ARTICLES OF THE DAY

October 21, 2021

THE COMING DEMOCRATIC REVIVAL ............................................................................................................... 2

MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, FOREIGN AFFAIRS ................................................................................................... 2

RICHARD MEDHURST, RUSSIA TODAY.............................................................................................................. 8

ALEX COBHAM, ALJAZEERA ............................................................................................................................ 11

MARC LANTEIGNE, THE DIPLOMAT ................................................................................................................ 14

MUNIR AHMED, DAILY TIMES ........................................................................................................................ 16

ISHRAT HUSAIN, DAWN NEWS....................................................................................................................... 18

SYED MOHAMMAD HASAN, THE EXPRESS TRIBUNE ...................................................................................... 20

 The Coming Democratic Revival
Madeleine K. Albright, Foreign Affairs
F
or two centuries,
American leaders have
quarreled about how
high to place support for
democracy on the list of U.S.
foreign policy priorities. The
Biden administration’s recent
tragedy-marred withdrawal of
troops from Afghanistan
reinforced the view of
skeptics from across the
domestic political spectrum
that actively promoting
democracy overseas is naive
and less likely to advance the
country’s core interests than
to embroil it in no-win
quagmires. They point as well
to a steady decline in global
freedom over the past 15 years
as evidence that emphasizing
democratic values is out of
touch with prevailing trends
and therefore a losing
strategy, one that actually
detracts from the country’s
international standing. With
the United States confronted
by partisan divisions at home
and fierce adversaries abroad,
these critics assert that U.S.
leaders can no longer afford to
indulge in Lincolnesque
fantasies about democracy as
the last best hope on earth.
They must instead shift their
focus inward and accept the
world as it is.
This thesis, although in
keeping with the emotions of
the hour, is shortsighted and
wrong. It would be a grave
error for the United States to
waver in its commitment to
democracy. Historically, the
republic’s claim on the global
imagination has been
inseparable from its identity—
however imperfectly
embodied—as a champion of
human freedom, which
remains a universal aspiration.
The more disturbing events of
the twenty-first century, for all
their complications, have
dented, but not destroyed,
what remains a unique foreign
policy asset. Nothing would
be more foolish than to toss
away this comparative
advantage or to flee the global
stage entirely due to past
disappointments and self-
doubt.
The United States still has
immense resources it can
deploy for purposes that serve
both its immediate needs and
its enduring ideals. Should the
country conclude otherwise,
however, and decide to absent
itself from the democratic
struggle, it would disappoint
its friends, aid its enemies,
magnify future risks to its
citizens, impede human
progress, and compromise its
ability to lead on any issue.
What is more, American
leaders would be sounding the
call for retreat at precisely the
moment an opportunity has
arisen to spark a democratic
resurgence. Contrary to the
conventional wisdom, the
momentum is not with the
enemies of democracy. It’s
true that in recent years, some
authoritarians have grown
stronger. But in many cases,
they are now failing to deliver,
including in countries where
people increasingly expect
accountable leadership even
in the absence of democratic
rule. This is a key point that
few observers have yet
grasped. Democracy is not a
dying cause; in fact, it is
poised for a comeback.
DEMOCRACY STRIKES
BACKAccording to Freedom
House, authoritarian leaders
took advantage of
international indifference
amid the COVID-19
pandemic last year to crush
opponents and shrink the
space available for democratic
activism. As a result,
“countries experiencing
deterioration outnumbered
those with improvements by
the largest margin recorded
since the negative trend began
in 2006. The long democratic
recession is deepening.”
There is, however, a silver
lining in this cloud: it is easier
to move upward from a valley
than from a peak.
Measurements of
democracy’s slump typically
start with the period following
the breakup of the Soviet
Union, when newly free
democratic governments
emerged in almost every
region. Many states whose
democracies are now troubled
were under authoritarian rule
until about 30 years ago.
Today, the world takes note
when authorities in Tanzania
arrest an opposition leader,
leaders in Sri Lanka
consolidate their power, the
president of Brazil threatens
to cancel elections, or the
prime minister of Hungary
rules by decree. Yet there was
a time in recent memory when
those countries were not
democracies at all. Despite
their current distress, the
forces of freedom have an
enlarged platform from which
to mount a revival. Observers
should also note that
democracy’s decline
coincided with the rise of
international terrorism, the
2008 global financial
meltdown, the Syrian civil
war, a global refugee crisis,
and a worldwide public health
catastrophe. These events
stoked a host of popular
frustrations and fears, with
most blame settling on elected
leaders. The next 20 years can
hardly be less conducive to
liberty’s growth than the last.
This is the case in part because
the world’s two most
prominent authoritarian states,
China and Russia, have
squandered their best chance
to offer an appealing
alternative to liberal
democracy. With the United
States missing in action
during President Donald
Trump’s four years in office,
and Europe preoccupied with
Brexit and other intramural
disputes, the governments in
Beijing and Moscow had their
opportunity to establish
themselves as global models.
They blew it. According to a
2021 survey of people in 17
developed countries
conducted by the Pew
Research Center, unflattering
views of China are at a historic
high, and a median of 74
percent of those polled
reported that they had no
confidence in Russian
President Vladimir Putin to do
the right thing in world affairs.
The results are easily
explained. The Chinese
government’s transactional
approach, lack of
transparency, and tendency to
bully have left it with more
contracts than friends. The
regime in the Kremlin,
meanwhile, is widely thought
to be corrupt, untrustworthy,
and a one-man show rapidly
approaching its final curtain.
Russia, a country that
according to the World Health
Organization ranked 97th in
average life expectancy in
2019, does not have much to
brag about.
Further, the outcome of the
2020 U.S. presidential
election was a blow to
autocrats everywhere.
Trump’s belly flop
demolished the myth he
helped create that relentless
egotism is a political winner.
Many of Trump’s most
outspoken international
admirers have also suffered
losses or are under siege.
These include Benjamin
Netanyahu in Israel, Jair
Bolsonaro in Brazil, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey,
Viktor Orban in Hungary, and
France’s Marine Le Pen. The
Philippines is one of the few
countries where a charismatic
strongman still has an
appreciative audience. But the
76-year-old Rodrigo Duterte’s
term as president ends next
May.
PUSHBACKFor all these
reasons, a democratic
comeback is possible. But
should one begin, it will meet
resistance. Although some
authoritarians are self-
obsessed amateurs, many are
skilled at shaping public
perceptions and checkmating
potential opponents. Their
ranks are split between those
who insist that they are
democrats—albeit “illiberal”
ones—and those who openly
scoff at even the most basic
democratic norms. All of them
assert that in a dangerous and
amoral world, leaders must be
able to act decisively to
impose order, repel threats,
and foster national greatness.
In recent years, authoritarians
have provided cover for one
another through their
influence in multilateral
bodies and by insisting that
governments not be criticized
by outsiders for doing
whatever they wish within
their countries’ borders.
National sovereignty, they
assert, is a sufficient defense
against any allegation.
Dictators also have the
advantage of intimidation.
Few are above using force to
harass political rivals and
disrupt protests. Their goal in
so doing is less to change
minds than to convince
women and men yearning for
freedom to surrender that
aspiration. Sometimes, this
works.
But people should not
abandon hope. There was a
period late in the Cold War
when it was fashionable to
conclude that Soviet-style
governments would last
forever because of their
willingness to quash dissent
before it could take hold. That
proposition was used to justify
U.S. support for
anticommunist dictators on
the grounds that if only
despots could survive in
countries lacking a democratic
tradition, Washington should
want them to be pro-Western
despots. Then the Iron Curtain
lifted, and the theory of
totalitarian permanence
collapsed.
Could something similar
happen again? That depends
on what metaphor one prefers.
If history moves like a
locomotive, in a single
direction, today’s trends will
become tomorrow’s reality.
But if the human desire for
change causes history’s
course to swing back and forth
like a pendulum, a reversal
can be expected. Because
people today are more
connected and demanding
than ever before, governing is
harder than it has ever been.
Compared to in the past,
younger generations have
easier access to education,
more awareness of one
another, less respect for
traditional hierarchies, and an
ingrained belief in their own
autonomy. People of all ages
observe what others have—
and want more. Technology
has created in many a thirst for
speed and a dearth of patience.
Citizens increasingly question
what leaders say and are
drawn to voices that reject
present conditions and
promise something better.
These factors have fueled the
rise of demagogues, but they
can also undermine the
staying power of authoritarian
regimes old enough to
embody the status quo. There
is a limit to how long an
autocrat can sustain popularity
simply by comparing himself
to a despised predecessor. In
Russia, Putin is rarely
contrasted anymore with the
hapless Boris Yeltsin; in
Venezuela, few remember the
ineffectual civilians who
governed before Hugo
Chávez; Nicaragua’s Daniel
Ortega can hardly justify his
broken promises by pointing
to Anastasio Somoza, who
was deposed in 1979.
Hungary’s Orban has ruled for
more than a decade, and
Turkey’s Erdogan for nearly
two, so neither can easily
escape responsibility for the
beleaguered condition of his
country.
Some of the more vulnerable
heavy-handed governments
are already facing intensifying
pressure from below. In
Belarus, a major protest
movement has emerged
because a growing number of
citizens consider President
Alexander Lukashenko to be a
Russian puppet and want him
to leave. In Cuba, where for
the first time since 1959
neither of the Castro brothers
holds power, the street
demonstrations last July were
the largest in decades.
Although it is true that
repression may work for a
time, that strategy has to fail
only once. Should a well-
known authoritarian leader be
forced out, there is a good
chance that others will be too,
as happened during the last
democratic wave, when the
triumph of Poland’s Solidarity
movement led rapidly to
democratic transitions
throughout central Europe and
the ouster of a strongman in
Manila was followed by
similar departures in Chile,
South Africa, Zaire, and
Indonesia. In a world where
most people are able to peer
beyond national borders, a
trend of any kind can gather
strength quickly. It helps as
well that the techniques the
current generation of phony
democrats rely on may
already be suffering from
overuse. In their lexicon,
“constitutional reform” is
code for evading term limits,
diminishing the clout of
parliaments, and seizing
control of the courts. They
issue emergency decrees not
to safeguard the public but to
criminalize opposition and
silence the press. They
employ patriotic appeals to
equate pro-democracy
agitation with foreign
subversion. They rig elections
to hide the ugly visage of
despotism beneath a veneer of
respectability. Although still
harmful, these efforts no
longer fool anyone—which
makes them easier to discredit
and oppose.
Even more important, despite
the battering that democracy
has endured, most people
want to strengthen, not
discard, their democratic
systems. According to the
German scholar Christian
Welzel, support for
democracy has increased
since the mid-1990s in more
countries than it has declined
in, and it remains steady
overall at roughly 75 percent.
Similarly, the research
institution Afrobarometer
reports that those surveyed
this year in 34 African
countries still
overwhelmingly prefer
democracy when compared to
single-party or one-man rule.
This is true even for the
minority of Africans who see
China as a better model for
their countries than the United
States. Arab attitudes are less
clear, but democracy has
recently made modest gains in
some tough neighborhoods—
Algeria, Iraq, and Sudan—
while somehow surviving
almost nonstop chaos in
Lebanon.
Today, more talented women
and men are striving in more
places on behalf of democratic
principles than ever before.
The National Democratic
Institute, a nongovernmental
U.S. organization that
supports democratic
institutions overseas, is
working with around 28,000
local partners in more than 70
countries on five continents.
Despite democracy’s
struggles, popular
participation in shaping public
agendas is up, not down.
Strides toward gender equality
have contributed to this rising
level of commitment, as has
the fact that a record
percentage of today’s young
adults grew up in relative
freedom. They consider self-
expression a right to be
exercised regularly and
regardless of obstacles. Far
from giving up on democracy,
they are generating a steady
stream of proposals for its
improvement, including more
rigorous term limits, reforms
of campaign financing, equal
access for candidates to the
media, ranked-choice voting,
citizen assemblies,
referendums, shorter
campaigns, and steps to make
it simpler or more
complicated to establish new
political parties. Not all such
ideas are likely to prove both
practical and beneficial, but
the energy they attract is
evidence of a hunger that no
dictator can satisfy.
AMERICA’S
CHANCEAnother reason to
be optimistic is that U.S.
President Joe Biden is better
positioned than any American
president in 20 years to argue
on behalf of democracy.
George W. Bush saw himself
as a champion of freedom, but
he wrapped that mission so
thoroughly around his
invasion of Iraq that
denigrators equated his stance
with violent American
overreach. Wary of the
association, Barack Obama
was less outspoken than he
might have been in advocating
democratic ideals. Trump, of
course, had the most
antidemocratic instincts of
any president. Having
replaced him, Biden faces an
international pro-freedom
constituency that has learned
to be skeptical about the
steadiness of U.S. leadership
but is also anxious for
Washington to regain its voice
on matters of liberty and
human rights.
In his inaugural address,
Biden characterized his
election as a victory not of a
candidate or a cause but of
democracy itself. He has since
stressed the benefits of
political freedom; condemned
specific acts of repression in
such places as Cuba, Ethiopia,
Hong Kong, and Myanmar;
and invited democratic leaders
to an important and timely
summit. The challenge he
must address next is how to
build on this start.
One good way to begin would
be to draw a clear line
separating past U.S. military
interventions from U.S.
support for democracy. The
distinction is important
because many observers at
home and abroad still confuse
the two. The U.S. mission in
Afghanistan, launched toward
the end of 2001, was prompted
by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The invasion of Iraq 16
months later was triggered by
faulty intelligence concerning
that country’s weapons
programs. Both were military
operations. In neither instance
was the buttressing of
democracy a primary
motivating factor, and neither
experience should discourage
the United States from
pursuing future civilian
initiatives on democracy’s
behalf.
There are, after all, numerous
examples of successful
nonmilitary American
engagement in support of
freedom. These include the
Marshall Plan, the Point Four
Program, Radio Free Europe,
the Alliance for Progress, the
Peace Corps, and overseas
technical assistance on topics
as varied as public health and
digital access. Projects such as
these create, at modest
expense, a reservoir of respect
that can serve the United
States well in times of crisis.
Washington should invest far
more in them than it does,
because that is how
democracy is best promoted—
with an outstretched hand, not
a pointed gun. The Biden
administration should also
defend the American example
while acknowledging that
U.S. democracy, although the
world’s oldest, remains a
work in progress. Numerous
commentators point to the
bitterness surrounding recent
U.S. elections to suggest that
the country’s democracy is
unraveling and therefore no
longer a suitable model for
others. Such claims are
exaggerated. Despite
widespread fears and false
allegations, the 2020 balloting
was free of both significant
locally engineered fraud and
disruptions traceable to
foreign disinformation
campaigns. The high voter
turnout was a sign of robust
democratic health, as were the
actions of courts and state
officials to uphold the results.
As for the storming of the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, less than
one-fourth of Trump voters
approved of the tactics that the
protesters employed, and a
recent effort to organize a
follow-up demonstration
fizzled. The debates currently
underway regarding election
standards and early and mail-
in voting mostly involve
issues that were not even
under consideration a decade
or two ago. The important
question now is not whether
the country has made progress
toward more liberal electoral
norms but whether those gains
can be preserved and
enhanced. A positive
answer—delivered via
legislative debate and, if
necessary, the judicial
branch—will only strengthen
the country’s democratic
system. U.S. leaders should
speak about American
democracy with humility, but
dictators overseas who claim
that the United States’ long
experiment with freedom is
nearing its end will be proved
wrong.
Even while working to set the
record straight about U.S.
democracy, Biden should
launch a multipart strategy
aimed at sparking a renewal of
faith overseas in the power of
collaboration among free
governments, workers,
enlightened corporations, and
civil society. His core
message, exemplified by his
planned Summit for
Democracy, should be that
democratic leaders must
support one another and use
their combined influence to
bolster civil discourse, due
process, fair elections, and the
essential freedoms of speech,
worship, and the press.
For this strategy to attract
followers, the United States
must show the way by
integrating its commitment to
democracy into all aspects of
its foreign policy. In national
security decision-making,
when other interests appear to
conflict, the benefit of the
doubt should be given
whenever possible to the
backers of political openness
and the rule of law. In bilateral
diplomacy, considerations of
human rights should be at the
top of the agenda, instead of
an afterthought. The most
courageous democratic
leaders, whether of countries
large or small, should be
acknowledged, supported, and
invited to the White House.
Through the UN and regional
bodies, the United States
should strive to hold countries
accountable to the principles
proclaimed in multilateral
declarations and charters.
Biden and his team should
also stress the economic
advantages of democracy. In
the late 1990s, when I was
serving as U.S. secretary of
state, I assured people
everywhere that democracy
would enable them not only to
vote without fear but also to
better provide for their
families. What I said was
reinforced by what audiences
saw. Aside from the oil-rich
Arab states, most prosperous
nations were free. The reason
was plain: open societies were
more likely to generate good
jobs by encouraging new
ideas and innovative thinking.
In the time since, China’s
domestic rise and subsequent
increase in foreign
commercial engagement have,
to some minds, undercut this
thesis. Consider, however,
that even today, the per person
income in the authoritarian
People’s Republic is around
one-third of that in democratic
Taiwan.
Since ancient times,
authoritarian leaders have
masqueraded as modernizers,
building great works that
invariably double as
advertisements for
themselves. Current examples
of such leaders include
Egyptian President Abdel
Fattah el-Sisi and Saudi
Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman. Although there is
obvious merit in looking
forward, there are flaws in the
notion that a single all-
powerful leader is best for
driving progress. In Egypt,
Sisi has allowed the military
to sink its teeth into virtually
every part of the economy,
thereby inhibiting
opportunities for the private
sector. Saudi Arabia remains
overly dependent on oil
revenue and continues to
spend vast sums on vanity
projects. Meanwhile, in
Turkey, the “economic
miracle” touted by Erdogan
has given way to rising
poverty, joblessness, currency
devaluation, and debt. The
troubles intensified after
2016, when Erdogan assumed
emergency powers.
GETTING THE MESSAGE
RIGHTU.S. officials must
also deal aggressively with
problems that can chip away
at support for democracy. For
instance, few factors do more
damage to the appeal of free
institutions than the
perception that leaders who
claim to be democratic are in
fact ripping off their countries.
The message from
Washington must be that open
government is the remedy for,
not the breeding ground of,
crooked, self-serving regimes.
The point is harder to establish
than it should be because
many demagogues confuse
the issue by arguing that only
a single powerful leader can
clean house—or “drain the
swamp”—to get rid of corrupt
politicians and bureaucrats.
Consider that one of Putin’s
favorite tactics is to accuse
opponents of corruption,
arrest them in front of
government cameras, and then
prosecute them in puppet
courts. The most compelling
answer to this brand of
deception is the truth. Real
democrats, such as Presidents
Zuzana Caputova of Slovakia
and Maia Sandu of Moldova,
are showing that free
institutions can be used to
purge graft through honest
investigations, judicial
reform, and incentives to
reduce bribery at every level.
The international press has
often done a good job of
exposing corrupt practices,
and so democratic leaders
should do all they can to
ensure that the rights of
journalists are fortified and
their freedoms preserved.
Meanwhile, the United States
should mobilize a global
effort to seize the overseas
assets of rulers who have been
pillaging their countries and
return them to those countries.
By serving as agents of
justice, democracy’s
caretakers can thwart greedy
foes and win lasting friends.
The Biden administration
must act, too, on its
understanding that
democracy’s future is linked
to how well societies handle
the promise and perils of
cyber-capabilities and
emerging technologies such as
artificial intelligence. That, in
turn, demands effective
solutions to an array of
puzzles: how to establish a
consensus on balancing
freedom of expression with
protection of the public good;
how to counter the ability of
authoritarian governments to
spread lies, block
communications, and
criminalize even private
indications of dissent; how to
derail the use of ransomware;
how best to regulate Big Tech
platforms to ensure
competition and honor
individual privacy; and how to
shield democracies from the
security threat posed by
cyberwar. The last time a new
technology raised such
profound questions was at the
dawn of the nuclear age. Back
then, a small cadre of
diplomats, scientists, and
military strategists devised
ways to prevent the worst
outcomes; the solutions were
necessarily top down. The
dilemma created by digital
threats cannot be resolved so
narrowly. Any successful
approach must incorporate not
only better cyberdefenses but
also more transparency for
consumers, responsibility
from high-tech companies,
scrutiny from legislatures,
input from academia, and
research into the design of
enforceable regulatory
regimes. Over time, the
answers must take into
account the interests of all
stakeholders (not just
governments), including the
millions of entrepreneurs and
billions of consumers who
live in nondemocratic states
and who use, or would like to
use, online technology to
learn, shop, grow their
businesses, and vent their
opinions. As the world
develops new rules for the
digital road, it is essential that
the United States join with
allies to prevent authoritarian
states from dictating those
norms.
Biden can accomplish much
by rallying friends of freedom
from across the globe,
highlighting the tangible and
moral benefits of open
government, and pushing for
fairness in the regulation of
new technologies. Past efforts
to do so, however, have
stumbled when democracy’s
advocates have done a poor
job of framing the issue. If the
alternatives presented are
freedom or repression,
freedom clearly wins. The
odds become less favorable,
however, when the choice
advertised is between “the
common people” and
“arrogant elites.” As has been
shown in recent years, popular
demagogues feed eagerly on
the condescension that many
in academia, the arts, and the
press exhibit toward the less
well educated and others they
deem culturally backward.
The notion that despots care
most about the welfare of the
average family is nonsense,
and they should not be
allowed to create that
impression. For democracy to
prosper, its champions must
do a better job of defending
and justifying their beliefs in
an inclusive manner.
THE TIME IS NOWProgress
in the democratic resurgence
is less likely to be sudden than
gradual and more likely to be
spotty than universal. A
pendulum, after changing
direction, takes a while to gain
velocity. In his later years,
Vaclav Havel counseled
freedom’s friends against
impatience. If democracy can
be compared to a flower, he
said, gardeners may use
fertilizer and water to speed its
growth but will only cause
harm should they become
anxious and yank at the stem
from above.
The importance of patience,
however, is no excuse for
idleness or cynicism. Small-d
democrats cannot compete
successfully with the likes of
China and Russia by
mimicking their methods, for
that would concede the match
before it begins. Democracy
has its faults, but so, too, does
every variety of despotism.
Democracy’s assets are
superior, however, because
they demand the best from
everyone and are grounded in
respect for human rights,
individual freedom, and social
responsibility. By contrast,
dictators seek only obedience,
and there is nothing inspiring
about that.
After too many years of
handwringing, the time is
right for democratic forces to
regain the initiative.
Democracy is fragile, but it is
also resilient. In every region,
the generation coming of age
is smart, outspoken, and
fearless. Worldwide, people
are demanding more, while
authoritarian leaders are tiring
and running out of answers.
The Biden administration has
before it an opportunity it
must seize. Although tattered
and torn, freedom’s flag is
ready to rise.
 The killing of Gaddafi 10 years ago has resulted in the death of
the nation of Libya and the destruction of its people
Richard Medhurst, Russia Today
M
uammar Gaddafi
led his nation to
become the
wealthiest in all of Africa. A
decade after his demise, it is
riven by tribalism, terrorism
and slavery, all because the
West could not allow an Arab
leader to succeed. There was
never really an ‘Arab Spring’
in Libya the way there was in
Egypt or Tunisia. Protests
were much smaller, and as
time went on to show, the
biggest players turned out to
be extremist groups and
foreign actors, each trying to
get a slice of the country.
NATO’s bombing of Libya
and support for rebels seeking
to overthrow Gaddafi had
little to do with wanting the
country to prosper. Under the
guise of ‘human rights’ and
‘democracy’, the Western
military alliance helped
murder one of the Arab
world’s most prominent
leaders in order to steal
Libya’s resources and protect
Western hegemony. Later on,
as part of Operation Timber
Sycamore, the CIA would find
additional utility in Gaddafi’s
ousting: funnelling Libya’s
stockpiles of weapons and
ammunition over to Syria to
arm Al-Qaeda and other
jihadist groups.
Seldom discussed in the news
anymore, Libya has become a
shadow of its former self,
ravaged by 10 years of war
and chaos. Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama and the other
war criminals who
orchestrated its destruction
don’t want you to know how
badly it’s doing. From
thriving nation to ‘failed
state’Known for his
extravagance, Gaddafi
boasted a security detail of
female bodyguards, lavish
outfits, and long, dramatic
speeches. He also transformed
Libya from one of the poorest
countries on Earth into a rich,
self-sufficient state, all while
managing a tribal society in a
country home to the largest oil
reserves in Africa.
During his 42 years in power,
he increased the country’s
literacy rate from 25% to 88%.
Libyans enjoyed free
healthcare, free education, and
a high standard of living.
Basic necessities such as
electricity and gas were cheap,
and the country was
guaranteed a strong social
safety net and welfare
programs.
Libya is 90% desert. Gaddafi
sought to provide fresh water
to all Libyans for
consumption and agriculture –
an endeavor in which he
succeeded. He built the
world’s largest irrigation
project, the ‘Great Man-Made
River’ in the 1980s. Boasting
the world’s largest pipe
network, it provides 70% of
all the fresh water in Libya.
Gaddafi called it the “Eighth
Wonder of the World”.
Costing over $25 billion, the
project was entirely self-
financed, without any loans or
credits from foreign banks.
Libya had grown to be a very
wealthy country and had no
external debt.
NATO bombed the Great
Man-Made River in July
2011, destroying key civilian
infrastructure: a war crime.
The United Nations’ Human
Development Index provides
a summary measure of health,
education and income. In
2010, Libya was ranked
number one in Africa, and
53rd out of 189 countries and
territories. Today, its ranking
has sunk from 53rd to 105th
worldwide.
After the NATO-backed
‘revolution’, Libya has none
of these nice things anymore.
There are constant power cuts.
The healthcare system has
collapsed. There is no
infrastructure. The standard of
living has plummeted, and
after 10 years, Libya doesn’t
even have a functioning
central government.
In March this year, a
government of national unity
was formed, after a ceasefire
brokered in October 2020.
While it has largely held until
now, and elections are
scheduled for December,
infighting persists, and
whether anything comes of
this process remains to be
seen.
Instead of an abundance of
water, gold and oil in a
thriving country with great
infrastructure, Libya now has
open slave-trade markets.
Smugglers and human
traffickers take advantage of
migrants and refugees passing
through to Europe, selling
them off into bondage. Rival
tribes and political factions
fight over oil and other
precious resources,
determined to seize power for
themselves. Meanwhile,
pockets of Islamic State (IS,
formerly ISIS), Al-Qaeda and
other jihadist fighters lurk in
the shadows, plaguing the
war-torn country and its
neighbors – groups who
wouldn’t have dared establish
a presence in Gaddafi’s Libya.
Once a prosperous nation,
since his fall, it has been taken
over by terrorists,
opportunists and thieves, and
has plunged into chaos. This is
what has become of Libya
these last 10 years. This is 100% state-owned, had
what NATO created. reserves of 144 tons of gold
that he intended to use for this
One of Gaddafi’s best
purpose. Gaddafi proposed
speeches was in 2008 in
that African countries buy and
Damascus, at a meeting of the
sell their resources
Arab League. Rebuking the
exclusively in this new pan-
violent invasion of Iraq, he
African currency. This would
offered Arab leaders a stark
enable them to transition away
reminder of what befell
from the US dollar and the
Saddam Hussein, whom the
Central Africa (CFA) franc –
US once considered an ally
a colonial currency used in 14
against Iran.
countries and controlled
“An entire Arab leadership entirely by France.
was executed by hanging, yet
This was Gaddafi’s biggest
we sit on the sidelines. Why?
sin. In wanting African
Any one of you might be
nations to adopt a single
next.”
currency, to control their own
Chuckling at his words, other resources and have true
Arab leaders would have done independence, he posed a
well to take heed of Gaddafi’s threat to Western monetary
warning, for, indeed, the US hegemony, so he had to go.
would come for Syria and
Western governments were
Libya next. And just three
well aware of this plan. A look
years later, Gaddafi himself
at the emails of then-US
would be brutally killed at the
Secretary of State Hillary
hands of NATO-backed
Clinton, show discussions
rebels. Anti-imperialist, pan-
around Gaddafi’s gold
Arabist and pan-African: Why
reserves and his plans for a
Gaddafi had to fallThe late
single currency. It became
Libyan leader supported
clear to the West that African
independence and national
countries switching away
liberation movements right
from the US dollar or CFA
across the world, including
franc, and controlling their
groups such as the Palestine
own currency and monetary
Liberation Organization, the
policy, would undermine
Irish Republican Army, the
American and French
Black Panther Party, and
influence over Africa. It
many more. In the 1970s, he
would weaken the Western
tried to merge Libya with
monopoly over African
Egypt and Syria to form a
resources and the international
unified Arab state. In 2009, he
banking system, rendering
proposed that African nations
neo-colonial institutions such
adopt a single currency: the
as the International Monetary
gold dinar. The Libyan
Fund less effective in
Central Bank, which was
manipulating developing
nations.
Not that we needed further
confirmation; but written
clearly in those emails was
evidence that this plan to
provide an alternative to the
CFA franc “was one of the
factors that influenced
President Nicolas Sarkozy’s
decision to commit France to
the attack on Libya.” Sarkozy
decided to bomb Libya
because he knew full well that
West African and Central
African countries abandoning
the CFA franc would
minimise France’s sphere of
influence over its ‘former’
African colonies and fulfil its
“desire to gain a greater share
of Libya oil production” – that
is, plunder Libya’s wealth.
Gaddafi foresaw this in 2011,
when he said, “There is a
conspiracy to control Libyan
oil and to control Libyan land,
to colonize Libya once again.”
All this is a stark reminder that
NATO couldn’t care less
about protestors and the ‘Arab
Spring’. Claims of “respect
for democracy” were merely a
cover story to protect Western
interests and steal Libya’s
resources, leaving the country
in chaos and crawling with
terrorists, just like Iraq and
Syria.
Nothing could be more
emblematic of how evil the
entire affair is, than Hillary
Clinton literally jumping for
joy on hearing of Gaddafi’s
demise, after he was brutally
sodomized, lynched and
executed by NATO-backed
rebels. “We came, we saw, he
died,” she said. Killed for his
successGaddafi was always a
thorn in the side of Western
colonial interests. His greatest
‘crime’ was wanting real
independence, threatening US
and French monetary
hegemony, and the
international banking system.
Now people look at Libya and
label it a ‘failed state’, but
Gaddafi’s Libya was not a
failed state. It was Africa’s
wealthiest and most
prosperous nation – a thriving,
flourishing state until the
West deliberately destroyed it
in 2011.
Apologists for Western
imperialism love dismissing
the achievements of other
countries and labelling their
leaders dictators, but the truth
is, Libya was much better off
under Gaddafi. It had oil, gold,
water and resource
independence.
History is littered with
African, Arab and Latin
leaders, killed by the United
States, for daring to make their
countries better and seeking to
challenge Western hegemony.
Gaddafi is no exception.
There is nothing the West
hates more than an Arab
leader who opposes
imperialism, Zionism and
wants his country, and other
Arab and African countries, to
be self-sufficient. That is why
NATO murdered Gaddafi.
 Will policymakers put Pandora’s Papers back in the box?
Alex Cobham, Aljazeera
I
n early October, the
International Consortium
of Investigative
Journalists, along with a
number of media partners,
published the Pandora Papers,
which revealed a slice of the
trillions stashed away in tax
havens by politicians, officials
and celebrities, in particular.
These leaks tell us, once
again, that financial secrecy is
at the heart of the global
economy and runs like poison
through the veins of our
political systems. This
institutional corruption does
not make progress impossible,
but it does mean that
responses to the growing
public anger about the
revelations in the leaks will
only be successful if they are
precise and forensic.
Policymakers must deliver
measures that ensure ongoing
accountability for the leading
actors in these abuses –
including themselves The
hidden assets and secret
incomes now being disclosed
represent only a small part of
what is in the near-3 terabyte
cache of documents from 14
different professional services
firms around the world. And
the documents in total touch
on just a tiny fraction of the
estimated $11 trillion in
undeclared assets held
offshore globally, generating
annual tax losses of $182bn.
The individual names and the
specific cases may do more to
grab public attention than
these unthinkably large
numbers: 35 world leaders,
past and present; more than
300 public officials from
nearly 100 countries; more
than 100 billionaires, plus a
scattering of celebrities. The
Pandora Papers have returned
public and media focus to the
shameful issue of financial
secrecy. Each previous leak
(including LuxLeaks, the
Panama Papers and Paradise
Papers) created a similar spike
of interest. And, while that
spike then passes, the
underlying level of public
engagement and policymaker
concern has remained higher
each time.
The challenge is to convert
that engagement and concern
into comprehensive action. As
researcher and writer
Zuhumnan Dapel put it, what
can we do “when those in
charge of the tools – the
policies and the willpower of
government with which to
thwart the network of dirty
money – seem to be among the
primary beneficiaries of the
status quo?”
Financial secrecy – the central
challenge
The last two decades have
seen substantial shifts in the
international policy context.
When the Tax Justice
Network was established in
2003, we began to lay out the
policy platform known as the
ABC of tax transparency.
A is for automatic exchange of
financial information – so that
each tax authority will be
informed of the foreign bank
accounts of their own
taxpayers, making simple tax
evasion much less pervasive.
B is for beneficial ownership
transparency, requiring public
registers of the warm-blooded
human beings behind
companies, trusts and
foundations, to end the
damage done by anonymous
ownership.
And C is for country-by-
country reporting, a simple
measure to ensure that
multinational companies
publish data that can reveal
the extent of profit-shifting.
Each element was originally
dismissed as utopian and
unrealistic. But changes in
attitude started with the efforts
of the global tax justice
movement and the impetus for
progress following the 2008
financial meltdown. The
summit of the G8 group of
countries in 2013 gave broad
support to the three elements
in principle, and practical
steps were taken towards the
introduction of each. Since
2012, the High Level Panel on
Illicit Financial Flows out of
Africa, backed by the African
Union and the Economic
Commission for Africa, has
worked to build political
support to end these abuses
across the continent and
beyond. The panel’s final
report established the scale of
illicit flows and the damage to
governance that they can do. It
also confirmed the centrality
of the ABC measures and laid
the grounds for the adoption
of a global target to curb illicit
flows as part of the UN
Sustainable Development
Goals. The panel also
provided an important
definitional statement,
recognising that the common
feature of illicit financial
flows is that of being hidden.
This is true whether we are
concerned with tax-related
illicit flows (hiding the tax
abuses of multinational
companies or of individuals
with offshore interests); with
other commercial flows
(hiding market dominance, for
example, or the true origin of
investments); or with
laundering the proceeds of
crime – from the trafficking of
drugs and people to the
bribery of public officials and
the theft of public assets.
Financial secrecy is therefore
the crucial facilitating element
for illicit flows. Consistent
progress in dismantling is key
to ensuring accountability and
a managed reduction in tax
abuses and other criminal and
corrupt activity. Wolves
guarding chickens? Change
has been painfully slow,
however. Lobbying by
multinational companies and
professional enablers – a managed reduction in tax
bankers, lawyers and
accountants – has
undoubtedly undermined
efforts to bring transparency
to the global financial system.
On top of that, the decisions
on key policy reforms are
largely taken at the
Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and
Development (OECD) or
related organisations. Our
research shows this is highly
problematic.
The Financial Secrecy Index,
which we first published in
2009 and update biennially,
assesses jurisdictions across a Development (OECD) or
wide range of objectively related organisations. Our
verifiable criteria (including research shows this is highly
the ABC). The 2020 index problematic.
saw the United States climb
The Financial Secrecy Index,
above Switzerland into second
which we first published in
place, with Cayman the top-
2009 and update biennially,
ranked secrecy threat. The UK
assesses jurisdictions across a
and its network of Overseas
wide range of objectively
Territories and Crown
verifiable criteria (including
Dependencies would rank a
the ABC). The 2020 index
clear first if it were treated as
saw the United States climb
a single entity. The panel also
above Switzerland into second
provided an important
place, with Cayman the top-
definitional statement,
ranked secrecy threat. The UK
recognising that the common
and its network of Overseas
feature of illicit financial
Territories and Crown
flows is that of being hidden.
Dependencies would rank a
This is true whether we are
clear first if it were treated as
concerned with tax-related
a single entity. In total, OECD
illicit flows (hiding the tax
countries and their
abuses of multinational
dependencies together are
companies or of individuals
responsible for about half of
with offshore interests); with
all financial secrecy risks,
other commercial flows
according to the index. The
(hiding market dominance, for
State of Tax Justice 2020
example, or the true origin of
meanwhile assesses that the
investments); or with
same group is responsible for
laundering the proceeds of
59 percent of the $182bn the
crime – from the trafficking of
world loses to private offshore
drugs and people to the
tax evasion every year. Dr
bribery of public officials and
Dereje Alemayehu of the
the theft of public assets.
Global Alliance for Tax
Financial secrecy is therefore Justice summed up the
the crucial facilitating element concerns: “Trusting the
for illicit flows. Consistent OECD to set global [tax]
progress in dismantling is key rules… is like trusting a pack
to ensuring accountability and of wolves to build a fence
around your chicken coop.”
abuses and other criminal and
Compounding the role of
corrupt activity.
OECD members are the
Wolves guarding chickens? domestic dynamics laid bare
Change has been painfully by the Pandora Papers. Within
slow, however. Lobbying by many countries, elites
multinational companies and including policymakers are
professional enablers – among the main users, or
bankers, lawyers and abusers, of financial secrecy.
accountants – has
As Professor Brooke
undoubtedly undermined
Harrington, the leading
efforts to bring transparency
sociologist studying the
to the global financial system.
wealth-hiding industry, has
On top of that, the decisions
written, financial secrecy
on key policy reforms are
offers “something even more
largely taken at the
appealing and dangerous [than
Organisation for Economic
tax avoidance], which is law
Co-operation and
avoidance in general. To the
already rich and powerful,
offshore offers a kind of
superpower: impunity.”
So who guards the wolves?
Ensuring Happily, we have
the answers we need. We
know the leading actors and
jurisdictions responsible for
financial secrecy. We know
the mechanisms that can
ensure consistent
accountability, rather than
relying on sporadic leaks. And
earlier this year, a new high-
level panel – the UN
Financial Accountability,
Transparency and Integrity
Panel (FACTI) – laid out
recommendations for
precisely the comprehensive
changes that are needed. It
recommends the full
implementation of the ABC of
tax transparency, recognising
the failures so far and how
lower-income countries are
particularly excluded from the
benefits.
The arrangements for
beneficial ownership
transparency are fundamental.
Public registers of the natural
person (the warm-blooded
human being) behind every
legal entity would end the
need for leaks – and make
markets work better, as well as
taxes and other regulations. A
powerful step would be to
hold professional enablers
accountable by requiring the
disclosure of beneficial
owners of all structures that
lawyers and others help to
establish and imposing
criminal penalties for non-
compliance.
The FACTI Panel also sets out
the global architectural
reforms to deliver an end to
impunity for illicit financial
flows. In addition to a global
asset register, to join up
national beneficial ownership
registers, three elements are
key. A centre for monitoring
taxing rights – originally
proposed in my book The
Uncounted – would collate
and publish country-level data
to provide annual
accountability for the
jurisdictions providing
secrecy and promoting its
abuse. A UN framework
convention on tax would
provide the basis for full
delivery of the ABC,
including holding states to
account for meeting these
commitments. It could also
establish the space for
globally inclusive
negotiations in the future
through an intergovernmental
tax body.
At a technical level, the
solutions are within grasp.
Only the political obstructions
remain – those of elites and of
jurisdictions that profit from
abuse.
In the 1995 film The Quick
and the Dead, the villain John
Herod controls a small town
and its fearful citizens. The
character sums up the threat:
“Like I always say – put a fox
in the henhouse and you’ll
have chicken for dinner every
time.”
If we, citizens of the world,
don’t want this every time –
more leaks, more outrage, and
continuing impunity – then
the agenda is clear. It is time
for global tax justice.
AUKUS Without Us: New Zealand’s Responses to a New Indo-
Pacific Alliance
Marc Lanteigne, The Diplomat
A
cornerstone of
Aotearoa New
Zealand’s foreign
policy, one which has been in
place for decades and was
only strengthened after the
Cold War, has been the
concept of “independence.”
The term not only reflects the
country’s distinct geography
but also a desire to eschew any
policy of overt alignment
toward any single great power
or bloc. This is despite New
Zealand’s long history of
engagement with the West,
and especially the three states
that just announced the
fledgling Australia-United
Kingdom-United States
(AUKUS) security alliance.
That New Zealand was not
invited to join this strategic
arrangement, a pact which
will be partially based on
plans to construct nuclear-
powered submarines for
Canberra, was likely a source
of disquiet, but also inevitably
produced some relief in
Wellington. Membership in
AUKUS, given the group’s
military foundations, would
have been difficult to
reconcile with New Zealand’s
foreign policy tenets.
Nevertheless, as this trilateral
agreement evolves, New
Zealand may feel the
gravitational pull of AUKUS
for some time, especially if the
alliance results in a marked
drop in the diplomatic
temperature between next-
door Australia and China.
There are two major reasons
why New Zealand was
unlikely to be included in the
AUKUS process. The first is
that the country has
maintained a staunch anti-
nuclear power policy since the
1980s, a stance that
precipitated the decision by
the United States to
downgrade Wellington’s
status within the 1951
ANZUS Treaty. (Thus,
Australia’s nuclear powered
subs, whenever they are
deployed, would also be
unwelcome in New Zealand
waters.)
Although the 2010 Wellington
Declaration, signed by New
Zealand and the United States
just as the Asia-Pacific
“pivot” or rebalancing policy
under the Barack Obama
administration was taking
shape, restored much of that
bilateral relationship, New
Zealand has maintained its
opposition to nuclear weapons
or vessels in its waters. This
stance is unlikely to change.
Even New Zealand Prime
Minister Jacinda Ardern
acknowledged that her
country’s stance against
nuclear power made it
difficult to square the circle of
potentially being invited into
the AUKUS arrangement.
The second reason is the
growing concern in New
Zealand about the nation
being forced to openly choose
between China and the United
States, given that Wellington
has traditionally sought to
balance between both powers,
as well as its other major
trading partners. An oft-cited
key accomplishment in the
history of New Zealand
foreign policy has been the
country’s “four firsts” with
Beijing, namely being the first
developed state to conclude
bilateral negotiations
regarding China’s admittance
to the World Trade
Organization (in 1997); to
recognize China as a market
economy (2004); to start free
trade negotiations with
Beijing (2004); and to
successfully conclude a free
trade deal with China (2008).
China is New Zealand’s
largest trade partner, and the
Ardern government has been
averse to inviting the same
sort of economic pressures
that China has placed on other
states over diplomatic
disagreements, including
Australia but also, in recent
times, Canada, Lithuania, and
Sweden.
The rebooting of the Quad
security arrangement, which
includes the U.S. and
Australia, along with India
and Japan, has enhanced
Chinese engagement policies
in the Pacific Islands, long
seen as Australia and New
Zealand’s sphere of interest.
Now the AUKUS
announcement has
underscored the problems that
lie ahead. New Zealand will
continue to try to strike a
balance between Beijing and
Washington even as new
security clusters continue to
manifest.
New Zealand remains part of
the venerable “Five Eyes”
intelligence-sharing
agreement, along with the
AUKUS states and Canada,
and has joined many other
governments in condemning
Beijing’s crackdown in Hong
Kong and human rights
abuses in Xinjiang, as well as
expressing concern over
Chinese activities in the South
China Sea, including via a
joint statement between
Ardern and her counterpart in
Canberra, Scott Morrison, in
May this year. However,
Wellington has been
comparatively more wary of
taking a harder stance against
Beijing, and has recently been
seen as an outlier in the Five
Eyes quintet with regard to
China policy.
In a major policy speech in
April this year, Foreign
Minister Nanaia Mahuta noted
the importance of business
ties with China, but also called
for a more diversified set of
trading partners, reflecting a
tendency in many New
Zealand policy circles to view
China as more of an economic
challenge than a strategic one.
One pressing question is how
AUKUS will affect future
Five Eyes activities, given that
Canada and New Zealand are
not members of the former
grouping. Faced with this new
regional strategic reality,
Wellington may seek to better
associate its China policies
with AUKUS, or may be
prompted to pursue tacit
strategies more consistent
with greater non-alignment.
Another test of this balancing
act will shortly take place in
the wake of Beijing’s
confirmation, on the heels of
the AUKUS announcement,
that it would seek to join the
Comprehensive and
Progressive Agreement for
Trans-Pacific Partnership
(CPTPP), an 11-member trade
agreement that includes
Australia and New Zealand.
The United States under the
Trump administration opted to
withdraw from an earlier
version of the CPTPP, and
there had been longstanding
speculation that China would
soon seek to step in. New
Zealand was a founding
member of a small state free
trade pact, the P4, in 2006,
which would eventually
become the CPTPP, and it
remains the Asia-Pacific’s
loudest supporter of regional
liberalized trade. However,
the process to admit China to
the CPTPP may well be
overshadowed by the regional
splits caused by AUKUS.
There will be a considerable
time lag been now and when
the specifics of the AUKUS
agreement are more well
known, and a much longer
interval before the promised
submarines for Australia
actually appear. In the interim,
however, the effects of
AUKUS on those
governments outside of the
pact, including New Zealand,
will also be important, given
concerns that a more defined
cold war in the Asia-Pacific
region may be quickly
coalescing. The submarines
aside, the stage has now been
set for the intensification of
overall military activity in the
Asia-Pacific, not only by
AUKUS but also due to the
power balancing measures by
Beijing that will inevitably
follow.
While New Zealand may
benefit in some ways from
being excluded from AUKUS,
it will now have to seriously
rethink how it can maintain its
foreign policy of
independence at a time when
lines are being more visibly
drawn throughout the Pacific
Rim.
 COP26: What would Pakistan Look For?
Munir Ahmed, Daily Times
T
he UK will host the
26th UN Climate
Change Conference of
the Parties (COP26) in
Glasgow from October 31 to
November 12, 2021. This very
important conference is taking
place at the moment when the
COVID-19 pandemic has
brought devastation to
millions around the world;
disrupting many parts of the
global economy.
Governments have stepped up
to protect lives and
livelihoods. But climate
change has continued, which
ultimately threatens life on
earth.
“As countries begin to
recover from the Coronavirus
pandemic, we must take the
historic opportunity to tackle
climate change at the same
time – to build back better,
and greener. We can deliver
green recoveries across the
globe that bring in good jobs,
trillions in investment and
ground-breaking new
technology. And we must. To
keep the temperature of the
planet under control – limiting
its increase to 1.5 degrees –
the science dictates that by the
second half of the century, we
should be producing less
carbon than we take out of the
atmosphere. This is what
reaching ‘net zero’ means,”
said Alok Sharma, the COP
President-Designate.
Around the world, storms,
floods and wildfires have
intensified while air pollution
has enormously increased;
affecting the health of tens of
millions of people. This
unpredictable weather causes
untold damage to innumerable
houses; disrupting livelihoods
all over. The impact of climate
change is devastating, but the
advances in tackling it are,
unfortunately, very meagre in
proportion. The poor, least
developed and developing
countries are suffering from
the environment unfriendly
development and industrial
growth of the rich countries. It
is high time they pay back for
the vulnerabilities of the
resource-starved countries by
taking measures to safeguard
its people and their
livelihoods from the changing
climate impacts.
According to the World Bank,
Pakistan is one of the top five
vulnerable countries, despite
having no significant
contribution to climate
change. Another report
mentions: “In 2019, CO2
emissions for Pakistan was
223.6 million tons. Between
1970 and 2019, CO2
emissions of Pakistan grew
substantially from 17.7 to
223.6 million tons rising at an
increasing annual rate that
reached a maximum of 15.38
percent in 1987 and then
decreased to 1.33 percent in
2019.” The drastic decrease in
carbon emissions is, surely,
the result of steps taken by
Pakistan under its Climate
Action – the Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG) 13.
The flagship project, Ten
Billion Tree Tsunami
(TBTT), is not just a tree
plantation movement, but a
comprehensive initiative for
ecosystem conservation and
management. More than a
billion new plantations,
revised plans for forest
management and
development across the
countries with the engagement
of provinces and
administrative entities, and
capacity of institutions have
already been noticed and
appreciated by the national
and international environment
and climate watchdogs.
The Sustainable Development
Report 2020, written by a
group of authors led by Prof.
Jeffrey Sachs, President of the
Sustainable Development
Solutions Network (SDSN),
and published by Cambridge
University Press, has declared
Pakistan accomplished all
targets of the SD-13 ten years
ahead of the actual date –
2030. The UNDP SDGs report
has also shown Pakistan’s
remarkable progress on SDG-
13 Climate Action
COP26 is an opportunity for
Pakistan to vigorously
showcase its achievements so
far as well as its
vulnerabilities. Pakistan has
been facing the worst impact
in the forms of short-span
heavy rains, flash floods,
unprecedented land-sliding
incidents, glacial melting, air
pollution and fast diminishing
water resources, climate prone
crop diseases and low
productivity and many others.
Overburdened by debt,
incapacity and capital
shortfall have further
increased Pakistan’s
vulnerability. Keeping in view
the performance on climate
action, Pakistan should be
slated among the global top
priorities for funding, human
resource development and
institutional strengthening to
protect masses living at the
edge and their livelihood
resources.
The government has approved
Pakistan’s Nationally
Determined Contribution
(NDC) for the UN Climate
Conference COP26 where it
has aimed for an ambitious 50
per cent reduction on top of
the present 1.3 per cent carbon
emissions by 2030 subject to
the provision of $100 bn
climate finance. Special
Assistant to Prime Minister
Malik Amin Aslam has
mentioned that national
funding, professional capacity
and institutional strengthening
will simultaneously take place funding channels such as the
while mobilising global Global Climate Fund.
resources to attain the goal.
Pakistan shall adopt an all-
The prime minister’s inclusive approach towards
approved roadmap for shifting achieving the goal. The
the country’s carbon government offices are
emissions levels onto a lower besieged by all the
trajectory will include a 15 per stereotyped national and
cent reduction in carbon chapters of the international
emissions from the country’s environmental conservation
resources through different organisations. The
ongoing initiatives. Pakistan government shall trust new
will be looking for a 35 per extroverted approaches,
cent reduction in heat- critical thinking and
trapping carbon emissions that innovative frameworks to
is subject to the availability of showcase its achievements for
international financial support harnessing global finance for
from various available achieving its targets.
 Markets and disinformation
Ishrat Husain, Dawn News
M
ARKETS can
allocate resources
efficiently when
there is competition among
sellers and buyers. In order to
have competitive markets
certain conditions have to be
met. Among others, there
have to be multiple buyers and
sellers who have the relevant
information to make rational
decisions and firms should
have the freedom to enter and
exit the market without any
restrictions.
In Pakistan, markets have
been rigged by a small
segment of politically
influential players who
receive preferential treatment
through land, taxes, tariffs,
subsidies etc. Collusive
practices and cartelisation
favour ‘insiders’ who do not
easily allow ‘outsiders’ to
enter the market by
unleashing a plethora of
licences, permits, clearances
and no-objection certificates.
Access to finance is restricted
to only those with well-
established businesses, those
enjoying the right contacts
and who can offer securities
and collaterals (however
inflated their realisable values
may be on paper).
Newcomers who may have
innovative business proposals
have hardly any chance to
raise capital. While barriers to
entry are quite strong, exit is
discouraged even when the
firms are socialising losses
and privatising profits through
a complex maze of
government-granted
subsidies, exemptions,
refinancing schemes and
concessions. In the name of
protecting labour
employment, inefficient firms
are not allowed to die. There is
little realisation that new
efficient and innovative firms
that take their place are likely
to create many more
productive jobs in the
economy. Many stock market-
listed companies declare
losses year after year while
their owners enjoy lavish
lifestyles. They live in palatial
houses, drive expensive cars,
holiday abroad, their children
study overseas and they
maintain foreign bank
accounts and offshore
companies.
The grant of tax amnesties by
successive governments
provide persuasive evidence
for the existence of this
phenomenon. Trillions of
rupees of non-taxed incomes
were parked outside the
country or in other forms
inside the country. Poor public
policies such as guaranteed
rates of return in dollars on
equity raised locally or
through over-invoicing have
caused huge accretion to
public debt stock but made
lucky investors, who have
been approved by the
government or its regulatory
agencies, billionaires or
multimillionaires.
Unauthentic news posted on
social media platforms gains a
momentum of its own.
These existing market
distortions were already doing
much damage but on top of
these an unanticipated
phenomenon that has surfaced
recently in the form of
disinformation distributed and
disseminated widely and
swiftly by social media has
exacerbated the situation.
Economists have won Nobel
Prizes for their work on
‘asymmetric information’ — a
further deviation from the
assumptions of competitive
markets. Buyers and sellers do
not possess exactly the same
information about an
economic transaction. The
well-known Market for
Lemons is a highly insightful
piece of research that
highlights this problem aptly.
The field of behavioural
economics and finance has
enlightened us that people are
not always rational in their
decision-making as they
cannot process all the relevant
information in a given span of
time to arrive at a rational
conclusion. The 2008 global
financial crisis exposed the
myth of the rational economic
actor. It is now documented
that markets work on the basis
of sentiments, emotions such
as greed and fear, biases,
social influences, intuition
and past experiences.
Bandwagon effects, anchoring
bias, procrastination and
nudging have emerged as new
ways of thinking about how
economic players make
decisions and how markets
function.
It is in this context that the
spread of motivated or planted
fake, biased or unverified
news — all bundled under
disinformation — has
assumed alarming proportions
in deviating from the basic
tenets of well-functioning
competitive markets. The
speed at which disinformation
travels and the extent of its
outreach have rattled markets.
We used to grumble or
complain about irresponsible
journalism but that pales into
insignificance compared to
the harm that is being caused
by instantaneous
dissemination of unverified
information that is distributed
through Facebook, Twitter,
WhatsApp, YouTube and
other social media.
We ought to recognise that, by
and large, journalists and
reporters in reputable media
houses spend a lot of time and
effort to sift, verify and
establish the veracity of the
stories they file. Further there
is editorial review and in
many cases an in-house
ombudsman. Indiscretions do
occur but damage control is
always possible. However,
once a completely unauthentic
piece of news is posted on
social media platforms it gains
a momentum of its own. Some
‘experts’ and ‘anchors then
blurt this ‘information’ on
electronic media and some
owners of media houses use
these opinions expressed in
talk shows as news stories in
print. Market sentiments and
economic players’ actions are
influenced by these views.
This happens more so in case
of equity, foreign exchange,
foreign trade, commodities
and financial markets.
Economic fundamentals are
set aside and drowned in
cacophony causing huge
confusion in the minds of
market participants. Non-state
actors who started
disinformation having their
own agenda therefore gain the
upper hand and drive market
sentiments, forcing decisions
that run contrary to economic
prudence. Policymakers feel
helpless in countering this
sentiment as the
disinformation was targeted in
the first instance to make them
look bad in the eyes of the
public.
Governments in democratic or
authoritarian states do not
realise how much damage
they are doing by imposing
restrictions or suppressing
freedom of expression of
journalists and reporters all
over the world. On the
contrary, they should be given
full facilitation to carry out
their professional duties as
they can provide a strong
countervailing force against
the ever-growing intrusion of
those engaged in
disinformation creating
market dislocation. Investors
require calm and tranquil
conditions and a level-playing
field. They are averse to a
rigged market structure on the
top of which are built grooves
of turbulence sparked by
disinformation.
It is in Pakistan’s collective
economic interest to allow
journalists — foreign and
local — to move around freely
to sift and report facts as our
weak investor sentiment
cannot bear the burden of the
avalanche of disinformation.
At the same time, market
distortions creating rent-
seeking opportunities for a
select few while weakening
the competitive markets need
to be eliminated.
 The fall of liberal democracy?
Syed Mohammad Hasan, The Express Tribune
I
n his book The End of
History and the Last Man,
Francis Fukuyama asserts
that with the ascendency of
Western liberal democracy
following the Cold War,
society has reached a point
where an ideological
evolution can no longer
happen. Liberal democracy
has therefore become the final
form of human government
since it provides conditions
through which one can
progress towards the
establishment of a “universal
and homogeneous” society.
Some twenty-five years ago,
the concept of liberal
democracy had swept the
world, and through mass
agitations the centre of power
shifted from the state to the
people — the Soviet Union
had collapsed, new
democracies were emerging in
Europe and the apartheid
regime in Africa was
disintegrating. It was a giant
leap towards freedom; or so it
seemed. While the ideals of
Western liberal democracy
encompass a certain type of
universal framework i.e.
individual freedom as a
universal characteristic, the
reality today in many parts of
the developing world is
starkly different. This is
because freedom and
democracy are in dialectical
opposition with one another.
The West erroneously
conflates the two ideas, and
fails to acknowledge that
liberal democracy merely
leads to the institutionalisation
of freedom. Its framework is
replete with inconsistent
theoretical conceptions.
Considering that very concept
of universality has been
turned on its head by post-
structuralists (no, not post-
modernists), Fukuyama’s
claim only holds true for some
First World countries, where
most of the basic prerequisites
of democracy i.e. quality
education, free media, etc
have been met. But once the
veil of ideology is removed
from this, it becomes evident
that this too has not been the
case. Historically, the idea of
liberal democracy has
increasingly been taken up
and used by right-wing
populists — one must
consider here that Trump was
elected democratically — to
illude the masses into
believing in a utopic version
of society. In order for a
liberal democracy to reach its
ultimate goal of a and rights are blatantly
homogenous society, it has to
ensure ultimate freedom and
ultimate security for every
individual. The nature of
politics however is not just of
the individual in itself, but of
the individual in relation to
another. It is because of this
tension that the very idea of
liberalism mutates itself into
something sinister.
In order to reassert itself, and
for the sake of its own
survival, liberalism needs an
enemy that poses a serious
threat to individual rights and
freedoms, whether it be in the
form of communist China and
its BRI or the rise of
extremism and the weapons of
mass destruction in the
Middle East. The annihilation
of this other automatically
becomes a necessity under the
liberal democratic order.
This is how liberalism
operates as an ideology while
creating the illusion of
instilling a moral standard. In
reality, it is being used: to
allure and distract the working
class of First World countries
through lustrous ideals; and
re-enforce the mechanisms of
capitalism i.e. to protect the
wealth and assets that
countries and individuals have
amassed along the years,
either through colonial
pursuits or through relentless
exploitation (It is here that
neo-liberalism takes
precedence, but that is a topic
of separate debate). In the
process, individual liberties
violated, especially when the
system is threatened.
Liberal democracies have
over the years manifested in
destructive forms, in turn
giving rise to illiberal
democracies around the
world. Thus, governments and
capitalists openly violate the
rule of law and deprive the
citizens of basic rights and
liberties in order to maintain
status quo. The coronavirus
pandemic and the unfolding
ecological crisis have
highlighted exactly that. In the
wake of multiple crises and
brewing global tensions, one order. The billion-dollar Or will it somehow find a way
can clearly witness the question now is: what will to strut on?
disintegration of the liberal replace it in the coming years?
democratic and neo-liberal