During a recent visit to India (24th – 27th January) as a chief guest of the Republic Day celebration, Brazilian President Jair Messias Bolsonaro sketched an ambitious plan to revitalisation their faltering economy. This new strategic partnership will expand cooperation in key sectors of the economy such as oil, gas, and mining, while it was setting the target of USD 15 billion in bilateral trade by 2022. While approaching to WTO against India for extending support to her sugarcane farmers, Brazil penned investment cooperation and facilitation treaty. This is Brazil’s 10thand India’s 4thbilateral investment agreement since both nations had adopted their Model Bilateral Investment Treaty. Previously, India has managed to conclude bilateral investment treaties with Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and Cambodia after scrapping down all 83 existing bilateral investment treaties. The object and purpose of this short write-upare to critically analyse and compare the new Brazil-India Cooperation and Facilitation Treaty (Brazil-India BIT) with the Model BITs of India and Brazil. It will be discussed who deviates from Model BIT and to what extent to sign the investment agreement. Moreover, the author will evaluate whether both countries have compromised their interest to strike a deal and who wins the deal or to what extent.
The Definition of Investment
Definition of investment is one of the essential elements in any investment agreement as this is the first thing a disputant has to establish before an investment tribunal to avail the protection. Brazil-IndiaBIT under Article 2.4 incorporates the meaning of investment. Here we see that enterprise-based definition is adopted where an enterprise is taken together with all of its assets. Both Brazil and Indian Model BITs have adopted the same enterprise-based definition approach. The BIT definition of investment is coupled with some other characteristic such as the commitment of capital, objective of establishing a lasting interest, expectation of gain or profit, and the risk assumption. In this, the BIT commensurate with Indian Model BIT as Brazil BIT lacks these elements in the definition of investment. A slight difference remains with the Indian Model BIT as the BIT does not require the “significance for the development of the host-state” characteristic in investment. Prof. Ranjan rightly pointed out that the requirement “investment should be significant for the development of the host-state” is a subjective requirement which is very much challenging for the foreign investor to prove the same before an investment tribunal.
Novelty in Expropriation Clause
A novelty of the new Brazil-India BIT is its expropriation clause which completely excludes indirect expropriation from the scope and purview. Article 6 only talks out “Direct expropriation” as the heading of the article proposes. Article 6.3 incorporates a provision which clearly states that the treaty only covers direct expropriation. The direct expropriation takes place in the time of nationalisation or when expropriation is made directly through formal transfer of title or when a downright seizure is made. Thus Brazil-India BIT does not cover indirect expropriation of investment. After a thorough reading of both Model BIT, it is observed that Brazilian Model BIT does not have any provision related to indirect expropriation while Indian Model BIT covers the same under Article 5.3. Thus, this can well be said that this novel idea of excluding indirect expropriation, Brazil wins while India deviated its Model BIT. As this rule allows investors to bring indirect expropriation claims on imperceptible grounds. Brazil has been critical to indirect expropriation for some time. According to the Brazilian approach, this provision allows foreign investors to make abusive claims and shrink regulatory spaces of the host-state, which helps host-state to protect public interest such as public health, environment, public security etc. Since direct expropriation of foreign investment is very much rare in the modern economic affair, it is unexpected that the Indian side departed from its earlier practice. Even recently concluded Indian BIT with Belarus provides rules of indirect expropriation under article 5.3A thorough reading will reveal that not only those BITs provide for protection from both ends but also laid down formulae of determining indirect expropriation which could be a great guide for investment tribunals. Host-states regulatory powers which emanate directly from its sovereignty puts a prodigious test for the investors. The regulatory measures are taken in public interest frequently creates hardships and might upset investment adversely. Although there is a possibility of abusing power under the blanket of indirect expropriation, the entire removal of the system of indirect expropriation is not a welcome step. In the words of professor Ranjan, “leaving indirect expropriation outside the scope of the BIT creates a yawning gap in the protection of foreign investment.”
Prevention and Settlement of Dispute Clause – A New Horizon
Settlement of dispute is a vital portion of any investment agreement. It is observed that Brazil-India BIT used the phrase “dispute prevention and settlement” instead of the word dispute settlement only. Settlement of dispute comes under Part IV Institutional Governance, Dispute Prevention and Settlement. This highlights that both countries emphasise on the prevention of disputes resorting to the principle “prevention is better than cure”. Ostensible novelty is established in this BIT as Brazil has been very critical to the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System (ISDS) which gives an investor a right to approach an investment tribunal directly against a State. There is no provision of ISDS in this new Brazil-India BIT. Article 13 calls for the creation of the Joint Committee for the administration of this Treaty comprising of government representatives of both parties. This Joint Committee shall oversee the implementation and execution of the treaty, coordinate and facilitate, and resolve the dispute amicably between the parties. In pursuant to Article 14 Each party has to establish National Focal Point or Ombudsman who will be responsible for following recommendations of Joint Committee and consult with other party’s Ombudsman. Concisely, Ombudsman shall work closely with the other party’s Ombudsman, Joint Committee, and relevant government authorities at the state and local level to address differences and helping in preventing disputes. A unique dispute prevention mechanism is provided under Article 18. Under this article, if a party considers that a specific measure adopted by the other party constitutes a breach of this treaty, the party may initiate dispute prevention procedure within the Joint Committee. If the Joint Committee fails to resolve the dispute within a specified time of two months, the party may submit the dispute to the arbitration in according to article 19. Article 19 envisages State to State Dispute Settlement (SSDS) mechanism. This article says when dispute prevention mechanism fails to address and resolve the differences between parties, either party may refer the dispute to arbitration tribunal under this article. Article 19.2 says in explicit language that the purpose of the arbitration is to decide on the interpretation of the treaty or the observance of the terms of the treaty by a party. Furthermore, it spells out that the tribunal does not have any power to award compensation. Indian Model BIT provides both ISDS and SSDS mechanisms while Brazilian Model BIT excludes ISDS procedure, instead they devise SSDS system of dispute settlement. Thus, it is more than clear that India compromised its stand and agreed to adopt the SSDS system put forward by Brazil. However, in the absence of ISDS, the foreign investor has to depend entirely upon the home-state. If home-state does not wish to protect the interest of the investor, the investor will have no remedy available to the foreign investor under general international law.
Non Discrimination Clause
Non-discriminatory clauses in BIT protects investors from losses which may incur due to war or other armed conflicts, civil strife, national emergency etc. If any investment is adversely affected due to any above-stated reasons the state has to compensate the investor. The BIT stipulates the ways of compensation. Typically, it includes restitution, indemnification, and other forms of compensations. Article 7 of the Brazil-India BIT incorporates such rule. It says, if investment suffers losses in the territory of other party due to war or other armed conflicts, revolution, state of emergency, civil strife or any other similar events, shall enjoy restitution, indemnification, or other forms of compensations. Moreover, the clause attached with MFN clause. So, the adversely affected investor has the option to avail the most favourable treatment under the MFN clause, which is awarded to a third-party than the treatment the host-state accords to its own investors. Both Model BITs have featured this non-discrimination clause. The Indian Model BIT only includes National Treatment clause not MFN clause whereas Brazilian Model BIT incorporates MFN clause. Thus, once again, India compromised its stand to Brazil and agreed to embrace the MFN clause to article 7 of Brazil-India BIT. However, one may find this kind of attachment of the MFN clause is standard protocol and nothing new to the investment lawyers.
Commonalities with Indian Model BIT
Although most of the BITs do embrace MFN clause as a standard procedure, the Brazil-India BIT does not include the same. Brazil conceded not to include MFN clause although its Model BIT provides for the same under article 6. There is no provision of the MFN clause in the Indian Model BIT. Taxation related regulatory measures have been put outside the purview of the treaty under article 20 of Brazil-India BIT. The same is offered by Indian Model BIT under article 2.4 with a minor variance that host-state’s decision on the impugned measure is taxation related, is final and non-justiciable. Whereas article 20 of the Brazil-India BIT does not use the word non-justiciable as such. Both Brazil-India BIT and Indian Model BIT have adopted General Exceptions clause under articles 23.1 and article 33.1 respectively. One may find that article 23.1 of the Brazil-India BIT is a reproduction of article 33.1 of Indian Model BIT. In terms of Security Exceptions clause, both Brazil-India BIT and Indian Model BIT have encompassed under article 24 and article 33 respectively. Again the Security Exceptions clause of Brazilian-Indian BIT is influenced from Indian Model BIT. Article 24 is almost a reproduction of article 33 of the Indian Model BIT with an insignificant alteration in article 24.3.
After analysing Brazil-India BITs with Model BITs, the present author opines that newly concluded BITs between two nations rests mostly on Brazilian Model BIT. Although two countries have compromised on certain aspects. As it does contain SSDS system excluding the ISDS system of dispute settlement and the indirect expropriation clause. We witness the Brazil-India BIT is based on the principle of dispute prevention rather than the prevalent notion of dispute settlement. It is designed in such a way that it will be productive in preventing disputes more effectively. This unique dispute prevention tactic needs appreciation. The modern economic affairs hardly witness nationalisation or the direct takeover of foreign investment. As a result, in the absence of rules of indirect expropriation, it could well be expected that a certain degree of foreign investment protection would be weakened. After White Industries Arbitration case, asluicegate was opened for foreign investors’ claims which put at risk Indian government. Recently, India had terminated a close to 60 investment agreements which were based on the investor-centric approach of 2003 Indian Model BIT. In 2016, India published its new model BIT and started negotiation with other states, which is state-centric. After thorough analysing of the provisions, one can certainly reach to the conclusion that Indian Model BIT2015 gives precedence to host-state’s right to regulate over investment protection. This new Brazil-India BIT is even more placed on host-state’s sovereign right to regulate. As Indian Model BIT has been compromised most of the time while inking the Brazil-India BIT, the question remains to see in future BIT negotiations; whether India sticks to its own Model BIT or pay heed to the terms advances by the counterparts; hesitatingly or readily.
COVID-19, major shifts and the relevance of Kondratief 6th Wave
Covid-19 has changed the global strategic equations, it has impacted each part of human life so has it let us to ponder upon the Kondratieff cycles, as with Covid-19 there has started a new debate about sixth wave, which is about the importance of health sector, especially the biotechnology which is crucial for progress of society in future.
Henceforth, the countries that are working on these sectors know that the most important engine for our economic and social development will be health in the 21st century. For example we have USA that focused on these and now has created around 2/3rd of its jobs in health sectors along with that has invested about $3,500 billion on health sector back in 2017. Also a 2008 report said about 4,700 companies all across worked in field of biotechnology whereby 42% were in North America, and 35% in Europe, which depicts these states long-term understanding of the emerging scenario as seen from the emergence of Coronavirus. But then the on the other side if we look into the health structure of underdeveloped states, we can easily conclude that these states will suffer the most if a global health issue emerges, and in the contemporary world it has emerged in the form of COVID-19.
COVID-19 has brought changes in the political and economic arrangement. It has not limited itself to the China from where it has been started but has impacted the whole world. The virus that is itself unseen has shaken the structure, with severe consequences for all states. No matter if it’s the USA that is the super power or any small states, the pandemic has divulged the capability and integrity of all in their response to the Covid-19. With some having the capabilities to deal with it, but most lacking in these sectors which resulted in huge loss not only of human life but also of resources. Time has come when the world is criticizing globalization at one hand because globalization is the reason for the spread of COVID-19. This has marked the end of one era with the emergence of a new one.
Mention below are some of the major shifts which Covid-19 has resulted in economic sectors in both the developed and the underdeveloped states, along with the major political shift that has led many to debate about the new structure of world after the crisis would be over.
The Covid-19 that was first reported in China, in November has changed the world completely and resulted in a lot of economic and political changes all across. For example the global economy due to Covid-19 crisis have a setback of $590 trillion. Apart from this many people lost their jobs, the household incomes have reduce, moreover World Bank report say nearly 49 million people will move into extreme poverty because of pandemic. Then World largest real estates are having economic problems, the Tourism industry has declined. An estimate showed the loss of about $1.2 to $3.3 trillion in this area of tourism all over world. Also report of International Air Transport Association predicted a loss of $63-$113billion. Moreover the oil sector also faced problem as it was for the first time that its price has gone negative. Henceforth, it can be predicted that once the pandemic is over the world will have a lot to calculate.
The impact of this crisis is seen in both core and periphery states. In core states like the US and china COVID-19 has brought huge economic impact but along with this also a question of who will act as the world saviour. As Chinese economy is expected to decline by 13% in February also the Belt and toad initiative is at halt, but still apart from the economic problem this pandemic has helped a core state like china to use the situation and move towards the status of Global power. Thus this struggle of Global saviour resulted in US and China at odds with each other. Indeed, COVID-19 has brought political repercussions along with economic consequences. When it comes to Europe the industrial production decline by 17%. Likewise USA is also effected by COVID-19 as by this pandemic about 39 million American have lost their jobs, also US economy seen to decline by 20% so US health sector has been in the eye of analyst for its failure to curtail the coronavirus. Then covid-19 has more devastating impact on peripheral states as there health care facility is not well developed. For example the GDP of Bangladesh fell by 1.1%, then many African states that look for tourism as a source of economy faced a loss of about $50 billion. Also 29 million in Latin America fell into poverty. Though they have been exploited in past but the need of the hour is that the world must help them.
Global dynamics are showing transformation amid coronavirus. The pandemic has shown how China is using its trump cards to transform the contemporary situation in its favour while bolstering its image as the “global saviour”. China’s emergence from the sick man of Asian to the positing of global saviour has opened the prospect of a tilt in the global status of Hegemon from US towards China. The question is that will the Chinese strategy amid COVID-19 will hinder the prestige of US who instead of acting as the global leader has shown a deterioration in its role in global governance.
The future of China’s pre-eminence in the global spectrum has been widened by the pandemic. All of this has been further bolstered by the broad rejection of Trump to engage in Europe and elsewhere. COVID-19 not only emerged as an impetus to shift the global dynamic but has helped China to strengthen its position. In response to the confident play by China, US hasn’t come up with any convincing tactics to prevent the increasing role of China in achieving its interest. Recently, a move by Trump administration to withhold US funds of around $400million will surely leave a gap, moreover will be an opportunity for china to bolster its position in WHO. Taking backseat in its global role amid pandemic, then the withdrawal from global treaties, and withholding of funds from WHO shows a pattern which will further create a vacuum for China to take advantage of the prevailing situation.
The current international order set by US will be subject to testation as the changing shifts in the geopolitics have to be catalyzed by the COVID-19. For it is now the right time for us all to ponder the relevance of Kondratieff 6th wave in current scenario of Covid-19. As now the focus has diverted towards the health care system and biotechnology since the world has in current situation saw a blame game between states with few called corona virus as naturally occurring but some regarded it as ‘Chinese virus’. This has led to the realization that that warfare scenario has entered into discussion over biotechnology. So after the Covid-19 pandemic, the policy makers of both periphery and core state will work on new technological area which has the Medical technologies, Nanotechnologies, Biotechnologies etc. for the improvement in health sector will be crucial for the progress in future.
Conclusively, the current COVID-19 as a bioweapon has resulted in a clear impetus and will definitely bring a shift in the states attitude towards medical research and the multiple fields of technology in future, this is so because COVID-19 has created a ground for relevance of Kondratieff 6th wave.
How U.S.’s Response to Covid-19 Could Precipitate 2nd Great Depression
On March 10th of this year, there were 290 daily new U.S. cases of Covid-19 (coronavirus-19).
On March 13th, U.S. President Donald Trump declared a pandemic national emergency, because the number of daily new cases was now suddenly doubling within only three days. However, no lockdown was imposed. The policy-response was instead left to each individual. This is in accord with America’s libertarian idelogy. Trump even announced that “he was allowing his health secretary to bypass certain regulations to provide more flexibility to doctors and hospitals responding to the outbreak” — outright reducing, insead of increasing, federal regulations, this being his way to address the matter. That’s the libertarian response.
Covid-19 (coronavirus-19) cases started soaring in the U.S., from 600 daily new cases on March 13th, to 25,665 on March 31st. Americans were scared to death, and facemask-usage soared, and independent small businesses started laying people off en-masse. (Restaurants, hair salons, travel agencies, inns, dental offices, etc., were hard-hit.)
Immediately, the alarming rise in new cases halted on April 4th (at 34,480), and the daily new cases remained approximately flat, but slightly downward, from March 31 to June 9th (when it reached bottom at 19,166), but then soared yet again, to 78,615, on July 24th.
But, then, it again declined, so that, on September 8th, it was at only 28,561. This was already returning to around what the new-cases rate had been back on March 31st. So: despite peaking again on July 24th, the rate of daily new cases was little changed between March 31st and September 8th. And, all during that 5-month period, people were coming back to work.
The key immediate and direct economic variable affected by Covid-19 is the unemployment rate. Here, that economic effect is clearly shown:
U.S. unemployment: March 4.4%, April 14.7%, May 13.3%, June 11.1%, July 10.2%, August 8.4%
Though the daily-new-cases rate went down after March 31st and after July 24th, the unemployment rate progressed far more gradually downward after March 31st: the small businesses that had been panicked by the explosion of new cases during March were now gradually re-opening — but they remained very nervous; and, so, unemployment still was almost twice what it had been during March.
Here, that experience will be compared with two Scandinavian countries, starting with Denmark, which declared a pandemic national emergency on March 13th, just when Trump also did. “Starting on 13 March 2020, all people working in non-essential functions in the public sector were ordered to stay home for two weeks.” The daily new cases fell from the high of 252 on March 11th, down to the low of 28 on March 15th, but then soared to 390 on April 7th, and gradually declined to 16 (only 16 new cases) on July 9th. Then it peaked back up again, at 373, on August 10th, plunged down to 57 on August 26th, and then soared yet again back up to 243 on September 8th. The new-cases rates were thus irregular, but generally flat. By contrast against the experience in U.S., Denmark’s unemployment-rate remained remarkably stable, throughout this entire period:
Denmark: March 4.1, April 5.4, May 5.6, June 5.5, July 5.2
Sweden’s Government pursued a far more laissez-faire policy-response (“The government has tried to focus efforts on encouraging the right behaviour and creating social norms rather than mandatory restrictions.”), and had vastly worse Covid-19 infection-rates than did the far more socialistic Denmark, and also vastly worse death-rates, both producing results in Sweden more like that of the U.S. policy-response than like that of the Danish policy-response, but far less bad than occurred on the unemployment-rate; and, thus, Sweden showed unemployment-increases which were fairly minor, more like those shown in Denmark:
Sweden: March 7.1, April 8.2, May 9.0, June 9.8, July 8.9
That was nothing like the extreme gyration in:
U.S.: March 4.4%, April 14.7%, May 13.3%, June 11.1%, July 10.2%, August 8.4%
Why was this?
Even though Sweden’s policy-effectiveness was more like America’s than like Denmark’s at keeping down the percentages of the population who became infected, and who died from Covid-19 (i.e., it was not effective), Sweden’s policy-effectiveness at keeping down the percentage of the population who became unemployed was more like Denmark’s (i.e., it was effective, at that). Unlike America, which has less of a social safety-net than any other industrialized nation does, Sweden had, until recently, one of the most extensive ones, and hasn’t yet reduced it down to American levels (which are exceptionally libertarian). Therefore, whereas Swedes know that the Government will be there for them if they become infected, Americans don’t; and, so, Americans know that, for them, it will instead be “sink or swim.” Make do, or drop dead if you can’t — that is the American way. This is why Swedish unemployment wasn’t much affected by Covid-19. When a Swede experienced what might be symptoms, that person would want to stay home and wouldn’t be so desperate as to continue working even if doing that might infect others. Thus, whereas Sweden’s unemployment-rate rose 27% from March to May, America’s rose 202% during that same period. Americans were desperate for income, because so many of them were poor, and so many of them had either bad health insurance or none at all. (All other industrialized countries have universal health insurance: 100% of the population insured. Only in America is healthcare a privilege that’s available only to people who have the ability to pay for it, instead of a right that is provided to everyone.)
On September 9th, Joe Neel headlined at NPR, “NPR Poll: Financial Pain From Coronavirus Pandemic ‘Much, Much Worse’ Than Expected”, and he reported comprehensively not only from a new NPR poll, but from a new Harvard study, all of which are consistent with what I have predicted (first, here, and then here, and, finally, here), and which seems to me to come down to the following ultimate outcomes, toward which the U.S. is now heading (so, I close my fourth article on this topic, with these likelihoods):
America’s lack of the democratic socialism (social safety-net) that’s present in countries such as Denmark (and residual vestiges of which haven’t yet been dismantled in Sweden and some other countries) will have caused, in the United States, massive laying-off of the workers in small businesses, as a result of which, overwhelmingly more families will be destroyed that are at the bottom of the economic order, largely Black and/or Hispanic families, than that are White and not in poverty. Also as a consequence, overwhelmingly in the United States, poor people will be suffering far more of the infections, and of the deaths, and of the laying-off, and of the soon-to-be-soaring personal bankruptcies and homelessness; and, soon thereafter, soaring small-business bankruptcies, and ultimately then big-business bankruptcies, and then likely megabank direct federal bailouts such as in 2009, which will be followed, in the final phase, by a hyperinflation that might be comparable to what had occurred in Weimar Germany. The ceaselessly increasing suffering at the bottom will ultimately generate a collapse at the top. Presumably, therefore, today’s seemingly coronavirus-immune U.S. stock markets, such as the S&P 500, are now basically just mega-investors who are selling to small investors, so as to become enabled, after what will be the biggest economic crash in history, to buy “at pennies on the dollar,” the best of what’s left, so as to then go forward into the next stage of the capitalist economic cycle, as owning an even higher percentage of the nation’s wealth than now is the case. Of course, if that does happen, then America will be even more of a dictatorship than it now is. Post-crash 2021 America will be more like Hitler’s Germany, than like FDR’s America was.
The Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee, Joe Biden, is just as corrupt, and just as racist, as is the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. And just as neoconservative (but targeting Russia, instead of China). Therefore, the upcoming November 3rd elections in the U.S. are almost irrelevant, since both of the candidates are about equally disgusting. America’s problems are deeper than just the two stooges that America’s aristocracy hires to front for it at the ballot-boxes.
Author’s note: first posted at Strategic Culture
Democracy in the doldrums
It is clear that during the COVID-19 pandemic times, Democracy has gone pear shaped throughout the world. Power and Political activity are considered as alpha and omega of the modern day democracy.
The Modern state(political authority),which is based on legitimacy and a tool to deliver political, economical and social justice, has been rendering yeoman service to
corporates, both domestic and foreign. The ruling dispensations all around the globe have resorted to authoritarianism under the guise of health emergency. In addition, the topsy turvy of Democracy, through excessive centralisation and the iron curtain imposed on political activities during this pandemic, has left minimal space to raise the concerns of the urban poor. The pandemic, a bolt from the blue, has caught our health systems off guard. In India, the labour class has caught between the devil and the deep sea, thanks to the recent twin moves of the central government, privatization and the helter-skelter lockdown. The pernicious effects of the lockdown are yet to hit the masses. Seemingly, the rudderless policies of central government have created enough space to further pauperization of masses, mostly have-nots.
Now, the federal governments of third world countries have to walk on razor edge by meeting the fiscal deficit targets on one hand and by connecting the welfare dots on the other.It is not surprising to say that the big corporates are making good fortunes with the relaxation of tax rates and new labour codes. As unemployment is hanging like the sword of domacles over the working class, the corporate class would expect this surplus labour to be at their beck and call.The early warnings of intelligentsia on the consequences of disastrous lockdown were remained as the voices crying in the wilderness. The ruling elite has been trying to enshroud the general despondency among the civic force by shifting the propaganda machinery to sensitive elements like religion, hyper nationalism and sloganeering-not to mention self aggrandizement.
Neo-liberalism and corporatisation
The diktats of the world bank and the IMF(International monetary fund) on the third world nations like pruning the subsidies, roll back of welfare measures and the abatement of labour laws as an essential sina qua non for any sort of relief package during the crisis of BOP(Balance of payments) have left labour class of the thrid world nations in quandary. The US with the support of the WTO( World Trade Organization)had exhorted all these countries to provide untrammeled access its products. Apparently, the aims and paths of federal governments of these nations ,the WTO and the IMF are congruent with regard to free trade and the globalization of capital. The lawful protections for the working class under the labour laws have proved disastrous for the interests of the capitalist class and being viewed as shackles for the exploitation. The decades-long struggle to retain these labour rights in independent nation states has been ending in smoke due to weakened trade unions and the decline of social capital. The time has come to fight tenaciously and move heaven and earth to restore their rights which are otherwise go to the dogs. When the market space is being dominated by Monopoly or Duopoly or Tripoly, the free and fair competition which the unhindered market guarantee is an absolute sham. Extolling the virtues of Neo-liberalism, the modern nation states have centred their development agenda in and around urban centres. Economically, in the post-liberal era of India, the upward mobility is largely confined to a few sections of the urban middle class.
It is wrong to mention that welfare economics is based on “Rob Peter to pay paul principle” when Peter has direct access to resources(natural, political, economical and social) vis-a-vis Paul. It is not the Peter but the Paul who is running from the pillar to post in search of opportunities. The notion of political equality of liberal ideological stream revolves around freedom and liberty of an individual and overlooks the core elements of equality like social and economical justice. The central governments all over the world have successfully repudiated the pro-poor agenda and this volte face from welfare state to pro-capitalist state has pushed the labour class out of the frying pan into the fire.
Nexus between political class and biggies
The unholy nexus between the political class and corporates has been riding roughshod over the interests of poor. This alliance behooves the political class to safeguard the vested interests of corporate bigwigs. It is apposite to mention that representative democracy has been metamorphosing into a turncoat democracy. Back in the day, Politicians were known for their erudition, statesmanship and uncompromising ideological commitment. On the contrary, present day representatives are turning into snollygosters for their personal gains. There are several voluminous reports from different corners on rising economical disparities in the post-liberal era on which no political party is keen to act upon. As Michael Jackson, king of pop, penned in one of his famous tracks “All I want to say is that they don’t really care about us”-the lyrics are still relevant in this pandemic times.
Globalization and dependency
The South Asian nations have started their LPG (Liberalisation, privatization and Globalization) path at the same time, with the exception of Sri Lanka which had opened its economy by fits and starts.They had adjusted their economical apparatus with a new global integration process at a time when the global economical architecture was dominated by unipolar power, the US.
The lopsided globalization process has been converting many third world countries as dependents and in some cases almost to a level of aid recipients upon the erstwhile colonial powers or the US. Under the banner of global integration, all these nations were dragged into this complex whole, in most of the cases through persuasion. In the name of free trade, the Western powers have been bleeding these nations white of their resources. The asymmetrical globalization has also challenged the sovereignty of these nations while the same has remained intact in case of developed nations. The US has been playing a rigged game of globalization under the auspices of the WTO, the world bank and other agencies. The time has come for these players to bury their hatchet and rise as a one voice to have a just order at the international sphere.
Minor Successes And The Coronavirus Disaster: Is Trump A Dead Duck?
That reminder from the Bible, ‘He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone’ may give us pause...
The Forgotten African Slaves of Lebanon
In April 2020, authorities in Lebanon arrested one Wael Jerro after posting an advertisement to sell a Nigerian lady, Peace...
Green Deal: €1 billion investment to boost the green and digital transition
The European Commission has decided to launch a €1 billion call for research and innovation projects that respond to the...
Uncreative Teachers: Online Learning Is Ineffective
Inevitably, Indonesia has to apply online learning (in the network) during the Covid-19 pandemic, this aims to anticipate the spread...
Increasing Need for Global Cooperation and Solidarity- Interview with Dr. Tandi Dorji
Covid-19 has invoked challenges worldwide that require us to formulate innovative solutions. Dr.Tandi Dorji , the foreign minister of Bhutan...
Equal pay essential to build a world of dignity and justice for all
The United Nations is marking the first ever International Equal Pay Day, on Friday, drawing attention to the gender pay...
Protect lives, mitigate future shocks and recover better
Over the course of 2020 thus far, the coronavirus has taken hundreds of thousands of lives, infected millions of people,...
International Law3 days ago
The UN reforms are required to make it functional
Energy2 days ago
Don’t Expect Sanctions to Stop Nord Stream II
International Law2 days ago
Transition of Balance of Power from Unipolar to Multipolar World Order
Reports3 days ago
Building confidence crucial amid an uncertain economic recovery
East Asia3 days ago
The Chinese Agitprop: Disinformation, Propaganda and Payrolls
Middle East2 days ago
UAE and Israel: Nothing to See Here
Reports3 days ago
Pandemic Threatens Human Capital Gains of the Past Decade
Russia3 days ago
Forgiving Old Debts: Russia’s Diplomatic Maneuver