South China Morning Post

13. US rivalry with Russia and China is reawakening the politics of non-alignment

January 25, 2023

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Following the end of World War II, with the world split into a Western bloc led by the US and an Eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union, nations torn between the two established a new alliance known as the non-aligned movement. At the height of the Cold War and amid the rise of global independence movements, the first official summit of the non-aligned movement was held on September 1, 1961 as representatives from 25 countries and three observer states gathered in Belgrade, in part of what is now Serbia.

President Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia launched the movement with his counterparts Sukarno of Indonesia, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India. The primary objectives of non-alignment were to make sure that countries did not centre their national interests around international politics in terms of ideological aims or goals established elsewhere, and to ensure that countries maintained strategic autonomy to pursue their national development goals, as the cornerstone for establishing a just and equitable global order.

The non-aligned movement supported the security and sovereignty of its members, who were primarily from the Global South and opposed colonialism, imperialism, and foreign intervention. In a bipolar world, the non-aligned movement gave newly independent nations ways to exercise their political and economic autonomy. When the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, one of the founding premises of movement became infructuous. As the Warsaw Pact led by the Soviets dismantled, the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) became the only remaining functional military alliance.

Three decades later, the world appears again split. This time, a binary has developed with China and Russia on one side and the West, led by the US, on the other. At the same time, however, most African, Asian, and Latin American nations are profoundly concerned by the prospect of having to pick a side, as evidenced by their responses to Russia’s war on Ukraine. China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates are among the nations that have resisted giving up their own interests to punish Russia. Most significantly, many of these countries think that their negotiating positions in the new cold war could entice trade, technology, and arms agreements from the West. By 2030, the populations and economies of these eight nations will make up three-fourths of the world.

The international context in which the non-aligned movement was created has undergone a significant transformation. The movement must recognise and respond to this new reality, its focus shifting from balancing rival powers to maintaining global links in an era of economic interdependence.The non-aligned movement has been marginalised by international leadership organisations such as the G7 and G20 and their dominant roles in matters like global governance, peacekeeping, and international finance. Hence, in light of the political uncertainty that has emerged as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and sanctions by the West, non-aligned countries are attempting to negotiate within this new economic regime and find ways to benefit from it.

Three of the largest democracies in the emerging Global South – India, Brazil and South Africa – abstained from voting to condemn the invasion at a special session of the UN General Assembly last March, as did numerous countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. In addition, 58 countries abstained from the vote to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council. Many have also chosen not to ratify Western sanctions in order to continue conducting business with Russia. China is similarly viewed as a crucial economic partner.

The international system is undergoing alterations in power, and by all accounts, a new cold war is around the corner. China and Russia have both been designated as threats by the US. Potential allies are hedging, and there is no effective coalition defending the interests of the vulnerable and poor. To reboot the non-aligned movement is to give it a new purpose. The current order does not address the needs of the Global South regarding security, existential concerns about food and other commodities, or global threats like climate change. Nations that view global polarisation as an impairment to their interests are drawn to non-alignment – or, to use its more contemporary phrase, strategic autonomy – in these unsettling times. The non-aligned movement’s mandate could be expanded to address current global concerns such as greenhouse gas emissions, cyberthreats, health vulnerabilities, rising debt and poverty rates, the food crisis, and unemployment.

In their fresh efforts to forge an autonomous path, postcolonial powers shouldn’t be undervalued by either the West or China and Russia. This new de facto non-aligned movement may prove more effective than the previous one, not least because of the fact that a large portion of the developing world has made significant progress since the Cold War and is now less vulnerable to external shocks.

These countries’ increased resilience is a result of advancements in their political, security, and economic architecture. Hence, a newly revamped non-aligned movement would need a well-defined geopolitical structure and strategic approach to position itself as a viable coalition of countries driven together by their common socio-economic interests as well as political aspirations.

 https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3207852/us-rivalry-russia-and-china-reawakening-politics-non-alignment 

14. Japan’s history and G7 presidency make it an ideal champion of denuclearisation

December 23, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The United States and the Soviet Union started developing fusion weapons after US atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Nuclear stockpiles peaked in 1986 with more than 64,000 warheads. Today, the US and Russia own around 90 per cent of all nuclear warheads.

The US, Russia, China, France, Britain, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea combined hold close to 13,000 nuclear weapons. An additional 27 countries “endorse” nuclear armament by allowing the potential use of nuclear weapons on their behalf as part of defence alliances.

The B83 gravity bomb – the world’s most potent weapon currently in service – is about 80 times more powerful than the “Little Boy” bomb which killed tens of thousands of people in Hiroshima.

Nuclear disarmament has taken wavering directions since 1945. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was created in 1957 to ensure the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The United Nations established the framework of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which the US, Soviet Union and Britain signed in 1968.

Non-proliferation improved with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, with Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons by 1992. Other important developments include North Korea’s withdrawal from the NPT and Iran’s uranium enrichment programme. India’s race to the Nuclear Suppliers Group also raised questions as, unlike other members, it is not an NPT signatory.

Nuclear weapons are humanity’s most dangerous weapon. They can destroy lives and ecosystems, creating a nuclear winter and food shortages as the spread and duration of radioactivity is uncontrollable. There are no mechanisms or agencies equipped to deal with the catastrophic effects of a nuclear war.

The Ukraine war been escalating with Russian missile and drone attacks, along with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s occasional nuclear threat. The nuclear deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) – the condition that a nuclear attack might be reciprocated – has helped prevent World War III. To quote Winston Churchill, “safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation”.

Since it has been paused after the end of the Cold War, MAD lacks teeth in the context of modern, differently waged wars. The Ukraine war questions the efficacy of MAD as Russian expansionism in its neighbourhood dwarfs the possibility of any potential nuclear retaliation from Nato.

On the other hand, countries such as North Korea and Iran have felt emboldened by the possibility of nuclear arms acquisition as an effective deterrence against any possible attack, as they could not be brought under any formal or informal regulatory framework.

Japan adopted the Western model of industrialisation to restart its economy after World War II. The US-Japan relationship has since remained mutually beneficial, wherein Japan would focus on redevelopment and the US provided security. For more than 70 years, Japan has remained pacifist.

However, former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe supported abandoning those pacifist values, something that has gained relevance with nuclear-armed North Korea firing ballistic missiles over Japan. While Japan relies on the US nuclear deterrent, some worry that Tokyo’s pacifism makes it vulnerable to external threats. With the world’s third-largest economy and great international political capital, the question is how long Japan can afford to uphold the pacifist values enshrined in Article 9 of its constitution.

Such a policy could have unforeseen consequences in the cyber era as the rules of engagement are changing rapidly. In cyber warfare, neither the status quo nor complacency will serve the interests of any country well in an ecosystem where activism is the key weapon for any aggressor.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has introduced a five-step “Hiroshima Action Plan” to create a world without nuclear weapons. It involves shared recognition of the cause, increased transparency by nuclear states, continuing to decrease the global stockpile of nuclear weapons, securing non-proliferation while promoting peaceful use of nuclear energy and encouraging better understanding of the realities of nuclear weapons.

He expressed an intention to use the 2023 Group of 7 summit for the same, choosing Hiroshima as the venue.

Japan is the third-largest financial contributor to the UN, and its support is aimed at securing peace, security and disarmament. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has expressed optimism about Japan’s leadership on global issues, including peacekeeping on the occasion of its G7 presidency and UN Security Council membership.

Apart from calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, Japan has stayed the course in its efforts for non-proliferation and peacekeeping. In line with this vision, Kishida also attended the first leaders’ meeting of the Friends of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty group.

As the only country to be the victim of a nuclear attack and then have constitutionally underpinned pacifist values, Japan is in a unique position to lead the global discourse on the dangers of nuclear rhetoric, as well as the dire consequences of any potential nuclear attack.

Given its previous G20 presidency in 2019 and current G7 leadership, the country has both the global clout and the moral high ground to pursue dialogue towards denuclearisation with the world’s eminent nuclear powers, which includes the US, Russia, China and others. Will Japan rise to the occasion to lead from the front or continue to shy away from the bold leadership that the current reality demands?

https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3204074/japans-history-and-g7-presidency-make-it-ideal-champion-denuclearisation 

15. India must play to its strengths to lead the G20 through another year of geopolitical challenges

December 10, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

On December 1, India took over the G20 leadership from Indonesia. A member of the group since its founding in 1999, India will now preside over the G20 into 2023.

With its entrepreneurial spirit, abundance of talent, and ambitious foray into the global economy, India has solidified its position as a leader among developing economies in guiding international development cooperation and bolstering multilateralism. To be sure, the political and economic difficulties now facing the international community are numerous. The Ukraine war has strained relations between Russia and Western countries, most of which are G20 members. Meanwhile, the sanctions imposed on Russia have negatively affected food, oil and gas prices, holding back post-pandemic global recovery.

Amid such geopolitical divides, getting the leaders at this year’s G20 summit in Bali to sign a single document was an extraordinary feat in itself for host Indonesia. Indonesian President Joko Widodo’s focus on the global economic impact of both the Russian-Ukraine conflict and the pandemic, coupled with the absence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, helped attendees reach a joint declaration.

India similarly aims to develop pragmatic solutions for the well-being of populations worldwide, in the spirit of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (the world is one family). The transformation of India’s economy, especially the rise of its green and digital sectors, has shaped India’s vision for global development, while the effects of the pandemic have highlighted the necessity of robust healthcare infrastructure and international cooperation.

G20 is a window for the world’s fifth largest economy to streamline critical global issues, keep the focus on long-term strategic goals, and strengthen North-South and South-South cooperation. It is noteworthy that for four consecutive years, developing economies will be in the driving seat of the G20: Indonesia in 2022, India in 2023, Brazil in 2024 and South Africa in 2025. This provides the space needed to begin work on issues that are key for developing nations, from framing principles for digital payment systems to reforming multilateral development banks.

The thrust of the Indonesian G20 presidency, “recover together, recover stronger”, aimed to push the world towards robust and systemic participation, concentrating on global healthcare architecture, the sustainable energy transition and digital transformation. India can build on this by offering an inclusive vision of prosperity, providing a strong gender lens to the development agenda, and fostering climate action – which appeared to have lost momentum at the recently concluded COP27.

Equally important is the task of connecting the dotted lines between cross-cutting issues like propelling growth while safeguarding environment, promoting the transition from fossil fuels to renewables while strengthening access to electricity for all, and bridging the digital divide while developing a governance ecosystem for the cyber world.

India has the social fabric and intellectual capital to lead and deliver on these vital global issues; the question is whether Indian diplomacy can rise to the occasion to effectively support G20 engagement throughout the year with an inclusive and action-oriented global agenda framework.

In other words, the current G20 troika of Indonesia-India-Brazil have their work cut out in a period marked by the need for post-pandemic recovery and by the fallouts from the Ukraine war.

Given its close relations with both the US and Russia, one of the biggest challenges for India will be to persuade Russia and Ukraine’s Western supporters to retreat from the battleground. If successful, the second obstacle – rising costs, primarily for food, and the subsequent cascade into wider global inflation – is expected to taper down as well.

Meanwhile, the presence of US President Joe Biden and Chinese president Xi Jinping within the G20 gives India a window to promote peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific by persuading the two rivals to agree to some fundamental rules of engagement in the region. From ensuring maritime security in the Indian and Pacific oceans to freer and fairer trade at a time of weakened multilateralism and global recession, there is much for the two giants to discuss in the coming year.

As a host nation located in the heart of the Indo-Pacific, India has a unique opportunity to facilitate one of the most important political discourses within the G20. This will require India to go beyond simply setting an agenda and facilitating meetings; it must pursue effective and backchannel diplomacy away from the fanfare of the media.

India’s commitment to international collaboration, inclusive development, financial stability, and sustainable growth is consistent with its own national objectives and the broader G20 goals. The G20’s recent struggles to agree on basic communiqués, which have negatively affected its ability to operate and maintain the integrity of its core agenda, have led to its credibility being called into question.

India’s diplomatic acumen will be put to the test given the need to hear all perspectives in a severely divided multipolar world, while steering a course for compromise to reach a unified stance on the critical global issues that brought the 20 countries together in the first place.

As the world’s largest democracy in a period of severe geopolitical and economic uncertainty, India has the chance to demonstrate global leadership and statesmanship. Whether India can rise to the occasion remains to be seen.

https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3202254/india-must-play-its-strengths-lead-g20-through-another-year-geopolitical-challenges 

16. COP27: absent leaders and fossil fuel lobby weaken climate change fight

Novermber 17, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The latest UN climate change conference, COP27, is taking place with record-breaking drought in the Horn of Africa, famine warnings in Somalia and one-third of Pakistan devastated by deadly floods.

One of the central issues being debated is challenges that many developing countries face on the front lines of the climate disaster, despite accounting for a relatively smaller percentage of global emissions.

These countries are advocating for a “loss and damage” fund for offsetting damage previously incurred. Growing threats of conflict, global warming and economic crises are taking a toll on every continent, striking the Earth’s most vulnerable the hardest. The bone of contention in this year’s negotiations is the issue of what wealthy, industrialised nations, which produce most of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, owe to those suffering the most from climate threats.

As host, Egypt aspired to project itself as a leader in renewable energy, a popular tourist destination and a credible player on the global stage. It has made an effort to position itself as the developing world’s climate champion. However, those initiatives appeared at odds with the nation’s alarming human rights and environmental records.

Additionally, the protests which were a common occurrence at previous climate summits, have been conspicuously absent in Egypt, in part because of tight security measures and the conference site’s distance from major cities.

As it becomes difficult for many people to live healthily on a warming planet, there are increasing calls for wealthy countries to pay climate-vulnerable nations. Rich countries have long opposed the establishment of a fund to address loss and damage, despite producing most of the historical greenhouse gas emissions.

Although underlings are negotiating, the leaders of China and India – two of the top three greenhouse gas-emitting countries – did not attend the conference in Egypt.

US President Joe Biden, the head of the second-largest polluting nation, arrived in Sharm el-Sheikh days after most other leaders. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also passed on a chance to demonstrate leadership in the struggle against climate change.

Even Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who has spent the last six months portraying Australia as a climate leader, upheld his decision to not attend COP27. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had first planned not to go, but he changed his mind after pressure from the public and the decision to attend by Boris Johnson.

Even Greta Thunberg, the Swedish climate campaigner who has previously attended conferences, decided not to go this time. She characterised the occasion as “more greenwashing, lying and cheating” by those in positions of authority.

Last year, given the strained relationship of COP26 host Britain with both Russia and China, it might not have been a surprise that neither President Xi Jinping nor Russian President Vladimir Putin attended the conference. In contrast, Russia and China both enjoy friendly relations with Egypt with increasing economic cooperation, leaving others wondering where Egyptian climate diplomacy went wrong.

Perhaps they wanted to avoid getting embroiled in climate change talks when neither has much appetite to give up either selling or consuming fossil fuels, being caught up in economic recession or having to finance a war.

Although previous climate change meetings did not often culminate in implementation of climate policies, even critics still saw value in participating.

There have been more than 600 fossil fuel lobbyists, 25 per cent more than the previous year and outnumbering any single frontline community affected by climate change. COP27 saw a dramatic increase in attendees from some of the world’s biggest, most polluting oil and gas companies, signifying growing influence of the fossil fuel industry on the debate.

At a time when scientists think it is necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change by keeping global temperature increases under 1.5 degrees Celsius, civil society organisations are concerned by the growing influence of fossil fuel lobbyists which could stall negotiations at a crucial time.

The ability of affluent nations to deliver on reparations – a contentious subject that is viewed as a key issue of climate justice – will largely determine the success or failure of the UN’s flagship climate summit. Little has changed over the years, but rich nations have indicated they will now walk the talk about new loss and damage finance methods.

The question is how these nations will send a credible signal that they will adapt and assist others when their absence damages the significance that COP27 deserves.

There have been numerous decisions and agreements made over time. Most of these agreements have finance at their core, and lack of funding is the main reason most agreements fail.

The purpose of these conferences is for nations to address climate change, and the yearly series of conferences continues to be the only arena for doing so. However, they work by consensus among nearly 200 nations which have diverse viewpoints.

Within this decade, radical transformation is required for both mitigation and adaptation, and the necessity for this action is emphasised when nations come together at COP27. Rising absenteeism by those whose meaningful presence can have a positive influence on the deliberations, discussions and debate and the growing presence of those from the opposite side of the aisle does not help either the case or credibility of climate action and COP27.

https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3199643/cop27-absent-leaders-and-fossil-fuel-lobby-weaken-climate-change-fight

17. Amid global divisions, Indonesia faces a daunting task to achieve G20 consensus

October 29, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

For the first time, Indonesia holds the G20 presidency. Its motto, “Recover Together, Recover Stronger,” selected in light of the pandemic, calls for collaborative and inclusive efforts for global recovery.

Strengthening cooperation between the world’s major established economies and emerging economies is the G20’s main goal this year. Specialised task forces are working to identify gaps in recovery from the Covid-19 crisis, and promote inclusive and sustainable growth in G20 countries and beyond.

Indonesia is focusing on collaboration in three areas essential for recovery: fostering a robust global health system; maximising digital technology to assist societal transformation; and, supporting an equitable and affordable transition to renewable energy and a circular economy. Indonesian President Joko Widodo has emphasised on various occasions the importance of “leaving no one behind”.

Intent on diversifying the image of the G20, Widodo wants Indonesia’s turn at the helm to benefit vulnerable populations, small island nations and developing economies, in addition to G20 members. A high priority is being given to aiding underdeveloped nations in Asia, Africa and South America, as well as the small island states in the Pacific and Caribbean.

But this year’s summit, scheduled for November in Bali, is taking place amid rising tensions between key G20 member states. With the conflict between Russia and Ukraine still unresolved, Indonesia is in a difficult position.

Political divisions within the G20 are at an all-time high, with growing concern over Russia’s participation in the summit and the possibility that Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden may meet in person for the first time since Russia invaded Ukraine.

China has so far refused to condemn the Russian invasion, abstaining from voting on the Ukraine issue on a number of occasions at the United Nations, and maintaining a “no limits” friendship with Moscow.

There have been demands from some quarters for the summit to exclude Putin and other Russian representatives from its sessions. As a result of Widodo’s shuttle diplomacy efforts, there is also the possibility that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky may be present at the summit alongside Putin. If so, it would be the first occasion for the leaders to share a platform since the beginning of the war in February.

In the face of numerous globally interconnected crises, one would expect international cooperation to be stronger than ever. Instead, widening geopolitical divides will make it difficult for Indonesia to steer leaders towards a consensus in addressing pressing global issues.

Compromise is becoming increasingly difficult, particularly at the G20 level. The G20 meeting of finance ministers and governors of central banks in July was overshadowed by disagreements about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and ended without a joint communique. There is growing apprehension over whether the leaders convening in Bali in November will do any better.

The conflict between Ukraine and Russia has already had an effect on the global economy, complicating G20 agenda items like energy security and prices, food security and global supply chains, financial markets and inflationary pressures. Progress on these issues and others is now being held hostage by the G20’s lack of cohesion.

Climate action is also being put on hold, despite massive worldwide public pressure. G20 nations are divided on how to prepare for the transition to sustainable energy. Indonesia has the opportunity to show them the way.

As the G20 leadership summit is preceded by the COP27 climate conference in Egypt, Indonesia needs to demonstrate smart climate diplomacy to address disparities in G20 states’ economies, levels of expertise, and societal expectations with relation to a green energy transition.

Locally, Indonesia has launched a number of initiatives to develop renewable energy sources like solar, wind and hydropower. However, the Southeast Asian nation’s reliance on coal for its economy makes it difficult to strike a balance between the need for economic growth and renewable energy aspirations.

Indonesia is the world’s eighth-largest carbon emitter. In comparison to other G20 countries, its renewable energy sector is small, making it difficult to lead by example on this issue.

No less than the future of humanity is at risk because of crises like the Ukraine war, energy insecurity, inflation, climate change, biodiversity loss, and the multipronged challenges facing developing nations.

Entering the post-pandemic era, G20 nations must work together to build a more responsive global health architecture, transition to renewable energy sources, create inclusive financial systems and bridge the global digital divide.

In a world marred by war and still reeling from the longest pandemic in living memory, setting common agendas and attainable action plans will be a challenge for Indonesia.

At the same time, however, November’s summit gives the Southeast Asian country a unique opportunity to demonstrate global leadership and advocate for unity at a time when division and disconnect are becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Link: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/asia/article/3197307/amid-global-divisions-indonesia-faces-daunting-task-achieve-g20-consensus

18. Under King Charles, the future of the Commonwealth looks uncertain

September 18, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Commonwealth of Nations, a group of 56 member states comprising mostly former territories of the British Empire, is home to 2.5 billion people – a third of the global population – and represents US$13.1 trillion in gross domestic product. The group also hosts 32 of the world’s smallest 42 states.

There are still 15 Commonwealth realms where the British monarch remains the head of state, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and multiple island nations of the Pacific and the Caribbean. Yet the death of Queen Elizabeth raises uncertainty over what the future holds for the group, and in particular over the role of the British royal family.

The Commonwealth dates back to a meeting in 1926 between Britain’s King George V – grandfather of Elizabeth – and the leaders of the United Kingdom and six Dominions (semi-independent territories that had the British monarch as head of state), where it was agreed that each country should be regarded as autonomous and equal. The declaration was made official in 1931.

In 1949, the Commonwealth was updated to allow nations that wanted to become republics, like India, to keep their membership, leading to its current configuration. Although the Commonwealth was formed to create unity among former and current British territories, it remains a symbol of Britain’s colonial history. For many, it is a reminder of the economic inequality that exists among former British colonies. As former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad said in 2015, “the ‘wealth’ is not ‘common’ at all, it belongs to only four members and the rest are poor”.

The group is facing mounting challenges. For one, there are ideological differences between member nations that date back to the period of colonial rule. Second, in more recent decades, nations have prioritised other international groupings – both economic and regional – that promised greater diplomatic and economic value, reducing the Commonwealth’s importance. Third, movement within the Commonwealth has become more restricted since Britain introduced visas, discouraging the notion of a “common wealth”.

Lastly, the British monarchy has failed to make amends for its colonial past, having provided no reparations to Caribbean nations for the injustices of slavery, and offered no formal apology either for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919 in India ordered by then Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, or for the Bengal famine of 1943. These unhealed wounds have divided the Commonwealth further.

Objections to the British monarchy have been growing stronger among citizens of the Commonwealth; many are unwilling to recognise a monarch as the head of democratic nations. Prince William and his wife Kate’s recent Caribbean tour was not received positively, with protests breaking out in host nations.

Public sentiment is lukewarm in larger, wealthier nations, too. In Canada, 51 per cent of the population opposes having the British monarch as the country’s head of state. Australia has been pushing for a referendum on becoming a republic since 1999, while New Zealand’s prime minister Jacinda Ardern has said she expects the country to become a republic in the next few decades. Last week, anti-royal protesters gathered in Scotland and England following the death of Queen Elizabeth, reflecting the waning national popularity of the British royal family.

Given that Barbados has already removed the British monarch as its head of state and Jamaica plans to do the same by 2025, the death of Queen Elizabeth could serve as a catalyst for more Commonwealth realms to follow suit.

Indeed, the queen – the longest-reigning monarch in British history – was a powerful symbol of Commonwealth unity among its leaders. King Charles faces a challenging task in keeping the Commonwealth together.

At 73, Charles is the oldest person to take the British throne. Along with the sovereign title, he inherits the position of head of the Commonwealth, and 14 of its nations (the Commonwealth realms) will automatically regard him as their new head of state. This transition, although only ceremonial, is not voted on by the citizens of these realms, raising issues of legitimacy in democratic countries that include a G7 member (Canada) and a G20 nation (Australia).

While the Commonwealth realms retained the British monarch as their head of state during Queen Elizabeth’s reign, they might not choose to do the same for King Charles. The new king has had his fair share of episodes that could make Commonwealth realm leaders uncomfortable. For instance, receiving 3 million euros (US$3.2 million) in bags of cash from the former prime minister of Qatar as a donation to his charitable fund and £1 million (US$1.1 million) from the family of Osama bin Laden did little to boost Charles’ public image. Further dampening public perception is the king’s strained relations with the immensely popular late Princess Diana.

Should the Commonwealth realms renounce the British monarchy, there is a high possibility that other member nations will gradually lose interest in the group. As the new head of the Commonwealth, King Charles must work hard to restore the faith of member nations of the Commonwealth, address the long-held grievances of former British colonies, and make his role in the Commonwealth meaningful, not just ceremonial.

The British crown can expect more scrutiny as it moves beyond the Elizabethan era. The new king must be prepared for an uphill struggle.

Weblink: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3192706/under-king-charles-future-commonwealth-looks-uncertain?module=opinion&pgtype=homepage

19. Australia’s climate change challenge: safeguard jobs while moving away from fossil fuels

August 22, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Australia is one of the most susceptible places on Earth to the effects of climate change. Record-high monthly and seasonal temperatures across the continent have led to severe droughts, forest fires, floods and other extreme weather events. Rising sea levels threaten livelihoods, infrastructure and housing. In the future, we can expect more of the same.

Australia’s surface temperature has increased by 1.4 degrees Celsius and open ocean regions have warmed by 1 degree, resulting in unbearable heatwaves. These heatwaves, stronger and more frequent than in the past, have claimed more lives lately than all other natural catastrophes in the country combined.

Australia was hit hard by bushfires during the summer of 2019-20 – the worst in the nation’s recorded history. Thirty-three people died, 3,094 dwellings were damaged, and up to 19 million hectares of land were burnt, of which some 12.6 million hectares were native forest and bushland. Australia is now suffering from severe droughts that last 5-20 per cent longer than usual. In Tasmania alone, rainfall is expected to decrease by up to 69 per cent.

More than 80 per cent of Australia’s mammals are unique to the continent, which is known for its diverse flora and fauna. In just the past five years, 175 plant and animal species have been listed as environmentally threatened. If prompt action is not taken to stop the continent’s drastically declining environmental health, this richness could be lost forever.

It’s no wonder, then, that climate change has become one of the most difficult and divisive topics in Australian politics. The country is sensitive both to the effects of climate change and to policies which attempt to mitigate them.

In 2019, following prolonged droughts, destructive floods and bushfires, Australian voters were expected to give the country’s Labor party a mandate to pursue its ambitious goals for renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction. Instead, Labor’s bold environmental plans were successfully demonised by the opposing Liberal-National Coalition.

Liberal leader Scott Morrison called restrictions on the country’s massive coal industry “reckless” and “job-destroying”. Representatives of the lucrative industry, which accounts for a third of global coal exports and provides employment in crucial swing electoral regions, supported Morrison’s government and voters backed his faith in fossil fuels.

This time around, Australians’ strong desire for progressive climate policies won out, bringing an end to the Liberal-National Coalition’s nine years in power. The result of the federal election in May highlights the rise in public concern about climate change and, since taking power, the Labor government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has made tackling the issue a priority.

Still, the party has presented voters with reform, rather than revolution, on climate, learning from its bitter experience in the 2019 elections. Despite being eye-catching, Labor’s proposal of a government-owned entity called “Rewiring the Nation Corporation”, which comes with an investment of AU$20 billion (US$13.8 billion) to modernise the power grid and unlock renewable energy supplies, is unlikely to bring about the changes needed without also expanding divisive policies like carbon pricing.

The government’s first piece of climate change legislation was approved by the Australian House of Representatives on August 4. It sets two national targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions: a 43 per cent cut from 2005 levels by 2030, and a reduction to “net zero” by 2050.

The bill stresses that the 2030 objective is just the beginning, and more steps will be taken. It also mandates that several government bodies take the targets into account when making investment decisions. After years of inaction, the world’s third-largest exporter of fossil fuels has finally decided to confront global warming.

The bill also gives power back to the Climate Change Authority (CCA), an organisation responsible for providing independent policy advice, after it was sidelined by the previous coalition government. The authority will now provide advice on the status of Australia’s climate targets and set new targets for 2035 further down the line. If the government fails to follow the advice, it will be required to publicly explain why.

The ousted coalition party has, unsurprisingly, rejected the new climate bill and declared that it will instead come up with its own proposals, which could include advocating the use of nuclear power.

Of course, Labor’s climate policies are not without their flaws, and some specifics still need to be fleshed out. For one, the aim to cut emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 remains below the 50-75 per cent range which experts recommend. Albanese has also made clear that his government will not support a total ban on fossil fuel projects.

Indeed, fossil fuels will continue to drive the country’s economy, at least until a shift to renewables takes place. The new government will take over 114 new coal and gas projects from the previous leadership, which are likely to cause a sharp rise in Australia’s emissions. But devising strategies which allow communities that currently depend economically on fossil fuels to also profit from renewable energy initiatives won’t be easy.

Australia’s changing climate poses a substantial challenge to the government, businesses, industries, communities and individuals. Despite Labor riding to power on the growing environmental concerns of voters, Australia’s climate change battle must still be fought on two fronts – political and economic. Unless good policies can be combined with good economics, the country will struggle to address the environmental perils it faces.

Moreover, in a country where elected governments only serve a three-year term, making concrete progress is a tall order when dealing with something as complex, far-reaching and long-term as climate change.

Weblink: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3189346/australias-climate-change-challenge-safeguard-jobs-while-moving

20. Executions in Myanmar, plight of Rohingya in Bangladesh reflect poorly on Asean diplomacy

July 31, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

A year and a half after Myanmar’s military takeover, the country has carried out its first executions in decades. It announced on Monday that four men had been executed. Among them were a former National League for Democracy lawmaker and a pro-democracy activist, accused of aiding “terror acts” in a closed-door trial.

Myanmar’s governing military defended the executions as “justice for the people”, while the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) has denounced them. A statement issued by Cambodia, the current Asean chair, described the use of the death penalty “just a week before the 55th Asean ministerial meeting” as “highly reprehensible” and damaging to regional efforts to establish peace in Myanmar.

Such a rebuke from Asean is rare. Although Myanmar’s military junta was at first prohibited from attending high-level Asean meetings, more recently this stance appears to have shifted. Indeed, the presence of junta representatives at the Asean Defence Ministers’ meeting in June has called into question Asean’s commitment to upholding the democratic rights of Myanmar’s population.

Asean has been criticised before for sidelining human rights in the pursuit of economic integration. In 2017, the 50th anniversary of the bloc’s founding, Teddy Baguilat, a board member of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), called on the group to strengthen its rights framework: “We must push back against moves of autocrats and populist leaders to demonise human rights advocates and trivialise human rights issues”.

A year and a half after Myanmar’s military takeover, the country has carried out its first executions in decades. It announced on Monday that four men had been executed. Among them were a former National League for Democracy lawmaker and a pro-democracy activist, accused of aiding “terror acts” in a closed-door trial.

Myanmar’s governing military defended the executions as “justice for the people”, while the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) has denounced them. A statement issued by Cambodia, the current Asean chair, described the use of the death penalty “just a week before the 55th Asean ministerial meeting” as “highly reprehensible” and damaging to regional efforts to establish peace in Myanmar.

Such a rebuke from Asean is rare. Although Myanmar’s military junta was at first prohibited from attending high-level Asean meetings, more recently this stance appears to have shifted. Indeed, the presence of junta representatives at the Asean Defence Ministers’ meeting in June has called into question Asean’s commitment to upholding the democratic rights of Myanmar’s population.

Asean has been criticised before for sidelining human rights in the pursuit of economic integration. In 2017, the 50th anniversary of the bloc’s founding, Teddy Baguilat, a board member of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), called on the group to strengthen its rights framework: “We must push back against moves of autocrats and populist leaders to demonise human rights advocates and trivialise human rights issues”.

Among Asean member states, bilateral approaches to Myanmar have varied. Thailand, for example, has been more upfront in recognising the junta’s power; the outgoing Thai ambassador to Myanmar met Senior General Min Aung Hlaing in March.

As for achieving the Five-Point Consensus, a set of aims agreed upon last April by Asean members and Myanmar’s new junta leader to pull the country out of its post-coup crisis, Asean has little to show for itself. The bloc has not yet had a formal meeting with any members of the shadow National Unity Government (NUG), which represents the democratic aspirations of the people of Myanmar. It has also come under scrutiny for being too tolerant of the junta, which has made minimal tangible progress itself in realising the five aims.

The junta refused to entertain Malaysia’s suggestion that Asean could engage with the NUG, calling the proposal “irresponsible and reckless”. Furthermore, the military leaders of Myanmar have made it clear that attempts at diplomatic isolation and international sanctions have little impact on them.

Meanwhile, thousands of Rohingya Muslims, members of an ethnic group from Myanmar’s northwestern Rakhine state, have been seeking refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh ever since a brutal military crackdown in 2017 sparked a mass exodus. Objections by Myanmar to a case accusing it of having committed genocide against the Rohingya were dismissed by the International Court of Justice on July 22.

Bangladesh’s Foreign Minister Abdul Momen has expressed concern over the delayed repatriation of the Rohingya. “The only possible solution in this regard is the repatriation of the displaced people to their homeland, the Rakhine state of Myanmar,” he said earlier this month in a plea to Asean for help in beginning the process.

Amid this crisis, analysts have condemned Asean’s principle of non-interference and adherence to nonviolent tactics to settle conflicts. Rohingya asylum seekers have been facing government pushback and forced return, violating international rules that no one should return to a place where their life or freedom is at risk.

Certainly, Asean could have played a more meaningful role in resolving the Myanmar crisis. In the words of APHR chairman Charles Santiago in 2017, “Asean needs to adapt or risk becoming irrelevant in a rapidly evolving global environment. The non-interference principle is a barrier to the realisation of human rights, as well as to Asean’s ability to act decisively to address a host of other issues. It must change if the bloc is to have any hope of becoming a pivotal actor in the international arena.”

Many agree with an APHR report’s assessment that Asean’s institutional framework has allowed member states like Myanmar the freedom to “set the parameters of Asean’s engagement”. More than five decades after its founding, Asean needs to decide whether it is merely a well-functioning trade body or a respectable regional organisation with common binding values.

The situation in Myanmar highlights the shortcomings of building an association based on economic interests alone. Such an association may well fail to serve the needs of the people for whose well-being it was first created.

In a statement on the situation in Myanmar in February, Asean chair Cambodia said that “durable peace and national reconciliation can be achieved only through an inclusive political solution that is Myanmar-owned and Myanmar-led and involving all parties concerned”.

Perhaps then Asean diplomats may wish to speak to the ordinary citizens of Myanmar about democracy, human rights and civil liberty, rather than its leaders who could not care less about these values.

Weblink: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/asia/article/3187019/executions-myanmar-plight-rohingya-bangladesh-reflect-poorly

21. How Shinzo Abe’s push for reform at home and abroad made Japan stronger and safer

July 12, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe was shot dead last week at an election rally. Despite his sudden and shocking death, Abe leaves a legacy for Japan and the world at large. He was Japan’s longest-serving leader in the post-war era – as prime minister from 2006-2007 and 2012-2020 – and was also president of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

Abe was exceptional among Japanese politicians. He was committed to national policy reforms, particularly regarding the Japanese budget. Abe appointed the tax policy expert Koji Omi, who led delicate budget-balancing acts through spending cuts, as his first finance minister.

Born after World War II, Abe was the country’s youngest post-war prime minister. He regularly took stances that were on a different side of history, including denying the Japanese government’s responsibility for women and girls’ coercion into sexual slavery during World War II and supporting revisions to Japanese history textbooks that reflected a more positive view of the country’s modern history.

He and other conservative politicians promoted bills to encourage patriotism and nationalism in Japanese schools.

Abe and his party also led reform through many economic policies, the most famous of which was known as “Abenomics”. This approach had three key points, or “arrows” – aggressive monetary policy, fiscal consolidation and structural reforms.

This unique policy reform was a mix of reflating government spending and a growth strategy for the Japanese economy. Japan’s nominal GDP growth was steady during Abe’s tenure amid Abenomics, and the government’s relative debt as a percentage of national GDP stabilised for the first time in decades. Japan’s unemployment rate dropped to the lowest among Group of 7 countries in 2019.

Abe made a public show of pushing for gender equality and women’s rights. He publicly advocated for women’s empowerment, raising the issue in 2015 at the UN General Assembly by vowing policy reform to achieve gender equality in Japan. He set a goal of having 30 per cent of leadership positions held by women by 2020, with Japan pledging about 42 billion yen (US$450 million) towards that goal.

Abe attempted to promote his idea of a society where women “shine” by taking multiple actions to boost women’s education and empowerment. At the 2016 G7 summit, which Japan hosted in Shima, Abe pushed for the leaders’ endorsement of the G7 Guiding Principles for Building the Capacity of Women and Girls, and the Women’s Initiative in Developing STEM Careers.

In 2016, Abe presented Japan’s plan to offer technical training to 5,000 women and assist in the education of 50,000 female students. In addition to Abe promoting the capacity-building bill among G7 countries, Japan has hosted every edition of the World Assembly for Women since 2014.

Abe established a strong presence in shaping Japan’s foreign policy. His hardline stance against the North Korean regime was a message of not putting up with bullying in the region by the pariah state. He promoted good diplomatic relations in Southeast Asia. Abe also attempted to improve relations with China, trying to move beyond lingering sentiments from World War II.

He gained respect in Taiwan among local politicians seeking greater distance from Beijing. His popularity in Taiwan came in part from his grandfather Nobusuke Kishi’s friendliness towards the island as well as his great-uncle Eisaku Sato’s visit in 1967, making him the last Japanese prime minister to go to Taiwan during his time in office.

While Abe made moves to renew diplomatic relationships with Japan’s former enemies, at the same time he pushed to strengthen the country’s geopolitical positioning and military capabilities. He sought to revise Japan’s pacifist constitution that he and other conservatives felt was imposed on the country by the United States and its allies in 1946.

Perceiving a threat from a rising China, Abe’s administration reinterpreted the constitution to permit a greater role for the Self-Defence Forces in addition to seeking to change Article 9, which renounces war and bans Japan from maintaining the potential for war.

Japan also joined the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue – which Abe initially proposed in 2007 – creating an informal alliance with the US, India and Australia to protect their common interests in the Pacific amid China’s growing influence and military presence. Abe also pushed to improve Japan’s relationship with India in addition to Quad participation.

Abe played an important role in driving reform within Japan as well as building international alliances and collaboration. From pushing for economic growth to taking centre stage at international forums such as the G7, he broke with previous Japanese prime ministers and led from the front.

He was a transformative force within Japan and beyond. From walking a fine line in managing relations with China to playing a key role in the founding of the Quad, Abe showed diplomatic dexterity in navigating the complex geopolitical landscape of the Asia-Pacific.

For the Japanese people, Abe will be remembered as the leader who showed the way for Japan to have the strength to say “no” when pressured and the courage to say “yes” when that was the right thing to do, regardless of what others would have chosen.

This is the legacy Abe leaves behind for Japan, for whom this reboot was long overdue, given the country’s rapid rise to the global stage after the destruction of World War II and the challenges that arose in its aftermath.

Weblink: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3184960/how-shinzo-abes-push-reform-home-and-abroad-made-japan-stronger-and?module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article&campaign=3184960

22. Amid heatwaves and floods, time is running out for rich nations to fulfil climate pledges and avert catastrophe

June 29, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As host of the Group of 7 leaders’ meeting in the Bavarian Alps, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz underscored the importance of having a “climate club” for countries to come together in tackling climate change.

Protesters have been demonstrating in Munich and calling on the G7 economies to take greater action against climate change. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the past seven years have been the warmest on record. Global sea levels have continued to rise amid constant ocean heating and acidification.

Southern China has experienced record-breaking floods this month, and hundreds of thousands of people have been evacuated. In contrast, provinces in northern and central China are dealing with an extreme heatwave.

Exceptional temperatures have been observed across the globe, with brutal heatwaves in Europe. Similarly, Australia has witnessed extreme weather events, including storms, droughts, catastrophic bush fires, heatwaves and floods. Populations across parts of India and Bangladesh are facing intense floods and landslides, leaving more than 100 dead and multiple communities devastated.

Climate experts have warned that South Asia’s most exposed populations might have to live with more volatile and longer spells of destruction as patterns of monsoon and severe weather change become more the norm than an exception.

The Paris Agreement unified nearly all nations in agreeing to cut greenhouse gas emissions which are leading to global warming. At last year’s UN climate change conference, one crucial debate was about whether nations are actually fulfilling their commitments made in Paris.

The Glasgow Climate Pact was a product of discussions among nearly 200 nations. Important steps were discussed, but the collective political will was not enough to tackle profound contradictions.

Reductions in overall greenhouse-gas emissions are still far from where they need to be to ensure a habitable climate and look after the most vulnerable nations, such as Bangladesh and the Maldives, which are greatly affected by climate change.

The idea to “phase down” coal was pushed by India and China, ultimately watering down one aspect of the final pact. Furthermore, Australia’s decision to back coal was an early blow to discussions at the conference along with its refusal to strengthen its 2030 emissions targets.

However, the term “coal” was used in a UN climate change conference text for the first time. There was dissatisfaction that the phrase “phase out” was altered to “phase down”, but there was a pledge to phase out wasteful fossil fuel subsidies.

The conference did yield novel building blocks to develop and execute the Paris Agreement through more sustainable action and advancing along the path to a low-carbon world.

China ranks first in total greenhouse-gas emissions, and India is on its way to joining it at the top. Both nations are also very vulnerable to air pollution. For China and India, coal signifies energy security and sovereignty, making it more than an engine of economic development.

In comparison, Bangladesh produces a mere 0.56 per cent of global emissions yet is seventh on the list of countries most vulnerable to climate devastation. By 2050, one in seven people in Bangladesh is forecast to have been displaced because of climate change.

The country is expected to lose about 11 per cent of its land by then, amid a 50cm rise in sea levels, with up to 18 million people forced to relocate. Progress in poverty alleviation and health in Bangladesh and elsewhere risk being wiped out by climate change.

The Paris Agreement reaffirmed a promise that was made in 2009 that the richest nations should provide US$100 billion by 2020 to help developing countries deal with the effects of climate change and grow sustainably. A UN report said the objective cannot be achieved until 2023.

To reduce global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, carbon dioxide emissions have to hit net zero by 2050. This can only happen when every country joins these collaborative efforts.

With the current energy crisis and rising global greenhouse-gas emissions, stakes are high for the next UN climate change conference, to be held in Egypt in November. The need of the hour is to scale up efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, pledge more action and seek to do better than what we have in the past.

Even with the commitments made at the Glasgow conference, and before it, people everywhere will continue to feel the impact of a changing planet. Instead of protecting jobs in carbon-emitting industries, the world needs to move towards economic diversification and the creation of green jobs for a just and sustainable transition.

The goal is to cultivate a climate-neutral planet by mid-century. To help billions of people, instead of letting temperatures rise by up to 2 degrees, the goal should be to keep the increase to no more than 1.5 degrees.

Some 130 countries have also pledged to conserve natural habitats and end deforestation by 2030. This will require robust implementation of environmental safeguards.

However, with economic development and domestic politics still taking priority for many, existing plans have been slow to move forward; many are still “under consideration”. And, according to independent estimates, the current array of climate policies is nowhere near enough to meet the Paris Agreement goals.

As we hesitate and delay, time is running out for the global community to turn its rhetoric into action. In the meantime, the ice keeps melting, sea levels rise – threatening nations’ survival – and temperatures go on rising, with heatwaves devastating life and property. There is nowhere to hide from water and fire.

Link: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3183254/amid-heatwaves-and-floods-time-running-out-rich-nations-fulfil 

23. How Bangladesh has surged past India on road to South Asian economic stardom

May 30, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Since 2009, Bangladesh has maintained macroeconomic stability through prudent fiscal and debt management, along with expansion of its social security net and investment in infrastructure projects. Economic growth has been consistent over the past 40 years and gross domestic product growth has been outstripping South Asia’s – with the region contracting by 6.58 per cent as a whole and Bangladesh growing by 3.5 per cent in 2020.

Agriculture used to contribute a third of Bangladesh’s GDP but fell to less than 15 per cent between 2010 and 2018, while industry’s contribution rose from less than a fifth to more than a third.

Manufacturing’s contribution to GDP has doubled since 1980, and exports have grown 20-fold since the 1990s to more than US$40 billion. High remittances – US$16.4 billion in 2019 – from low-wage labour has also supported the economy.

Bangladesh is expected to maintain its per capita GDP lead over India until 2026, owing to strong remittances, exports and agricultural growth. In 2020, India’s per capita GDP fell to US$1,929 from US$2,098, and economic output dropped to US$2.66 trillion from US$2.87 trillion. That same year, Bangladesh, a US$355 billion economy, overtook India with a per capita GDP of US$1,961 after attaining 6 per cent growth over the past 15 years.

 Since 2004, Bangladesh’s GDP growth has been picking up but it was only in 2017, when India’s growth started falling, that it managed to outpace its bigger neighbour. Bangladesh’s per capita GDP stood at half of India’s before the 2008 debt crisis, but by 2014 that figure had grown to 70 per cent. Covid-19 caused India’s economy to contract by 7.3 per cent in 2020, while Bangladesh’s grew 3.5 per cent.

Today, Bangladesh outperforms India in fiscal deficit, merchandise trade balance, employment, public debt and investment-to-GDP ratios. Its human development programmes, particularly in girls’ education, have brought fertility rates and early marriages down.

Bangladesh has done better than India on various human development indicators such as life expectancy, fertility and child nutrition. The benefits of its economic rise reach a wider base, compared with India’s skewed distribution. This inclusive growth has raised living standards, which in turn has led to better education and healthcare.

India, on the other hand, has performed poorly on human development indicators, especially in economically backward states. For instance, its female work participation rate was 19 per cent last year, according to the World Bank. In Bangladesh, the figure is 35 per cent.

India’s Hindi heartland continues to struggle with teenage marriages and early pregnancies – in Bihar state, the infant mortality rate is 47 per 1,000 live births – dragging down the well-being of a large majority. Bangladesh’s success lies in having addressed the fertility issue through investments in education and women’s empowerment.

Meanwhile, India’s 2016 demonetisation, meant to weed out “black money” or unaccounted wealth, sent economic growth sliding for several years and served to boost digital transactions. The sudden withdrawal of 500 and 1,000 rupee banknotes hurt the economy as, at the time, up to 94 per cent of the workforce was unorganised, cash-dependent and without access to banking.

The cash ban hindered daily food and fuel purchases and its ill-effects were extended to trade and manufacturing. With 86 per cent of the cash in circulation abruptly withdrawn overnight, as opposed to gradually, the economy crashed.

Thanks to its macroeconomic stability, Bangladesh’s economy has grown around 270-fold in the past 50 years in local currency terms, and its budget deficit has remained at 5 per cent of GDP or less. It has become the world’s second-largest garment exporter, owing to its development strategy of export-oriented industrialisation.

Indeed, textiles, garments and footwear industries, which are labour-intensive and employ unskilled and semi-skilled labour, account for most of Bangladesh’s exports. With its beneficial position in free trade agreements, its innovation and lower salaries, many Indian buyers have relocated there to remain competitive in the global market.

Bangladesh is India’s sixth-largest trading partner with bilateral trade worth US$10.8 billion in 2020-21, up from US$9.5 billion in 2019-20. The Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between India and Bangladesh will boost trade but its full potential will only be realised with better transport connectivity.

Recent initiatives to strengthen bilateral cooperation include boosting trade in commodities, services and energy, infrastructure development, and encouraging cross-border investment. Even as the smaller neighbour continues to surge ahead, untapped economic gains remain to be explored. For now, Bangladesh is enjoying the ride to economic stardom in South Asia. 

Link: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/asia/article/3179480/how-bangladesh-has-surged-past-india-road-south-asian-economic?module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article&campaign=3179480 

24. Ukrainian refugees suffer as the world slowly wakes up to growing humanitarian crisis

March 25, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As Russian forces advance from the north, east and south and try to encircle Kyiv, Ukrainian residents caught in the war are fleeing their homes. As they try to escape, they face a devastating situation, battling hunger, and walking long distances while exposed to sudden shelling by Russian forces.

At least 2,400 civilians have died in the southeastern city of Mariupol, for example. Hundreds of thousands are trapped, with utilities cut off and supplies running out. Some of the 30,000 civilians who managed to flee had to melt snow for drinking water and have eaten only food scraps.Ukraine has declared martial law, prohibiting men aged 18 to 60 from leaving the country. As a result, they have been separated from their families as women and children tried to flee. Ukrainian men and women from across Europe have even returned, to join the defence forces.

The refugees, almost all women and children, face difficulties they could never have imagined. While some have been taken in by European families and some children have found safety with relatives, most are living in temporary shelters in the extreme cold and are short of food.Ukrainian women and children seeking to cross into Poland face long delays. And millions of Ukrainians have been internally displaced, with the western city of Lviv reaching its capacity to accommodate extra people.

Europe is doing its best to accommodate those fleeing the war. Poland has taken in the most refugees, more than 2 million, followed by Romania, Moldova, Hungary, Slovakia and others. Moldova, among others, has called for international assistance.More than 100,000 people in Britain signed up on the launch day of a new scheme to host individuals or families rent-free in their homes or another property for six months. The scheme will be open for three years, and hosts will receive £350 (US$460) per month, with no upper limit. More than 6,100 visas were also issued through the Ukraine Family Scheme. Ireland, meanwhile, has lifted visa requirements for Ukrainians.

The European Union estimates the refugee count could reach around 7 million. The UN refugee agency estimates that more than 2.5 million people, including 1 million children, have fled so far in the largest European refugee crisis since World War II.Eastern European countries are already struggling to cope with the influx. Moving some refugees to other countries to relieve the pressure would be a huge logistical challenge, both for the people and the host countries.Within Ukraine, amid plummeting temperatures, millions of children have been displaced, trekking through harsh weather, with poor supplies of food, clothes and heat. Children are particularly vulnerable to hypothermia, and mental trauma. A lack of transport is exacerbating their plight, as are the continuous explosions and artillery attacks.There are growing concerns that human traffickers are targeting refugees under the pretence of offering help. Women face the additional burden of caring for children and the elderly.Ukrainian refugees, especially those from Middle Eastern and African countries, also face racist and xenophobic responses. Additionally, some countries have been unwilling to take in people even when they qualify for refugee status.While providing emergency aid, the United States has indicated that Europe should be the refugees’ primary destination. Around 140 countries allow in Ukrainians without a visa or provide visas on arrival. The New Zealand government has announced that Ukrainian-born New Zealand citizens and residents can bring in family members, giving them the right to study and work.

The United Nations is scaling up its delivery of life-saving support and humanitarian relief, especially for vulnerable groups. It has launched two emergency appeals, seeking US$1.7 billion – one for the escalating humanitarian needs of 6 million internally displaced people for three months and another for the refugees who have fled Ukraine.The Regional Refugee Response Plan outlines a comprehensive response to support the efforts of host countries, including the financial requirements of 12 national and transnational partners. However, these plans only look a few months ahead and a long-term vision is still lacking.The exodus is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, but the response remains underfunded. Host countries, in issuing visas or allowances, are only offering short-term solutions.Hosting and integrating Ukrainian refugees could cost these nations US$30 billion in the first year alone, according to new analysis by the Center for Global Development. Meanwhile, permanent integration could reshape Europe’s economic landscape.Europe is already coping with the challenges of high inflation, supply chain disruptions and the Covid-19 pandemic. Providing long-term assistance to refugees will strain European economies.

However, migration experts and economists say it is too early to tell whether most Ukrainians will stay, as returning home could still be an option. This is in contrast to the 2015 movement of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa, who cannot return home as they fear persecution.It may be necessary for host nations to comprehensively integrate refugees as full citizens, to protect both the people and their economies. Government schemes and programmes are needed to support children, women who lack financial support, people with disabilities, and the elderly.

For the time being, a humanitarian crisis is unfolding, and getting worse each day, under the watch of the world as Ukrainian men, women and children head into an uncertain future

Link: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3171522/ukrainian-refugees-suffer-world-slowly-wakes-growing-humanitarian

25. Ukraine war: Asia is caught in rip tide of power polarisation and sanctions chaos

February 28, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has sparked diplomatic and economic chaos around the world. Amid intensified sanctions and concerns about Russia’s gas supply to Europe, the world seems to be scrambling to respond to a crisis quickly spiralling out of control. 

Across the Asia-Pacific, stock markets fell with the news, with market benchmarks down 2 per cent in Tokyo and Seoul, and more than 3 per cent in Hong Kong and Sydney on Thursday alone.

Russia, stung by the 2014 sanctions after its annexation of Crimea, has spent the intervening years moving away from the US dollar – and strengthening its ties with China and the renminbi. As tensions with Ukraine started to build again last July, Russia’s US$186 billion sovereign wealth fund said it had dumped all of its dollars to hold 30.4 per cent of its value in yuan and 20.2 per cent in gold.

Three weeks before the invasion, Russia announced oil and gas deals worth US$117.5 billion with China, an old ally and economic partner. Bilateral trade, which had jumped from US$4.87 billion in 1995 to US$105 billion in 2019, is expected to reach US$200 billion by 2024. But trade with the rest of the world will be hurt.

Sanctions are set to hit Russia’s trade with the European Union, its biggest partner, worth about US$219 billion in 2020. The United States, Britain and the EU have frozen the assets of Russian financial institutions and oligarchs. Allies from Australia and Japan to South Korea and Taiwan are joining the sanctions – potentially costing Russia more than US$11 billion a year in export revenue – including banning Russian bonds.

Russia’s invasion also threatens to leave Ukraine’s trade in tatters, potentially affecting China. Ukraine is China’s largest corn supplier, selling more than a third of its harvest to China, which is Ukraine’s biggest overall export market at US$8 billion last year. In turn, China, which relies on Ukraine for 30 per cent of its corn needs, has invested heavily in Ukraine as part of its Belt and Road Initiative.

Interestingly, China’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, was refurbished from an incomplete carrier bought from Ukraine in 1998.

And it is not just China. Russian’s invasion will also affect Ukraine’s free-trade deals with countries such as Singapore. Since 2014, Ukraine has gradually stepped back from participation in the Commonwealth of Independent States, which include Russia.

Meanwhile, news of the invasion has sent energy prices skywards, with oil prices rising to levels not seen since 2014. Natural gas prices in Europe, already four times the levels last year, have risen even further. Inflation on the continent, already uncomfortably high at 5.1 per cent last month, can expect to push higher.

Even more uncomfortably, as much as 40 per cent of the EU’s gas imports come from Russia. Germany has already halted the Nord Stream 2, Russia’s contentious gas pipeline project, after Russia moved to recognise separatist-held regions in eastern Ukraine last week, sending its troops in. The Ukraine invasion and Europe’s worsening relationship with Russia will only worsen the EU energy crisis.

At the gas summit held in Qatar last week with the 11-nation Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), which includes Russia, members explored whether Asia could fill the gap in the European energy crisis. After careful analysis, the forum concluded that most of the gas-producing nations have very little spare capacity to meet the huge gap.

With oil prices boiling at around US$100 a barrel, countries in Asia highly dependent on oil imports are also starting to get very worried. They include South Korea, which imports as much as 92 per cent of its energy needs, and India, the world’s third-largest oil importer, which is only just recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic.

With an emerging new global power polarisation, with the West led by the US against an emerging China-Russia alliance, many countries in Asia may find themselves in the increasingly uncomfortable position of having to choose a side or be squeezed in the middle.

There may be more pressure from the US to join sanctions or scale back economic ties with Russia even as regional geopolitics makes it difficult to be seen as part of either an anti-Russia faction or a China-Russia axis – an axis that is increasingly becoming a reality as Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to court fellow Chinese strongman leader Xi Jinping.

India, for example, has strong economic ties with Russia, with an annual bilateral trade worth around US$10 billion that is expected to grow to US$30 billion by 2025. Yet India is also part of the US-led Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which is seen by many as an alliance against China’s growing presence in Asia.

It is no wonder that Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan – India’s nemesis and China’s close ally – has rushed to Moscow to meet Putin to advance talks with Russia to build a 1,100km gas pipeline.

The ripple effects of the invasion will be felt far beyond the borders of Europe, with significant economic and geopolitical implications for Asia that will only become increasingly complex in nature. 

As one could see in last Friday’s UN Security Council resolution denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the two members who joined China in abstaining from the vote are India and the United Arab Emirates.

Link: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3168519/ukraine-war-asia-caught-rip-tide-power-polarisation-and-sanctions

26. China’s trade tactics are winning out over US diplomacy and military might in Southeast Asia 

January 13, 2022

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

China succeeded in deepening ties with Singapore last month, signing 14 new deals at an annual bilateral cooperation meeting held on December 29.

Beijing has been active in Southeast Asia since the 1990s, becoming a dialogue partner of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) in 1996. In November 2020, 10 Asean members signed the Chinese-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the world’s largest free trade agreement involving several major powers, but with the notable absence of the US.

Certainly, the US remains a central geopolitical power, with allies in the Middle East, Asia, Europe and the Pacific. The absence of large military powers in Southeast Asia has also helped the US gain a geopolitical footing in the region.

On the other hand, China has unswervingly bolstered production, trade and investments both in Southeast Asia and globally, evolving into a geoeconomic power by strengthening relations through economic partnerships and trade relations.

Barack Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”, rather than adopting an economic focus, relied more on a robust military approach aimed at containing China. Then came Donald Trump’s “America first” policy which saw the US exit the Trans-Pacific Partnership, damaging its political and economic relations with Southeast Asia.

US President Joe Biden now faces an uphill struggle to correct course. Although high-level engagement has been initiated, a lot more must be done to regain the confidence of the region in the consistency and reliability of US policies. America’s firm stance against autocracies in Southeast Asia has also indirectly benefited China, which remains unbothered by humanitarian issues.

The disputed waters of the South China Sea are another issue at play. China remains a security concern for many Asean member nations, but given the huge direct investment and development assistance flowing in from China, they are unlikely to position themselves against Beijing.

Rather, analysts have hinted at a potential comprehensive strategic partnership between Asean and China – including countries contesting Beijing’s aggressive claims in the South China Sea – that could further boost investment, trade and even military ties, while weakening US influence in the region.

Understanding that economic security created through trade lasts longer than when done through military superiority, China has deftly managed the relationship with Asean by strengthening economic ties with many traditional US allies.

Despite tensions with Vietnam, the country’s new metro system in Hanoi is Chinese made. Indonesia, considered an important ally by Washington, has also embraced China of late, propelled by the latter’s pandemic diplomacy. Last year, the two signed an agreement to promote the use of their respective currencies in trade deals, curbing dependence on the US dollar.

Australia, a historically close US ally with security partnerships like Aukus, has also ratified the RCEP. Even though Australia has banned Chinese telecommunication firms from supplying 5G technology, and Australian exports to China are facing entry-related obstructions, Chinese investment has increased over the years to make China Australia’s largest trading partner, with US$261 billion flowing annually between the two.

China has made huge strides to become a major player in the international market. Free trade agreements such as the RCEP have helped it build inroads in the Indo-Pacific region. While the US is engaged in diplomacy, China is playing its cards with infrastructure investment deals.

Asean became China’s top trading partner in 2020, beating the European Union. Asean attracts Chinese foreign direct investment in many sectors, from agriculture and manufacturing to the digital and green economies. Investment between Asean and China now exceeds US$310 billion. Total trade in 2020 rose to US$685.28 billion whereas, for US-Asean trade, the figure stood at US$362.2 billion.

Even when it comes to the Quad, which comprises the US, Japan, Australia, and India, China has a strong trade relationship with all members bar the US. Japan’s exports to China stood at US$141.4 billion in 2020, roughly one-fifth of its total exports, surpassing the US.

China also briefly overtook the US in 2020 to become India’s biggest trading partner, supplying it with heavy machinery, telecoms equipment and home appliances – although the US managed to regain its top position last year amid a slowdown in China-India bilateral trade growth.

US-China trade relations, meanwhile, are increasingly under strain. Washington continues to impose tariffs on Chinese imports, thus dismantling China’s position as the US’ top trading partner.

Beijing’s diplomatic strategy cannot be viewed in isolation from its economic policy. China has attracted countries in the Indo-Pacific through large infrastructure investments deals, especially under its Belt and Road Initiative, development aid and foreign investment.

Economic blocs such as the RCEP will bring more partners to China, giving the US tough competition. China has not engaged in traditional soft/hard diplomacy but has instead adopted a strategy to boost geoeconomic relations, while following a policy of domestic non-interference.

The US is still playing catch-up as it works on a comprehensive Indo-Pacific framework to strengthen cooperation around trade and the digital economy, resilient supply chains, decarbonisation, infrastructure, and other areas of shared interest.

With continued domestic divisions in the US, which have frequently spilled over into trade and foreign policy, it will take more than diplomatic engagement and words of assurances for the US to match an adversary which has neither any vested-interest group to cater to at home nor any uncertainty over the continuity of its political leadership or policy consistency.

Link: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3163071/chinas-trade-tactics-are-winning-out-over-us-diplomacy-and-military

27. Vaccine inequality persists as world enters third year of the                Covid-19 pandemic 

December 24, 2021

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

In 2022, the world enters the third year since Covid-19 appeared in late 2019, with different variants emerging. Pfizer estimates that the pandemic could extend to 2024, even when large swathes of the global population have been vaccinated.

To understand why the pandemic is stretching out, three things need to be examined: the importance of herd immunity; vaccine efficacy; and, the emerging Covid-19 variants.

Social distancing, wearing a mask, personal hygiene routines and government-imposed national lockdowns have all been put forward as ways to reduce the spread of Covid-19. After the World Health Organization announced that the coronavirus outbreak had become a pandemic in early 2020, it was clear there was no quick cure for the highly infectious virus.

The one long-term solution is to prevent its spread by achieving herd immunity through a global mass vaccination programme. After a year of research, the world produced vaccines with comparatively high rates of efficacy.

However, herd immunity continues to be crucial to prevent the pandemic from continuing. This needs to be achieved before vaccine efficacy falls as new variants emerge across the globe.

The pandemic took a drastic turn in South Asia, particularly India, where lockdowns were lifted too early, leading to a rapid spread of Covid-19 and the subsequent mutation to the Delta variant. This variant brought down vaccine efficacy, but they were still effective.

India responded by banning vaccine exports and initiating a rapid inoculation programme across the country. One year after the emergence of the Delta variant, yet another variant – Omicron – has emerged from South Africa, and we have no one but ourselves to blame for this.

Vaccines distribution has been uneven from the very beginning. While developed and rich nations overstocked vaccines, there was rarely enough available for poorer countries.

Group of 7 countries have bought about a third of the global Covid-19 vaccine stock despite representing barely 13 per cent of world’s population. This has caused poorer countries, particularly in Africa, to fall behind in achieving herd immunity.

Only about 6 per cent of Africa’s population – 77 million people across 54 countries – are fully vaccinated. It is not surprising, then, that the Omicron variant emerged from a largely unvaccinated and exposed continent.

To tackle the new variants, vaccine producers have started production of a third booster dose. British researchers say these boosters could be more than 80 per cent effective against the Omicron variant. Boosters have gained popularity in rich countries, with much of the population seeking a third vaccine dose.

However, the WHO has strongly opposed the roll-out of booster doses, asking rich nations to instead donate two doses of the vaccine to countries that do not have enough to meet the minimum vaccination rates. So far, the world has only managed to delay the Covid-19 pandemic and has yet to achieve a long-term solution, that is, herd immunity.

While booster shots are necessary for vulnerable populations and front-line workers, it should not be the primary means of achieving herd immunity. As nations continue to put their resources into these boosters, the world risks a situation where more Covid-19 variants emerge, with many people still unvaccinated and exposed to the virus.

Lower-income countries have struggled to get vaccines since they first came to market at the end of 2020. Some producers have seemingly not been thinking of the greater good when pricing their vaccines, either.

If we compare the first few vaccines that received WHO clearance, Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna cost US$20 and US$33 per dose respectively. Considering that two doses are required, the per capita cost of a vaccine is therefore at least US$40, more than the typical monthly salary in many developing countries.

The fact that some vaccines also need to be stored at minus 70 degrees Celsius also creates logistical problems for poorer countries.

By contrast, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is priced at a more friendly US$4, and can be stored at regular fridge temperatures. The company even pledged 64 per cent of its supply to developing countries.

However, the British population received priority even with this vaccine. And, although supplies were pledged to developing countries, higher-income developing nations were at the front of the queue for supplies.

As we enter 2022, the world needs to come together to beat the virus, and this can only be done by achieving herd immunity as quickly as possible. Developed countries are moving towards donating vaccine doses to poorer countries – once they have achieved good vaccination rates for their own populations.

The largest effort to ensure poorer countries receive fair and equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines is the Covax Facility, an initiative led by the WHO. It aims to collect donations, whether vaccines or money, from developed countries. Covax has already shipped more than 792 million doses to 144 countries.

 Rich countries with spare vaccines are donating them to their allies, including China’s pledge of 1 billion vaccine doses for Africa. Other large-scale donations could greatly boost global herd immunity and we could hopefully see an end to the pandemic.

With just 48 per cent of the global population fully vaccinated, this is a job half done. Achieving herd immunity will get more difficult unless there is significant, rapid progress on global vaccination soon.

Weblink : https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3160669/vaccine-inequality-persists-world-enters-third-year-covid-19

28. Moment of truth for Pakistan’s marriage of convenience with Afghan Taliban

September 26, 2021 

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

With accusations made against Pakistan with regard to the Taliban’s resurgence, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan asked the Taliban government to be inclusive and respect human rights during an interview with the BBC this week.

Pakistan’s historical and paradoxical relationship with the Taliban dates back to the 1990s, when it helped the Islamist militia rise from the ashes of a bloody civil war following the Soviet Union’s departure. In a marriage of convenience, Pakistan provided sanctuary to Afghan Taliban leaders as the group served Pakistan’s regional security interests. After the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001, Pakistan appeared to face an American ultimatum to join the global “war on terror” or, in the words of then-president Pervez Musharraf, “be bombed back to the Stone Age”. In exchange for military and financial aid worth billions, Pakistan switched to Washington’s side.

More than 80,000 Pakistani civilians have been killed in the “war on terror” while Pakistan’s economy has lost around US$126 billion, making Washington’s US$6 billion in aid a pittance compared to what the country has gone through. Between 1995 and 2020, Pakistan experienced hundreds of terrorist attacks.

Hence, the Taliban’s resurgence is being taken with a pinch of salt by Pakistan, whose armed forces led operations to curtail the menace of the Pakistani Taliban, or Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

Now, amid the chaos and confusion, a rare chance for redemption has emerged for Pakistan, which could either continue its dubious role in Afghanistan or leverage its influence with the Taliban to secure lasting peace in the region and support Afghanistan’s integration into the international community.

Pakistan, particularly its military intelligence wing, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), holds significant influence over the Taliban. This is evident by the highly publicised visit to Kabul by ISI chief Faiz Hameed.

Pakistan facilitated the Taliban’s participation in the 2020 peace talks with the US in Doha. The newly evolved Taliban owes much to Pakistan’s good offices and support.

US suspicion of Pakistan has kept President Joe Biden from speaking to Khan. India prevented Pakistan from speaking at the UN Security Council meeting on August 6, where Pakistan faced allegations of allowing terrorist groups to operate in its territory with impunity.

Shunning Pakistan would be counterproductive, given its leverage on Afghanistan. It would be pragmatic to acknowledge the positive role Islamabad can play as a mediator. In a similar vein, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab spoke about Pakistan being a vital partner on Afghanistan during his visit to Islamabad.

The geopolitical map of Asia is being redrafted, with China and Russia becoming more influential and a new phase of regional rivalry in the offing. Having offered recognition and financial aid to the Taliban in return for security against Uygur separatists, China holds a trump card.

Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen has declared Beijing a “welcome friend”. Any potential China-Pakistan-Taliban alliance would be unnerving to Pakistan’s regional rival India.

Pakistan has the closest ties with the Taliban, and how it chooses to proceed will have a significant bearing on the country’s international standing. While expressing support to initiatives for Afghan reconciliation and peace, Pakistan will be judged more by its actions than its words.

If civil unrest in Afghanistan swells, Pakistan’s claims of supporting peacemaking are unlikely to be taken seriously. This could have serious socioeconomic implications for the region, including Pakistan which already hosts more than 3 million Afghan refugees.

By being an honest mediator, Pakistan can rise to the occasion and play a constructive role in establishing lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan. Rather than engaging in proxy activities and viewing its security interest predominantly through the prism of its rivalry with India, Pakistan has an opportunity to act in the interests of the wider region.

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation provides Pakistan with an excellent opportunity. Islamabad can demonstrate regional leadership by convening top officials from eight neighbouring countries, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for a meeting with the new Afghan leaders. This would be a positive step towards regional peace and security, and the socioeconomic aspirations of a region that features a quarter of the global population and one-third of the world’s poor.

The Taliban’s quest for international recognition and development aid could be leveraged by Pakistan to coax the Islamist group into mainstream international forums like the United Nations and the international community. Such engagements would have a better chance of tempering its extremist ideology than constant vilification.

Socioeconomic pragmatism and engagement with multilateral development agencies such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Asian Development Bank can pave the way for Afghan women to play a meaningful role in the reconstruction efforts.

It is imperative for Pakistan to tread carefully in the delicate power balance within the fragmented Afghan society by engaging with leaders from all tribes and political factions. Discord over power-sharing could again spark internal political conflict, with consequences spilling over into Pakistan, South Asia and beyond.

Pakistan’s future depends on what it chooses to prioritise. It can show statesmanship in a complex situation that demands the best of its diplomatic skills, or it can pursue narrow security and geopolitical interests that might help in the short term but would hurt more in the long run, as history’s Afghanistan chapter teaches us.

 Professor Syed Munir Khasru is chairman of the international think tank, The Institute for Policy, Advocacy, and Governance (IPAG) with a presence in Dhaka, Delhi, Melbourne, Vienna and Dubai

Weblink : https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3149767/moment-truth-pakistans-marriage-convenience-afghan-taliban 

29. Amid a pandemic, Tokyo Olympics is a disaster waiting to happen

July 21, 2021

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The decision by Japan and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to hold the summer Olympics, which starts on July 23, continues to be controversial due to the health risks posed by Covid-19 to all the participants.

The world’s best athletes are being left at the mercy of a government and an international organisation that are supposed to be looking after their well-being. Already, at least 55 people linked to the Olympics have reported positive Covid-19 tests since July 1.

Last Saturday, just a week before the opening of the Games, the Tokyo metropolitan region recorded 1,410 new Covid-19 cases, the highest single-day count since January 21. Infection numbers have been rising since late June across the country, with the health ministry reporting 3,093 new cases last Sunday.

The surge in cases has already led to the torch relay being taken off Tokyo’s streets, while Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga declared yet another state of emergency in Tokyo, three weeks after it had been lifted.

One of Japan’s strategies to tackle Covid-19 during the Olympics was to vaccinate its population. The country has 100 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech jabs ready to be administered, but logistical bottlenecks and misallocations have disrupted the roll-out.

As a result, only 33.7 per cent of the population had received at least one dose as of July 18, according to Our World in Data. With such a low rate, the government is falling back on its promise to keep everyone safe.

According to some estimates, Japan has already spent US$35 billion to host the Games. The organisers have created a whole playbook of guidelines for the event. But, despite the rules and a pledge that 85 per cent of all athletes and officials would be vaccinated, ensuring herd immunity, there are already cracks in the system.

Some athletes have questioned the Covid-19 prevention measures at hotels, where tourists were not separated from the athletes, introducing fear of the virus spreading.

Around 11,000 athletes and 7,000 officials are expected to take part in the Games. The best-case scenario would be a safe and smooth Olympics, implying safety measures by the Japanese government and IOC have worked. Yet a simple human error could easily cause things to go south. Is the world prepared to take that chance when so much is at stake?

The challenges facing the organisers are real. The fear is that the Games could trigger an outbreak within the athletic community or even the city.

An Olympic Covid-19 outbreak would not only test the limits of Japan’s health care system but could also possibly incubate a new Olympic variant. As the tens of thousands of athletes and others attempt to head home, any new variant could pose a global threat.

When the world is still struggling to overcome a pandemic that has already led to 4.1 million deaths and more than 191 million infections, and with the bulk of the world population yet to be vaccinated, is this the time for celebration and showcasing?

The top medal-winning nation of the last Olympics in Rio de Janeiro in 2016 was the US, which today is the most severely affected country by the coronavirus, with more than 608,000 reported deaths, according to Our World in Data.

As stated in the Olympic Charter, one of the roles of the IOC is “to encourage and support measures relating to the medical care and health of athletes”. By going ahead with the Tokyo Games, is the IOC not violating its own charter?

The World Health Organization cannot avoid responsibility either, should an outbreak occur, for it told the IOC that there was “no case” for cancelling or relocating the Tokyo Olympics over the coronavirus outbreak.

How can Japan and IOC be so oblivious to the potential hazards facing some of the world’s most talented athletes?

 Weblink: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3141806/amid-pandemic-tokyo-olympics-disaster-waiting-happen

30. The key to Asean’s post-pandemic recovery is digital transformation

June 04, 2021

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

• The pandemic has accelerated Southeast Asia’s adoption of e-commerce, which holds great economic potential

• But, for the region to become a major digital economy, gaps in infrastructure, access, inclusion, skills and policy must be addressed

________________________________________________________________________________________

The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated Asean’s digital transformation at an unprecedented scale and speed. With bricks-and-mortar businesses in Southeast Asia disrupted by lockdowns, e-commerce surged to US$62 billion in 2020, 63 per cent up from 2019. Online shopping is expected to grow by another US$100 billion by 2025, research shows.

In Thailand alone, downloads of shopping apps increased by 60 per cent early in the pandemic. In Indonesia, where almost all businesses are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), the government has been compelled to help entrepreneurs adopt digital tools and skills. Across the region, the shift to online work and schooling has seen the number of internet users hit 400 million.

Southeast Asia’s adoption of digital solutions has played an important role in addressing a wide range of socio-economic challenges. Singapore was the first country in the world to introduce a Bluetooth-based mobile app, TraceTogether, for contract tracing, with others in the region following suit.

The use of technology to compliment conventional health care has benefited members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Deployment of information apps providing transparent and accessible data on the pandemic has kept the “infodemic” under control, for example.

Technology has also been used to roll out social programmes: the adoption of digital identity systems has been accelerated to ensure cash transfers reach the poor. Additionally, the plethora of online marketplaces that have sprung up during the pandemic has helped small businesses survive and, in many cases, thrive.

Digital integration has enabled Asean to harness its power as a collective, enabling member states to compete effectively in the global economy and also allowing them to foster domestic growth.

However, a divergence in technological readiness, governance and the like has led to differing levels of adoption. Internet penetration varies widely: only 22 per cent of Laos’ population has internet access versus 81 per cent in Singapore, for instance.

While Singapore, Thailand, Brunei and Malaysia were quick to support health and other sectors with digital tools, the Philippines and Indonesia were held back by a lack of government coordination. For less-developed countries like Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, low digital penetration and lack of digital literacy has left them reliant on traditional approaches.

For Asean to become a key regional digital economy, gaps in infrastructure, access, inclusion, skills and policy have to be addressed. Up to US$1 trillion could be added to the region’s GDP by 2025 with greater digital integration, according to Bain and Company research.

With the pandemic-induced shift in consumer behaviour, e-commerce integration for MSMEs could help Asean revive struggling economies. This would open up opportunities for enterprises of all sizes, increasing local businesses’ participation in the global value chain and enhancing their international competitiveness.

MSMEs are the backbone of Asean’s growing economy, employing 80 per cent of the workforce. Despite this, less than 20 per cent of such enterprises are equipped to benefit from digital integration. To foster their growth, they need support to navigate the e-business ecosystem, whether it is starting an online enterprise or understanding digital norms.

Southeast Asia can generate major investment opportunities via cross-border integration and economic digitalisation. This has to be accompanied by the provision of seamless, secure and low-cost digital financial services.

Such services could provide support to the “unbanked” and “underbanked” populations, and foster entrepreneurship by providing financial assistance to small businesses. It is estimated that digital financial services could generate US$60 billion in revenue by 2025.

Digital technology can also help garner exponential gains in manufacturing. The region could become the next factory of the world by seizing the potential of Industry 4.0 technologies like robotics, 3D printing and predictive algorithms. For Asean, this could translate into productivity gains of up to US$627 billion by 2025, according to a McKinsey report.

Asean’s path to a successful digital transformation depends on coordinated policy responses – that is, whether the region’s leaders have a common vision for digital integration.

First, providing inclusive and affordable access to quality digital infrastructure across the region would involve lowering prices, increasing internet speeds and introducing stable broadband services in neglected areas. Second, no one in the workforce should be left behind. The yawning gap in digital skills makes it imperative to prioritise investment in human capital.

Third, growth driven by cross-border data flows will have to be balanced by stringent cybersecurity standards and regulations as customer trust is key to the long-term success of online trade. Vulnerability to cyberattacks could cost top Asean companies up to US$750 billion, and the region would need to spend up to US$171 billion on cybersecurity by 2025, according to research by consulting firm Kearney.

Finally, around US$18 billion in investments is needed to roll out 5G networks  to 200 million people by 2025 and deliver internet that is 50 times faster than 4G. Given the enormity of the task, public-private partnerships will be vital to Asean’s digital transformation.

Weblink: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3114851/why-asia-poised-leapfrog-west-its-way-fast-pandemic-recovery

31. Why Asia is poised to leapfrog the West on its way to a fast pandemic recovery

December 23, 2020 

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background:

As the severity of the pandemic increased, Asia had a united front in tackling the disease technologically and economically. However, now as the world prepares for the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines would it overcome the geopolitical tensions and challenges in poverty, health care and climate change on its path to recovery?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

As the world prepares for the distribution of Covid-19 vaccines, Asia is on target for a fast economic recovery. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development projects that China, Asia’s largest economy, will return to 8 percent growth in 2021, compared to 3.2 percent for the United States. The Asian Development Bank expects the Asian economy to rebound by 6.8 percent next year.

While East Asia has been the driver of advanced technology during this pandemic, South Asia has been able to draw on its lessons in epidemic and disaster management. Asia has become the new frontier not just for global trade and capital, but also knowledge creation, culture and digitalisation.

As key technology, capital and market providers, Asia’s economies and populations have proved resilient and diligent, ready to play a leading role in shaping the next phase of globalisation.

Many Asian nations, particularly in East Asia, practice a culture of discipline and adherence to instructions, which has empowered governments to tackle the pandemic effectively. The region’s experience with epidemics has also helped authorities craft their strategies.

Asians’ response has largely been in contrast to the West’s anti-mask and anti-lockdown rallies. Vietnam has been exemplary with its aggressive containment and cost-effective control measures, showing Asian countries’ ability to act swiftly.

Asia also regularly deals with infectious diseases, including 70 percent of the world’s dengue cases. Though many countries in the region lack the infrastructure to support a surveillance and emergency response system, they are continually working towards it.

Natural disasters, particularly in South Asia, add to the development of these emergency systems, leading to fast and dynamic changes in infrastructure. This makes possible the development of flexible strategies and a “build back better” approach, rather than “business as usual”.

Bangladesh is a prominent example in its response to deadly cyclones, having constructed early warning systems, cyclone shelters, coastal embankments and evacuation plans, while raising community awareness.

Singapore is another example, dovetailing its technological capabilities with people’s adherence to rules and discipline. It has, for example, developed a rapid Covid-19 response through a national WhatsApp channel and Gowhere website to educate and update as well as tell citizens where to collect masks and special subsidies.

Singapore, with its low number of Covid-19 cases, is a prime example of a disciplined, mature and informed population respecting government advice.

A key factor in Asia’s resilience is its rapid technological development, particularly in East Asia and India, where investment in intraregional tech start-ups has increased.

With 50 per cent of the world’s largest technology companies based in Asia and four fast-rising innovation hubs spread across the region in Wuhan, Jakarta, Yangon and Hyderabad, Asia is becoming the key driver of technological advancement.

This advancement has been led by a dynamic economy and a young population rapidly transitioning from lower to middle class, with vast resources for innovation, and access to quality intellect at competitive prices. The sharp rise in literacy across Asia has also led to productive employment.

The OECD estimates that China and India will account for over 60 per cent of STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) graduates by 2030 in comparison to 4 per cent in the US and 8 per cent in Europe.

As an innovative and entrepreneurial middle class grows in leading Asian economies such as China, India and Indonesia, the consumer market is also changing rapidly, with a preference developing for domestic goods over Western imports as tighter regulations drive out poorer-quality products.

This has nurtured the success of the likes of Alibaba, Samsung, WeChat, Toyota and Huawei, and increased Asia’s global presence. E-commerce revenue in Asia is projected to reach US$1.4 trillion this year, compared to US$425 billion for Europe.

Epidemics are not the only motivation for the coming together of Asia, where the building of a resilient economy has been at the forefront of partnerships.

The signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) last month by 15 Asia-Pacific nations is a milestone – the trade pact covers a market that accounts for 30 per cent of the world economy. In addition, Asean has long been a force for regional development and growth. These networks bind both Asian economies and populations.

However, there are caveats to regional progress. India-China rivalry and the India-Pakistan conflict in  Kashmir  are flash points. Bringing western Asia into the fold is a difficult task that needs to be explored. China’s  contentious Belt and Road Initiative may not be the only trajectory for a more connected Asia.

Asia’s united response and technological transformation have had a positive impact. This Asian boom should inspire the region to deepen its ties with lower-income countries so they, too, can catch up.

As culture, technology and unity propel Asia to the global forefront, greater attention to the education and health care of marginalised populations can reinforce this transformation. With economic growth and population pliancy, a shift to sustainable practices                is essential.

Vulnerabilities in areas such as poverty, health care and climate change impact are major obstacles to progress. These complications call for regional cooperation to become global. Like the rest of the world, Asia is preparing for the affordable and accessible distribution of vaccines to its population, much of it deep in poverty.

Asia’s bigger goal is to bounce back from the economic shock of the pandemic. Its resilience places it in an advantageous position to jump ahead of its Western counterparts on its way to recovery.

Weblink: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3114851/why-asia-poised-leapfrog-west-its-way-fast-pandemic-recovery

32. After four years of Trump’s ‘America first’, Biden must pivot back to Asia

November 11, 2020 

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background

As the new US President Joe Biden vies to re-establish US leadership in Asia. The article looks into challenges for the new US administration in regaining US’s leadership in the region.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The pivot to Asia, initiated by then US president Barack Obama, was expected to be a harbinger of a new era of cooperation between the United States and Asia. But, with Donald Trump in the Oval office, that strategy was pushed aside to make room for an Indo-Pacific alliance.

This “Quad”, made up of the US plus three regional allies – Australia, Japan and India – was seen by many as more of a bulwark against an increasingly assertive China than a way of bringing a greater number of Asian nations into the fold of a US-led economic and strategic alliance.

As Asia continues its upwards trajectory, seeking to surpass Europe not only in economic terms, but also in strategic importance, a key challenge for Joe Biden’s administration will be to recover lost ground, which will require both sides to reconnect and reboot relations.

The pivot to Asia was intended to promote a number of collaborations, from tackling the impact of climate change to propping up US-led regional security, with a key focus being economic growth through open markets that create greater opportunities for trade and investment.

The signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership charted a path to reducing the signatories’ dependence on Chinese trade and to forge stronger ties with the US as a geopolitical counterweight to China’s regional aspirations.

Trump’s withdrawal from the TPP in 2017, driven by his “America first” policy, created a leadership void in the region that led to the creation in 2018 of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), involving Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

As China continued on its path to regional dominance, the Trump administration strengthened the Indo-Pacific strategy. This year saw all four members of the Quad taking part in the Malabar naval exercises.

In the same vein, as a result of India and China’s conflict over the Ladakh-Aksai Chin border in the Himalayan region, the US secretaries of state and defence visited New Delhi to sign a military agreement and send a message to Beijing that America is committed to its allies who are on the front line of China’s aggressive posturing under President Xi Jinping. However, when it comes to trade, the balance continues to be tilted towards China.

The Chinese-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership – which is being negotiated with traditional US allies like Australia, Japan and Singapore – is expected to finally be signed at the upcoming Asean summit. This would signal an important victory for China in its quest for global economic supremacy.

Once signed, the pact will forge the largest free trade bloc in the world, covering about a third of global gross domestic product. Currently, even the Philippines, a long-standing US ally, trades more with China: 18.8 per cent of its trade in the first half of 2019 was with China, while the US accounted for 10.9 per cent.

Yet, Biden is becoming president at a time when China’s authoritarian muscle-flexing in Hong Kong, incarceration of up to 1 million Muslims, and early coronavirus missteps in Wuhan have hurt the Asian giant’s global image. In addition, the Belt and Road Initiative – with deals worth US$64 billion signed during the Belt and Road Forum last year alone – has not quite shaken off concerns about “debt trap diplomacy”.

Partner countries like Pakistan, Mongolia, the Maldives, Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan and Laos are at high risk of debt distress. Even Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad, who attended last year’s Belt and Road Forum, has cautioned China against becoming a new colonial power.

All this gives Biden an opportunity to reconnect with old allies and rekindle relationships that may have become dormant. For example, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore came together in 2004 and launched the Malacca Straits Patrol, combining their naval and air patrols in the Malacca Strait.

Here, the US could play a lead role in ensuring rules-based navigation and engagement in the Malacca Strait, one of the world’s most important shipping channels through which one-quarter of global trade passes. This would be quite relevant, especially when there is growing concern about China’s expansionist policy and its territorial disputes in the South China Sea with members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, including Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia.

Meanwhile, the region’s privacy concerns about Chinese apps including TikTok and WeChat present an opportunity for US tech giants like Amazon, Google and Facebook to strengthen their presence in the Asia-Pacific region, which accounts for over two-thirds, or US$2.3 trillion, of global e-commerce.

The US and its allies in Asia could set up an e-commerce framework, opening up a new horizon for the trade of goods and services between the world’s largest economy and its biggest e-commerce market. The CPTPP already contains important liberalising measures to facilitate digital trade and establish a regulatory framework for all things digital in the region.

During his term in office, Obama attended nine out of 12 Apec and US-Asean summits; Trump has attended two of five. Trump’s foreign policy approach towards the Asia-Pacific has been transactional, and he has shown less interest in building long-term economic partnerships and strategic alliances. Biden’s challenge will be to rebuild trust and re-establish the US’ leadership role in the region.

Over his career, which includes terms as US vice-president and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden has met some 150 leaders from 60 countries. He has the experience and acumen to reboot the relationship with the Asia-Pacific that has never been more important, when the US is facing a serious challenge for dominance from a rising Asian power that is intent on claiming its rightful place on the global stage.

Link: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3109186/after-four-years-trumps-america-first-biden-must-pivot-back-asia

33. #Me Too momentum shows there’s much more to do for gender equality before #Time’sUp

Jan 25, 2018

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background

In the last few decades, significant progress has been made in women’s empowerment around the world. However, much still needs to be done in achieving gender parity and equal pay, and removing power play and sexual harassment of women in work. In light of some of the recent high-profile revelations of gender discrimination and power abuse of women by men, the article sheds light into this ongoing social debate.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Sex abuse scandals have hit the headlines because of star power, both in the film and sports industry. However, ordinary women who have been subject to similar abuse relive the same moments every day, without it being reported or prosecuted. In many Asian countries, the culture of male sexual entitlement and the social norms empower men to harass women.

ActionAid research concluded that 44 per cent of women surveyed in India had been groped in public. As women say #MeToo and share stories of sexual harassment on social media to show how widespread it is, the campaign has not had an impact everywhere. In Thailand, a women’s rights advocate argues that this is because “the cultural structures are different. Thai people see sexual harassment as a personal issue between two people.”

Sexual harassment, along with unequal pay, remains at the forefront of global gender-based discrimination. In 2015, 586 million women were self employed or contributing family workers. However, many earn half or less than the wages men are paid for the same work and face gender discrimination, intimidation and sexual abuse. Recently, Carrie Gracie, BBC’s China editor, resigned citing pay inequality. Heidi Lamar, a former Google employee, filed a complaint against the tech giant for its alleged pattern of unequal pay for women.

In many Asian countries, the culture of male sexual entitlement and the social norms empower men to harass women

The average full-time female worker earns 15 per cent less than her male counterpart in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. Even in the developed world, women are still viewed as objects and less valuable than men. In the US, there is one rape reported every 6.2 minutes.

The political arena is no exception. Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore recently lost in the Republican stronghold after being accused of sexually assaulting teenagers. UK defence minister Michael Fallon admitted to appropriately touching a journalist and was accused of trying to kiss another reporter.

In spite of the progress in the economic empowerment and social status of women over the past 50 years, both powerful and ordinary men continue to cast a shadow over women. As women become more vocal about their place and rights in society, economic provisions and social norms need to be on a par with the changing times. It will be a while before #Time’sUp becomes a reality as substantial barriers remain to achieving full equality for women around the world. Until then, the movement continues.

Link:  http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2130347/metoo-momentum-shows-theres-much-more-do-gender-equality

34. Pushing Trump’s button: How Mueller’s investigation could prompt North Korea conflict

January 6, 2018

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background

As investigation by the special prosecutor Robert Mueller closes in the Trump Presidency, the prospect of impeachment against the US President looms large and may prompt a US led attack on the North Korea for diversion from the political ordeal that may emanate. The article looks into the recent developments, analyzes odds against the President, and makes rationale inferences based on careful look at the options he may have on such eventuality.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

While North Korean leader Kim Jong-un struck a conciliatory note in his new year’s message, speaking of “peaceful resolution” with South Korea, he was steadfast in his belligerent rhetoric toward the US: “The entire United States is within range of our nuclear weapons, a nuclear button is always on my desk.” US President Donald Trump did not lose time responding, tweeting that he also has a nuclear button, “but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than [Kim’s], and my Button works!”

Even as South Korea responds to the North’s gesture by proposing a meeting on January 9 in Panmunjom, a village in the demilitarised zone that serves as a location for inter-Korean negotiations, one should recall the claims by Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham, that there’s a 30 per cent chance that Trump will attack North Korea, rising to 70 per cent if the North conducts another nuclear test. “If nothing changes, Trump’s gonna have to use the military option, because time is running out,” Graham said in December.

As the new year starts with a note of both cautious optimism and provocative exchanges, there are a number of independent but interrelated events which may affect how the Korean crisis plays out in the months to come.

As special prosecutor Robert Mueller, appointed by the US Department of Justice to oversee the investigation into “links and/or coordination” between the Russian government and Trump’s campaign, closes in on Trump’s inner circle, the spectre of impeachment continues to cloud the Trump presidency. Trump could potentially face multiple charges, including collusion with a foreign country, obstruction of justice, abuse of power and charges specific to Trump aides.

While the investigation remains largely secretive, it is apparent that Trump campaign aides have shared campaign-related information and strategy with Russian operatives through phone, email and secretive meetings. This includes Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who has pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about meeting a senior Russian diplomat and politician. Mueller has deployed the Inland Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations Division, one of the government’s specialised investigative entities focused on financial crime including tax evasion and money laundering. Deutsche Bank has already sent Trump’s financial details to the Mueller investigation.

 Trump’s approval rating has hovered below 40 per cent, with a Fox News poll this week placing it at 38 per cent and showing a decline among his core white voting base. As Mueller puts together the pieces of the puzzle and the investigation gets too close for the president’s comfort, Trump may be tempted to use external issues to fend off domestic political crisis. Another round of missile tests by Pyongyang at a precarious time for the Trump presidency risks provoking a US response by a potentially beleaguered presidency in Washington.

Last month, Trump’s current national security adviser H. R. McMaster stated that the North Korean threats were increasing by the day. Launching a war would risk bringing major players like China into the conundrum, upsetting the precarious balance between the US and China, and risk thrusting parts of Asia into nuclear winter, spelling disaster for millions, especially in East Asia.

If the Mueller investigation results in incriminating charges against Trump, the president might well take on “Little Rocket Man”, rather than face the political ordeal emanating from potential impeachment proceedings.

Link:  http://www.scmp.com/comment/insightopinion/article/2126792/pushing-trumps-button-how-muellers-investigationcould

35. Myanmar must accept the Rohingya Muslims as its own

November 27, 2017

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background

The controversial 1982 citizenship law by Myanmar denies the Rohingya Muslims from legitimate and basic rights as citizens of the country. With end of the British rule in 1948, Myanmar embarked into a new form of ultra nationalism that promotes discrimination against the Rohingya. The recent atrocities committed by the Burmese army against the world’s most persecuted minority can not absolve Myanmar from its responsibility to accept the Rohingya as its own and grant them safe return and refuge in their ancestral homeland of hundred years where they have been living since the Arakan kingdom of 12th century.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

An unprecedented 400,000 Rohingya have crossed into Bangladesh since August 25 to flee persecution and death in Myanmar. Bangladesh, itself densely populated and mired in rural poverty, is struggling to manage the massive influx. Most of the refugees are encamped in Cox’s Bazar, a resource-strapped district in southern Bangladesh.

With the country already hosting tens of thousands of Rohingya who have fled Myanmar over the years, this latest wave poses significant risks not only to Bangladesh, but to the region as a whole.

So far, Bangladesh has responded to the humanitarian crisis with compassion. Some 810 hectares of land have been provided to house the arrivals in makeshift camps, though the ultimate goal is repatriation.

By contrast, the regional powers in South and Southeast Asia are either acting like an idle bystander or waiting for things to play out.

In Europe, the EU committed billions of dollars to help Turkey accommodate the flow of Syrian refugees. Bangladesh has not received anything close to that from its neighbours.

The silence from India, considered Bangladesh’s biggest regional ally, is especially deafening. It has not spoken out against the atrocities being committed against the Rohingya, and even disassociated itself from the “Bali declaration” adopted by the recent World Parliamentary Forum on Sustainable Development held in Bali, in which the Rohingya plight was mentioned.

Yet, the issue must be addressed, or the refugee crisis will become a security concern for both Bangladesh and India. The refugee camps can easily become a breeding ground for terrorism. Moreover, the growing refugee population will also exacerbate poverty, raising already high illiteracy and unemployment rates.

Myanmar must accept the Rohingya as its own. Its controversial 1982 citizenship law denies the Rohingya Muslims any recognition from the state. While they have been permitted to live in Myanmar, they are considered by the authorities to be “resident foreigners” – that is, illegal immigrants from Bangladesh with no ancestral ties to Myanmar.

The end of British rule in Myanmar in 1948 ushered in a new nationalism, which unfortunately included discrimination against the Rohingya. It is foolhardy to think that the Rohingya can ever be sent back to their “place of origin”, when they and their forefathers have been living in Myanmar since the 12th century.

Link: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2112847/myanmar-must-accept-rohingya-muslims-its-own

36. Singapore-China strategic relations are worth keeping 

July 13, 2017

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background

Relations between China and Singapore have historically been friendly beginning with visits by Lee Kuan Yew and Deng Xiaoping in the mid-seventies. In recent times, relations have been challenged by a number of issues which has dented the goodwill. In view of the upcoming visit of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to Singapore, the article looks into the past, present and future of relations between Singapore and China, the factors affecting it and what is at stake for both the countries.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

When Singapore announced last month that Chinese Premier Li

Keqiang (李克強) will pay a visit to the island nation, the news was widely seen as a sign that tensions between the two countries were easing. Their relations took a dive last year over Singapore’s stance on the South China Sea disputes involving China and some of the other Asean countries.

In November, Beijing protested against Singapore’s military exercises with Taiwan, after Hong Kong customs impounded nine Singapore armoured personnel carriers in transit from Taiwan after military exercises.

With the dent in relations, China has started looking more towards countries like Malaysia and the Philippines. And with China building its own training capabilities, dependence on Singapore for capacity building in governance is also waning.

But the ties between the two run deep. As recently as 2015, China and Singapore celebrated the 25th anniversary of their diplomatic ties. And Singapore has played a key role in relations between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

China was Singapore’s top trading partner in 2015, while Singapore was China’s largest foreign investor. In November 2015, Singapore also hosted   the dialogue between President Xi Jinping ( 習近平 ) and then Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou.

Although Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s absence from

the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing in May raised questions, the city state’s deputy prime minister, Teo Chee Hean, emphasised that Singapore will continue to support “China’s peaceful development and constructive engagement in the region”.

In fact, Singapore was one of the first counties to support the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and 60 per cent of the earlier belt and road projects implemented in Asean countries were financed by Singapore.

In a meeting last week in Hamburg between Xi and Lee, prior to the G20 Summit, the two leaders discussed Singapore’s role in the Belt and Road Initiative, and closer economic ties through an improved free trade agreement.

Singapore is now confronting a reality that has seen the Trans-Pacific Partnership shelved, the US “pivot to Asia” policy revoked, and uncertainty over the impact of the Donald Trump presidency on Asia. With rising Chinese influence, much is at stake for Singapore considering the love lost in recent times.

For both Singapore and China, there is still much value in having a strategic partnership that, in the past, has served them both well.

Link:  http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2102316/singapore-china-strategic-partnership-worth-keeping

37. India’s Narendra Modi charmed with his words, it is now high time for action

May 24, 2017 

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background

As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi completes three years of his five year term i.e. little more than half of his term on May 26, 2017, the article looks into how much he has delivered on his promises on the diplomatic front, particularly with regard to the relationship of India in the Asian neighborhood and beyond, including the US and China.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Upon assuming office in May 2014, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi went on the diplomatic offensive. His “neighbourhood first” policy and high-profile visits to major capitals of power – from Washington to Beijing, and Moscow to Tokyo – underlined his commitment to secure India’s ascension to its rightful place in the League of Nations. More than half way through Modi’s five-year term, the question is whether his foreign policy is delivering.

Modi strengthened India’s ties with the US under President Barack Obama, visiting the US three times and meeting Obama six times in his first two years in office. Now President Donald Trump has renewed an invitation for him to visit the US.

However, India’s economic relations with the US are a different matter, especially when compared with US-China relations. Despite the hype, Modi’s “Make in India” initiative is falling short, with employment generation reaching a seven-year low in 2015, when just 135,000 new jobs were created, compared with 12 million new entrants to the workforce every year. 

Historically, India has maintained close ties with Russia. However, Moscow’s deepening military cooperation with Pakistan, and Pakistan’s offer to let Russia use their Chinese-built port in Gwadar, is a sign that – amid warming US-India ties – Russia does not consider India the sole focal point in South Asia. Differing views on engaging the Taliban in Afghanistan could also potentially strain New Delhi’s relationship with Moscow, particularly with Russia emphasizing that Pakistan must be a part of the solution.

India’s offensive to isolate Pakistan, diplomatically and politically, had mixed results during the BRICS and Bay of Bengal Initiative (BIMSTEC) nations meeting in October. While the BIMSTEC joint statement said, “We condemn in the strongest terms the recent barbaric terror attacks in the region”, India failed to achieve the same with BRICS. In 2014, Modi had announced the building of a South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) satellite to benefit all members of the bloc. But before its May 5 launch, it was renamed as the South Asia Satellite, after Pakistan opted out. Along with the dysfunctional Saarc, India has been trying to lead region initiatives like BBIN (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal) and BIMSTEC. But the strategy of isolating Pakistan has not yielded much dividend.

India has its share of problems with other South Asian neighbors as well. Despite traditional close ties with India, Bhutan refused to ratify the BBIN Motor Vehicles Agreement for cross- border movement, while India’s displeasure with Nepal’s new constitution has caused a widening rift with Kathmandu, and its fisheries dispute with Sri Lanka has yet to be resolved.

With Afghanistan, India has played a positive role in reconstruction in the post-Taliban era, providing development aid worth US$2 billion. Landlocked Afghanistan has also gained access to Iran’s Chabahar port through partnership with India. Meanwhile, though relations with Bangladesh have made significant progress, unresolved water-sharing rights, cross-border killings and terrorism have dogged talks.

India’s opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and Beijing’s blocking of India’s coveted entry to the Nuclear Suppliers Group have seen multilateral initiatives like the “Belt and Road” and BCIM (Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar forum) suffer. The failure of the two Asian giants to forge a strategic alliance is depriving regional nations of a chance to reap the benefits of greater connectivity and trade.

Japan is keen on boosting connectivity with Bay of Bengal states in the Indian Ocean region and investing in the Big-B (Bay of Bengal industrial growth belt) initiative. This is expected to play an important role in India’s “Act East policy” – by helping to connect the country with Southeast and East Asia.

Modi’s skilled oratory and charisma may have helped India to gain the attention of the world. However, in terms of tangible results like the resolution of neighborhood disputes and propelling regional initiatives, he has fallen short. Modi’s diplomacy needs to deliver better if it is to make a positive difference during the remainder of his term.

Link:  http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2095514/indias-narendra-modi- charmed-his-words-it-now-high-time

38. 50 years on, the Asian Development Bank must move with the times

May 04, 2017

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background:

As ADB celebrates 50 years of operation in 2017, the article acknowledges the critical development projects and initiatives brought forth by the bank in emerging Asia. From embracing a very Asian approach in its projects and lending criteria to supporting the graduation of low-income countries to middle-income nations through disbursement of loans worth US$300bn, ADB has played a remarkable role in fostering the region’s rise. This article aims to highlight the spectacular successes of ADB, delves into criticisms received by ADB and identify the escalating challenges ahead of the bank in enhancing sustainable and responsible prosperity in Asia.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Asia today is the fastest growing region in the world, housing three of the 10 largest economies – China, Japan and India. The once poverty-stricken states of Asia, with their intermittent political violence and weak governance, have become today’s star performers.

 The Asian Development Bank (ADB), which celebrates 50 years of operation this week, was created to cater to Asian development needs and played a significant role in the rise of the region. Over the past 50 years, the bank has contributed US$300 billion worth of development financing to its member countries and is expected to increase its annual loan commitments to US$20 billion by 2020, with almost half of its lending portfolio allocated to energy and transport infrastructure. Through the ADB, the US and Japan and later China have funnelled funds worth billions to infrastructure-hungry Asian economies.

Unlike the World Bank, where decisions were undertaken in Washington, based on the West’s experience of development financing in Europe, the ADB took a very Asian approach to its projects and lending criteria.

China, which now has the world’s second-largest economy, was once the ADB’s second-largest sovereign borrower. It has since graduated to being a significant contributor.

The ADB, however, has had its fair share of criticism as well. Changing geopolitical landscapes and global economics demand that more voting rights go to emerging China and India. As of now, the non-Asian member, the US, holds the second-largest voting power (12.71 per cent) after Japan (12.8 per cent), while China, the largest Asian economy, holds a paltry 5.46 per cent of the voting power.

And while the bank’s primary focus has been on infrastructure and connectivity, it needs to move towards projects that enhance good governance and promote democratic principles in the emerging Asian economies. Governance, human rights and women’s empowerment have not moved in tandem with economic growth in Asia.

To meet its infrastructure requirements, Asia requires US$26 trillion in investment by 2030. The urban population in Asia is expected to nearly double in the next four decades, putting tremendous pressure on cities. And despite all its successes, Asia is still a region where 1.2 billion people live on less than US$3.10 per day. As the ADB celebrates its 50 years, it has a challenging task ahead to widen its network and portfolio and establish a poverty-free and self-sustaining Asia.

Link: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2092671/50-years-asian-development-bank-must-move-times

39. A Trump-led US will need to wake up to the economic realities of a strong Asia

November 13, 2016

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background:

As US President elect Donald Trump makes key appointments and gets into putting his policies in place, particularly relations with Asia, the attached article in the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong makes a poignant case as to how a policy of isolationism makes US a bigger loser than Asia, both economically and strategically. The policy implications are backed by facts and realities that the Trump administration will have to deal with once the dust settles and populist rhetoric face the real life challenges.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

In 1990, Asia’s share of world GDP in real terms was 23 per cent. This rose to 38.8 per cent in 2015 and is expected to go up to 45 per cent by 2025 if current economic trends continue.

Today, the East Asia and Pacific region is a major driver of global economic growth, accounting for two fifths in 2015. The United States maintains robust trade relations with many countries from this region. Five Asian nations were among the top 10 US trading partners in 2015. China is currently the largest goods trading partner of the US and was also the third-largest goods export market in 2015. As of last year, US goods and services trade with China, India and Japan stood at a staggering US$1.42 trillion, and US-Asean bilateral trade has increased 71 per cent since 2001. 

President-elect Donald Trump, throughout his campaign, kept repeating how China had cheated the US out of millions of manufacturing jobs through currency manipulation and how these jobs needed to be brought back to the US. While it is true that, between 2001 and 2015, the US lost 3.2 million jobs to China, three-quarters of those in manufacturing, what is also true is that manufacturing bases in China and other emerging Asian economies have provided American consumers with access to quality goods at affordable prices and kept the wheels of the American economy turning through continued consumer spending.

The US Consumer Sentiment Index, which fell to 68.2 in September 2010, stood at 91.2 in September this year. More American families can afford more clothing, smart TVs and phones, and other products because of Asia’s ability to churn out quality goods at lower costs. A “made in Bangladesh” T-shirt that costs an American US$2 would have cost US$10 if made in the US. In fact, during Trump’s campaign, several media outlets highlighted how the Donald J Trump men’s clothing and accessories line had their products made by factories in Asian countries like Bangladesh, India and China where production costs are lower.

In a globalised world, it is simply not feasible to undo the global value chain mechanism already in place. Bringing certain manufacturing jobs back to America risks increasing production costs, making goods more expensive for the average US consumer. Trump’s stated Asia policy in terms of trade is isolationist, myopic and economically flawed. Instead of going for more mutually beneficial trade deals with emerging and established Asian economies, he plans policies like imposing a 45 per cent tariff on all Chinese products and declaring the country a currency manipulator.

Now that he has won the election, populist theories, which may have served him well during the campaign, need to be in sync with realities on the ground. The world that Trump faces is much more complex than the electoral constituencies he energised with populist campaign messages. Isolationist policies will harm the American economy no less, perhaps more, than the emerging economies he is targeting in Asia.

On geopolitics, Trump’s tirades against traditional Asian allies like Japan and South Korea will only help regional players like China and Russia solidify their influence in the region. Long- established US allies in Asia want the US to retain its support and influence in the region to counterbalance an increasingly assertive China. During the first presidential debate, which focused on foreign policy, Trump commented on how support of Japan and South Korea through sending troops is unnecessary and costly for the US. He even suggested that Japan and South Korea pay the US for defending them. However, South Korea reportedly paid US$848 million in 2015 for the 28,500 US troops stationed there, while Japan increased its financial support for US troops to US$1.9 billion the same year.

By 2050, China will account for one-third of global GDP, with the rest of Asia taking the region’s total contribution to more than half. If the Trump administration chooses to be oblivious to the economic realities and geopolitical complexities of Asia and can’t get over his election rhetoric, the bigger loser will be the US, not Asia.

Link: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2045178/trump-led-us- will-need-wake-economic-realities-strong-asia.

40. Why ‘love thy neighbour’ is still great advice for China and India

August 17, 2016

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background

On August 13, 2016 the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met Indian Prime Minister Modi and his Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj. This is highest level contact between the two countries after fallout from the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) row between them in last June during which China blocked India's entry into the NSG. Since then, things have been getting sour between the two and the standoff is reflective of the strategic discomfort between the two Asian giants.

The attached article looks into the Sino-India relationship and underscores the importance of a better Sino-India strategic relationship, if not partnership, to realize the growth potential of Asian integration in the 21st century. Geopolitical complexity is compounded by increased reassertion of traditional China-Pakistan partnership and the growing US-India-Japan strategic alliance.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s (王毅) meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj in New Delhi on August 13 was the first high-level bilateral contact since China’s move to block India’s membership to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

From Wang’s perspective, the purpose of his visit was to secure India’s cooperation at upcoming multilateral meetings like the G20, BRICS, and East Asia summits, while also discussing trade and investment, visas and tourism, and cultural and academic exchanges. Contentious issues did come up and Swaraj reiterated India’s opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a US$46 billion project to transport goods from China’s western regions through the Pakistani port of Gwadar.

Since China blocked India’s entry to the NSG, the fallout has continued. Last month, India deployed 100 tanks to its border with China and then refused to extend the visas of three Chinese journalists who reportedly made unauthorised visits to Tibetan refugee camps. New Delhi has also stated its willingness to help other Asian countries with rights claims in the South China Sea, and Indian navy ships took part in joint military exercises with the Malaysian navy.

New Delhi also sanctioned the deployment of additional supersonic missiles in the Eastern sector, to ramp up capabilities along the Chinese border. During Modi’s upcoming visit to Vietnam, he is expected to offer a range of military equipment and on August 10, Hanoi affirmed that India can drill for oil in the South China Sea, despite Beijing’s threats.

On the economic front, India’s exports to China dropped 16.7 per cent in the first seven months of the year, and New Delhi’s anti- dumping duty on Chinese hot-rolled steel products reflects the continued downward trend in Sino-Indian trade ties.

Since fighting a war in 1962 over a border conflict, China and India have clashed on many issues. Although over time, the rising powers have healed the wounds to grow into major trading partners, the agenda of strengthening connectivity and strategic cooperation remains largely shelved and the NSG affair has certainly not helped. If India’s membership were granted, it would irk Pakistan, considering its demand for access to the group through China.

China’s stance on India also relates to security concerns, centred on the evolving dynamics of New Delhi’s relations with the US and Japan. Informal alliances such as that between Japan and India are meant to balance the growing Chinese influence in the Asia-Pacific.

In parallel, India-Japan-US trilateral dialogue has emerged from Japan’s fear of a rising China, particularly a concern over the battle for trade advantage in East Asia, and South China Sea disputes.

On the Chinese front, concern lies in possible Indian support for Japan and littoral Asean members’ cause, backed by the US military scouting in the region. If these were the only pieces of the continental puzzle, a solution could be found in re-evaluating the parameters of the new regional order by sorting out territorial conflicts.

However, the repercussions of Indo-China relations inflict collateral damage far beyond the two countries as, collectively, they have significant influence on the economic, diplomatic, strategic and military spheres of the Asia-Pacific. All areas would benefit greatly from better Sino-Indian relations. For example, as new members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, India and Pakistan could gain from cooperation with Central Asian countries. For India, it opens a new gateway to the massive energy fields.

However, the intricacies of relations between China, India and Pakistan may prevent uninhibited cooperation within the organisation.

Very often, potential gains from a Sino-Indian strategic partnership are either overlooked or get buried in the vestiges of past animosity and distrust.

The European Union is a pertinent example of former enemies (Germany and France) overcoming historical hostilities and playing a leading role in the formation of a union which is now benefiting the whole region.

With potential trade partnerships among Asian countries, the Chinese-led “One Belt, One Road” initiative could enable greater regional integration, boosting collective gross domestic product. The Maritime Silk Road could be funded by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with India potentially the second-biggest contributor. India also has a 20 per cent capital share in the new BRICS bank. The Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar corridor initiative, meanwhile, awaits Sino-Indian cooperation to move ahead.

Liu Zongyi, of the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, is among analysts who believe that geoeconomics rather than geopolitics should

rule India-China ties. The reality is both issues are so intertwined that to derive economic and strategic benefits from bilateral and mega-regional cooperation, China and India need to rise to the occasion.

They must find ways to come together to lead Asia towards greater connectivity, increased trade and economic development. The need of the hour is pragmatism and cooperation, not negativism and obstruction.

Big neighbours should be great neighbours before expecting others to follow suit.

Link:  http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2005036/why-love-thy- neighbour-still-great-advice-china-and-india

41. Rise of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and New Development Bank reinforces need for World Bank/IMF reform

October 19, 2015

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background:

Procrastinating reforms of the Bretton Woods institutions has long deprived the emerging economies from voice proportionate to their rising economic clout. Yet, all is not lost, and this article argues that much can be gained by all sides through pushing the reforms of Bretton Woods sooner than later. The successful Obama-Xi Jinping Summit in Washington last month could be a starting point to promote convergence in international economic diplomacy.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The annual meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund held in Lima, Peru earlier this month failed to come up with meaningful takeaways on the agenda of reform. Meanwhile, two new multilateral development banks, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New Development Bank of the BRICS countries, mostly driven by China, have been rolled out. US Undersecretary of Treasury for International Affairs Nathan Sheets has acknowledged that the rise of both banks is a result of the failure of reform by the World Bank

and IMF. While the developed countries continue to preach for institutional reforms in China and India, the World Bank and IMF themselves need substantial overhaul.                       

The Obama administration made a bid in 2010 for quota reform in the IMF with more voting share for developing nations, but it was foiled by the US Congress. At the Lima meeting, US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew called upon the US Congress to approve the quota reforms. The Bretton Woods’s institutions were devised when countries like China or India were ravaged by years of war and colonialism. The rise of these emerging economies has changed the state of play. The virtuous cycle of reform of the existing and cooperation with the new is the only way forward India, too, is also strongly supportive of reforms. In Lima, its finance minister Arun Jaitley pledged to press for reforms in the Bretton Woods.

Instead of driving a wedge between the older international order and the emerging economies, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New Development Bank have opened up an opportunity for creating convergence. While the US has now wised up to accept the former's presence, China has pledged to increase its contribution to the Bretton Woods institutions.

The formation of new banks does not obviate but reinforces the need for reform. The Bretton Woods institutions can benefit from a larger role of emerging economies. The proposed quota reform in the IMF will result, for example, in more financial contribution by emerging economies, boosting the fund's ability to play a more effective role in the global economy. As the crisis-riddled advanced economies are not inclined to boost the size of capital of multilateral development banks, higher contribution from emerging economies can be a welcome addition.

Besides jumpstarting the reform process, the two sets of banks - old ones and newcomers - have opportunities to harness cooperation for mutual advantage. One of the key planks of the organizational reform strategy of World Bank president Jim Yong Kim has been to cut the operational expenses, including retrenching staff.

The staff and overhead set-up of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank would be leaner than its older peers, and instead of one-off reform campaigns, Jin Liqun, the bank's president designate, promises that it will "go to the gym everyday". The bank plans to extend loans without conditionalities like deregulation or privatization, while promising to uphold environmental and governance standards.

Against the poverty-reduction focus of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will deploy its energy in developing infrastructure. The new multilateral development banks do not have any wild card or magic bullet and have to prove efficiency and impact in meeting the needs of developing countries.

Exclusion is a double-edged sword in the new world order, and mutual exclusion can feed into a race to the bottom for all sides. The existing global governance architecture could be sustained only through the inclusion of emerging economies, as advanced economies need to engage with the new institutions set up by their emerging counterparts.

The virtuous cycle of reform of the existing and cooperation with the new is the only way forward. Otherwise, there will be more multilateral development banks to emerge in the coming decades.

Link: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1869396/rise-asian- infrastructure-investment-bank-and-new 

42. Rohingya refugee crisis can be solved only if Asean musters the will to do so

June 19, 2015

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background

The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is applauded as a success story of regional economic cooperation. However, the sacrosanct principle of noninterference has exposed the cracks in the association as the summit on South Asian Boat People Crisis held by Thailand on May 20, 2015 failed to adopt conclusive and sustainable solutions. While similar challenges are being confronted by the European Union, the latter has succeeded in bringing together members to adopt coherent strategies for tackling the Mediterranean migration. The contrast between the two regional bodies point at the underlying forces of convergence and divergence that have shaped these two powerful institutes and impact their responses to regional and global issues.

The attached article adds a new dimension to the debate by contrasting ASEAN’s ineptitude with the more effective response by EU to the Mediterranean crisis. It provides insights into the inherent structural weaknesses of ASEAN which limits its ability to effectively respond to such man-made crisis.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

For the boat people of Southeast Asia, each day begins with a thickening sense of uncertainty, despair and a fading glimmer of hope. Thousands have been rescued in the past month by authorities and fishermen in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia after being stranded in the Andaman Sea. While some are Bangladeshis migrating for better jobs abroad, the majority are Rohingya Muslims escaping persecution in Myanmar.

After last month's regional summit in Thailand in which 17 countries participated, along with the UN refugee agency and the International Organisation for Migration, the host said major progress had been made. However, the meeting failed to address the root cause of the problem; delegates refrained from uttering the word "Rohingya" to ensure Myanmar's participation, even though the Rohingya are the principal victims of the crisis.

The summit's failure to effectively address a humanitarian crisis shows the inherent weakness of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in grappling with regional issues. Some argue that the boat people crisis is not particularly an "Asean problem", saying we shouldn't hold all of Southeast Asia accountable for Myanmar's ethnocentric policies. However, the reality is that Asean's existing structure limits its ability to put into force the collective political will to mitigate this human tragedy.

 The association is universally applauded for its economic success, but its sacrosanct principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a member country has exposed the cracks in cooperation.

Before Myanmar's reforms, Western democracies used to criticise this policy due to its acquiescence to Myanmar's military rulers. However, the censures were overshadowed by the spectacular economic gains of regional free trade arrangements. Now criticism has resurfaced alongside the migrant crisis.

When a similar migrant crisis emerged in the Mediterranean, the European Union was quick to mobilise a coherent response. Comparisons are inevitable as both are multinational bodies in important regions seeking to overcome past conflicts by promoting integration. Within a month of Italy's call for help, the European Commission had announced plans to distribute asylum seekers among member countries to ease the surge along the coasts of Italy, Greece and Malta. Even as discussions continue, so does action on the ground, in contrast with Asean.

While Asean is a grouping with a predominantly economic mandate, the EU has a customs union and a supranational structure of governance with an elected parliament. The European Commission could come up with an involuntary quota of migrant sharing because it has a mandate, clearly lacking in Asean's case.

The EU migrants are mainly refugees fleeing embattled North African countries and the EU is in no position to cooperate with the source countries to stop the influx. In Southeast Asia's case, the migrant source and destination countries have come together in talks but, still, the meeting fell short of an effective response.

Asean today finds itself faced with a stark choice hinging on its very self-definition: should it expand its mandate to adequately equip itself to tackle a humanitarian crisis, or stick to a purely economic agenda? As the "Asian Century" spawns unforeseen geopolitical, economic and humanitarian challenges, the time has come for Asean to build on its economic success to create a framework of governance that can respond to the changing geopolitical realities.

Link: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1823719/rohingya-refugee- crisis-can-be-solved-only-if-asean-musters

43. China must live up to the challenge of leadership in a new economic order

June 01, 2015

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background

After much discussion and debate, the Chinese led newly formed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has created an opportunity for the country to demonstrate its leadership in the world of development finance, traditionally dominated by the likes of the World Bank, IMF, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). As China advances its economic and geopolitical ambitions both within and beyond the Asia-Pacific, it has a dual identity of being both the world’s second largest economy and at the same time is a developing country with tens of millions of people still living in poverty. AIIB is the first major test for China in projecting its global economic leadership as it rallies the world to a new economic order profoundly influenced by the Asian giant.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

China's success at rallying both developed and developing nations to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank gives it an opportunity for global economic leadership. This role hinges on its dual identity. On the one hand, China is the world's second- largest economy; on the other, it is a developing country which still receives aid from the likes of the World Bank. Hence, China is in a position to understand the priorities of the developing world, while being responsive to concerns of the developed world.

The US emerged as the underwriter of the global economic system with the Bretton Woods conference in 1944 and the Marshall Plan, when it led not only in terms of the size of its economy and military capabilities, but also in per capita gross domestic product. China, on the other hand, is taking up the mantle of leadership when a significant portion of its population still lives in poverty. Its growth is slowing to a "new normal", necessitating internal reforms for sustaining a modest 6-7 per cent growth.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is the first test for China's emergence as the new leader of a changing world economic order, setting the stage for the internationalization of its currency and the emergence of Beijing as a major capital in global development finance. China is also undertaking initiatives like the Shanghai-based New Development Bank (BRICS bank) and the US$40 billion Silk Road Fund.

With the infrastructure bank, China has created a bridge to most of the traditional US allies that did not pay heed to US concerns about the new bank. The much vaunted "One Road, One Belt" connects China to Europe via a slew of routes. While the US and Japan ponder joining the infrastructure bank, major multilateral institutions, including the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, have expressed their willingness to work with the newcomer.

The developed world is beset with concerns over governance issues that China needs to allay with a robust framework of accountability. China's campaign against corruption at home needs to be matched by the right institutional safeguards against corruption at the infrastructure bank. The emerging economies of Asia need the bank's resources to meet the infrastructure gap of US$700 billion.

The infrastructure bank empowers China to bolster South-South linkages, and trade and investment relations with Central Asia, South and Southeast Asia, Africa and Europe. The developing countries, often disgruntled by the strings attached to the aid packages of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, would have a bigger say in the infrastructure bank.

Knowledge resources from time-tested incumbents such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank will be crucial to helping the infrastructure bank address its governance issues. The bank's interim secretariat is already recruiting people with experience in multilateral institutions. China also may tap its vast pool of citizens graduating from top universities, especially in the US.

An ascending China and the US "pivot" to Asia have given rise to zero-sum thinking, such as seeing the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a competing economic bloc to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Yet, in the larger scheme of things, there is scope for complementarity. Hillary Clinton, the then US secretary of state, noted in 2012 that "the Pacific is big enough for all of us". In his July 2013 tête-à-tête with US President Barack Obama, President Xi Jinping echoed the same: "The vast Pacific Ocean has enough space for two large countries like the US and China."

For the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to have the greatest impact, China and the US must cooperate, the way they did to ink the breakthrough bilateral climate deal last year. The world's development potential is big enough for the two leading nations to engage and cooperate, rather than doubt and frustrate each other.

Link: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1814436/china-must-live-challenge-leadership-new-economic-order 

44. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sets the stage, but can Abenomics really work?

January 07, 2015

Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman, IPAG

Background

In the wake of election victory of Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe last December, the reform-oriented statesman sets about translating his vision into action. As the Abe government moves forward with its agenda to reboot the domestic economy and international strategic stance of Japan, repercussions would be felt across the region and beyond. Japan has an important role in working with its neighbors towards a multilateral regional diplomacy and a forward-looking approach for a peaceful Asia-Pacific.

The article sheds light on the major challenges faced by Abe in its second term: the economic challenge, the international reorientation, and the social-demographic tailspin. Successful tackling of these three challenges would determine to a significant extent whether Prime Minister Abe leaves a lasting legacy for his country and the world. Here is the link to my latest article in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), one of the oldest, prestigious, and well respected Asian English newspaper published from Hong Kong.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

As Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe starts his new term in office, his priority was captured in his new year message. "This year, we will once again make the economy the foremost priority, delivering the warm winds of economic recovery to every corner of the nation," he said.

He has smartly captured his putatively irreplaceable game plan in the slogan, "This is the only way". However, he faces key challenges to translate his vision into reality.

Like his grandfather Nobusuke Kishi, the prime minister from 1957 to 1960, Abe is no stranger to pushing through unpopular policies that may ultimately bring positive results. Kishi set the tone of Japan's strategic alliance with the US that initially stirred wide protests but in theend had momentous consequences. Abe now has the opportunity to revive the floundering economy by pushing reforms which include not only the popular monetary and fiscal stimulus, but also the tough acts of overhauling the economy with a consumption tax hike, corporate tax cuts, labour market restructuring and deregulation in sectors like agriculture.

On December 27, the government announced a fresh stimulus package to spur dynamism in the economy. By revamping the economy through a delicate calibration of the three levers of "Abenomics" - fiscal stimulus, monetary easing and structural reforms - Abe expects to pull his country towards a new growth path.

On the international front, Abe pledged in his New Year statement to expand the role of the Self- Defence Forces. His programme of a "proactive contribution to peace" aims to reconstruct Japan's stature as a peaceful global power with an important strategic role. In the Asia-Pacific, Japan needs to work out a modus vivendi with China, which is playing a leading role in economic diplomacy in the region.

 China is one of Japan's largest trading partners and people-to-people relations show signs of warming. Last year saw the highest number of Chinese tourists visiting Japan. Regarding the island disputes that have edged close to flashpoints in recent years, newly released British government files indicate China and Japan have earlier precedents of mutual accommodation on the territories.

Rather than rubbing salt into old wounds by visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, Abe's recent statement referring to Japan's remorse over the Second World War and post-war contributions to peace signals a forward-looking approach. Chinese President Xi Jinping reinforced the approach when he said in a speech that "the Chinese and Japanese people shall learn from the past, look to the future, and work together to contribute to peace in the world".

In November, Abe struck the right balance by shaking hands with Xi while firming up the country's long-standing partnership with the US. Talks on a free trade agreement between Japan, China and South Korea, the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum could provide windows for further economic cooperation between the two nations.

On the social front, an important priority of Abenomics is to buoy wages to raise household spending. The national budget must accommodate welfare costs of the elderly, who constitute a quarter of the population and are a key bastion of support for Abe's Liberal Democratic Party. Abe's goal of increasing the workforce participation of women highlights social inclusion and women's empowerment. This is a welcome course correction for Japan.

Abe has demonstrated boldness and vision but whether his promises will deliver remains to be seen. Careful but reform-oriented economic management, complemented by an enlightened foreign policy and social progression, are crucial to sustain the momentum.

Link: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1675984/abe-sets-stage-can-abenomics-really-work