Lying is the new normal in the post-truth world

Is it just me or have politicians the world over really become nastier, more violent and more vengeful?

Perhaps it’s just a temporary phenomenon. Perhaps I’m feeling especially downbeat in the wake of Brexit, the terror attack in Nice, the attempted coup in Turkey, the nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for US president and Boris Johnson’s appointment as Britain’s Foreign Secretary. And oh yes, let’s not forget Mrs Trump’s botched attempt at plagiarism.

Recently it seems that everywhere I look, every time I go online, every word uttered by politicians that I hear, propels me into an unpleasant new era dominated by liars, bullies and cheats.

This is a time when being a successful politician means being dishonest, where nastiness is rewarded with votes and where fear and hate have replaced the discourse of tolerance and hope.

It’s not just politicians who lie and deceive of course — more and more everyone appears to have succumbed to the temptation. But while lying by ordinary people is hurtful and harmful, lying politicians are more dangerous because they are changing our world.

The transformation has been rapid. The “new normal” has come upon as almost unnoticed, changing our politics and with it our world in the blink of a Twitter feed.

It really has happened fast. Only a few years ago calling a politician a liar was the ultimate insult. When just like thieves, lying politicians were outcast by society, becoming objects of contempt and disdain. They were unceremoniously booted out, their lies exposed, their careers in tatters.

And remember a time when honesty in a politician was admired and considered a virtue? Promises were meant to be kept and men and women in charge were judged by their word. Just like ordinary fold, they were taught to speak the truth and never, ever cheat, whether at school, in the playground or in the family.

And facts. Remember when facts were important, nay even crucial in political discussions? Facts and figures — data and statistics — determined our views, informed our decisions and shaped our discourse. Elections were fought on the basis of correct, verifiable information.

Finally, think back to a time when politicians were polite and that mattered. People who were respectful and courteous were admired and looked up to as social models. Having good manners was an asset in society. Just like children, the people in power were taught to say “please and thank you”. And oh yes, they often also said “sorry”.

That was then. Today, more than half-way into 2016, it’s official: truth, vows, facts and manners are out. Lies, dishonesty, rudeness and fiction are in.

A close scrutiny of the Brexit and Trump campaigns provides ample proof we are living in what many commentators describe as a “post-truth” era.

“In the post-truth era, borders blur between truth and lies, honesty and dishonesty, fiction and non-fiction. Deceiving others becomes a challenge, a game, and ultimately a habit,” says Ralph Keyes, author of The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life.

For proof look no further than Trump’s election campaign, and reports that 76 per cent of Trump’s statements are rated either “mostly false”, “false”, or “pants on fire”, which is to say off-the-charts false. By comparison, Hillary Clinton’s total is 29pc.

Boris Johnson and the Leave campaign lied notoriously about many things, including the 350 million pounds that Britain was supposed to be sending to the EU every week and which could be channelled into the National Health Service.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan may or may not be misinforming his citizens by linking the attempted coup to his arch-rival Fethullah Gulen but his vengeful rounding up and mistreatment of those involved — and threats of bringing back the death penalty — are worrying signs for a country which was once viewed as a much-needed inspiration for Muslim democracies.

The media is full of other examples of liars, including of course former British prime minister Tony Blair whose “conviction” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction has been revealed to be false.

Interestingly, however, he isn’t repentant. In the 21st Century, politicians found to have misled and deceived others go on to become authors and much-coveted conference speakers. Or like Boris Johnson, they shrug it off as unimportant. Or like Trump, they rage and rant.

The post-truth era is facilitated by the social media where “misinformation” spreads like wildfire and most mainstream journalists have abdicated their role as fact-checkers, preferring instead to swallow deceptions and lies without much questioning.

Bullies, ranting and lying politicians are certainly not just a phenomenon of the West. Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America have more than their share of deceitful men and women who have turned lying into a long-standing political art form.

In the past, once unmasked, liars and cheats in the West beat a fast retreat. Today, they are foreign ministers and leaders of political parties - and possibly one of them could become the next leader of the “free world”.

ASEM: a right platform for conversation on shared global challenges

This is just the right time for a serious Asia-Europe conversation on shared global challenges. With Brexit around the corner, the world economy in poor shape, growing inequalities and discontent with globalisation on the rise, Asian and European leaders meeting in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, on July 15-16, have a great deal to talk about.Add to the list, an increased disconnect and mistrust between governments and citizens — especially between leaders and young people — the rise in populism, fears of uncontrolled immigration and violent extremism, and it’s clear that leaders at the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit in Mongolia will have a full agenda.Asian leaders and policymakers may believe that most of these issues are of relevance only to Europe. The truth is more complicated. The Brexit referendum last month has certainly highlighted the strength of these and other preoccupations among British (and other European voters). But many of these worries are shared by citizens across the world.Asia is as unequal a continent as is Europe. Winners and losers of globalisation exist on both continents and terrorists pose a challenge to Asian and European states alike. Even though they are masters of grabbing the headlines in Europe, populist politicians with simple messages exist in Asia as well. And leaders in both Asia and Europe need to build stronger connections with young people and respond to their worries about education, jobs, exclusion and marginalisation.It is important to have these discussions within ASEM. Given its informal format and structure, ASEM offers a unique platform for an open, no holds-barred high-level brainstorm on issues of mutual interest. The leaders’ retreat session is especially suited to the debate on shared challenges.In fact, it is the need for such a conversation that led to the creation of ASEM 20 years ago — and that is likely to give ASEM renewed geo-strategic relevance and increased credibility in the coming years.ASEM stakeholders — including policymakers, members of parliament, civil society representatives, academics and members of think tanks as well as young people and business leaders — are engaged in impressive efforts to make ASEM fit for purpose in the 21st Century.The emphasis should be on new ideas and increased connectivity as part of a potent new recipe for injecting new energy and dynamism into ASEM.Transforming ASEM into a hub or network of ideas and initiatives will give the Asia-Europe relationship a geo-strategic raison d’être, which it has lost over the last two decades. The platform for networking, dialogue and cooperation it provides today makes it even more essential in an interdependent and complex world. Asia-Europe connectivity is now a fact of life and reinforcing these networks through stronger institutional, infrastructure, digital and people-to-people linkages is rightfully emerging as a central element of efforts to revive and renew ASEM.ASEM has met many of its original goals by providing Asian and European leaders with opportunities to get to know one another, encouraging greater people-to-people understanding and providing the two regions with avenues to explore new areas of cooperation in the political, economic and social sectors.An array of ASEM meetings allows policymakers from both regions to exchange views on regional and global issues and strengthen their economic relations through greater trade and investment. Additionally, meetings between business leaders, parliamentarians, academics and civil society actors — and young leaders — have allowed ASEM to make important headway in enhancing mutual Asia-Europe understanding and upgrading the quality and diversity of the Asia-Europe conversation.While these connections are important, ASEM can do much more by playing a more central role than it has so far in generating, nourishing and disseminating new ideas about living and working together in a globalised world.This requires the setting up of an “ASEM Brains Trust” or network of think tanks/studies centres, which can help to enliven ASEM by turning into a market place for ideas and initiatives. Proposals and ideas generated within such a studies centre should be fed directly into the work of senior ASEM officials and the activities of other stakeholders. Such tasks could be performed by an ASEM coordination centre of the kind being recommended by Mongolia.This combination of ideas and connectivity allowing for a permanent circulation and exchange of thoughts, knowledge, experience and expertise can revive ASEM for the third decade. The summit in Ulaanbataar can and should set ASEM on the road to renewal. The 21st Century is proving to be turbulent, violent and unpredictable. ASEM can help increase Asian and European understanding of a very complicated world.

No schedule yet to restart negotiations on India-EU free trade pact: EU official

The 28-member European Union (EU) is “encouraged” by the political momentum the long-discussed India-EU free trade agreement (FTA) gained at the summit held between the two in Brussels at the end of March, but both sides have not been able to fix a schedule to restart negotiations as yet, an EU official said.Both sides have “outstanding issues” to sort out and “the European Commission offered India on several occasions and in different formats to create an adequate forum to discuss outstanding issues...to enable the process to move forward,” Daniel Rosario, a spokesman for the EU trade department, told a group of visiting Indian journalists on Monday.The last round of talks on India-EU FTA was held in 2013 and the discussions have remained deadlocked on issues such as tariffs on automobiles and wines and spirits, Rosario said.In the auto sector, EU is unhappy given that its exporters have to face Indian import duties of up to 100% on cars and car parts. And in the case of wines and spirits, European exporters face tariffs as high as up to 150%, Rosario said.He said the EU had put forward several proposals in 2013 to break the deadlock.“We suggested long transitional periods for their elimination or going as far as accepting asymmetric elimination of these duties in favour of India” in the case of automobiles, he said. In the case of wines and spirits, “the proposal made in 2013 was for a gradual if not complete elimination of these duties and taking into account the Indian sensitivities”, he said.“We clearly identified the areas where we expect India to make some movement and we offered some fora to go into some specific discussions to allow for the general discussion to move ahead and for the time being, this has not happened,” he added.When asked if the EU would agree to re-open negotiations from the start, Rosario said the EU could not “ignore all the work that has been done so far”.Despite the many contentious issues, “we are encouraged to see that in the last (India-EU) summit at the end of March, both sides agreed to re-engage in this process to give it the necessary momentum”, Rosario said, referring to the 30 March India-EU summit in Brussels. India was represented by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the EU side was represented by Donald Tusk, president of the European Council and Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission.But Rosario did not seem to have an answer when asked when the talks will get going again.According to analysts, the trade pact could serve as an “anchor” for bilateral relations, besides proving to European businesses that “India is open for businesses”.The March India-EU summit was the first in four years and followed the EU’s refusal last year to confirm the dates of a proposed visit by Modi amid a diplomatic row over the slow progress in India of the trial of two Italian marines accused of killing two Indian fishermen in 2012.Talks on the Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement—the official title of the free trade pact—started in 2007 but progress has been tardy and marked by flip-flops. India cancelled a meeting with the EU chief trade negotiator in August last year in protest against an import ban on 700 of its generic drugs clinically tested by GVK Biosciences for alleged manipulation of clinical trials.“The GVK issue, it’s a decision for us that has nothing to do with the negotiations of a trade agreement, it never had a link,” Rosario said.Later, during a meeting between Modi and Tusk in the Turkish city of Antalya in November on the margins of a G-20 meet, both sides agreed to hold a stock taking meeting between the chief negotiators before resuming formal talks. The stock-taking talks, including a meeting between Indian commerce secretary Rita Teaotia and EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström in Brussels on 22 February, however, did not produce any results.The impression in New Delhi seems to be that with the EU involved in talks with the US on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, it is not focused on trade talks with Asia’s third largest economy. Also occupying European mind space is the British referendum, to be held on 23 June, on whether the country should remain in the EU.“There was a long discussion on the trade agreement during the India-EU summit and we have conveyed to them (EU) that we are committed to the agreement,” said a person on the Indian side who is familiar with the developments.On India’s part, disputed issues in the trade talks include the so-called Mode 4, a provision of the 1995 General Agreement on Trade in Services, which seeks to facilitate the movement of professionals from one country to another.According to Shada Islam, director at the Policy Friends of Europe think tank based in Brussels, India-EU ties seemed to be a work in progress with India focused on consolidating ties with countries like the US.“The India-EU relationship is not as vibrant as the EU-China partnership,” she said, adding that the 30 March summit “seemed to be the beginning of a new understanding with misconceptions on their way out”.“At the moment, we (India and the EU) don’t have a strong anchor for our relations and the trade agreement could serve as that anchor,” she said.Total bilateral trade between India and the EU, which is India’s largest trading partner, was €78 billion in 2015, according to EU figures.The EU is one of the largest foreign direct investors in India with investments of €38.5 billion since 2000. 

India Free Trade Agreement: European Union Expects Both Sides To Move With Caution

Talks on the free trade agreement between the EU and India started in 2007 but there has been little progress since then.

Even as the European Union (EU) is preparing its reply to a letter written by India’s commerce and industry minister, Nirmala Sitharaman asking for a meeting of chief negotiators to resume dialogue on the free trade agreement, the EU feels that this time around the two sides will move with caution.

“You don’t negotiate trade agreements without caution. Caution goes hand in hand with ambition. So you have to be able to deliver in the end a deal that is both ambitious and in the interest of both the sides,” said Daniel Rosaro, spokesperson Trade, Directorate-General Communication-EU.

Last year in August, India cancelled a meeting with the EU chief trade negotiator in protest against an import ban on 700 of its generic drugs clinically tested by GVK Biosciences for alleged manipulation of clinical trials. According to Rosaro, India should not have cancelled the meeting with the EU chief negotiator as the import ban was not linked to the free trade agreement. “For us this (cancellation of meeting) was a step that was not really justified at that time and we have explained it why. The GVK issue had nothing to do with the negotiation of a trade agreement,” said Rosaro.

When asked if the EU is focussing more on Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) than negotiating free trade agreement with India, Rosaro said, “TTIP is a very demanding process and has brought new public interest in trade policy, but it is one of the many processes where the EU is involved in terms of trade policy we have a broad ambitious global trade agenda in which India comes as one priority.” Shada Islam, director of policy at Friends of Europe, a think-tank  that aims to stimulate new thinking on global and European issues said while India needs to engage with the EU at a higher level and focus on its relationship with Europe, the EU too has to keep up the momentum in its relationship with India.

In November 2015,  Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, met in Turkey on the sidelines of a G-20 meet and agreed to hold a stocktaking meeting before resuming formal talks. In March, during the EU- India summit the two sides have now developed a strategic partnership for joint cooperation in many areas under the title EU-India Agenda for Action 2020. “The fact that EU and India have identified quite a few areas of synergies whether it’s smart cities or clean India is quite interesting. I hope this will open up ways for businesses to get involved. We think that there is a lot of potential in  Narendra Modi’s drive for modernisation of India. But we need to see how this can work out in reality, “ said Islam. “What we are also watching very closely is also how India works within the G-20 because that’s for us is one of the new global governance tools,” Islam said.

View from abroad: Europe will never be the same again (Originally published 04/10/2015 at Dawn.com)

Don’t believe the upbeat headlines. The summit of European Union leaders held in Brussels a couple of weeks ago has not ended the acrimonious quarrelling among the bloc’s 28 leaders over Europe’s refugee crisis. The divisions are deep. Yes, some cracks have been papered over. Make no mistake, however, Europe has changed and may never be the same again.The summer and autumn of 2015 will be remembered as an important defining moment for a continent which has itself suffered the horrors of war, and persecution but which now, despite the economic slowdown, is still a largely comfortable and prosperous place. And with comfort have come complacency, self-righteousness and, yes, a certain degree of selfishness. Mixed with this is fear of foreigners, especially those who also happen to be Muslim.So why is this such an important watershed moment? Quite simply, because this is when Europe has to decide whether it turns inwards, enjoying its many assets and charms while shunning the rest of the world or whether it truly embraces the 21st century. The sudden arrival of hundreds of thousands of refugees has shaken Europe to the core, revealing and highlighting still-deep-seated differences among nations and people and throwing cold water on the EU’s endless talk of shared “common values” among the 28 countries.For years, Europeans have known that they have an ageing population and need foreign labour — both skilled and unskilled. And for just as many years, Europe has tried to ignore this reality. There are no legal channels for those seeking to migrate to Europe. Piecemeal efforts like ‘blue card’ schemes end up in tatters.That’s not unique. Like many other countries and regions, Europe and Europeans are undecided about who they are and what they want to be. They vacillate between good and bad, open and closed. And the refugee crisis has made these uncertainties and internal rifts visible to the world. Suddenly, there is no more time for discussion, no time to fudge and vacillate.The “Islamic invasion”, the “Muslim hordes”, the “swarms of migrants” from poor nations are not just a nightmare, they are a reality. There is no place to hide. The wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan have ensured that Europe is now face to face with what it fears most: the arrival of thousands of “Muslims” who want refuge, shelter, asylum in Europe.Not surprisingly, the EU has been taken by surprise. Divisions within the EU are not new. It’s not easy for 28 sovereign nations to work together, pool resources and sometimes even pool their sovereignty in the name of European integration. But so far the infighting has been relatively civilised and calm. It’s been about the sharing of money, trade policy and whether to bomb or not to bomb foreign nations.In the case of the Eurozone crisis, especially as regards Greece, it did become ugly at moments. The Germans were demonised for forcing austerity on the poor suffering Greeks. The Greeks in turn were accused of being lazy and corrupt. Now it’s about much, much more. It’s about history, humanity, about Europe’s place in the world and about those cherished European “values”, namely tolerance, respect for others, compassion, etc.As they grapple with the reality of hundreds of thousands of refugees on their territory, those values have been neatly discarded by most of the EU’s new members from eastern and central Europe. And even the “old” EU nations are beginning to waver. The decision by EU leaders to give one billion euros in aid to Syria’s neighbouring countries which are sheltering the majority of the refugees may have temporarily stopped some of the embarrassingly public wrangling. Agreement to shore up the bloc’s external borders has also led to a collective sigh of relief among those who fear being engulfed by the world’s “poor and huddled masses”.Now is also the time for anguished soul-searching, mea culpas and backtracking. The EU’s Polish president of the council, Donald Tusk, has warned that it is time to “correct our policy of open doors and windows” towards the refugees. Significantly, Tusk did not mention the policy of barbed wire fences, prisons and “jungles” implemented by most of his counterparts in eastern Europe. Tusk’s criticism of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to let in Syrian refugees did not go unnoticed. But Tusk is not alone.The Slovak, Czech and Hungarian leaders are also up in arms against the EU decision to reallocate 120,000 refugees across most of the 28 member states. The EU’s most robust anti-immigration hardliner, Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary, warned Merkel, against any “moral imperialism”.Significantly, however, economists at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have said that the short-term strain on Europe posed by the refugees is outweighed by the long-term opportunity the newcomers present for a continent struggling with sluggish growth and home to an ageing population.Many European businesses have already said they are ready to offer jobs to the refugees who they believe can help bolster the bloc’s economies. In Germany, employers’ organisations have issued an appeal to accelerate training for refugees, including German language training so that they can be employed as soon as possible.So yes, Europe today is confused, undecided and uncertain. Europeans know they need foreign labour and many recognise that the Syrian and other refugees, given their youth, talents and professional skills are a godsend for an ageing continent. But many are also likely to say: what a pity that so many are Muslims.

Shada Islam quoted in ‘Greek Deal Makes Europe More German. But at What Cost?’ (Bloomberg 13/07/2015)

Europe’s deal with Greece was variously denounced as blackmail, an attack on national sovereignty and an end to the European dream. The accord’s detractors could at least agree on one thing: the chief culprit was Angela Merkel.Having held sway in the unequal struggle with Alexis Tsipras over the terms of a third bailout, Merkel has ensured that the 19-nation euro area remains a club whose members abide by the rules or are shown the door. The question is what toll that stance has taken on her reputation and the extent of the damage to the international standing of Germany and Europe.Shada Islam, director of policy at the Friends of Europe advisory group in Brussels, said that months of EU acrimony since Tsipras’s election in January as Greek premier at the head of an anti-austerity coalition has tarnished the bloc in the eyes of both its own citizens and globally.“They reached a deal on Greece but at a huge cost,” Islam said by phone. “Merkel tried to play the middle ground but Schaeuble will be seen by some critics as the true villain of this piece.”Both Merkel and Schaeuble have become hate figures in Greece, where comparisons with the World War II occupation by Nazi forces have become commonplace. In Germany, members of Merkel’s coalition have competed for outrage against a backdrop of the constant drumbeat of calls by the best-selling Bild newspaper for Greece to be ejected from the euro.For the full article, visit:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-13/greek-deal-makes-europe-more-german-but-at-what-cost- 

View from Abroad: Europe and the new world order (Originally published 11/07/2015 at dawn.com)

Entangled in the Greek debt crisis, few European policymakers had the time or interest this week to pay attention to the summit talks in the Russian city of Ufa between the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS).True, Europe has its hands full with Greece and the looming possibility of a Greek exit from the Eurozone. But the world doesn’t stop for Europe. And pretending that the BRICS and their self-confident leaders don’t matter — or matter little — is not an option.Discussions about the rapidly-transforming world, the role and influence of the BRICS and Europe’s relations with the emerging powers appear to be off the European Union agenda. For now, the focus is rightly on the existential threat posed by Grexit, the acrimony the Greek crisis has triggered across the EU and the worsening relationship among Eurozone leaders.Solving the Greek problem should of course take priority. But Europeans know that more is at stake. Italy’s Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has so far been most vocal in signalling his fears that the fury unleashed by the difficulties in Greece is damaging the very existence of the EU. But this thought is also in many other minds. If Europe can’t get its house in order, it really does run the risk of becoming irrelevant on an increasingly crowded global stage.For the moment, most Europeans seem to fall into two categories: those who fear the rapidly-changing world order and the increasingly long list of nations clamouring for a stronger role on the world stage and those who hope that if they look the other way, firm up their bonds with the United States, the world won’t change too much and the BRICS will gradually fade away.There are some, wiser, people in the middle: they may not be enthusiastic about the changes being made to the global status quo; but they also know that times are changing fast and that Europe needs to adapt, adjust and accommodate.It was on the advice of such people that despite strong pressure from the US not to do so, several EU countries decided to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) set up by China.While many Europeans voice fear that China is “buying up” European assets, cooler heads are urging the EU to join forces with China’s ambitious ‘One Belt, One Road’ transport networks to boost domestic growth and jobs.Similar arguments for and against cooperating with emerging nations are likely to come to the fore as Europeans discuss membership of the New Development Bank (NDB) being set up by the BRICS to fund projects in member countries.Headquartered in Shanghai, the bank is expected to be operational by end of 2015. Once fully operational, it will become an alternative financing source for the BRICS nations and other emerging markets.Like the head of the AIIB, the first chief of the BRICS bank, India’s K. V. Kamath has been quoted as saying that the NDB sees other multilateral lending institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) as partners rather than rivals.And yet many continue to be suspicious. The US and Japan have not yet joined the AIIB and many EU policymakers continue to voice fears that the new banks will fall short of high Western standards of transparency and accountability.The BRICS have made clear that they don’t really care. The Old Guard is welcome to come on board, but the world is moving on and they won’t stop for the laggards.Russia, given its tense relations with the West following the crisis in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, has taken the toughest line in its dealing with Europe and America. As Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov underlined in Ufa, emerging nations represent a “new polycentric system of international relations” and demonstrate new global centres of power.As he shook hands with his Chinese, Indian, South African and Brazilian counterparts, a beaming Russian President Vladimir Putin made clear that he was far from the sad and isolated man that the West wants him to be.And it’s not just about the BRICS. An array of newly-empowered nations and groupings are challenging Europe and America’s dominance of the post World War II order. Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey and Australia are part of MIKTA which claims to act as a bridge between old and new powers.New Zealand says it is the champion of “small nations” without whose support nothing can be achieved on the global stage. The Group of 20 remains relevant as a forum which brings together industrialised and emerging countries.And then there is also the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which EU and Nato policymakers also tend to shrug off as an impotent “paper tiger”.They shouldn’t. As India and Pakistan set out on the road to membership of the SCO, it is clear that while the security organisation does not see itself as a rival to Nato, it does intend to make its voice heard on global security challenges.Underlining just how significantly the world has changed, the five BRICS countries and the six SCO members which include China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan — joined by India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Mongolia which have observer status — held a joint summit in Ufa.The Greek crisis was on the BRICS agenda of course. While Europe may not like the new world out there, emerging nations know that in an interconnected and interdependent world, what happens in Europe affects them. And that a failed Europe is in nobody’s interest.

Greek crisis endangers Europe’s heart and soul (Originally published 04/07/2015 at dawn.com)

This column is not about the Greek Eurozone crisis. How could it be — what more would I or indeed anyone — be able to add to the reams and reams of stuff that has already been written, rewritten, said and resaid about the topic?The facts are well known: Greeks will vote on July 5 in a snap referendum that Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras says will give the country’s long-suffering people the final say on whether he should accept the tough terms of a cash-for-austerity deal from creditors at the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund.Tsipras wants Greeks to say no, apparently arguing that creditors are bluffing and will not take the catastrophic step of ejecting Greece from the club of 19 nations that use the euro currency.The creditors say they’re ready to push the nuclear button. Enough is enough. Throwing Greece out of the Eurozone won’t matter that much. It’s a small economy, the impact will be limited. Eighteen countries will still be in the Eurozone. Life will go on.Of course it will. Life always goes on. After wars, earthquakes, tsunamis and suicide bombings, life goes on. People come out of the crisis, pull up their socks, get back to work.But think about it: life is never really the same ever again.So, Grexit won’t bring Europe to its knees. The Eurozone will not unravel, neither will the European Union. The other eighteen countries of the Eurozone will soldier on even if Greece exits the currency bloc.Also worth noting: even if it does leave the Eurozone, Greece will still be a member of the 28-nation EU.But let’s make no mistake: If Greece is ejected from the Eurozone, it will — even further — destroy the heart and soul of this continent.In fact, the soul of Europe is already half-destroyed. This protracted crisis is taking its toll on Europe’s self-image, self-confidence, its links with ordinary Europeans and its role and influence on the global stage.Born in Asia, grown up in Europe, I have always admired my adopted continent for its ability to put past animosities behind, to work together for the common good, to make sure war never erupts again in our lifetime and beyond.I love the variety and the diversity of Europe, the freedom to travel, work and live in any of the 28 countries, the freedom to say and do what I like, without raised eyebrows or reproachful, critical glances.But Europe is changing. The last 70 years since the end of World War II have been peaceful — but the EU showed its feet of clay during the devastating and blood-soaked Balkan conflict.Tolerance and human rights are universal values but Europe has been their most determined defender. And yet as thousands of hapless refugees arrive on its shores, Europe is showing an indifference which beggars belief.As the Far Right narrative of hatred and racism becomes ever shriller, the voices calling for peace and calm are drowned out. No politician has the courage to say that Europe needs immigration and desperately needs foreign skills and talent.The debate over Greece has polarised Europe, splitting it in half. Those in favour of austerity argue that Greece spends too much, doesn’t save enough money and doesn’t tax its rich people as much as it should.They want Athens to cut spending, slash pensions and increase taxes.Others argue equally powerfully that a country in recession cannot be punished even further and that what Greece needs above all is a fiscal stimulus to get back growth and create some desperately-needed jobs.Greek Prime Minister Tsipras and his Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis have been engaged in a seemingly un-ending battle of wills with their Eurozone colleagues for months.I have lost count of the number of marathon discussion sessions held so far, the constant tweeting by the key players and the false dawns that a deal was just around the corner.But something strange appears to have transpired over the last few days. Initial sympathy for the Athens duo appears to be fading, with more and more insiders warning that Tsipras and Varoufakis have lost the plot.German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose nation has lent more to Greece than any other in the European Union, is often seen as the architect of Greek austerity. But some of the countries that are now coming down hardest on Greece are the smaller, poorer Eurozone nations that have accepted the bitter pills of austerity and say the Greeks should do so as well.As the debate grinds on in Brussels, Athens and other capitals, it would be heartening to know that the interest of the Greek people was top of the EU and the Eurozone agenda.It isn’t. Europe, which was once about the people, the citizens, the demos, is now transformed into an argument about money. It’s about austerity versus growth.My question is: how will Greece ever get back on track — ever start growing again — without the support, involvement and contribution of its people?

View from Abroad: I wrote this column — despite being a woman (Originally published 13/06/2015 at dawn.com)

Yes, let’s make fun of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s sexist praise of his Bangladeshi counterpart, Sheikh Hasina, for being tough on terror “despite being a woman”. Social media in India and the world over has had a field day with Modi’s comment. I’ve laughed and tweeted along with everyone else.Imagine: the leader of the world’s largest democracy — and one which had a powerful female prime minister — making such an old-fashioned, disparaging remark about women. Outrageous. Unacceptable. Shocking. Offensive. Indian men are still stuck in a time warp.Really? Once the laughter stops, let’s take a sober look at the sad reality of women’s role, status and influence in the 21st century. And let’s also recognise that there is no dearth of men — and women — who still believe that women should be neither seen, nor heard. And that those of us who do manage to live “normal” lives, sometimes even becoming prime ministers, parliamentarians, business leaders, judges, doctors, teachers, journalists and so on… do so “despite being a woman”.Take a look: Modi trolled for lauding Hasina's courage in fighting terror 'despite being a woman'The data on lack of progress on women’s rights is daunting. Too many statistics point to the hard struggle still going on to end gender discrimination in government, business, schools and at home. Women make up half the world’s population and yet represent a staggering 70% of the world’s poor. Although some changes have been made, the struggle for women’s development and empowerment continues to face many obstacles due to government neglect, discrimination, family traditions and actions by religious authorities.The good news is that achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls is recognised as an important priority in the post-2015 development agenda. But how committed are governments to giving priority attention to women and girls in their national development plans? Even more importantly, how ready are societies to accept women as full participants?In the same week that Modi got blasted for his comments, Tim Hunt, an English biochemist who is also a Nobel laureate, told the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, South Korea, that he believed scientists should work in gender-segregated labs.“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry,” Hunt intoned. Oh dear.Hunt’s angry critics have warned that his comments are a “disaster for the advancement of women”. And of course, female scientists are outraged. As it is, not many girls are opting to become scientists.If only Modi and Hunt were alone in believing women aren’t really strong and stoic enough to play hard ball. As the two men have shown, rubbishing women is probably the one sentiment/prejudice that unites many men, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, living in an industrialised or a developing country.It’s a common strand in the belief and discourse of Christian conservatives and their Muslim and Jewish counterparts. Veil them, cover their bodies and keep them home is the mantra of religious zealots of all faiths. And that includes the self-styled Islamic State of course.Sadly, women are as bad as men in believing women can’t make it to the top — and sometimes shouldn’t even try.It’s personal. As a teenager when I was still in Pakistan, a female “friend” of the family suggested that as a future housewife, I should study “home economics” rather than international politics. Others asked vaguely why I wasn’t thinking of attending a “finishing school” to make me into a perfect wife.“I plan to have a job,” I remember saying with some disdain. “But only if your husband allows it!” was the angry response.Well, luckily things turned out differently. Interestingly, at a recent dinner debate in Brussels on “women and development”, almost all female participants had very moving stories to tell of their different trajectories and of the men and women — mothers and fathers — who had helped or discouraged them on their voyage to self-fulfilment.There was talk of the “HeforShe” campaign that acknowledges that men have a key role to play in women’s empowerment. The importance of role models, inspirational mentors, hard-nosed teachers was stressed. Some women said their families had encouraged them to break away from stereotypes — others acknowledged that they did not have family support as they sought their own way in life.It was an evening of laughter and some tears. Of promises that as mothers, we were bringing up our sons and daughters differently, teaching them to respect each other.Women have achieved much over the years. But there’s still a long way to go. For all the howls of derision directed at him, Prime Minister Modi has done his bit to empower women through political appointments and social policies. After taking office last May, he appointed six women to his cabinet — the highest number in the history of the country.He has taken a strong stance against female feticide, which he called a “terrible crises” since India has a child sex ratio of 918 girls for every 1000 boys, a recipe for social unrest.It’s great he’s taken these and other steps — despite being a man.

View from abroad : Transatlantic alliance: fact and fiction (Originally published 21/03/2015 at dawn.com)

So here’s the fiction: America and Europe stand united against the “rest of the world”. The transatlantic alliance is strong, solid and a bulwark against the machinations of China and the world’s other emerging nations.Washington and Brussels are like-minded, like-thinking entities which see eye to eye on almost everything. Together, they can still rule the world.Perhaps in the 20th century — but no longer. Here are the facts: the world has changed from unipolar to multi-polar or even “no-polar”. For all its military might, the US no longer rules the world. For proof, look no further than the way Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is obstructing progress on US-Iran nuclear talks.And here are some more facts: America and the EU are divided over the death penalty, Guantanamo Bay, illegal renditions, the use of torture and the revelations of spying by the National Security Agency as revealed by Edward Snowden.They disagree over how to deal with Russia and Ukraine. And while America sees China mainly as a strategic competitor, Europe is happy to work with Beijing on tackling many 21st century challenges.Certainly, there are some points of convergence. Significantly, negotiations are underway on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), seen by many as the last attempt by a declining West to impose its economic rule-making model on a watching world.But even as they seek agreement on TTIP, many European states are posing the BIGGEST challenge to the US by deciding to join the Chinese-led, Chinese-inspired $50 billion Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) which Washington continues to firmly oppose.So far, EU members Britain, France, Germany and Italy have said they want to be founding members of the AIIB. But other Europeans will undoubtedly join their ranks.The story is not just about Washington vs Beijing; it’s about a changing world order, the shift of power from west to east, the rise of China and its challenge to years of US domination.It’s about the need to change and reform post-World War II multilateral institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.And it’s about a world desperately in need of cash, especially for badly-needed infrastructure projects — and a rising China which has more money than it can handle.To be fair, US Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew has said that the US was not opposed to the creation of the AIIB. “There are obviously vast needs in Asia and many parts of the world for infrastructure investment,” he told a Congressional hearing on the status of the international financial system.The US concern, he said, has always been whether such an international investment bank will adhere to the high standards such as in protecting workers’ rights, the environment and dealing properly with corruption issues.The bank, proposed by President Xi Jinping in 2013 during a visit to Indonesia, is expected to be launched formally by the end of this year.All Asian countries can apply to become founding members until March 31.Chinese experts say they are looking less for European financial support and more for Europe’s management experience to share with the AIIB.France, Germany and Italy announced they would join the Bank after Britain said it was doing so last week. Australia, a key US ally in the Asia-Pacific region which had come under pressure from Washington to stay out of the new bank, has also said that it will now rethink that position. South Korea is also expected to join.Other European countries are expected to follow the bigger EU nations’ lead. And why not? Like most Asian countries, Europeans are looking to invest in new infrastructure to raise levels of connectivity across the continent.Policymakers are hoping that China will be an important contributor to the 300 billion dollar infrastructure fund announced earlier this year by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.Britain hopes to establish itself as the number one destination for Chinese investment. China is also a strong investor in Germany and in France.Analysts point out that the US has misplayed its hands and that the best way to ensure that China doesn’t dominate the AIIB is to fill it with other powers. This, they argue would result in much stricter governance rules and safeguards.The AIIB is not the only regional project China has proposed that Washington will have to grapple with. Beijing’s “one belt, one road” Silk Road projects are moving rapidly from theoretical to actual, much to the dismay of America and some European states.The Asian Development Bank has estimated Asia’s infrastructure needs at $750 billion a year, far beyond the ADB’s capacity. With connectivity the buzzword across the region, the new Bank is expected to be very busy pumping money into major infrastructure projects.China has also been quick to respond to huge and acute infrastructure needs in the developing world, in contrast with the lengthy project processes required by other lenders.In response to the Chinese initiatives, the Japanese government has also said it wants to focus on infrastructure projects in developing countries.World leaders at the G20 Summit in Brisbane in 2014 recognised infrastructure demand in the developing world as a new source of global growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.The transatlantic trade deal may see the light of the day by end-2015 — even though negotiations are tough and public resistance to the pact is high. But even if they do clinch an agreement on trade, America and Europe will not always share a similar vision of life in a rapidly-changing 21st century.

View From Abroad: Getting excited about Asean (Originally published 28/02/2015 at dawn.com)

As China’s economy slows and Indian growth remains uncertain, global attention has switched to the end-year creation of a tariff-free 10-nation Southeast Asian “single market” as the newest and most exciting facet of rising Asia.The excitement is justified. Taken together, members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) have a population of 620 million, a growth rate of five per cent and a combined gross domestic product of almost $2.5 trillion. A growing middle class across the region has emerged as an avid consumer of foreign and domestic goods and services. Not surprisingly, global business is enthusiastic. Trade is booming and foreign investments into the region are rising.Significantly, even as they strive to get elements of the Asean Economic Community (AEC) in place by year-end, countries in the region are already crafting an even more ambitious “post-2015 vision” for further integration. The ambition is to move beyond trade and economics to focus on still largely incomplete plans for building a political and security community and preparing the groundwork for stronger social and cultural integration. One visionary goal is to create a common Asean time zone — as opposed to the current three spanning the Asean region — to facilitate cross-border business and finance.The AEC roadmap includes four pillars: a single market and production base (including the free flow of goods, services, skilled labour, capital and investment), a competitive economic region, equitable economic development and integration into the global economy.But challenges remain. First, don’t expect the AEC to enter into force with a “big bang” on Jan 1, 2016. Not all elements of the single market will or can be in place on schedule and while progress is being made to reduce trade barriers and ease investment, as well as ensure the free flow of goods, services, investment and skilled labour, the devil is in the detail — and in enforcement and implementation. An Asean Scorecard which keeps countries up to date on progress on the AEC says about 80pc of the work on completing the AEC has been done. But Asean experts acknowledge that the remaining 20pc covers “the most difficult” tasks.Malaysian Trade Minister Mustapa Mohamed, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the Southeast Asian bloc this year, has said the full impact of integration may not be felt until perhaps 2020, recognising that there are border issues, customs, immigration and different regulations, which still need to be tackled. Businesses must still navigate a complex landscape of different product standards and regulations that make it hard to sell across the region and hamper the ability of new companies to enter the market.Surprisingly, many Asean businesses appear to know little of the AEC’s pros and cons. Vietnamese officials said recently that 60pc of their country’s business community “had no idea what the AEC is”. A survey by the Singapore Business Federation in January found two out of five firms were completely unaware of it. Yet establishing the AEC will impact positively on many industries, including electronics, car parts and components, as well as chemicals, textiles, and clothing. Once completed, the hope is that the AEC will boost intra-Asean trade which currently stands at a modest 24pc of the region’s overall trade flows.Second, Asean still has much to do to connect with citizens. Increasingly vocal civil society representatives are adamant that Asean must live up to its goal of becoming “people-centred” and less elitist. In contrast to earlier years and outdated conventional wisdom, Asean civil society is proactive and striving to become deeply involved in efforts to ensure stronger human rights protection and promotion across the region. In a recent statement, the Asean People’s Forum (APF) — Asean’s largest civil society group — listed a number of problems in the region, among them grave human rights violations, corruption and poor governance. Intimidation of human rights defenders was also raised.There are signs that governments are paying heed. As current Asean chair Malaysia has indicated that one of its main priorities will be to engage Asean citizens and to promote greater understanding of Asean initiatives and projects. “We also hope to steer Asean closer to the people of Southeast Asia: to make this institution part of people’s daily lives, by creating a truly people-centred Asean,” says Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak. The rhetoric has to be turned into action, however.Third, for all the hype, Asean still has to deal with obstacles created by economic nationalism, protectionism and resistance to foreign-owned industries which persists in many member countries. Malaysia’s trade minister Mohamed has said he will not avoid the politically sensitive task of tackling protectionism in Asean such as local content requirements, mandatory product standards and import restrictions.More generally, maritime disputes in the South China Sea as well as incidents of religious sectarianism, rising intolerance, human trafficking and corruption are further challenges to surmount as are differences in levels of development and political and economic models among Asean states. Additionally, there is concern that Indonesia under President Jokowi may be too focused on the country’s domestic questions to play its traditional leadership role in Asean. Meanwhile Indonesian business continues to be wary of opening up the country’s markets to Asean competitors.Looking aheadThe Nay Pi Taw declaration on Asean’s post-2015 vision adopted last November sets out an impressive agenda for the region’s future. While deepening economic integration and connectivity remains on the agenda, Asean leaders have identified external relations and the building of political/security and socio-cultural communities as a priority.There is no shortage of interesting ideas: leaders of Indonesia and Malaysia in recent weeks have been pushing for a common time zone arguing that this would help businesses and allow for coordinated opening times for banks and stock markets. An Asean Open Skies Agreement is designed to create a single aviation market and allow for more flights, which will increase trade, investment and tourism. There are suggestions to set up an Asean regional infrastructure fund. Plans for strengthening the Asean Secretariat and improving coordination among member governments are being studied by a high-level task force. East Timor’s Asean membership is under internal discussion.Asean is a business opportunity for the West but also for other Asian countries — a fact that India, China and Japan are more than aware of.

View from Abroad: As Germany versus Greece, it’s about the people (Originally published 07/02/2015 at dawn.com)

The epic battle being fought between a tough-talking Germany which appears to want each and every European to “tighten his/her belt” and Greece’s new anti-austerity government is tearing the European Union apart.The confrontation reveals many fissures in the 28-nation bloc. For some, it’s a fight between David (Greece) and Goliath (Germany). In other words, Europe’s biggest and most powerful economy is shamefully bullying the weakest. But, as in the legend, many are betting that David will win.Others point to a confrontation between Protestant Germany which believes in under-spending, under-consuming and putting aside money for tough times and Orthodox Greece which has spent, spent, spent and is now hopelessly broke.German media rant against the lazy, good-for-nothing Greeks who are looking for more handouts. Greeks rage against a heartless Germany obsessed with austerity.The real fight, however, is not about religion, cultural prejudices, stereotypes, racist clichés and worse. It is about European priorities, values and what comes first: money or people? The battle is for the hearts — or the minds — of Europeans. For the moment, there are no winners.With their demands for a renegotiation of their country’s crippling debt burden and an end to austerity, the new Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and his Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis are appealing to the hearts of the millions of Europeans — especially young Europeans — who have been devastated by the economic crisis.Growth may be picking up slowly but jobs are still scarce. Greece has undoubtedly been hit the hardest by the crisis. Germans say angrily that Greece was also the most profligate of the Eurozone nations. For the moment, Germany is refusing to consider debt relief for its southern partner.Across the bloc, the debate has pitted economists against each other, put the European Central Bank on a collision course with Athens and triggered an even greater rift between Berlin and Athens. EU member states are reluctant to take sides, wary of getting on the wrong side of Berlin and triggering panic in world financial markets.But Greece has sympathisers in France, Spain and Portugal, countries which have also been wriggling in Germany’s tight grip.During a much-publicised “charm offensive” last week, Greek Finance Minister Varoufakis sought to speak to the hearts of all Europeans when he urged Germany not to humiliate his country over its debts.Interestingly, Varoufakis’ sartorial style — he eschews the finance ministers’ uniform of white shirt and dark suit in favour of bright shirts and leather jackets — has been the subject of as much media comment as his stance on his country’s economic plight.The Greek finance chief has compared Greece’s situation with that of interwar Germany, telling German television: “I think of all the countries in Europe, the Germans understand best this simple message. If you humiliate a proud nation for too long and subject it to the worry of a debt deflation crisis, without light at the end of a tunnel then things come to the boil.”Differences between the two countries were in strong evidence at a tense press conference after a meeting in Berlin, when German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and Varoufakis “agreed to disagree” over the proposals of the Syriza-led anti-austerity government.Both men refrained from angry outbursts but if there is to be a compromise, it will take time to emerge.While economists in Berlin and Athens battle it out with figures and percentage points, the rest of Europe is mourning the demise of what is often viewed as one of the bloc’s most significant and valuable achievements: solidarity.Working together, looking after each other and taking care of the most disadvantaged were supposed to be the key values and the fundamental basis of the EU. Solidarity was supposed to make the EU go round. But the economic crisis has shown the limits of solidarity.At a recent conference in Brussels, a German academic complained with a mixture of anger and sadness that Berlin was so focused on numbers that it was forgetting the human dimension of the economic crisis. “They tell me this crisis is about money, not about people,” she said.It is also my experience. In meeting after meeting, policymakers, academics, business leaders discuss the pros and cons of austerity versus growth, myriad ways to stimulate the economy, tackle global competition and increase productivity.There is little mention of the tragic toll the crisis has taken on many Europeans, especially young people, or of the growing disconnect between Europe’s decision-makers and European citizens.While European finance ministers scramble to find a satisfactory compromise, Tsipras and Varoufakis have made their point: it’s about the people, stupid.