS, two RIM-7 Sea Sparrow weapons systems and two RIM-116 infrared surface-to-air missiles. Securing the operational worthiness of the ship has inadvertently counter-posited the same vis-à-vis the concern for the safety of the sailors onboard. While the US naval top brass is rejecting allegations of either a lackadaisical attitude or failure to take care of its sailors, this incident has highlighted the overall lack of preparedness and sensitivity towards such exigencies — be it in the civilian or in the military realm.

However, what will haunt the hallowed institution of the US armed forces much after the Coronavirus crisis has settled is not so much the apparent defencelessness from a

medical or an infrastructural perspective, as much as the reaction of its senior leadership towards the soldiers at the forefront.

Captain Brett Crozier alluded to this leadership aspect when he stated that keeping the crew on the ship was  “an unnecessary risk and breaks faith with those sailors entrusted to our care.” Equally, the leak of the letter to the Press has also diminished the principle of good order, restraint and discipline that behoves a combat leader, whatever the circumstances.

Even a direct letter to the ostensible Commander-in-Chief, as opposed to the Press, would have been construed to be a lesser dereliction of the institutional traditions. This incident will trigger a debate on the sacred covenant between the soldier and service, which always prides that they “leave no men behind.” Sometimes, the practicality of the situation and the cruel principle of “larger good” lead to an unfortunate compromise as it happened in the US’ decision to drop atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This, knowing it fully well that occupied American prisoners-of-war (POWs) were held up in these locations. Even if the initial downplaying and non-evacuation of the Coronavirus ridden USS Theodore Roosevelt was a practical necessity, it was not handled with the required concern, alacrity and reassurance from the naval leadership.

Naval leaderships are given to the very finest and noblest traditions that always put the honour of the nation and the people under command above the interest of the leaders themselves. The saga of Indian Navy’s captain, MN Mulla, who chose to go down with his ship in the India-Pakistan war, is the sort of DNA that professional navies thrive on.

Therefore, the US Navy will be forced to navel-gaze on its own handling of the USS Theodore Roosevelt issue as the most visible, intimidating and deadly “five acres of mobile US land.” Diplomacy cannot sink to such lows.

(Writer: Bhopinder Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)