How a racist Trump lost US’ nationalist moorings?

(Part-11)
For the past several decades, the belief that America has virtually eradicated racial
segregation has been common among white US Americans. In a society structured
by white supremacy and steeped in racial inequality, this illusion of post -racism has
inhibited progress toward racial equality. Today, as more women, people of colour
and citizens of different faiths or no religion have stepped into the halls of power,
American leaders in the office really have a choice in how to respond: they could see
this evolving change as a positive where diversity could make America better and
welcome these new leaders, or they could also appeal to people’s fears, exacerbate
divisions and try to pit citizen vs. citizen. Looking at what has happened in
Minneapolis and over 100 other US cities in recent weeks, one could reasonably
argue that today, America is going to lose its nationalist moorings–the ideological
basis of American exceptionalism– via its systematic embracing the ideology of white
racism.
President Trump explicitly threatened to deploy the military against his own citizens.
An unleashed police force apparently not even pretending to protect anyone from
anything anymore for the most part being evidenced by the observation: heavily
armed masked paramilitaries lining up in Washington. Meanwhile, it’s anyone’s
guess what scenarios the man in the White House is playing out in case he’ll lose that
election in autumn. The traditionally conceptual history of civil war, as the historian
David Armitage has shown, is long, twisted and ambiguous but has a localizable and
nameable starting point: ancient Rome. The so- called majestic doctrine called cives
Romanus, the Roman citizen, was potential to infuse the idea that the bearers of this
legal status could be on one another’s throat instead of their common enemy’s, with
all its paradoxical horror– Rome found its form in civil status and its history in the
civil war.
President Trump is perceived by many as posing a scowling threat to the system of
global governance- established in the post Second World War order. This criticism of
Trump often conceals a more serious charge: that by undermining the liberal
international order he is actually diluting the power of the American idea itself, the
core set of beliefs surrounding its self-image and role in the world. Even worse is the
suggestion that he has been hastening the relative decline of the United States as a
global power. Trump does not use the language of ‘Pax Americana’, the credo of

26-6-2020
American exceptionalism, the long-held idea that the United States is the keeper of
‘global peace’. This adds to the prevailing sense of unease among many in America
and abroad. In his acceptance speech as the Republican nominee, Trump proclaimed
that “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo”.
In 2016, Trump described himself to The Washington Post as “the least racist person
that you’ve ever encountered.” In the second year of his presidency, that sentiment
seemed hardening. That he regularly attacked the institutions and traditions of
American democracy while also challenging the very idea that the United States
remained a model for other societies to follow. Rhetorically, he has clearly drawn
from the American grand strategic tradition of ‘retrenchment’ that seeks to
rebalance the US’s sprawling global defence commitments or pass the buck to
regional states. The expert Adam Posen of the Chatham House rightly captures the
logic well: ‘The United States has grown incapable of moderating its ambitions’,
choosing to pursue a globally expansive grand strategy ‘which is unnecessary,
counterproductive, costly, and wasteful’. He argues that America should, instead,
forgo any ambitions that are not directly related to immediate national interests.
America now faces unprecedented threats to its influence in the region which may
not be easily reversible given the region’s shifting dynamics, accelerated by the
politics of COVID-19. America’s regional position and role are changing, maybe even
significantly declining. Most recently, the US declined to positively participate in a
European Union-led international conference to forge cooperation and pool
resources to find a vaccine for the coronavirus; neither did Trump offer any funds for
the collective pot of $8 billion to fund a coronavirus vaccine. Sadly, the White House
is playing the politics of “vaccine nationalism” rather than promoting cooperation
even during a global pandemic.
Sadly, the White House is playing the politics of “vaccine nationalism” rather than
promoting cooperation even during a global pandemic
Ungrudgingly, critics say that President Donald Trump’s rhetoric is to rightly blame
for America’s dramatic increase of white nationalist movement through perceived
activity and organizations since Trump’s entry into the 2016 election. The Southern
Poverty Law Center’s annual report on extremist groups said its count of white
nationalist groups has risen 55% over the past three years, from 100 in 2017 to 148
in 2018 to 155 in 2019. White nationalist hate groups in the US have remarkably
increased. These groups were systematically counted separately from Ku Klux Klan
groups, racist skinheads, Christian Identity groups, and neo-Confederate groups, all
of which also express some version of white supremacist beliefs. Since the turn of

26-6-2020
the millennium, the report says, “American racists have fretted over what they fear
will be the loss of their place of dominance in society” as its racial composition
changes.
According to the perspective shared by Hill, distributing propaganda through flyers
and stickers and planning flash demonstrations is a preferred white nationalist tactic
because it allows individuals in those groups to avoid being arrested or unmasked
on the internet. Not only is white supremacy activity rising among the American
public, it is increasing among U.S. military members as well. The Southern Poverty
Law Center recently testified before the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel
on the threat that white supremacism in the military has on the nation.
In his first remarks from the White House since massive protests have swept the
country, President Trump said that evening that the looting and violent
demonstrations in reaction to the death of George Floyd in police custody were “acts
of domestic terror.” Speaking in the Rose Garden as protesters and law enforcement
held a tense standoff outside, Trump said he planned for a police and law
enforcement presence to “dominate the streets” and said he would respond with an
“overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled. As
protests over police violence engulf hundreds of cities in the United States, China is
seizing the moment, seizing on the unrest to tout the glowing American
authoritarianism and to portray the turmoil as yet another sign of American
hypocrisy and decline. In the given challenge to rebuild the fabric of American
nationalism, the next American administration has an unremitting task to address it.
Many optimistic Americans hope that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden
could be the right man to uplift and transform a downgraded and divisive American
system to the hilt.
Concluded
By: Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi
Source: Daily Times

The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in
Pakistan.

26-6-2020
 Budget 2020-2021: Reality Check (Part Ii)
Moreover, the manufacturing sector will grow by 0.7% whereas the service sector
will grow by 2.6%. The service sector can only grow if there is more growth in the
manufacturing sector otherwise it will experience a trickle-down effect. For instance,
if farmers do not have a higher yield and farm productivity, he will never plan to
spend on tourism or avail other services. If the farmer has an output equivalent to
its given inputs or slightly higher he will primarily focus on the necessities to be
fulfilled rather than sending his children to urban cities for higher education instead
will ask his children to stay in the village and attain the education. In crux, if there is
lower growth in the manufacturing sector then technically the service sector cannot
flourish. Also, the government employees do the major chunk of spending whereas
in the coming fiscal year they have a 14% cut in their regular pay. Thus, they will also
not contribute much to the service sector. However, the tourism sector is open amid
COVID19 probably it can generate some pennies but realistically cannot provide
cushion to higher growth in the service sector.
According to an Economic Survey of Pakistan, the public sector enterprises primarily;
Pakistan Steel Mills, Pakistan International Airlines, Pakistan Railways, and other 34
public sector enterprises annually gallop approximately Rs.1150 billion. In contrast,
as per the government spokesperson presenting budget said there is an Rs.1300
billion deficit. I wonder where Rs.150 billion deficit will get adjusted. However, the
ruling government proclaimed to bring betterment indeed efficient management
system and target towards self-sustainability in the existing public sector enterprises
with the help of 200 technical expert teams. The Pakistan International Airlines (PIA)
Chairman frequently visits the concerned Minister and Prime Minister for the
monthly deficit amounting to Rs.6 billion. Although, there was a hefty reception of
PIA.
Pakistan is under hot waters and it requires the immediate and appropriate actions
to be undertaken to get Pakistan out of the macro and microeconomic imbalances
Besides this, the Finance Minister during a seminar held in Islamabad in January 2020
stated that Pakistan has to repay Rs.3500 billion interest on loans whereas the
government spokesperson-presenting budget said Pakistan has paid off Rs.5000
billion interest on loans in the fiscal year 2019-2020. As we can see, there is a straight
difference between Rs.1500 billion. Interestingly, right after the budget
presentation, the Finance Minister told the media that Pakistan has paid of Rs.2900
billion interest on loans for the fiscal year 2019-2020. Therefore, it is difficult to
understand either Rs.3500 billion, Rs.5000 billion, or either Rs.2900 billion is the right
26-6-2020
statement. There is another misstatement during the budget that the existing
government has taken the economy out from B3 negative to B3 positive although
the scenario was different. The economy experienced negative B3 growth due to the
current policies and B3 negative growth does not turn into positive directly it first
requires getting neutral and then translating into growth. If we have a glance at
Moody’s report B3 is neutral now and will not turn positive until unless Pakistan
comes out from FATF grey list. Currently, Pakistan’s sovereignty is pledge due to
inefficiencies and incompetency of the concerned authority in power. Moreover, it
is said there is no land grant given during the fiscal year 2019-2020 however, Rs.420
million had been granted.
Another interesting contradiction made during the budget presentation is budget
deficit amounting to 9.1% of the GDP whereas by the end of the speech the
spokesperson said the budget deficit is 7% of GDP. Moreover, the government
believed they have made two important contributions targeted on economic welfare
and targeted subsidy, which includes Ehsass Program (Rs. 208 billion projects)
although Pakistan did not even have 14% of inflation, likewise, Higher Education
Commission (HEC) which budget has been raised from Rs.59 billion to Rs.64 billion
although increase by Rs.5 billion is meaningless. Moreover, the Public Sector
Development Program (PSDP) has been raised to Rs.650 billion that is the Federal
government development program. Furthermore, it is also stated during the budget
presentation that the ruling government has adopted Rs.1100 billion circular debt in
the power sector. Although, the previous government has inherited Rs.480 billion
circular and left with the valuation of Rs.1100 billion in 5 years tenure. However, the
current government has increased circular debt by more than Rs.2400 billion in two
years. Apart from this, ML1 (Karachi-Peshawar Railway Line) is an Rs.7 billion project
however Rs.24 billion budget is allocated for it. The main highlight of the budget is
the non-existence of the term China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and no
budget or either fund allocation for CPEC and its related projects. Although the
Ministry for Climate Change gets the Rs.6 billion budget allocation, Rs.20 billion is
allocated to the Ministry of Science and Technology, Rs.40 billion for Railway
ministry. However, there is no specific budget allocation for CPEC and its related
projects. Also, there is approximately Rs.115 billion tax revenue collection from the
Tobacco and Narcotics sector that is 60% of the value, and the remaining 40% is not
collected due to tax evasion. The illegal tax mafia who were penalized by the existing
government has been given huge relief by having duty based on grams of filters
purchased rather than the cost price of filters. It might not be major tax relief for

26-6-2020
taxpayers but surely for tax-evaders. Lastly, the government has announced the
imported clothes and its related products to be duty-free as clothes were smuggled.
Nevertheless, this will ultimately cause disaster and shutdown of the local textile
industry as the imported clothes will come in bulk and cheaper due to their mass-
scale production.
To conclude, Pakistan is under hot waters and it requires the immediate and
appropriate actions to be undertaken to get Pakistan out of the macro and
microeconomic imbalances. If a similar situation persists then certainly the public at
large will lose hope. The ruling government had established higher expectations that
require to be fulfilled as the evidence of COVID19 changed the global power
dynamics. The leaders of Pakistan need to be watchful and well prepare for the
existing deep-rooted economic epidemic. It is a need of time to devise a vaccine for
economic stability rather than running the testing and experimental trails as it is not
the cure to root cause problems.
By: Hassnain Javed
Source: Daily Times

Special Advisor (Pakistan Institute of Management, Lahore operated under Federal

26-6-2020
 The federal budget Desperate circumstances, courageous measures
Pakistan’s economy had already been suffering before the COVID-19 outbreak, it was
in no imminent danger of a recession. The Current Account Deficit dropped by nearly
73%; the “primary balance” was positive, at 0.3% of the GDP; the credit rating had
improved from negative to stable; and the country’s rank on the “Ease of Doing
Business” Index had improved from 136 to 108. Many analysts praised the
government on taking measures to stabilize the economy. Because of stabilization
efforts it was on the road to recovery, unfortunately the pandemic has dealt a
significant blow. As with the rest of the world’s economies, the gains accumulated
pre-Covid-19, were lost in Q4 as the pandemic spread.
A multi-pronged strategy with several immediate measures has ensured availability
of basic goods and groceries, slow down the spread of the virus, provide immediate
cash safety net support to the most deprived sections of society and other relief
efforts. The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) stepped in vigorously to provide support to
financial institutions and borrowers with a relief package and gradual decline in
policy rate. SBP initiatives are innovative, timely and financially courageous. As the
financial year 2019-20 closes, the virus spread is gathering momentum and has still
not peaked, the short-term future remains uncertain and global forecasts continue
to be negative for at least in the next fiscal year.
Even seasoned experts are unable to predict the extent of shocks on the economy.
The Economic Survey revealed that the GDP for FY 2020 was -0.38%, which was
largely due to negative growth in the Services Sector that roughly contributes around
61% to the GDP. Q4 of the fiscal year 2019-20 is disrupted to such a greater extent
that the numbers currently projected might also require revision as more actual data
continues to emerge. On a month-on-month basis, exports fell 15.6% in March over
February while imports contracted 21.2%. The month-on-month trade deficit shrank
27%. Petroleum products constituting around 30% of Pakistan’s total imports, the
sharp fall in oil prices provided some relief to the Current Account Balance. However
it is likely to be dampened by a fall in worker’s remittances from oil producing
countries where thousands of Pakistanis may be at risk to lose their jobs.
Pakistan’s debt has increased by almost 40% since the new government assumed
office, from PKR 29.9 trillion in FY18 to PKR 41.5 trillion in September 2019.
According to IMF’s estimates, Pakistan’s external debt would reach US$ 113 billion
by the end of FY20 and that the country would need over US$ 27 billion to finance
its external requirements. In this precarious state, the COVID19 crisis has made it
even more difficult for Pakistan’s public finances to service its mountain of debt.
26-6-2020
Pakistan could obtain G-20 debt relief, particularly for its external debt that has piled
up at US$ 107 billion or 38% of the GDP. So far, Pakistan has managed to obtain a
“Rapid Financing Initiative” loan worth US $1.4 billion from the IMF to meet its
balance-of payments needs to tide over the pandemic. The World Bank and the ADB
have also pledged around US$ 2.5 billion in assistance. Much of this comes from
funds that had been allocated for projects already under execution but were either
moving slowly or were stalled, and are now being diverted for COVID-19 assistance.
Even before COVID-19, economic activity slowly down meant the government was
simply unable to collect its tax target. Post COVID19, the IMF has conceded collection
will only be PKR 3.9 trillion in FY20, a shortfall of PKR 1.6 trillion. Moreover, the latest
tax target of PKR 3.9 trillion means that in the last three fiscal years, i.e. FY18, FY19
and FY20, the revenue collected by Pakistan’s FBR has remained almost identical,
even as expenditure has increased by PKR 2.6 trillion. For FY21, the IMF has projected
a tax revenue of PKR 5.1 trillion, which is PKR 1.2 trillion more than what the FBR is
expected to collect in FY20. However, this target seems unachievable in an economy
expected to grow by only 2%, by IMF’s own calculation. Pakistan incurred 7.5% Fiscal
Deficit as a percentage of GDP in FY 2020. Moreover, factoring in the PKR 1.2 trillion
stimulus package to combat the COVID-19 crisis would push the fiscal deficit to
double digits in FY20.
The total outlay of budget 2020-21 is Rs 7,294.9 billion, 11% lower than the budget
estimates 2019-20. To meet the expenditures, the government has not made any
satisfactory commitments to increase revenue. With a Rs. 1 trillion stimulus package
proposed and no new taxes for the upcoming year, how will the revenue targets be
net? Targeting is the reducing if govt expenditure and increasing its revenue, debt
servicing and the defence budget comprise around 60% govt’s expenditure. In the
last decade, Pakistan spent more than 2.5% of the GDP (3% in the last two years) on
defence, slightly above the world average for the same period. Its spending on health
as a percentage of the GDP was less than 1% for most of the same period, much
below the international average of 9%.
The underlying feature of this Budget in which a consultative process involved more
than 100 institutions and individuals is the calculated risk Imran Khan’s financial
team is taking in a no-win situation, there is no other choice but to depend upon
increasing our revenues without recourse to taxation
The size of Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) for 2020-21 is Rs 1,324
billion, with Rs 676 billion provinces. To provide relief to the people, there is no new
tax in the 2020-21 budget. The sales tax rate for big retailers has been decreased

26-6-2020
from 14 to 12% and 130.55% higher allocation for Hospital Services, Rs. 208 billion is
allocated for the Ehsaas Programme for the alleviation of poverty and helping the
poor. Higher education has Rs. 34 billion, with Rs 180 billion for energy, food and
other sectors. Rs. 30 billion for the Naya Pakistan Housing Scheme to build 10 million
houses for the poor with Rs. 40 billion allocated for Pakistan Railways and Rs. 13
billion for federal government-run hospitals in Karachi and Lahore. Pakistan’s
Defence budget for 2020-21 is frozen at Rs 1.289 trillion (almost 12% higher but in
real terms the same as last year’s Rs 1.23 trillion). Pakistan economy projected to
increase in size to Rs 45 trillion, from Rs 41.7 trillion (FY 20). Reduction in fiscal deficit
to 7% GDP, from 9.1% in FY 20. Higher Revenue collection and a sharp cut back in
non- development expenditures is targeted. Reduction in budget deficit will stabilize
public debt at 87% of GDP, same as last year. FBR target Rs 4.9 trillion (from 3.9
trillion in FY20) with focus on reviving economic activity and ease of doing business.
Debt payments on loans taken is the single biggest cost item in budget and makes
up 60% of FBR tax collection for the year. In its first 3 years PTI government has paid
a record Rs 7.7 trillion on servicing of debt taken by previous governments. Subsidies
are being reduced to Ps 209 billion, from Rs 349 billion (from FY20). Government
intends to focus more on targeted subsidies. Running of Civil Government reduced
20% to Rs 4.4 trillion (from 5.5 trillion). Health related expenditures doubled to Rs
25 billion. Federal PSDP estimated at Rs 650 billion, an increase from Rs 564 billion
in FY20. This will support revival of economy and job creation. PSDP funds directed
towards high productivity sectors (e.g. Basha Dam etc.). Rs 35 billion subsidy for Naya
Pakistan Housing will support construction spending of over Rs 300 bn. PM’s Ehsaas
flagship program is to be scaled up in FY21 to Rs 230 billion (from budgeted Rs 190bn
in FY20). Reduction of custom duty on 40 raw materials of various industries.
Exemption of additional custom duties are now @ 0% customs duty in tariff. COVID-
19 reduced production of cement, FED reduced on cement from Rs. 2 per kg to Rs.
1.75 per kg. The scope of seizure of non-duty paid goods is extended to all products
subject to FED besides cigarettes and beverages. Real-time access to information and
databases to the Board by various authorities such as NADRA, FIA, provincial excise
& taxation departments etc. Tax Exemptions and Concessions for the Gwadar Port
and the Gwadar Free Zone. Incorporation of Relief measures provided through SROs
during the COVID pandemic
The underlying feature of this Budget in which a consultative process involved more
than 100 institutions and individuals is the calculated risk Imran Khan’s financial
team is taking in a no-win situation, there is no other choice but to depend upon

26-6-2020
increasing our revenues without recourse to taxation. Taxes, have been across the
board to mitigate the efforts of the pandemic and to stimulate the economy. Our
Finance Team has not hesitated not to increase salaries a lot of courage. To do this,
that takes, the pandemic situation is tailor made to force people to use electronic
means instead of the paper cash, the documentation of the economy will this be
force-multiplied “digitally”. The documentation of the economy will increase the tax
net and the volume of tax revenues to that being projected in the proposed Budget.
That is why the AMA Scheme is a life-saver for Pakistan!
Those who oppose it do it out of vested interest, some to protect their corporate
profits and some to protect their personal vested interest in the corporate entity
they are shareholders of. In normal countries this would have been subject to
accountability. Waiting 2 years patiently, I will go public with their names and
business entity to hold these individuals accountable if they do not cease making the
people of Pakistan hostage to their evil greed. Can you believe a handful denying
millions and millions hope for economic emancipation? And just because they would
not compete on merit? That not one single bank out of 15 having branchless banking
permission from SBP refused to electronically integrate with them? In our corrupt
system some among the regulators may have been unfortunately coerced and/or
compromised, one particular individual who took over about 18 months ago is a
severe disappointment.
During any crisis a lot depends on those who are handling this. We are fortunate to
have technocrats like Dr Hafeez Shaikh and Naveed Kamran Baloch at the helm of
the Federal Finance Ministry. To complement this is the excellent team led by
Governor Dr Reza Baqir in the SBP. Since merit is a disqualifier in Pakistan, they have
detractors galore, pure jealousy to go with lack of knowledge and expertise!
Knowledge, experience and the courage is required to take sound, brave decisions
for the good of the country in this situation. In the circumstances they have served
the country well above and beyond the call of duty. For steering a perilous course
through desperate economic circumstance, plaudits aside more courage to them.
By: Ikram Sehgal
Source: Daily Times

This is the second and concluding article in the series, writer is a defence and
security analyst

26-6-2020
 While you weren’t looking
Systemic injustices that go unpunished, particularly when committed by powerful
states and their allies, have fostered a global culture of reluctant acceptance of clear
violations of international law.
Where there is damning evidence of violations of international law by powerful
states, and limited to no accountability for the same, the breaches of legally binding
international rules become the norm rather than the exception.
This has a domino effect within societies – the parallel justice system (one for the
powerful and one for the weak) exists in international law and so too it is mirrored
in the domestic legal systems of states. Some academics have argued the opposite:
that unrectified injustices in the national systems of states are then also seen in the
unjust application of international law.
Outside that academic debate, the unfortunate reality is that the consequences of
injustices perpetrated by powerful states continue to ravage communities that have
been engulfed in prolonged and bloody conflicts that were imposed upon them,
against their will. These powerful states, including the US and the UK, evade
responsibility for their actions. In fact, 17 years after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there
remains little to no accountability for this breach of the United Nations Charter and
the war crimes committed against the Iraqi people.
Several inquiries on Iraq have concluded that the 2003 invasion was a violation of
international law, but even some of these ostensibly fair and damning inquiries have
fallen short on several counts. For example, there was a 2004 US presidential inquiry
established to look into errors in intelligence, which found that there was an
intelligence failure vis-a-vis Iraq. There was no finding here on “whether the
intelligence had purposefully been manipulated” (Sadat, 2018).
Other inquiries have ruled more definitively on the issue, for example the Dutch
Commission headed by Dutch Supreme Court Judge Willibrord Davids, which in its
551-page report – published on June 11, 2010 – found inter alia that the use of force
in question had not been authorized by the UN Security Council, and could not be
justified on grounds of self-defence.
Similarly, the Chilcot Inquiry Report, which dealt with British involvement in the
invasion, was released in the UK in July 2016. The report clearly concluded inter alia
that the UK invaded Iraq despite the fact that “peaceful options for disarmament”
had not been exhausted. The war, as per the Chilcot Report, was deemed
“unnecessary”. However, it is worth noting that even the Chilcot Commission had
not been expressly authorized to assess the legality of the use of force, and
26-6-2020
therefore, did not offer direct findings on the illegality of the invasion. Instead, the
Chilcot Report “framed the matter as a factual question, and sidestepped the core
legal question” (Sadat, 2018).
That the Iraq war was patently illegal is beyond dispute. In September 2004, then UN
secretary general Kofi Annan stated that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal and
in breach of the UN Charter. Unfortunately, recently, the director of the UK’s Service
Prosecuting Authority (SPA) announced that thousands of complaints connecting
British soldiers to war crimes committed in Iraq had been dropped. The director of
the SPA announced that this decision was made owing to two factors: one, there was
a lack of credible evidence for most of the claims; and two, the offending was “at
such a very low level”.
When an announcement of this sort is heard, one would reasonably expect public
outcry. How can the images of abuse, torture and humiliation of detainees inside US-
run Abu Ghraib detention facility ever be erased? How can those who have violated
the UN Charter not be held accountable for the countless lives lost, families
destroyed and livelihoods forever robbed?
Admittedly, there is an International Criminal Court (ICC) Office of the Prosecutor
(OTP) preliminary investigation ongoing since it was reopened in 2014, after being
terminated in 2006 that is looking into crimes committed by UK nationals within the
context of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Paragraph 195 of the 2018 Report
provides that there is reasonable evidence available with the court suggesting that
at least 61 persons were subjected to war crimes at the hands of UK servicemen,
including murder, torture, attacks upon personal dignity, rape and other forms of
sexual violence.
Unfortunately, there is little hope on this front as well. In 2006, while looking into
allegations of acts of killing in the course of UK military operations in Iraq, the OTP
found that “there was no reasonable basis to believe that these allegations
amounted to war crimes within the jurisdiction of the court” (para 197, 2008 Report).
Meanwhile, the British Ministry of Defence has already put forward its position: it
does not want service personnel and veterans being held accountable in any way
whatsoever. Apparently, the UK also espouses the belief that their military is above
the law – something we have in common with our former colonizers.
Amid the Covid-19 pandemonium, otherwise important news may not be given due
attention. The UK SPA’s decision to drop thousands of cases is one such example of
important news that slips by while we aren’t looking. Powerful states continue to
enjoy impunity for grave violations of international law, including the invasion and

26-6-2020
occupation of Iraq. And as a result of the mass atrocities, violence and destruction
inflicted upon the Iraqi people, there has been a spillover into the region at large.
As accountability for Iraq remains a distant dream, one is reminded of Justice
Bonello’s observation in the Al-Skeini v United Kingdom case before the European
Court of Human Rights: “any state that worships fundamental rights on its own
territory but then feels free to make a mockery of them anywhere else does not…
belong to the comity of nations for which the supremacy of human rights is both
mission and clarion call”. Justice Bonello summed up this conduct perfectly:
“gentlemen at home, hoodlums elsewhere”.
By: Javeria Ijaz, Mazari-Hazir, Javeria Ijaz
Source: The News

The writers are lawyers.

26-6-2020
 Silencing the mockingbirds
Not so long ago, the right to criticize used to be a privilege. Before the anonymity
provided by social media, even the educated refrained from criticizing things they
didn’t have command over, lest they be asked about the assumptions underlying
their argument. One needed to be an expert to afford the right to criticize and be
taken seriously.
Back then, the right to criticize as part of the fundamental human rights granted in a
democracy was clearly distinguishable from the right earned by journalists or experts
as panoptic watch persons of government and society. Social media is fast blurring
those lines. Ordinary citizens are claiming expertise over every issue under the sun,
from how to milk a cow all the way to how to cure Covid-19 and ultimately how to
run the country. Initially, this felt liberating, hearing different points of view,
attempts at criticism by humorizing an event or action and threads of ultimately
meaningless arguments. But as expected, too much of this noise is now creating
confusion, anger, frustration and even alienation.
There are 37 million social media users in Pakistan (as of Jan 2020). This is not
counting the residents and non-residents living abroad. The race to reach as many
people online as possible, for both psychological satiation and monetary desires, by
being as unreasonably critical as possible is creating the kind of polarization in
opinions never seen before.
When it becomes impossible for those without relevant expertise to make sense of
all the noise, they choose a side of their liking and gradually get entrenched in ideas
they have no control over. They get comfortable on their side of the fence and no
longer have the desire or the need to check out the other side. Real life mob
mentality is proudly spilling over to online lynching.
While social media is the great equalizer in some ways, blurring the line between the
prerogative to criticize as a basic right and educated discourse via criticism serves no
logical benefit to society. When everyone becomes an expert on everything,
scholarship stands no chance. Criticism offered by issue specialists is generally “a
critique based on the careful analysis of the argument to ascertain what is said, how
well the points are made, what assumptions underlie the argument, what issues are
overlooked and what implications are drawn from such observations. It’s a
systematic, yet personal response and evaluation”(Writing and Reading Across the
Curriculum) – a review if you will.
In all the noise, the blurring, the bullying, constructive criticism has been forgotten,
both as an act and as a concept. It could be deliberate because constructive criticism
26-6-2020
refers to the entire process of evaluation which most social media ordained experts
are neither qualified to achieve nor capable of it. In the interest of getting the most
out of capitalism, the systematic discouragement of specialization in favour of
generalization could be a possible root cause of the rise of this jabbering class.
Interestingly, those who refrain from criticizing events or actions on social media or
avoid being pulled into online frenzy simply because they know they wouldn’t be
doing justice to the issue by offering off the cuff remarks on serious matters, are
easily branded as being partisan or pro-this and anti-that, hence further restricting
the space for voices of reason and depth.
Social media shallowness, diminishing span of attention and the increasing speed of
information exchange is firing up the ‘instant gratification’ portion of our brains like
a bonfire, which in turn is fueling the demand for immediate online retribution. Such
moral high-handedness takes pleasure from killing a hungry man for stealing bread.
The citizens of a democratic country are not subjects; they have the right to criticize
their government without fear. But criticism for the sake of getting the last word in
or as a display of authority almost always backfires. It’s become synonymous to
negativity, and that’s why ‘criticism’ is also the first of acclaimed psychologist John
Gottman’s interpretation of the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse.
Criticism as the First Horseman is easy to identify in any conflict situation yet difficult
to eliminate, primarily because it emerges misleadingly on a white horse and by the
time it invokes pestilence, chances for productive communication get deeply buried
in chaos and egos. The connection between the unwholesomeness of the present
social media environment and the moral pestilence brought on by the First
Horseman can hardly be ignored.
By: Munazza Siddiqui
Source: The News
The writer is an executive producer, Geo News and editor of Jang – The Economist
annual edition.

26-6-2020
 Child poverty
Women and children suffer the most in any crisis, whether a natural disaster, war,
pandemic or economic crisis.
The economic crisis triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic has pushed millions of
people into poverty. Rising poverty, unemployment and falling incomes mean more
miseries for poor families, and women and children bear the brunt of these
worsening social and economic conditions.
There is a widespread lack of recognition about the impact that living in poverty can
have on children’s mental health and well-being. Growing up in poverty can damage
children’s well-being and their future life chances.
Children who grow up impoverished suffer from poor living standards, develop
fewer skills for the workforce, and earn lower wages as adults. For those growing up
in humanitarian crises, the risks of deprivation and exclusion surge.
Even in the richest countries, one in seven children still lives in poverty. Today, one
in four children in the European Union is at risk of falling into poverty.
Poverty is not natural. It can be reduced by increasing the wages of workers, with
fair distribution of wealth and resources, through social programmes, widening the
social security net and providing free and quality education and health. There is no
doubt that poverty is a curse and takes away most of the joys and happiness of
childhood.
Many social scientists and researchers who have worked on this issue say that
poverty affects the children in five ways. First, poverty can harm children through
the negative effects it has on their families and the home environment. Second, poor
children are more likely to live in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty, which
is associated with numerous social ills. Third, poverty leads to poor physical,
emotional and behavioural health. Fourth, poverty creates and widens achievement
gaps. And fifth, poverty harms the brain and other body systems.
According to a new Unicef report, ‘Lives Upended – How Covid-19 threatens the
futures of 600 million South Asian Children”, an estimated 120 million children living
in South Asian countries, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh could slip into
poverty within the next six months due to the Covid-19 crisis. Around 240 million
children in South Asia were already living in poverty before the Covid-19 pandemic.
This means that 360 million out of 600 million children will be in poverty. That is
more than half of the total children in South Asia. This one figure is enough to give
sleepless nights to the ruling class in South Asian countries. It is really embarrassing
that half of the children in South Asia are living in poverty.
26-6-2020
Both nuclear powers in South Asia have the largest number of children living in
poverty. This is the result of decades-long misplaced priorities and flawed policies.
But they sleep well because they consider poverty a natural phenomenon. For them,
poverty is not the result of their policies and unequal distribution of wealth and
resources in the society.
They don’t believe that poverty is the by-product of the existing social and economic
structure and system. Every government blames the mismanagement, corruption
and flawed policies of previous governments and continues to implement the same
policies which fueled poverty and inequality.
Alleviating or reducing poverty is not the top priority of the ruling elite in South Asia.
Despite the high GDP growth rates of the last decade in most South Asian countries,
the numbers of people living in poverty did not fall significantly. The trickle-down
effect of high GDP growth never materialised or at least was never felt by the poor
of society.
This simply means that half of the next generation will grow up in poverty related
social and economic ills. The report covers eight South Asian countries – Afghanistan,
Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Sri Lanka.
The Unicef report says that an estimated 240 million children already live in
‘multidimensional’ poverty – including factors such as poor health, lack of education,
poor sanitation and poor quality of work in these countries.
South Asia is home to almost a quarter of the global population and cases of
coronavirus infections have risen in recent weeks even as the region lifts its
lockdown to revive economies badly affected by the virus.
The report points out that “while they may be less susceptible to the virus itself,
children are being profoundly affected by the fallout, including the economic and
social consequences of the lockdown”.
The report has quoted research conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School
of Public Health to warn of the adverse consequences of coronavirus spread. “...in
the worst-case scenario, South Asia could see the additional deaths of as many as
881,000 children aged 5 or under and that of 36,000 mothers over the next twelve
months….The bulk of these deaths would occur in India and Pakistan, although
Bangladesh and Afghanistan could also see significant levels of additional mortality."
By: Khalid Bhatti
Source: The News
The writer is a freelance journalist.

26-6-2020
 On populism - Part II
Globalisation, the 2008 financial crisis, wars in the Middle East, the ensuing
migration to Europe, and soaring inequality (a ramification that is fundamental to
the dominant neoliberal order) are some of the major factors contributing to
populism’s upsurge.
While globalisation has opened up new markets for mega corporations and the well-
heeled to exploit, the neoliberal order – by design – has allowed them to shield
capital, dodge taxes, and monopolise profits. The world’s eight richest people are
said to own as much as the poorest 3.5 billion, and as the number of billionaires
continues to soar, the widening economic disparity fuels resentment among the rest.
The 2008 recession led to the emergence of anti-austerity movements in Europe
(such as Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece) and the US (in the form of Occupy
Wall Street). Motivated by fury at the impunity and lack of accountability of financial
institutions, these movements became a classic example of ‘the people’ versus ‘the
elite’.
The outbreak of civil wars and imperial interventions in the Middle East resulted in
millions being forced to escape their homelands to survive. As most made their way
westwards, European right-wing populists’ refrain about threats to jobs, wages and
their ‘way of life’ continued to gain currency among their most-affected compatriots.
Closer to, and at, home the perceived and material financial corruption of rulers has
provided the platform for demagogues to rise. A perception has been created that
better governance is achieved through self-righteousness and promotion of faux-
morality, with simplistic solutions provided for extremely complex problems.
What has swelled the ranks of populism’s supporters is the perceived failure of
democracy. The chasm between the dream of achieving glowing ideals of equality
and responsible governance, and its tarnished reality, has exacerbated people’s
cynicism.
Their assertion that the system is rigged to cater to the whims of a small, wealthy
and self-serving class holds ground until you dig beyond the surface.
The problem lies not with democracy itself, but with its neoliberal variant, which has
steadily pervaded its tentacles since the time of its leading protagonists, Thatcher
and Reagan.
Since the early 1980s, the free flow of capital and labour has been accompanied by
the promotion of a culture of individualism. Coupled with the vilification of socialism,
a new era of ‘prosperity for all’ through trickle-down growth was assured.
Collectivism was disparaged – recall Thatcher’s ‘there’s no such thing as society’ –
26-6-2020
and a survival-of-the-fittest mindset was enshrined. To paraphrase one of the most
famous references from popular culture at the time, greed felt good, and various
incarnations of Gordon Gekko began to thrive.
The mid-1990s brought to the fore ‘third-way’ centrism. While claiming to champion
bipartisan consensus, it promoted feeble approaches to decision-making and only
helped in embedding the status quo. Partisan global institutions that camouflage the
inequities of capitalism, also began to be viewed as just another wall that the corrupt
elite had built to keep real power away from the people.
Muddled centrism, with its emphasis on depoliticisation of some issues and their
handing over to technocratic experts, was always going to be a recipe for disaster.
Nothing can stay depoliticised forever. That is politics.
Hence, as the vast majority of people began to feel poorly served and repulsed by
this form of politics, a reaction was inevitable. A reaction that manifested itself in
the form of populism.
As outlined earlier, populism has rightly been exposed for its triviality. So, what is
the alternative?
One can argue for a return to ideological politics and adoption of leftist policies.
Despite ultimately being thwarted by their respective political establishments, the
campaigns run by Sanders and Corbyn offer hope for a future where the needs of
the ‘many not the few’ are protected and advanced.
The mere fact that two principled septuagenarians – who have consistently
subscribed to leftist philosophy for almost half a century – even reached a position
where they were able to mount a serious challenge and inflict a mighty scare in two
of capitalism’s bulwarks provides reason for encouragement. Given that they draw
most of their support from the younger generation also bodes well for the future.
Recent events too point towards a revulsion with the status quo and prevailing
institutional inertia, and depict the changing nature of political and social debate.
The mass uprising triggered by the murders of George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks
have adopted a markedly anti-imperialist and anti-colonial character, with statues
commemorating racist historical leaders and slave traders being knocked down.
While authorities have denounced the defacing as vandalism, not many have stuck
their necks out to defend those previously venerated. The proposed plans for law-
enforcement reform in many US states is another positive development.
Increasingly, discourse has also begun to revolve around comprehensive healthcare
for everyone, minimum wage, and social welfare.

26-6-2020
And while, in the grand scheme of affairs, these small victories may appear to be
nothing more than palliative gains, they provide vital oxygen for any movement to
ultimately succeed.
The self-serving centre will continue attempting to ridicule the left as hopeless
dreamers and make them appear ill-equipped for the gargantuan task of
governance. But as recent events have demonstrably shown, governments with a
socialist bent have been among the most effective in dealing with the pandemic.
Cuba – a country that prides itself on its health system – has almost eliminated Covid-
19 from the island. It has recently averaged less than ten cases a day and has now
gone two weeks without a reported death from the virus. Vietnam has reported zero
deaths and less than 400 cases. Other welfare states such as Germany, New Zealand,
Finland, and Denmark are also among the handful of successful countries.
The past five months have wreaked havoc across the world, reignited racial tensions
and borne tragedies of untold proportions. The manner in which events are
unfolding are reminiscent of the turmoil that followed the last global pandemic just
over a century ago. Then too, the far-right was on the march; polarising politics,
fanning the flames of hatred and winning over millions with their vile slogans. The
world paid a heavy price for wilfully ignoring its rise then. And fearfully, it may do so
again.
There are lessons in history for polities that are amenable to the betterment of their
societies. Continuing with business as usual would symbolise our abject failure at
learning from it. And that, perhaps, would be the greatest tragedy of them all.
Concluded
By: Shahrukh Nawaz Raja
Source: The News
The writer works as a development practitioner for a local consultancy.

26-6-2020
 Amazon droughts
Over the past 20 years, like clockwork, severe droughts have hit the Amazon every
five years with regularity 2005, 2010, 2015. Of course, droughts have hit the Amazon
rainforest throughout paleoclimate history, but this time it’s different. The
frequency and severity is off the charts.
Recent data is starting to show 2020 as another dire year. “The old paradigm was
that whatever carbon dioxide we put up in [human-caused] emissions, the Amazon
would help absorb a major part of it,” according to Sassan Saatchi of NASA’s JPL.
(Source: NASA Finds Amazon Drought Leaves Long Legacy of Damage, NASA Earth
Science, Aug. 9, 2018)
But serious episodes of drought in 2005, 2010 and 2015 are causing researchers to
rethink that idea. “The ecosystem has become so vulnerable to these warming and
episodic drought events that it can switch from sink to source depending on the
severity and the extent,” Saatchi said. “This is our new paradigm,” ibid.
According to a detailed study: “Several studies indicate that the region has been
suffering severe drought since the end of the last century, as in 1997/1998, 2005,
2010 and 2015. The intensity and frequency of these extreme drought episodes in
the AB during the last years, approximately one episode every five years with a
significant increase in the coverage area, is remarkable.” (Beatriz Nunes Garcia, et al,
Extreme Drought Events Over the Amazon Basin: The Perspective from the
Reconstruction of South American Hydroclimate, Departamento de Meteorologia,
Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Nov 7, 2018)
This year 2020 is shaping up to be a repeat performance, another “remarkable
event.” Recent studies indicate: “The data suggests 2020 could be a particularly dire
year for the Amazon.” (Source: “14 Straight Months of Rising Amazon Deforestation
in Brazil,” Mongabay d/d June 12, 2020)
All of which begs the question: How much more abuse can the magnificent rainforest
handle for how long?
However, hard-hitting droughts are not the only negative hitting the Amazon
rainforest. Failure by political forces is also pounding the rainforest, as the Bolsanaro
regime gooses abuse and overuse. As a result, people are striking back. Civil society
groups and public prosecutors in Brazil are taking President Jar Bolsonaro’s
government to court for failing to protect the rainforest.
“The Amazon rainforest – 60 percent of which lies in Brazil – is one of the world’s
great carbon sinks. Preserving its trees and plants is crucial to meeting international
targets that limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial
26-6-2020
levels.” (Source: To Stop Amazon Deforestation, Brazilian Groups Take Bolsonaro to
Court, Deutsche Welle, June 13, 2020)
By: Robert Hunziker
Source: The News
Excerpted from: 'Amazon Rainforest Hit By Killer Droughts'.

26-6-2020
 Ertugrul Ghazi and modern Turkey’s strategic imperatives
Turkish TV plays are hugely popular across the Islamic world for their content,
storyline, cinematographic excellence and a sense of shared history. The recently
played TV serial Resurrection Etrugrul (Dirilis: Ertugrul) has taken Pakistan and the
Muslim world by storm. It is the epic story of Muslim tribes of Oghuz Turks in 13th
century Anatolia that led to the creation of one of the greatest Muslim empires, the
Ottoman Empire (1299-1923); which, once disintegrated after some 624 years, gave
birth to over 70 countries and territories.
Turkey — larger and more populous than any European state — is located at the
crossroads of the Balkans, Caucasus, Middle East, and eastern Mediterranean,
serving as a barrier and a bridge between Europe and Asia. Today, it comprises Asia
Minor or Anatolia (Anadolu) and parts of Armenian Highland. Turkish Thrace (Trakya)
forms the tiny remnant of the once mighty Turkish empire in Europe. Three narrows
called Turkish straits; Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles dominate
land/sea access. A Turkey ensconced in Asia Minor is nearly unassailable as it is
surrounded by water on three sides; it controls the only maritime connection
between the Black and Mediterranean seas; and the Turkish plateau has difficult
mountainous territory around. No wonder Ertugrul Ghazi and his ancestors,
coinciding with the Seljuk period (11th century), fought for some three centuries to
capture this area from the Byzantine Empire.
Turkish geo-strategy is broadly defined by Turkey’s legacy of the Ottoman empire;
its Russian problem; relationship with US/West; domestic compulsions — struggle
between Islamists and secularists (especially the military), Kurdish question and
economy; and other issues like Armenia and Greece, etc.
The Treaty of Lausanne (1923) dissolved the Ottoman Empire and contracted Turkish
sovereignty to Asia Minor and a strip of land on the Bosporus (European side),
relieving Turkey from its strategic burden that outstripped its waning power. On
October 29, 1923, national assembly declared Turkey as a republic and Mustafa
Kemal Ataturk its first president. Caliphate was abolished in 1924 and Ottoman
dynasty exiled. The then British-Indian Muslims had run the Khilafat Movement to
save the caliphate. Turks remember this fondly. Ataturk re-oriented the Turkish state
and society through his six principles — republicanism (creation of the republic),
nationalism, populism, statism, secularism, and revolution.
Russia is among the world’s most strategically vulnerable states. With no geographic
barriers to invasion, it has to weave a perimeter of influence beyond its perimeter of
security. Most Russian ports — St Petersburg, Vladivostok, Murmansk and Odessa
26-6-2020
— are accessible only through straits, historically controlled by potentially hostile
powers, with Turks blocking Russian access to the Mediterranean. Traditional
Russian policy aimed at controlling Bosporus to prevent a blockade and project
power into the Mediterranean. In energy politics, Turkey depends on Russia for its
natural gas and oil imports.
Entering WWII in 1945 on the Allied side, Turkey subsequently joined NATO in 1952,
becoming a central plank of US containment strategy for USSR. Turkey’s geostrategic
rationale for this pro-US alignment included a powerful Soviet Union and two Soviet
clients, Syria and Iraq, in its neighbourhood to the south; its westernised military;
economic compulsion to access EU market; Greek hostility and Turkish diaspora in
the West.
USSR’s collapse in 1991 dissolved this strategic logic. A diminished Soviet threat also
reduced Turkish dependence on US and American rationale for sponsoring Turkish-
Israeli strategic ties. It also brought immense geo-economic opportunities to Turkey
given it was a legacy power in as far off places like Balkans, Ukraine, Georgia,
Romania, Bulgaria former Yugoslavia and Central Asia.
Turk nationalists chide at the Western support of Greece in its dispute with Turkey
over Cyprus, control of the Aegean, European criticism of Turkey’s human rights
record (Kurd-specific) and treatment of Turkish workers in Western Europe. Turkey’s
Islamic political parties are increasingly wary of alliance with the West especially
Turkey’s EU membership. Turkey’s key breakpoint was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq,
which from Turkish perspective, was unnecessary, beneficial to Irani empowerment
and domestically unsellable. Breaking with NATO, Turks did not participate in the
war and did not allow the use of Turkish territory. Events vindicated Turkish wisdom.
Exclusion from EU spurred Turkey’s economy, without liability for Greece’s debt.
Militarily, Turkey emerged with the most powerful military in the region.
Turkey’s relations with most Arab government (as against people) are nonchalant.
Impediments include Turkish support for Morsi and his Akhwan in Egypt, it closing
ranks with Qatar over blockade by Saudi-led coalition, war in Yemen, Khashogji
murder and Turkish relations with Israel, etc. Turkey — opposing the UAE —
supports the UN mandated government in Libya. While the Arab Street views Iran as
a hostile power, it welcomes Turkey as a trusted counterweight and mediator.
Turkey enjoys strong ties with Muslim communities in Russia, Bulgaria, especially
with the Crimean Tatars. And while it has a thriving relationship with Georgia, it has
made little progress in overcoming its adversarial relationship with Armenia, unable

26-6-2020
to play a constructive role in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan.
Contemporary Turkey, to solidify inner front, is focused outward, hence its
involvement in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan. Domestically, Turkey faces
manageable societal tensions between the secular and religious elements. Kurdish
problem is Western-propped and financed, occasionally stirred-up by Syria and Iran
to undermine Turkish incursions in Syria.
The following can be discerned from this wider canvas.
First, Turkey’s geopolitical ambitions to “reclaim” the ‘Turkish Middle East’ — and by
extension the Ottoman legacy — remains on course under the Islamist government
of Erdogan, an assertive statesman par-excellence, imbued with clarity and vision.
Second, although Turkey accommodates Russia; Russia has learnt to live with an
aggressive Turkey as demonstrated by Sukhoi-24 shootdown, Turkey’s bold use of
its military in Syria and acquisition of S-400 missile system from Russia. With
refurbished military bases in Latakia and Tartus in Syria, Russia is too eager to replace
US and an alliance with Turkey is mutually beneficial.
Third, Turkish geo-strategy is no longer captive to an alliance system but more
sensitive to regional instability and Islamist causes internationally. Turkey is not part
of the US coalition against Iran, balancing its strategy between being a NATO
member and assertively independent.
Fourth, Turkey remains vulnerable to Western machinations like targeting lira and
its banking system, stirring up street protests on a range of issues from local bodies’
elections to human rights violations to gasping secularists to legacy issues like
Kurdish question, Armenia, Cyprus and Greece, etc.
Fifth, NATO will continue to depend upon Turkey, given Incirlik Air Base’s role in
NATO’s nuclear deterrence and power projection in the Middle East. Turkey also
hosts an allied land command in Izmir and surveillance radar unit in Kürecik — part
of NATO’s missile defense system.
Sixth, the chasm between US-Turkey relations (Turkey an unstable ally) — due to
Turkey’s non-participation in Gulf War, the S-400 transaction and Fetullah Gülen
episode, etc — seems irreversible.
As Ertugrul Ghazi demonstrates; tenacity, grit and relentless focus on objectives are
guarantees for success. Turkey had shown the path to Muslims, it can lead now.
By: Inam Ul Haque
Source: The Express Tribune

26-6-2020
 America as an epicentre of racism?
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they
will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character,”
Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
What MLK stated during his historic speech on August 28, 1963, at the Lincoln
Memorial, Washington DC, gave a powerful message to the entire world about the
apartheid which prevailed in the United States, where centuries of exploitation,
racial discrimination and segregation had relegated blacks as second class citizens.
One hundred and fifty-seven years after slavery was banned by president Abraham
Lincoln and 55 years after laws of segregation were repealed by the US Congress,
African Americans are still unable to get proper social justice and equality. The
lynching of George Floyd on May 25 in Minneapolis by four white police officers
triggered widespread protests all over America and in different parts of the world
condemning racism and exposing so-called democracy in the US.
On June 20, President Donald Trump addressed his first election rally in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, where on May 31 and June 1, 1921, hundreds of blacks were massacred
by white racist groups. Hundreds and thousands of people protested against Trump
and his racist mindset when he was delivering his speech in Tulsa. Racism is not only
reflected in his behaviour and approach, but has permeated his family where his son
Eric, while speaking in his father’s election campaign rally, called Black Lives Matter
protestors “animals”. Earlier, Trump had warned that those attempting to protest
ahead of his rally in Tulsa won’t be treated gently.
Facing a two-pronged crisis composed of coronavirus and a surge of anti-racist
demonstrations, the US is grappling with the worst situation in its history which has
exposed its leadership and racial fault-lines. If America is called the epicentre of
racism because of its killings and lynching of blacks by the police, white supremacists
having tacit support of Trump administration see this as their last chance to salvage
what they call “white America”. While statutes of slave owners and racial oppressors
are being pulled down and dismantled by anti-racism crowds in the US including the
one of Albert Pike, an officer of the Confederate Army, President Trump expressed
his anger by commenting, “The DC police are not doing their job as they watched a
statue be ripped down and burn. These people should be immediately arrested. A
disgrace to our country.” White supremacists rightly believe that Trump is their last
hope to protect the white population from the surge of black and coloured people
who are now around 40% of their country’s population.

26-6-2020
Internal contradictions of the American society are being exposed here. Year 2020 is
an election year and the crises have augmented the predicament of the Republican
Party as it feels that power is slipping from its hands and the election campaign will
not only diminish the chances of Trump’s re-election but will shatter what white
supremacist call the “last chance” to reclaim the glory of white Christian America. If
the world’s only superpower is finding it hard to maintain its tutelage in global
affairs, its main issues are internal in nature. Ironically, an imprudent leadership of
the Republican Party, including members of the Senate and House representing the
right-wing political force, has put all its eggs in one basket by supporting Trump’s
racist and divisive policies.
Had the US got over its racial baggage and transformed the country as a role model
of multiculturalism, it would have retained its edge in the global economy, research,
science, education and democracy and played a leadership role during the pandemic.
Because of three reasons the “racial time bomb” in America will be sufficient to
marginalise the US in the global affairs.
First, the US is not an ordinary country but still holds the position as the world’s only
superpower. The pandemic has already taken a toll on American economy and the
racial polarisation will add to the US predicament. If majority American states are in
political turmoil, it will cast a very bad impression at the international level about a
country which is supposed to lead the world. Protests in the UK, France, Germany,
Australia and other countries condemning the lynching of Floyd and the surge of
racism in the US is not a positive sign for America. If the US has not been able to sort
out its racial issues despite 244 years of independence, it means there are powerful
groups in that country who want to keep the issue of racism alive for political
purposes. Despite eight years of president Barack Obama’s tenure, he was not able
to effectively counter white supremacists. And, is it not a misfortune that the most
enlightened and tolerant president having African roots was succeeded by a
president who felt no shame in expressing his racial biases and supporting white
racism in his country?
Second, the more the economy of the US goes down, the more racial tension will
augment. The economic disparity between the black and white population is still
quite huge and with the surge in unemployment one can expect the escalation in
political and racial polarisation. At stake will be democracy and the power status of
America as domestic chaos will take a toll on its prosperity and clout in global affairs.
Racial segregation in the US was legally abolished in 1965 and blacks got voting
rights, yet things have not changed for the better. General Colin Powell, an African

26-6-2020
American and former secretary of state during the tenure of George Bush, in his book
My American Journey narrates an incident in 1963 when as a captain in the US army
he was driving on a highway in Alabama, a deep southern and racially polarised state,
where he stopped before a restaurant for lunch. When he entered the restaurant
and took a seat to order his meal, the waitress refused to take his order stating that
the restaurant cannot entertain non-whites. Powell argued that he was serving in
the US military and cannot be refused; but he had to eventually leave without a meal.
Such was the reality of racial segregation before apartheid laws were repealed in
1965. Although, in the last 55 years blacks cannot be openly segregated but the
mindset remains filled with prejudice and hate against the black population.
Third, the “racial time bomb” in the US will explode if Trump is re-elected in
November. Although, Trump’s rating has plummeted because of the pandemic and
its severe economic fallout along with the anti-racism movement, the ultra-right
wing and white supremacist forces can use all sorts of methods to re-elect him. If
white supremacists, who have the covert support from Trump’s administration try
to prevent anti-racism protesters and target immigrants, it may lead to a bloodbath
in America.
If the US has the capacity and capability to withstand the impending outbreak of
racial violence, one can hope to save America from internal chaos and instability. It
will be a test for American democracy and its institutions, including the judiciary to
manage the racial crisis with courage and wisdom so that the US is seen as a role
model of democracy, political pluralism, multiculturalism, and ethnic and religious
harmony.
The writer is former Dean Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Karachi and can be
reached at amoonis@hotmail.com

By: Dr Moonis Ahmar

26-6-2020
 India, China, the United States and us
The recent confrontation between India and China has been noted around the world
with concern. India’s decision to revoke Article 370 and its ongoing atrocities in
Kashmir may not have led to serious consequences within the global community, but
the implications of this move have created an unanticipated backlash in the form of
its recent brutal skirmish with China.
Given its growing strategic partnership with India, the US administration is blaming
China for an alleged incursion into Indian territory. President Trump also made an
unsolicited offer to help mediate this dispute in the same manner that he had
offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute, a statement which his administration had
subsequently tried to walk back from. Such theatrics aside, however, many
international relations experts are pointing out how New Delhi’s deepening alliance
with Washington is at least partially responsible for intensified border tensions
between Asia’s two major powers.
While there are certainly other factors at play here, the growing US-China rivalry is
making its impact felt around the world. In our part of the world, China has long
allied itself with Pakistan, in part due to its desire to keep India in check. India has
subsequently turned to the US in the bid to become a counterbalancing power to
China. With Pakistan’s growing reliance on CPEC due to its distancing by the US and
increasing Indian cooperation with China’s traditional rivals in what is known as the
strategic quadrilateral, the ground for escalating contestations in the region remain
rife.
Writing for Foreign Policy, Michael Hirsh, recently made an interesting assertion by
arguing that Kissinger’s approach to the US-China détente needs a revisit. Kissinger’s
record is tainted by his push for a spike in violence near the end of the war in
Vietnam, due to his reaction to the Chilean coup and even to West Pakistan’s
brutality in what is now Bangladesh. Yet, his most astute decision was that the US
and China could find means to accommodate each other. The US and China even
used Pakistan’s help to communicate with each other during the early sensitive
phase of negotiations.
Whether Kissinger’s suggestion for the US-China rapprochement was consciously
timed or not is not known. Nonetheless, this diplomatic manoeuvre certainly
occurred at just the right time. Kissinger orchestrated the Nixon-Moa/Zhou Enlai
encounter around the time when the US was otherwise in disarray. The US was
contending with the lingering war in Vietnam, experiencing unrest sparked by the

26-6-2020
civil rights movement and anti-war protesters, and domestic politics was in turmoil
due to the Watergate scandal, as well as the economic stagflation of the 1970s.
Much of what is happening in the US today with the failure of interventions in
Afghanistan and Iraq, the Covid-induced economic shock, civil unrest unleashed by
the Black Lives Matter protests, and domestic political divisiveness are analogous to
the time when Kissinger convinced Nixon to break the ice with China. This may be a
ripe time for Washington to try and turn great-power rivalry into a stable and
peaceable modus vivendi.
Yet, diplomatic and trade tensions with China keep mounting under the Trump
administration. Even presidential candidate, Joe Biden, is also not realising the
evident opportunity here as he criticises Trump for his praise for Xi Jinping. Having
cast Bernie Sanders aside as being too radical, the Democrats, perhaps in the bid to
woo more voters are now also mimicking populist critiques of entities like the World
Trade Organization, not because of the global inequalities in the world trade system
but because of the prevailing sense of grievance that the WTO has been exploited
by China to the disadvantage of blue collar and middle-class Americans.
One hopes that the Democrats will be able to transcend the maximalist stance
towards China, especially if Biden manages to come to power. Otherwise, much of
the world, especially our region, will continue to feel the escalating friction caused
by the rivalry between the US and China.
By: Syed Mohammad Ali
Source: The Express Tribune
The writer is a development anthropologist. He can be reached at ali@policy.hu

26-6-2020
 The Afghan war and the just war theory
It feels naïve even to write about the Just War Theory simply for the fact that it is so
utterly dismissed in practice and you feel like you’re trying to drag secular matter-
of-fact realpolitik into a religious sermon it has long abandoned as badland.
Nevertheless, to ‘salvage the question’ retained by the larger humanity, a question
seemingly dying down in the remote nooks of conscience, one needs to really just as
much ‘talk’ about Just War.
The times we are living in, are times of confused identities and relative morals; good
and bad are crossing each other and are chosen as per the situation requires. Morals
are to be judged on the consequences they produce, and truth has to do nothing
with what humans value, but only with logical reasoning and empirical facts. Just like
the individual, the nation too is being made to have its sovereign boundaries crossed
so that culture, language, belief and whatever constituted the identity of a people is
being diluted by waves of globalisation, and states are being told that they are
infested by disease that will only be cured by incursions of the supra.
The Afghans were told that they are infested by a like disease — the Al Qaeda and
the Taliban. Al Qaeda, because they were terrorists; and the Taliban, because they
had harboured the Al Qaeda! But where did Al Qaeda come from in the first place?
The CIA had been in Afghanistan since 1979, running Operation Cyclone to covertly
assist the Mujahideen against the USSR; the MI6 supported Ahmad Shah Massoud.
In the shadow of the Afghan Jihad, the CIA delivered direct cash to Jalaluddin
Haqqani and Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, who were both close associates of Bin Laden.
How much did the Taliban know about the covert role of Al Qaeda, when overtly
they were there just to assist in the Jihad — and how much the US knew about them
and who was responsible for their creation? If we answer these corollaries with
common sense, then the announced cause of attacking Afghanistan, in the words of
Bush, “the Taliban regime… is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and
sheltering and supplying terrorists”, in itself butchers the most basic requirement of
a Just War, i.e. “the cause of the war must be just”. Because obviously, the CIA, not
the Taliban, had been “sponsoring and sheltering and supplying” Al Qaeda. It is only
obvious that if the Taliban had any thing of the like to do with Al Qaeda, it must have
also had some connection with Al Qaeda’s later operations in Iraq, Syria, Libya and
Yemen, which it did not have in the slightest.
Another requirement of a Just War is that “the use of force must be a last resort”. In
his book, Delivering Osama, K Mohabbat, who was the US envoy to the Taliban for
negotiations for the delivery of Osama bin Laden, details how the Taliban had

26-6-2020
capitulated to all of US demands and how as early as in February 2001, the Taliban
had house-arrested OBL and invited the US to hit him and his men with cruise
missiles — which they failed to for no obvious reason except that they wanted to
resort to full force without exhausting any other measures.
The UN press release SC/6739, issued a week after the US had attacked Afghanistan,
mentions OBL’s involvement in the Kenya and Tanzania bombings and killing of US
nationals, which brings us to a third requirement of a Just War, that is, “violence
used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered”. While the deaths
caused by OBL’s bombings were not more than 4,000, with around 30,000 injured,
in contrast, it is estimated that between two to three million Afghan civilians have
been killed in the 18-year-long war. And millions more injured and displaced,
because the US continuously obliterated another requirement of a Just War, that is,
“weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-
combatants”.
The SC/6739 was titled “Security Council Demands that Taliban Turn Over OBL to
Appropriate Authorities”, which not only makes us question the structural incapacity
of the UN to assess the real time situation regarding the fact that the Taliban had
just weeks prior tried to do exactly that, but also that the US had fabricated its own
false truth to justify an invasion. Making a false truth can enable one to create a
desired material outcome but it cannot convert a bad intention into a good one,
therefore breaching another Just War clause that “a just war can only be fought with
right intentions”.
Perhaps the clause that “a war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance
of success” should be plausible to even the most materialistic. It is a disgrace for a
country that boasts itself to be the greatest and most powerful, being unable to
assess whether they could win this war at all; prolonging it to two decades of chaos
and destruction of the Afghan people — just because someone else made chaos and
destruction in their land for one day!
In a Just War the “cost benefit ratio” should also be “positive”, estimated at $2
trillion for the US — an extreme wastage and misappropriation of funds that
belonged, not only to the American people, but should have been used for the
welfare of the larger humanity. Death and injury incurred by the US, upon the
Afghans in a hopeless cause and their dire miscalculations, prove their deprecate
morality and dead justice. Perhaps now, leaving Afghanistan to the people can be
the least they can try do to redress the un-redressable injuries they have unjustly
inflicted upon a section of humanity, seeing them as weak and helpless.

26-6-2020
Only if they had one adviser like Mencius (400BC) who told King Xuan, “if in annexing
Yen you please its people then annex it… if in annexing Yen you antagonise its people
then do not annex it.” But that is like dragging one into a religious sermon away from
realpolitik!
By: Aneela Shahzad
Source: The Express Tribune

26-6-2020
 Dystopia beckons
IT is here. More than four months of almost daily acrimony and bungling on the part
of officialdom later, Pakistan has become one of the global hotspots for the novel
coronavirus. It was a matter of if rather than when, but we — and the two-fifths of
humanity that reside in the Indian subcontinent — are now in the thick of it.
Speculating about the ultimate damage that this deadly pathogen will do is an
exercise in futility. It has already ravaged individual countries like Brazil and the
world system more generally, the IMF’s most recent estimate suggesting that global
economic output will decline by $12 trillion. Indeed, the identifiable fallouts of the
pandemic are simply the tip of the iceberg. The interrelated crises that have been
exposed by the pandemic will continue to unfold in the years ahead, and thinking
through them critically is imperative if there is any chance of halting an increasingly
rapid slide into dystopia.
Take, for instance, what Covid-19 has illuminated about the actual workings of the
health sector. The perilous conditions in which doctors, nurses and other essential
workers in the public sector are performing their duties and the exhaustion of public
health facilities more generally is common knowledge. But less discussed is the
shameless profiteering off those who are affected by the disease, and the tens of
millions of people in this country who suffer ailments other than the coronavirus.
The rates of private hospital beds and other services have increased exponentially.
Basic medicines are being sold on the black market at exorbitant prices. Even hailing
an ambulance for emergencies incurs scandalous costs. This is aside from the sale of
‘magic’ treatments like the blood plasma of recovered Covid-19 patients that harken
to established and despicable practices like the selling of kidneys.
The pandemic’s identifiable fallout is just the tip of the iceberg.
In a nutshell, an increasingly large number of working people in Pakistan are already
at the mercy of a privatised healthcare system, sharks lurking at every corner to
pillage the toiling classes who are at best uninformed and at worst prone to be taken
for a ride because of the worldview that our paranoid state apparatus has inculcated
over the decades.
The situation in the education sector is similar. The once ubiquitous idea that the
state must provide affordable education to all of its citizens, up to the level of the
public university, is now for all intents and purposes a pipe dream. Private schools,
colleges and universities delivering what at best can be called mediocre education
are to be found in every street of every small town and city of Pakistan. If you pay,

26-6-2020
you get certified. Those seeking to protect the right to public education — or even
internet access, as the arrests in Quetta on Wednesday demonstrated — get vilified.
The pandemic presages a world in which those who cannot afford to purchase
health, education, water or other basic needs will be confined to physical ghettoes,
not unlike some of our katchi abadis, walled in from ‘civilised’ and ‘sanitised’ society.
Or perhaps it is better to imagine it the other way around; elite ghettos in the form
of gated housing communities already dot the Pakistani cityscape, including in
‘international port cities’ like Gwadar. Not generally advertised is that many such
housing schemes come into existence through brutal dispossession of politically
voiceless working people. Aren’t we already reproducing the model of heavily
fortified Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory?
For those who believe this is the stuff of science fiction, think again. All around the
world, the pandemic has provided a fillip to already authoritarian statecraft, the
power of Big Tech, class, racial/ethnic and gender privilege. We’re still getting our
head around the idea of second or third waves of the virus. Cutting edge and
grounded science confirms that destructive practices of industrial agriculture are
likely to throw up more deadly pathogens. And this is not even to speak of the
planetary climate crisis.
Suitably sanitised, the Pakistani mainstream is well practised in calling out excesses
in Palestine, Kashmir, Burma, and other selected places far away from our own
melting pot of injustice and tyranny. Meanwhile, the wherewithal to understand
epidemiological matters, or climate science more generally, is conspicuous by its
absence, the utterings of Climate Change Minister Zartaj Gul Wazir an indication of
how dire the situation is.
Yet the underlying crises are about much more than individuals. Critical inquiry and
independence is a must if we are to transcend the establishment-centric political
system and halt the slide into dystopia. But repression makes the cost of
independence high. It all feels like a car crash in slow motion. Which means that
there is little time to waste for those still on the fence. It will all come to a head
sooner than you think.
By: Aasim Sajjad Akhtar
Source: Dawn

26-6-2020
 Prices and markets
I WAS in graduate school in Montreal in January 1998 when a number of provinces
of Canada and some states of the US, on the eastern side, were hit by a severe ice
storm. Hundreds of thousands of people found themselves without electricity for a
week or more. And it was the height of winter. At one point, the government of
Quebec had contemplated, seriously, that they might have to evacuate entire cities
and move the population westward for some time.
In the wake of the ice storm, everything had shut down. Supply chains, for the supply
of most goods and services, were severely disrupted while demand, for some goods
at least, had increased suddenly. Flashlights and candles were suddenly in high
demand. As were groceries. When shopkeepers, who had inventories of candles,
batteries and flashlights, raised the prices of these items, there was a tremendous
hue and cry in the media about price gouging and hoarding as well as accusations of
making unfair profits. The government had moved speedily to ensure ready supplies
of food items, but some of the other items became short rather quickly. The question
is: were vendors right in increasing the prices of goods whose demand had suddenly
increased manifold?
Similar issues have been seen in Pakistan many times. Most recently, we have seen
price hikes as a result of Covid-19. Whenever a medicine is described as an important
drug for Covid-19 treatment, its price increases manifold; the drug disappears from
market shelves. There is immediate reaction, on social media at least, where people
call drug sellers hoarders or black marketeers and portray them as unethical.
Prices are an important statistic in markets. They allow allocation decisions to be
taken. Markets, based on demand and supply, determine prices. Those who can pay
the price get the product, those who cannot pay the price, do not get the good.
Are there limits to how much the price should move when there is a demand or
supply shock?
Market- or price-based allocations are not the only way of making decisions about
who gets a particular good or service. We can and do have other ways of arriving at
allocation decisions. We elect representatives through the one-person one-vote
system. We form queues to get on the bus or to obtain tickets or access public health
systems. We have rationing systems in some places and for some goods. We even
use quotas for job allocations and access to goods and services. We can have need-
based systems in some cases too.
Markets, through demand and supply and prices, form an important allocative
mechanism. In some cases (auctions), the market system is refined to the point

26-6-2020
where the product is allocated to those willing to pay the most for the product. In
price discrimination systems, we can even try and tailor provisions according to
group or individual willingness to pay. Irrespective of these differences, the bottom
line is that markets, through demand, supply and prices, allocate goods/services to
those who are willing and able to pay market-clearing prices.
When there is a demand or supply shock (increasing demand or restricting supply
suddenly), the only way the market can ‘adjust’ is by raising prices, if it is to be
cleared. If the price is not allowed to respond when the demand suddenly increases
or supply decreases, there will be more customers in the market for that good than
what can be supplied, and there will be a shortage. If prices cannot rise to remove
the excess demand, we will need another allocation mechanism. Otherwise, the
shortage will lead to the creation of a black market.
Are there limits to how much the price should move when there is a demand or
supply shock? The problem here is that if the initial decision is to allocate goods
based on prices, shocks will move prices depending on the size of the shock, and it is
not easy to put limits around it. It is also the case that in some markets, where the
number of buyers and sellers is low or there are cartels on one side or the other, the
manipulation of supply (hoarding) can also take place, and this can make the price
move a lot. The solution for the problem is not very obvious.
Regulatory structures can make cartels illegal and can also try to limit hoarding. But
in countries, like Pakistan, where regulatory capacity is weak, this is not very
effective.
Can we make distinctions amongst categories of goods and say that prices for
essentials (food, life-saving medicines, essential services) should not be allowed to
move as much as other goods? This is not easy to do through laws and policies. These
have to be achieved through market management. But that requires quick action
from the state: something that states are not really known for. It is much easier for
the state to just say that they will arrest hoarders or raid the premises where they
think hoarding is being done. These are not really actions that are very effective. But
they are the ones that are easiest for the state to show and implement.
Managing supply or demand shocks is not easy. In markets, the solution, for the
state, if you do not want prices to change, is to change supply as demand is usually
not easy to manage. But managing supply in market-driven systems is not a trivial
task. For goods and services where allocation is not through market mechanisms,
other ways of allocation can work. But for goods and services being supplied through
the market, holding prices constant or in a specific range is not easy. And this is true

26-6-2020
for all states, but especially for those that have limited regulatory capacity. It seems
we will have to live with this messy system that sees substantial price changes for
goods that face sudden demand and supply shocks. In the case of some goods, and
these should be chosen carefully (life-saving medicines, for instance), we can move
to other ways of allocating them to those who need them. But that cannot be the
solution for the bulk of the goods and services that markets provide. For the bulk,
we do not have a solution other than to strengthen markets and ensure general
regulation.
By: Faisal Bari
Source: Dawn
The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Development and Economic
Alternatives, and an associate professor of economics at Lums.

26-6-2020