Friday, February 25, 2011
A World Without Wars and Acrimony - The Challenge and Possibility
Revisiting my archives
Every where there is a turn there certainly is a bend. People are seen crying whilst tears are busily turning the faces into a stream of sadness. Single graves go competing for space with mass graves whilst lost rotten carcasses unveil the sorrow of their pale muscles and bones that could not cross the frontiers of survival. Some people are found laughing un-end but beneath their joy stands a heap of discomfort.
Unborn babies struggle to come out of the wombs of their mothers whose only wish is to die alone with the babies alive to collect enough evidence on the makers of an evil world without mercy. Children and mothers alike are running helter skelter for a refuge that remains a very scarce commodity. Old men and old women strive for protection from those who know no protection themselves. The disabled are left in the absolute care of solitary desperation.
Time remains an enemy and space fairly represents a demon in the eyes of those who find no place to deposit their sorrows. Tribes are against tribes. Families are against families. Non-families are against families. Families are against non-families. Enemies are against enemies. Enemies are against friends. Friends are against enemies. Friends are against friends. Believers are against believers. Non-believers are against non-believers. Non believers are against believers. Believers are against non-believers.
What a world of against and distrust! Missiles rule order and rockets administer protest. The voices of the suppressed are only heard when they go on rioting. Bombs direct intelligence and armory decides on justice. Courts are either the first point of call towards intelligence gathering for display of military complex and might or they are the last point of call to draw intelligence for future combat. Justice system empowers who can schematize best and not who could possibly be right.
Leaders are best at detaining social order instead of creating social justice. Followers or subordinates insulate their superiors with overriding authority. Crime goes on rampage looking for victims to be persecuted. Strength and selfish interest connive with pretense to perpetuate disorder. International diplomacy is interpreted as ‘the less powerful ones can always have their say but the powerful ones will all the time have their way no matter the magnitude of casualty’. Blame game comforts those that profit from change of names of organizations that control world order without commitment to purpose. In favor of lies, facts wage relentless fight against truth so as to turn noble heads against each other.
This is a world without borders for disorder. A world that seems to know no justice. A world that is full of social strain. A world that feeds on crime. A world that is ruled on pretense. A world that has no mercy. A world that has no trust. A world that is controlled by destructive technology. A world managed by sycophants. A world without peace. A world full of poverty. A plentiful world with hungry belly. A world that truly knows no God. A world that is oiled by discrimination. A world that defies the purpose of its creation. A world that has betrayed its creator. A world that has already experienced two major wars that exterminated over a billion people. A world full of thorns. A loved world with hated contents. A world that needs divine intervention. A world that needs salvation. A world that must be rebuilt.
A world that must realize its folly and repent. A world that must call itself to order. A world that must not allow any third world war to come. A world that must expose hypocrites in order to unite the world. A world that must give independence to all agitating territories. A world that must stop the massacres and genocides. A world that must respect and accommodate refugees. A world that must stop the pockets of conflicts within and across its perimeters. A world that must cohere to unite. A world that must always strive for justice.
A changed and purified world that must resolve to swear an uncompromising affidavit to do the following without hesitation: To agree that all weapons of nature, size and power be gathered from all countries and destroyed by an independent body that would have all countries represented. To agree that no country will have special rights or powers over others. To agree that no matter the level of respect for the pioneers of world’s socio-economic order, there certainly must not be super powers when it comes to the issue of weapons. To unanimously agree to attack, eliminate and destroy any leadership of a country that refuses to get their weapons destroyed. To form independent monitoring groups in all countries that would ensure that no reproduction of weapons is possible. To agree on set of codified rules and regulations that should be protected and honored by all members.
To agree on grievous punishment for those that violate the rule of weapons reproduction. To agree that all weapons manufacturing centers are destroyed but not closed. To mount an intensive campaign on bad governance and form an independent body to oversee its compliance and forceful removal of the leaders that fall foul. To agree that there must be regular rotation of heads or leaders in the independent bodies set up. To agree that any decision reached is supported by not less than two thirds of the total membership. To agree that leaders can be impeached on misconduct at any time.
To agree that the era of the world dominated by weapons proliferation is a curse of a bane and must not be tolerated by anybody. To agree that many of the weapons in circulation are instigated and sponsored by world powers and key state functionaries and must therefore be controlled at that level but not necessarily the individual gun runners who are often victimized. To agree that the economic profits earned from these weapons are evils of human survival and must better be shunned. To agree that the world would be a safest place to live in without the so-called weapons insidiously manufactured to kill but not necessarily to protect as often asserted. To agree that dialogue, understanding, tolerance, equity, appreciation of diversity and social justice could be more of protective weapons than conventional destructive instruments.
To agree that the campaign to stop others from acquiring weapons whilst others are at liberty to do same is highly hypocritical, discriminational and unacceptable and thus must be stopped. To agree that if the current efforts to acquire modern destructive weapons is not abrogated, a weapon would soon be developed that can exterminate the whole world just by a click of a button on an explosive tool. To agree that the United Nations organization has somewhat failed in its international security obligation to protect the world and that there is the urgent need to form an independent dispassionate international security organization that is solely responsible for ensuring a trouble free world or indeed to restructure the security apparatus of UN altogether. To agree that we can really make our world a safer and most secured place to live in if we are really committed and willing to do so.
To resolve that some of the issues raised might look overambitious or even Utopian but it could certainly not be far from reach after all. All we need is to strive hard to work at it - and surely - we should have a better world - a world without wars and acrimony.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
World Bank's President Robert Zoellick on the World's Challenges
As Published by Newsweek on Sunday, January 23, 2011
By R. M. Schneiderman
Over the past year, emerging markets such as China, India, and Brazil have continued to drive economic growth, while the developed world, namely the United States and parts of Europe, have remained mired in debt and unemployment. In the lead-up to the World Economic Forum in Davos, NEWSWEEK's R. M. Schneiderman interviewed World Bank president Robert B. Zoellick about the future of the global economy.
What is the biggest challenge facing the developing world in 2011?
The biggest challenge facing most developing countries is the risk of a big boost in food prices. Food accounts for a large and increasingly volatile share of family budgets for poor and urban families. When prices of staple foods soar, poor countries and poor people bear the brunt. France's President Sarkozy, Chair of the G-8 and G-20 this year, has rightly identified this issue as a priority.
How can the globe assure food security in the face of rising prices?
There are two interrelated challenges. First, we need to increase food productivity and production in developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and with small-holder farmers. To do so, we need to fix problems all along the "value chain": property rights; R&D for seeds and inputs; irrigation; fertilizer; agricultural extension; credit; rural infrastructure; storage; and connection to markets. The World Bank Group manages a Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, with contributions from six countries as of now and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to help promote investments in small-holder farmers. In 2011, I hope we can get more contributions. Separately, the World Bank Group is boosting investment in agriculture to about $6-8 billion a year through our lending and investment projects.
The second problem is the volatility of food prices, often because of events outside poor countries' control. An interconnected combination of steps could help ensure that the most vulnerable countries and people get the nutrition they need. For example, we can increase public information on the quality and quantity of grain stocks to reassure markets and calm panic-induced price spikes. We can improve long-range weather forecasting and monitoring, especially in Africa, to better prepare for dangers. Export bans exacerbate panic pricing, so we need a code of conduct that at least exempts humanitarian purchases from bans.
We can help small-holder farmers become a bigger part of the solution for food security through tenders from humanitarian purchasers such as the World Food Program. We need financial and other tools to help farmers and their governments manage risk, whether of rainfall, prices of inputs such as energy, or others. We may need small, regional humanitarian food reserves, too, in disaster-prone, infrastructure-poor areas. We should also ensure effective, targeted social safety nets so that we protect the most vulnerable populations, such as pregnant and lactating women and children under two. The bottom line: The G-20 should agree to "Put Food First."
What about the world economy?
For the world economy as a whole, the macro challenge is managing and enhancing a modest multispeed recovery that must steer clear of various shoals: for major emerging markets, avoiding overheating or bubbles in certain sectors; for the EU, navigating through sovereign debt icebergs that could puncture big holes in the financial sector; for the US, creating jobs today while breaking the wave of structural spending and debt increases; for all, setting course to make structural reforms suited to each economy to boost growth and a rebalanced international economy.
What do you think will be the most contentious economic issue this year and why?
The contention flows from the tension in resolving challenges without burdening others. Because money is the medium that interconnects economies, differences will be reflected in complaints about the international monetary system; exchange rates for currencies; large and perhaps volatile shifts of capital; and domestic monetary policies that could have international effects.
These differences could spill over to other channels of interaction, such as protectionism in trade, uncompetitive favoritism of national companies and workers, or export bans of agricultural products. On the other hand, sustainable growth, with a rebalancing of demand both between domestic sources and trade, and across countries at various stages of recovery and development, could create win-win opportunities that ease tension.
What has been the biggest economic success story of 2010 and who appears poised to do well in 2011?
The growth in developing countries has been a particular bright spot. In fact, a key difference between this downturn and past ones is that developing countries stepped up to fill the gap. Developing countries now represent about half of global growth. This is a very different world from even ten years ago. It certainly is a stark contrast to the international economic crises in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, sparked by problems in developing countries. Today, developing economies provide an important source of demand for exports from developed countries. And developing countries offer opportunities within a changing international economy: new, multiple poles of growth; investments and profits; better educated workforces that can add to innovation and productivity; more talent to solve problems; and sharing of responsibilities. Yet the adjustment process to a modernized multilateralism will be a constant and continuing challenge.
Will we see bubbles in any of the major emerging markets?
The developing world has been a source of strength, by and large. But the major emerging markets--China, India, Brazil, Southeast Asia--are starting to level off to avoid overheating or bubbles in some sectors. In some countries, this adjustment will prove a challenge--because of influences from the international economy or supply-side bottlenecks at home. The good news is that almost all are alert to the dangers and most seem able to manage them.
Looking ahead, we need to recognize there is no longer a "Third World." Developing countries vary enormously. Yet they can learn from one another, invest in one another, trade with one another, and especially within geographical regions, increasingly integrate with one another. The "Third World" mindset assumed a "North-South" transfer; our new multipolarity will see South-South, and even South-North transfers of goods, capital, and ideas, along with North-South and North-North exchanges.
This shift multiplies possibilities. But it will challenge policymakers in both developed and developing countries to adjust and shape new cooperative systems. The private sector is already doing so. And modernized multilateral institutions such as the World Bank Group need to adapt, too.
How can we reduce currency tensions between the U.S. and China?
There will be tensions, as monetary (and therefore currency) relations are a principal source of intermediation amidst the tectonic shifts to a new multipolar economy, even as we cope with the current great upheaval. Yet the currency issues should not divert attention from the underlying, fundamental challenges: rebalancing global demand and creating new opportunities for growth.
China and the U.S. are the two biggest economies, one developed and one developing. While I believe the Chinese should appreciate their currency over time, that change will not be a silver bullet. China needs structural changes to increase domestic demand through increasing consumption and lowering savings, especially the retained earnings of favored companies with low cost financing and limited competition. China will be pointing in this direction with its next (the 12th) Five Year Plan, but the shift won't be easy.
The U.S. faces the reverse shift: It needs relatively higher savings and lower consumption. So the US will need structural reforms to cut the rate of increases in government spending and debt, while fostering incentives for growth and increases in productivity, innovation, and opportunity.
Similarly, other countries and regions need to face the structural and pro-growth challenges most important to their circumstances. This will not be easy, especially in economies with many unemployed, because political systems will strain under the pressures. Yet if countries slide into conflicts--instead of cooperating to find common but differentiated solutions - dangers could spiral downward.
Would a return to the gold standard be beneficial?
I think gold is already being viewed as an alternative monetary asset because holders of money perceive uncertain prospects in all countries and currencies other than China, and the renminbi is not free for exchange and investment. The antidote is for major economies to pursue sustainable, pro-growth policies based on structural reforms, open trade, and sound money. This is not the same as a gold standard, nor would I recommend a return to that standard or the old Bretton Woods system. We need to move toward flexible exchange rates and autonomous monetary policies for major economies in a new multipolar, international economy. This world economy is likely to evolve toward multiple reserve currencies, with the U.S. dollar still dominant, but not exclusive. This system will need norms of monetary and broader economic behavior with the IMF as a "referee," [and] gold might be an informational, not operational, tool to assess markets' confidence in underlying growth and monetary policies.
How can the U.S. reconcile the return of growth with persistent unemployment?
The demand for U.S. goods and services--whether from at home or abroad--has not been high enough to create sufficient new jobs. Yet at this point in the recovery, if big increases in demand were to come through much larger government spending and debt, private companies and individuals may become more cautious because of the fear of huge future costs.
Therefore, the U.S. needs a careful "handoff" to demand led by the private sector. Many bigger U.S. companies are profitable, productive, and have available cash. With the right policies on government spending, taxes, regulations, trade, and longer-term structural growth, these companies will invest, create more private sector jobs, and enhance America's competitive strength. The same policies would assist small businesses, which have less leeway and a harder time getting credit. Even as the U.S. steers toward a recovery with more "demand," it needs to foster the incentives, innovation, education, and investment to boost the medium- and long-term growth path.
In the absence of a true global climate accord, what role can the World Bank play to reduce emissions?
It would be a big mistake to wait for 195 countries to reach a huge new treaty on climate change. After the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, the World Bank Group worked with Mexico and others to advance key building blocks to address climate change. These included: curbing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; energy efficiency; alternative energies; technology development; carbon market development; carbon finance; adaptation; and relatively untapped tools such as soil carbon linked to better agriculture.
We can make progress and learn lessons on the ground while others negotiate texts. We can build support for addressing greenhouse gases by more countries--developing and developed--by putting concepts into practice. We can assist smaller and less powerful states--such as small island countries, poor mountain states, and sub-Saharan Africa--that otherwise feel ignored, perhaps tempting some to obstruct negotiations that they think do not take account of their interests. We can use our new Climate Investment Funds to leverage other sources of public and private funding--we are raising about $8 for every $1 we invest--to help developing countries move toward low carbon growth and adaptation through practical projects. We can try to ensure that the "perfect" isn't the enemy of the "good."
How important are cities to the climate change debate?
Cities are significant players in all aspects of climate change debate, with important policy choices to make. A recent World Bank report outlined that residents of cities around the world are responsible for as much as 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time facing significant impacts from climate change, such as bearing the majority of $80-$100 billion per year climate adaptation costs.
Many major cities--such as New York, Mexico City, Amman, and Sao Paulo--are not waiting for a comprehensive and global climate deal. They are already acting on climate change by addressing mitigation and adaptation, connected to the delivery of basic urban services and overcoming poverty through local initiatives.
Cities have a unique position in confronting climate change because they are the optimum scale for action: large enough to enact meaningful pilots and introduce "first responder" programs, yet sufficiently close to the communities.
Cities need to draw ideas from one another, gain the support of their national governments, and leverage international partners. The World Bank Group is providing targeted assistance in urban areas such as Mexico City, Cairo, and Bangkok; it is also preparing detailed vulnerability assessments for several coastal cities. Together with the United Nations Environment Program and UN-Habit, the World Bank Group has jointly developed a work plan to provide faster and more coordinated assistance to cities.
What do you expect to come out of the meeting at Davos?
I expect attendees will discuss: the global recovery and its risks; food prices and food security; international monetary issues; opportunities to open markets to trade; gender and development; helping states coming out of conflict or disaster; and next steps on climate change. I hope participants will look "over the horizon" to try to anticipate what other issues policy-makers and business leaders should be addressing.
Davos is a forum to generate and discuss ideas. The actions will need to come from the G-20, international organizations, other fora, and from private sector institutions and individuals who can help solve problems. The seeds of ideas planted in Davos can be harvested elsewhere.
Who do you think will become the next major emerging economies?
I think all developing regions offer opportunities. To underscore this point, I believe that Africa can be a global pole of growth in coming years. Sub-Saharan Africa has already outpaced the global trend in 2010, with output at 4.7 percent, compared with a global increase of 3.9 percent. Looking forward, sub-Saharan Africa is projected to grow at 5-6 percent in coming year.
Africa is a continent of great diversity, so it's hard to generalize. But we have a dynamic of roughly three different groups. First, about a third of the population is experiencing good growth. For them the challenges are access to energy, more infrastructure and agriculture investments, greater regional integration linked to global markets, and a stronger private sector. Another third of the people live in energy resource-rich countries. These countries need better governance, anti-corruption, and inclusive growth policies while avoiding the trap of enclave economies. Finally, another third lives in states paralyzed by conflict. The people in those countries need greater security, better governance, and longer-term support to promote peace and help restore a stable development path.
Before the crisis, African economies were growing at 5 percent a year for over a decade, accelerating to over 6 percent for the last three years. Poverty was declining by about one percentage point a year--a rate faster than in India. Before the crisis, primary school enrolment rates were rising faster than in any other continent. And in just 4 years, child mortality rates fell by 25 percent in about 13 countries.
Of course there is another side to that story--the nearly 400 million Africans who live on $1.25 a day; the massive infrastructure deficit that leaves only one in four with access to electricity--and even fewer with access to clean water and sanitation. There are other political and security challenges, such as recent breakdown in Cote d'Ivoire.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
THE OTHER SIDE OF EGYPT CRISIS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ORDER
UNREALISTIC RESPONSE TO STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCY AND CULTURAL REALISM IN EGYPT – A THREAT TO INTERNATIONAL ORDER
Much as no modern day democrat like me would support the 30 years superimposed monarchical but pseudo-democratic octogenarian ruler (President Mubarak), what is happening in Egypt should better be understood as a threat to real democracy and international order.
The will of a few should not be allowed to overthrow the destiny of the over silent 82,999,393 majority that prefer an orderly democratic transition rather than such a selective uprising which is almost a modern day mass coup d’état with unimaginable dastardly consequences. Imagine the thousands of unemployed Americans all of a sudden rise up and incite people to overthrow President Obama of USA before 2012 elections or Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain or President Hu Jintao of China - all democratically elected based on national constitution - or Queen Elizabeth of Britain or King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia, just because they are dissatisfied with their rule and number of years of ruler-ship combined with socio-economic situations! It is amazingly uncalled for in a modern democratic dispensation!
The protestors ought to be called to order rather than calling on only the autocratic Mubarak to suddenly resign and possibly plunge their country into something else. We need a peaceful transition - I support the UN Secretary General to champion it. We should not encourage such an uncompromising uprising in any part of the world. Undoubtedly, there is absolutely everything right and necessary that the public come out in their numbers to press for democratic reforms and institutional transformation. But this kind of ‘just step down now’ syndrome has a risk to undermine democracy.
Surely, if it is not controlled and managed with all the vehemence and strategy it requires, we surely will witness days to come when 1 year elected president would be too annoying to the opposition in order for them to stage a knock out before the stipulated time even if the standard 4 or 5 years for many countries is reduced to 2 years or even a year. Surely, Mubarak must have lorded over his people for thirty long years but this is likely to have had a support of their constitution and their understanding of politics. If there is the need to shift from their original political orientation, and there is the urgent demand for reforms, there is the need to make it quite well that structural changes are advocated for and not a sudden overthrow. It is unacceptable this way.
Now those that were inspiring the demonstrators to push on until Mubarak moved out immediately verily turned a blind eye to the deadly potential consequences that lingered on. For heaven sake, Mubarak has ruled the country for thirty years and no matter how devilish or cruel he might have appeared in the past, he certainly would hold a chunk of sympathy from the public. And to the extent that a section of the public keeps pressing on him for nine running days unabated in an obvious breach of the order they seek to create, it should not be least expected of the kind of reactionary pro-Mubarak encounter that has started. The numbers of deaths are increasing after the bizarre police encounter with the protestors that resulted in many deaths. On the 2nd day of February, a day after Mubarak declared not to seek for re-election in September 2011, the health ministry has reported at least three deaths and several injuries. Of course, Mubarak elements might have hands in the pro-Mubarak demonstrations, but it is realistic that he still has some amount of following, no matter how bad he appears to others or he really is. The pro-Mubarak demonstrators must however be seriously rebuked if they started the clashes. They nevertheless equally have the right to demonstrate just like the anti-Mubarak demonstrations. But it cannot be out-rightly evinced that pro-demonstrators or anti-Mubarak demonstrators is responsible. It could after all be a spontaneous spark through unnecessary emotional outburst. The point simply is that too many days of demonstrating pressing for Mubarak to immediately resign without an attempt for dialogue was the cause of the ongoing skirmishes in a country that has previously known relative peace in several years.
Certainly, the reaction of the international community especially the international media to the uprising was, in my candid view, is misplaced. They better should have been looking at the possibilities of educating the demonstrators to understanding the current Egyptian Constitution (no matter what it is now) or present legal regime and projected it as to how well the need for the demonstrators to concentrate their efforts in promising reforms at par with the standard international democratic legal regime since the start of the uprising. This indeed ought to be done.
The world needs to re-examine this issue more closely with hindsight of cultural, political and socio-economic realism but not sentimental outburst and parochial anarchy. I do not in a minute like Mubarak and his moves as an autocratic leader, but some of his people might still like him – others more do not. It is a divided sort of scenario which needs a stitching harmony. One must thus not hesitate to condemn the un-holistic and sided way of looking at the entrenched complexities associated with Egypt’s political and cultural history. President Muhammad Hosni Mubarak has clearly overspent his time and must go but ought to leave coherently and peaceful, at least guided out by his election mandate which expires in September 2011. Egypt indeed needs social justice and drastic political reforms now but recognition must be given to procedure, law and order.
This is however a great lesson autocratic leaders around the world must learn from but the danger could be a twilight and could surge across bickering frontiers to infect normal democratic leaders - that is if the international community does not stand up to conscientise the largely disgruntled world community immersed in hopelessness and largely dissatisfied with both national and international leaderships but held back by tolerance and some little optimism for a better future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)