COVID-19 isn’t the only challenge for Johnson. The British PM needs to resolve trade talks with the European Union
Barely three weeks ago, when the cruel Coronavirus had infected British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, threatening his life and putting the entire country, its people and the Government on tenterhooks, none had expected that he would bounce back. But he did. And now he is proud father of a boy with his partner, Carrie Symonds. All this must have surely made him forget the rollercoaster ride he had to go through last month in hospital, only three months after he secured a resounding personal mandate from a Brexit-weary electorate. Johnson, though, is not the first PM to have a child while in office; his predecessors David Cameron and Tony Blair, too, experienced fatherhood while being in the chair. May be Johnson will need to borrow paternity drills from their book. Like them, he, too, would find it difficult to achieve a balance between work and family life, especially in these tough times when the world, as also his country, is facing the darkest moment in history. It’s another matter that both Cameron and Blair were able to compartmentalise their familial and official duties. But the same cannot be said of Johnson. What do we do with his undeniable vigour and energy which define most of his political identity and appeal? Though he has made it clear that he would be postponing the paternity leave until the end of the year, for that to happen, the rules need to be bent for the Prime Minister as official codes call for the leave to end within 56 days of childbirth.
Officials commitments aside, though Johnson has been around the fatherhood course many times — maybe five, six or even more — to expect that any aspect of his life will be normal, even fatherhood, in these times, is irrational. Over 26,000 Britons have died due to the COVID pandemic, thanks to the Government’s early dilly-dallying approach and “herd immunity” experiments. Even now, it is feared that Britain may face the second wave of the disease and account for the worst fatality rate in Europe. COVID-19 isn’t the only challenge for Johnson. Even as the Government is currently fighting the most pressing crisis, there are the faltering trade talks with the European Union that need resolution. The Brexit ghost will come to haunt him once again. Father and Prime Minister Johnson has a tough job ahead.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Beijing has been pushed to the wall and should not be allowed to bounce back without paying for its deliberate mischief. India needs to support global efforts to contain China
While the world struggles to combat the deadly pandemic spread by Covid-19, the dragon nation believed to be the originator and spreader of the deadly virus is busy working out its options to combat the international pressure and campaign launched against it. The nation, which was dreaming of becoming the world leader, is today finding itself pushed to the wall, with most nations joining together and demanding an international inquiry into how the virus emerged out of the Wuhan laboratory and the deliberate delay in sharing information about its existence? The global community holds China responsible for the loss of health and human lives, the damage to the world economy and for the hardships humanity will have to face in a post-COVID world. Beijing is also being questioned over the disappearance of virus whistle-blowers in China and strict censoring of any information pertaining to the outbreak. As expected, China has denied all the allegations and continues to do so amid growing international demands of monetary compensation from it against the Coronavirus damages to the global economy.
Wuhan, which is the epicentre of the Coronavirus crisis, has been on the radar of the global community since long as it was dubbed to be the location of the largest virology laboratory in the world, housing about 1,500 kinds of viruses. It was also rumoured that the US and China were jointly developing the biological agent. The virus is believed to have hit the city in October but by the time the disease became global and Wuhan was locked down in the third week of January, maximum damage had already been done. Two weeks prior to the lockdown, almost five lakh people had left Wuhan for their homes in central China and 18 international destinations. Many of them were carriers of the deadly Coronavirus. The question now being asked as a subject of international inquiry is, “Was it intentional or accidental?”
Why does China find itself in a quagmire today? Despite its counter-offensive and rubbishing of allegations against it, the dragon nation finds itself isolated globally. A peep into recent events in China is essential to understand the same. The connection between the phenomenal rise of Xi Jinping and his autocratic style of functioning by capturing complete power within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and his ambition to make China the number one power in the world and the Wuhan episode is a matter of study. Xi is the most powerful man in China donning three hats of the general secretary of the CCP, president of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) among many other top Governmental posts. In order to make China great again, Xi has enunciated a grand strategy.
At the 19th CCP National Congress in October 2017, Xi announced his ambition of realising the “Chinese dream” of national rejuvenation. He said, “The Chinese nation has stood up, grown rich and is becoming a strong nation. To fulfil our dream, I have set up a timeline with three major target dates. By the party centenary in 2021, China should finish building a moderately prosperous society in all respects. By 2035, China should be much stronger economically and technologically, have become a global leader in innovation, and have completed its military modernisation. By the PRC centenary in 2049, China should have resolved the Taiwan question and be a strong country with world-class forces.” Was the Wuhan experiment part of the grand strategy of Xi? Was it planned as a centenary gift on the occasion of his first timeline of the celebration of the centenary of CCP?
“Winning without fighting” is an old Chinese strategy. It goes to the credit of modern Chinese leadership, including Xi, that they have not ignored the ancient Chinese wisdom but instead imbibed it in their modern thinking and strategies. Ancient Chinese General, strategist and philosopher Sun Tzu liked to win before the other side even knew they had lost. Was Xi trying to emulate the legendary Chinese strategist? China has also mastered the art of “grey zone warfare.” Xi’s grey zone tool kit is expansive and includes “global economic domination” through political and economic coercion. Was the virus intended as a masterstroke to cripple the competing world economies? If it was, Xi has definitely succeeded in his game plan for the time being. While India has always considered the threat from China as a reason to grow, Beijing has always envisaged us as an impediment and existential threat to the fulfilment of the “Chinese dream” and thus an intended target.
To its credit, the US was the first nation to call the Chinese bluff by blaming China and terming the pandemic as the “China virus.” It also questioned the role of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and put it under the scanner, ultimately withdrawing the financial assistance to the global health watchdog. Beijing lost no time in counter-attacking and blaming the US for bringing the virus to China during the World Military Games held in Wuhan in October 2019. It blamed the US for bringing infected soldiers as part of the 300-strong contingent. However, the Chinese argument was not convincing because had it been so, why did the virus not affect other athletes in the American contingent and from other contingents, including the Chinese, and why did it remain confined to Wuhan only?
In view of the prevailing geo-political situation, Iran was the only nation that supported the Chinese charge. Thus, the “conspiracy theory” sold by China as a counter-narrative to the assault by the US and other European nations failed to hold ground. The global community also took notice of the fact that by mid-March, when the rest of the world economies were on the verge of collapse and economists were predicting a worse crisis than 2008-09 or the “Great depression”, Chinese factories had commenced production.
China had begun to re-build its supply lines whereas a lockdown in major parts of the world had brought the global economy to a standstill. Worse than that was the aggressive buying overseas of the majority shares in their companies. It smacked of the real conspiracy since companies in China are also the properties of the CPC. Xi’s dirty ambition was exposed before the world.
India, during this entire crisis, has behaved like an independent, matured nation with paramountcy to its national interests. Many wanted India to join the US in withdrawing financial support to the WHO and echo the global outcry of an international enquiry against China. India did not want to be recognised as a cheerleader of the US or other west European countries but preferred to chart its independent course. India did not openly blame China because the situation demanded no disturbance on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) that may interfere in the nation’s fight against Covid-19. But India lost no time to nip in the bud the evil designs of Chinese companies by making Government nod mandatory for Foreign Direct Investments from neighbouring countries, a move aimed primarily at Chinese firms. Beijing did make a noise, calling it violation of World Trade Organisation norms but India stood firm.
The Indian intelligentsia also played its role in naming and shaming China. Brahma Chellany, a famous China-watcher, minced no words in stating, “The Covid-19 pandemic should be a wake- up call for a world that has accepted China’s lengthening shadow over global supply chains for far too long. It is only by reducing its global economic influence that the world can be kept safe from Chinese political pathologies.”
This outbreak is a golden opportunity for India to realise its ‘Make in India’ ambition and become a global manufacturing hub. India must also remember that power begets respect and compliance and so it must keep its long-term vision in mind and strengthen its armed forces.
As a prelude to revival of the economy, India needs to ensure that its huge workforce stranded in various parts of the country is gainfully employed, thus generating jobs. The Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana package should not turn into a free dole but used to generate employment. Randhir Singh, a Chandigarh-based senior advocate, in a letter addressed to the PM has suggested effective measures to generate employment for migrant labour, which include: Organising them into a manageable workforce based on their skills and experience under retired personnel from uniformed forces as supervisors; employing them in time-bound projects under the local administration to include cleanliness and sanitisation of public places, cooking food in community kitchens, tree plantations, water harvesting, desilting, construction of water tanks and restoration of traditional check dams, loading/unloading of essential supplies, supplementing farm labour and couriers/delivery boys.
The dragon has been pushed to the wall and should not be allowed to bounce back without paying for its deliberate mischief. India needs to complement the global effort and also chart a strategy to contain China in the post-Corona world. India should also bat for a new global treaty to deal with the risks to the future of humanity. There is growing dissent in China. It is the right time to strike when the iron is hot by launching a psy-war campaign against the CPC and Xi.
(Writer: Anil Gupta; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
*Well, we don’t really know if he is dead. Various theories are doing the rounds at the moment
The strange thing about the Kim clan is that according to a legend, they are all descendants of Princess Suriratna, who travelled from a distant kingdom to marry the progenitor of the tribe. If you believe the legend, she came from Ayodhya. Yes, that very same Ayodhya that we know of. Of course, this does not explain anything about the Kim dynasty of North Korea, which ruled like kings in that isolated yet nuclear-capable rogue nation. The founder of the dynasty, Kim Il-Sung, apparently descended from heaven at Mount Paektu, a “holy mountain” near the Korean-Chinese border. The creation myth of the clan obviously borrows from religious texts because the one mistake that most people make is considering North Korea to be a communist State. It may be the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, but in reality the best term to describe North Korea’s governance system is to call it a “theocratic monarchy” where the word of Kim is the law.
That brings us to the latest Kim in the chain, the grandson of the founder, Kim Jong-un and the younger son of Kim Jong-Il. While there is little news about Kim Jong-un of late, with sources in Seoul and Washington contradicting each other and a studied silence from Beijing, one can assume that things are not exactly hunky-dory in Pyongyang. We do not know whether the North Korean leader is dead or not but we must assume he has been incapacitated to some degree. But why are we getting so edgy about his whereabouts? Of course, because he is the leader of a tiny country but boasts of an active and advanced nuclear weapons programme. This brings us to the question, who next for the Kim dynasty? The smart money is on Kim Yo-Jong, Kim Jong-un’s younger sister. We already know that male primogeniture is not the way the clan operates as Kim Jong-un removed his elder (half) brother Kim Jong-Nam through one of the most bizarre assassinations in history at the Kuala Lumpur airport. But then there is “the uncle,” Kim Pyong-Il, who was brought back to Pyongyang last year after being sidelined for almost a decade as Ambassador to various nations. But any intelligence official, who knows what is going on in North Korea, is possibly just as clueless as you or me. The fact is that we have no idea of what will happen next and if Kim Jong-un is really dead or he is just undead. Sorry for the pun but we are still watching events to see who is next to sit on the Kim throne.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
As we grapple with the pandemic, one wonders what happened to the world health watchdog and global governance structures that were built in order to counter this sort of crisis
In the months during which the Coronavirus outbreak has been afoot, it has laid bare the vulnerability and helplessness of an interdependent and interlinked world to the ravages that can be unleashed by a rapidly spreading novel communicable disease. The question one asks at this moment is, why is this so?
What happened to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the global governance structures that were built in order to counter this sort of crisis? Didn’t the world learn anything from the earlier outbreaks of communicable diseases like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Swine flu (H1N1) and so on? The entire healthcare governance at the global level simply crumbled like a house of cards. There is complete disarray and confusion around the world, when ideally global protocols should have been in place to control the spread of the disease.
What has been witnessed during the pandemic is that countries have tended to act independently. More in tune with their domestic requirements (cultural pride, market demands and so on) rather than in a coordinated fashion as part of a global governance network.
On the one hand, the Chinese authorities had sought to suppress information regarding the appearance of the new virus (by some accounts the Chinese are still hiding the real numbers), while on the other hand a unified response to the disease, which was expected from the world and international institutions like the WHO (once its gravity became evident) was completely absent and is absent even today.
Nothing highlights the lack of coordination between countries better than the testing regime for the Coronavirus initiated by South Korea and the US. While South Korea made the testing of CoVID-19 free for its citizens, in the US testing was a paid endeavour in the initial days, which resulted in delayed identification of infected individuals and led to the rapid spread of the disease.
While the Chinese may be at fault in their failure to warn the world about the outbreak of the highly infectious disease right at its onset, their propaganda is correct to an extent that the developed world, with all its technological prowess, has surrendered before the Coronavirus. This begs the question, what has caused the failure of global healthcare governance?
The WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared CoVID-19 as a pandemic (rather late in the day) and asked countries to undertake preventive and protective public health measures that “strike a fine balance between protecting health, preventing economic and social disruption and respecting human rights.”
The WHO, while rightly emphasising the need to respect human rights, appears to have simply laid the responsibility of containing the pandemic along with the responsibility of preventing social and economic disruption, on national healthcare systems, which are patchy and inefficient in most of the developing countries.
Ideally it should have been at the forefront of the Corona war, advising countries on the protocols that needed to be followed. Instead its response was slow, confused and inconsistent. It doesn’t take a genius to imagine what the situation in developing countries would be when developed countries with better healthcare systems were unable to contain the virus.
As the pandemic has shown us, the spread of a contagion in any major economy will have reverberating effects on the entire global economy. Thus it cannot be the job of national governments alone to halt the spread of disease. It has to be a joint effort between the countries with the global health watchdog leading from the front.
However, the statement of the Director-General, which came out rather belatedly, was in the form of a recommendation rather than a concrete plan of action for nations to follow. It indicated a complete lack of power to effectively engage in governance of healthcare around the world and adopt a leadership role in the hour of crisis.
The reason behind the incapacity of the WHO to effectively engage in global healthcare governance appears to be the North-South divide that permeates international relations. This invisible line has divided the world into the global developing South, which comprises the underdeveloped and developing countries and the wealthy, industrialised North.
The countries of the global South are plagued with problems, in differing measure, of poverty, lack of respect for human rights, absence of democratic governance and so on, along with a deep distrust of the industrialised countries, who are perceived to be ready to use every instrument to control policy-making of the developing nations, for their own economic gains.
The developed countries, in the industrialised North on the other hand, have either left the global South to its devices or are attempting to provide strait-jacketed solutions to problems, instead of sharing the global governance space with them, in which an acceptable solution to the problems of the global South could be arrived at.
This exclusion of the South from participation has further fuelled the perception that developed countries are only interested in subverting governance of developing nations for their own economic gains. CoVID-19 has rudely awakened the world to the fact that the dividing line between the global North and South is not so wide as it appears to be and the North cannot ignore the problems of the South — be it human rights violations or poor healthcare — as something alien to them.
What is the solution then? The existing global governance architecture has fallen woefully short in managing the interdependencies and integration between countries. This is partly due to the speed of globalisation which accentuates these interdependencies and partly due to the Westphalian principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States.
What is required at this juncture is a novel governance model which is based on international cooperation. This governance model should respect sovereignty but only to the extent that it does not cause hindrance in addressing transnational challenges that may require a global coordinated response.
Global governance implicitly mandates a certain level of international intervention which is contrary to the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention in each other’s affairs. In addition, this governance model would also have to address the asymmetries existing in the present structure of governance which lead to a participation deficit of developing countries in global norm creation, thereby accentuating inequalities between nations.
This new model should genuinely attempt to fulfill the mandate of Article III of the United Nations Charter which provides that there should be “international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”
In the case of the present pandemic, while it is obvious that China is squarely to be blamed for the mayhem around the globe, the immediate requirement is that the WHO as an international organisation should be reformed as has been stated by the US, India and Australia.
The need for global healthcare governance has to be realised and the WHO should be vested with this responsibility.
For discharging this duty, the WHO should be provided with the necessary financial and human resources to address the issue of governance of healthcare around the world. The administration of the WHO should be made more broad-based and representative of global realities by increasing the participation of the global South in the organisation.
At a political level, it may be provided with similar administrative powers as are available to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) where it can direct a proper course of action instead of merely making recommendations that the countries may or may not follow.
Dilution of political borders is a reality and not just in the field of politics, finance and cyberworld but in the field of social and physical integration. The problems of countries, starting with basic healthcare, have to be addressed at a global level.
The earlier the world, both the and South, realises this, the better it would be for everyone around.
(Writer: VEER, MAYANK, NIDHI SAXENA ; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
For those who will survive the Covid-19 era, it will be another chance to look at the fundamentals of a civilised life
One of the biggest industries currently is forecasting the future of a post-Coronavirus world. Various themes are being touted — “Revival to survival”, “Covid-19: A learning opportunity for higher education”, “Coping with uncertainty” and many more. The online world has seldom been so vibrant. Everyone has something to say. Right from psychiatrists, public opinion leaders, journalists, statisticians, industrial lobbyists and of course public speakers. The world is teeming with futurologists, forecasters and many more breeds yet to be named. The danger of anyone being proved wrong is very little because the future is not here yet.
However, one thing is certain, the passing away of the Coronavirus is not in doubt. One doesn’t have to be blessed with psychic powers to realise that like everything else “this too shall pass.”
The question therefore is not, if this shall pass, the question is when? And at what cost? It is the uncertainty of it all that is gripping, worrying and more. Since a large number of the vectors are asymptomatic and possible solutions are still in the works, one doesn’t know where it will strike, who it will strike and indeed when. As one prepares to go to the press, much is being made of the “silent carriers.” Anyone can be a vector, as the act of living requires human interaction. Some news channels will have us believe that wholesale vegetable markets are one of the major centres of virus exchange. Life cannot go on without vegetables, certainly not for as long a period as the present lockdown seems to be headed for. The moment vegetables are washed (an obvious wash is through food grade hydrogen peroxide), somebody promptly reminds us of the ill-effects of chemicals. And there another anxiety race starts.
Summer is almost upon us. Some might even argue that it has already arrived. In certain segments, a debate has been generated over the use of air conditioners. Apparently, the Central Public Works Department has even developed guidelines regarding the proper use of air conditioning and ventilation. It has thoughts on “how to operate air conditioning and ventilation systems to control the spread of the Coronavirus in residences, work spaces and healthcare facilities.” Social media is full of forwards on how a family in China got infected by the virus due to the use of air conditioners. Notwithstanding this, air conditioner servicing firms are swamped by calls as people want their cooling systems in working condition. In some residences/offices air conditioners are already being used. However, this is not the space to resolve these dilemmas over the use of air conditioners, visits to wholesale vegetable markets and so on. But it is safe to say that there is no written record available of such uncertainty and anxiety affecting almost every part of the globe in the past. Even the animal kingdom has not been spared and there have been reports coming in of even felines, big cats in zoos and the ubiquitous alley kind, being affected by the Coronavirus.
Clearly, it is also a field day for fake news. This, again, may not be the best place for such a discussion and moreover, many news channels are already doing their bit to spread/dispel it. Be that as it may, a few things are gradually taking shape. As and when Covid-19 passes away, there will be an opportunity to rebuild the world. The contours of that world are currently confined to populist images of clear river waters, blue skies and pollution-free air (but the powers that be are recommending masks even at home going forward). The “power” of the prescription is rooted in the authority of the signatory. Some find it confusing but that would only be if they are looking for consistent “reason.” It is important to realise that there are many things in life which happen without an obvious “reason”, the way we understand the word.
Yet, given the prevailing environment, one would like to hazard a guess towards certain directions of growth in the near future. For one, the areas of dominance in the world of science will undergo some recalibration. The world of information technology will have strong competition from the field of pharmacology. In the coming few years, vaccines and medical devices will draw high talent. The nature of shipping itself may undergo a change. A possible reduction in ship-port calls may emerge. Warehousing as a business may experience a boom. Capacities of shipping through land, sea or air may need a serious review. Some of this may happen; some of this may get refracted.
As of now, certain things stare us in the face. Refineries are slowing down; there is a worldwide oil production cut. In certain cases, prices are down by nearly 90 per cent. Almost overnight, the thirst for oil has vanished as the world stays locked down.
Capital may not necessarily flow to large “sizes of canvas” but to the less-battered economies. For those who will survive the Covid-19 era, (and clearly many will), it will be another chance to look at the fundamentals of civilised life again. Till then patience cannot be an overrated virtue.
(Writer: Vinayshil Gautam; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
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)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month