US president Donald Trump criticised China for engaging in unfair trade practices by taking advantage of its ‘developing country’ status in World Trade Organisation. President Trump also criticised World Trade Organisation for allowing countries like India, China, South Africa to engage in such practices that effect American economic interests. (Mason and Lawder 2019)
Trump argues that China is not a developing economy as it claims to be. He considers China to be developed economy that does not deserve preferential treatment from the WTO and developed countries such as the USA.(Mason and Lawder 2019)
China is the second largest economy in the world with $13.37 billion GDP. China is a major source of foreign direct investment in all corners of the world and provides billions of dollars in overseas development assistance. Twelve of the 100 largest companies in the world by capitalisation are Chinese, as are roughly one in eight of the world’s billionaires. (Cutler and Doyle 2019)
The question of Chinese exploitation of WTO arises due to the economic explosion China has achieved over 30 years. It is the world’s second largest economy and yet unlike any other country enjoys the economic benefits arising out of being categorised as a developing country. This article will further go ahead to trace China’s journey to WTO and the result of being a developing country in WTO.
Tracing China’s journey to WTO
After the heavy destruction caused by World War 2, countries including United states, United Kingdom and allied forces came together to discuss the economic reconstruction of the world. This meeting was called the Bretton Woods Conference. As a result of the conference, countries came together to establish the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and International Monetary Fund (IMF).
International Trade Organisation (ITO)was also proposed to establish rules and regulations for international trade. But this was not supported by USA and hence, ITO could not come into existence. GATT or General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs was adopted in its place.
On July 10, 1986 China signed the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. Later, in the 1995 Uruguay rounds, GATT was replaced by World Trade Organisation (WTO). GATT only focussed on goods trade and did not cover trade in services and Intellectual Property Right.(Lardy 2001)
While GATT is set of multiple agreements signed and abided by nations, WTO is an intergovernmental organisation which focussed on trade of goods, services and intellectual property rights. (Lardy 2001)
After the opening up of its economy, China witnessed rapid growth in 1980’s. China had massive trade and ability to attract foreign direct investment. Chinese leadership came to understand that their liberal foreign investment regime and low-cost labour markets give them a wonderful opportunity to participate and compete in international markets and that this participation could provide a sustainable base for the continued growth and development of their domestic economy. (Lardy 2001)China requested to join WTO in November 1995, and on December 11, 2001, it officially became a member of WTO.
World Trade Organisation (WTO)
The WTO has 164 members and 23 observer governments including Iran, Iraq, Bhutan, Libya etc. (“WTO | Development)
WTO functions(“WTO | Development)
- Administering WTO Trade Agreement
- Act as forum for trade negotiation
- Handling trade disputes
- Monitoring trade policies
- Cooperation with other international organization
WTO Agreements(“WTO | Development)
- For Goods – Marrakesh Agreement (1995) and Trade Facilitation Agreement (2017)
- For Services – General Agreement on Trade in Services
- For Intellectual Property – The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
Benefits to Developing Countries in WTO:
Special and Preferential Treatment
The WTO Agreements contain special provisions which give developing countries some levy and benefits in their conduction of trade. The WTO also makes developed countries treat developing countries more favourably than other WTO Members. These provisions are referred to as “special and differential treatment” (S&D) provisions.(“WTO | Development)
The special provisions include:
- longer time periods for implementing Agreements and commitments
- measures to increase trading opportunities for developing countries
- provisions requiring all WTO members to safeguard the trade interests of developing countries
- support to help developing countries build the capacity to carry out WTO work, handle disputes, and implement technical standards, and
- provisions related to least-developed country Members.
It is important to note here that the WTO does not define countries as developed or developing. Countries declare their status themselves. According to the WTO, two-thirds of its 164 members, including China, currently consider themselves developing countries.
Non-Reciprocal Preferential Treatment
Non reciprocal preferential treatment for developing countries states that the grants and trade concessions given by developed countries to developing countries are not on reciprocal basis. It means the developing countries are not expected to make matching offers or concessions in return to the developed countries. (“WTO | Development)
GATT and WTO give developing countries the right to restrict imports in order to promote or protect their local industries or assist in cases of Balance of Payment difficulties. (“WTO | Development)
The World Trade Organisation explicitly states that international trade should benefit the economic development of developing and least developed countries. (“WTO | Development) The above-mentioned provisions also facilitate the same. This is to ensure that developing countries protect their agriculture sector and other industries which might be affected due to competition from goods of developed countries.
How did the developing country status facilitate Chinese economic growth?
China with its industrial strength, facilitated voluminous trade and enjoyed the benefits of free trade with other countries while protecting its local industries at the same time. The developing country status allowed China to subsidise its industries, support state-owned firms and discriminate against foreign investors. It had the opportunity to expand its domestic industries exponentially and further improve trade. This can be understood by the given data.
In 1995, Chinese imports and exports of goods totalled to $280.9 billion or 3 percent of the global trade. As of 2018, its total trade of goods jumped to $4.6 trillion or 12.4 percent of global trade. China is the world’s largest trader currently. USA comes only after China as the world’s second largest trader at 11.5 percent of total trade.(“Is China the World’s Top Trader?” 2018)
Taking advantage of the non reciprocal preferential treatment, China does not have to give concessions to developed countries like USA while they are obligated to give preferential treatment to China. China exported $480 billion worth of goods to the US in 2018 (19 percent of all its exports), but only imported $156 billion. In the case of Hong Kong, China exported $303 billion in 2017 (12.2 percent of total exports) and imported just $9 billion (0.4 percent of total imports).(“Is China the World’s Top Trader?” 2018)
Thus, in 2018, China exported $2.49 trillion in goods while it imported $2.13 trillion. China’s exports usually surpass their imports. Developed countries on the other hand, like USA, import more than they export. In 2019, USA trade deficit was $617 billion.
Chinese products and services overseas are levied lower rates of duty due to its developing country status. While China imposed high tariffs on its imports and offered more subsides to local producers, in order to protect domestic industries.
Also, the terms of WTO helped in forced transfer of technology and theft of intellectual property from the developed countries, benefitting China. (Lee 2019) Developed countries and other observers of international community claim this to be unfair asit puts developed countries at a relative disadvantage.
China’s Economic Might
China has always claimed to be a communist and socialist country. Historically, it has been dead against market reforms, opening up its economy and opposed anything that held western values. However, rapid industrialisation followed by opening up its economy, market reforms, trade with other countries, joining WTO, all facilitated rise in its economy. China has scored remarkable achievements in economic and social terms being a part of WTO. (“China in the WTO: Past, Present And Future” 2012) (Hu and Khan 1997)
- 2nd largest economy in terms of GDP
- 1st largest merchandise exporter
- 2nd largest merchandise importer
- 1st destination for inward FDI among developing countries
- 1st investor for outward FDI among developing countries
Developing country status
In spite of its economic development, China claims that it is a developing country because of its huge population and low per capita income. China’s Gross national income per capita is $9460 as per 2018 and it is classified as upper middle-income country by world bank. (Hu and Khan 1997) As per world bank indicators, countries with Gross National Income of $12,056 and above qualify as developed country. Hence, as per criteria China claims itself to be developing country and refuses to revoke its status.
Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen said that Beijing will not allow other members to deprive China of the special and differential treatment that developing members deserve. His statements suggested that China is adamant on its developing country status and would reject future commitments if China’s status was questioned. (McDONALD 2018)
Martin Khor, Director of south centre said the following about China’s developing country status, “If China is forced to take on the duties of a developed country and forego the benefits of a developing country, the west could soon ask other developing countries that are ahead of China (at least in per capita terms) to do the same. China’s fight to retain its developing country status is of interest not only to the Chinese people, but also to their counterparts in other developing countries.”
If the developing countries or parts of the world feel that the economic criteria to categorise a country as a developed or developing nation is partial or not right, countries need to fight for a revision of such criteria. The excuse that some countries do not want to comply with the established standards, citing which China refuses to revoke its status, is unacceptable.
China also claims that many WTO rules have actually favoured the US and other developed countries, in the areas of agricultural support, textile quotas and intellectual property rights protection. (Lee 2019)
China defends its developing country status with the above arguments.
Development is a multidimensional concept that includes GDP or GNI per capita, but it includes other dimensions as well. A particular country can be more developed in some of these dimensions, and less so in others. This multi-dimensionality complicates the classification of countries as “developed” versus “developing.”
And hence, what really calls for a question is that, should the standards of measuring or categorising a country as developing and developed nation change? The world’s second largest economy (or actually the first largest economy as per purchasing power parity) is still categorised as a developing country. This is because the standard for such measurement is Gross Domestic Product per capita and Gross National Income per capita.
Should the feature for measurement change to nominal GDP or GDP as per PPP or any other economic indicator? A change in this criterion will bring about a lot of changes in the international economy. Is that a good change for the world? Will that change economically benefit the world countries? These questions are a subject of a whole new research.
In the current scenario, China can be rightly considered as a developing nation in WTO. When a certain standard is set it should be unbiasedly applied to all countries what so ever. However, With the approaching global recession, recent trade war between USA and China and with President Trump threatening to pull out of WTO, now is a good time to re-evaluate the economic status of countries.
The phenomenon of land grabbing by multinationals
Since 2012 the United Nations has adopted voluntary guidelines for land and forest management to combat land grabbing. But only a few people know about the guidelines, which aim to protect small farmers particularly in Third World countries.
When multinational investors buy up fields for their huge plantations, the residents lose their livelihood and means of support and will soon only be sleeping in their villages. If they are lucky, they might find work with relatives in another village. Many also try their luck in the city, but poverty and unemployment are high. What remains are depopulated villages and the huge palm oil plantations that have devoured farmland. People can no longer go there to hunt and grow plants or get firewood. The land no longer belongs to them!
Land grabbingis the process whereby mostly foreign investors deprive local farmers or fishermen of their fields, lakes and rivers. Although it has been widely used throughout history, land grabbing – as used in the 21st century – mainly refers to large-scale land acquisitions following the global food price crisis of 2007-2008.
From 2000 until 2019 one hundred million hectares of land have been sold or leased to foreign investors and the list of the most affected countries can be found here below:
Such investment may also make sense for the development of a country, but it must not deprive people of their rights: local people are starving while food is being produced and turned into biofuels for export right before their eyes.
In 2012, after three years of discussion, the UN created an instrument to prevent such land grabbing: the VGGTs (Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security:
Detailed minimum standards for investment are established, e.g. the participation of affected people or how to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples and prevent corruption. Formally, the document provides a significant contribution to all people fighting for their rights.
The document, however, is quite cryptic. The guidelines should be simplified and explained. Only in this way can activists, but also farmers and fishermen, become aware of their rights.
Others doubt that much can be achieved through these guidelines because they are voluntary. After all, the UN has little or no say in the matter and can do no more than that. If governments implemented them, they would apply them as they will.
In Bolivia, for example, there are already laws that are supposed to prevent land grabbing. In the Amazon, however, Brazilian and Argentinian companies are buying up forests to grow soya and sugar cane, often with the approval and agreement of corrupt government officials. Further guidelines would probably be of little use.
At most, activists already use the guidelines to lobby their governments. Together with other environmental and human rights activists, they set up networks: through local radio stations and village meetings, they inform people of the fact that they right to their land.
Nevertheless, in many countries in Africa and elsewhere, there is a lack of documentation proving land ownership. Originally, tribal leaders vocally distributed rights of use. But today’s leaders are manipulated to pressure villagers to sell their land.
The biggest investors are Indians and Europeans: they are buying up the land to grow sugar cane and palm oil plantations. This phenomenon has been going on since 2008: at that time – as noted above – the world food crisis drove up food prices and foreign investors, but also governments, started to invest in food and biofuels.
Investment inland, which has been regarded as safe since the well-known financial crisis, must also be taken into account. Recently Chinese companies have also been buying up thousands of hectares of land.
In some parts of Africa, only about 6% of land is cultivated for food purposes, while on the remaining areas there are palm oil plantations. Once the plantations grow two or three metres high, they have a devastating effect on monocultures that rely on biodiversity, because of the huge areas they occupy. There is also environmental pollution due to fertilisers: in a village, near a plantation run by a Luxembourg company, many people have suffered from diarrhoea and some elderly villagers even died.
Consequently, the implementation of the VGGTs must be made binding as soon as possible. But with an organisation like the United Nations, how could this happen?
It is not only the indigenous peoples or the local groups of small farmers that are being deprived of everything. The common land used is also being lost, as well as many ecosystems that are still intact: wetlands are being drained, forests cleared and savannas turned into agricultural deserts. New landowners fence off their areas and deny access to the original owners. In practice, this is the 21st century equivalent of the containment of monastery land in Europe that began in the Middle Ages.
The vast majority of contracts are concentrated in poorer countries with weak institutions and land rights, where many people are starving. There, investors compete with local farmers. The argument to which the advocates of land grabbing hold -i.e. that it is mainly uncultivated land that needs to be reclaimed – is refuted. On the contrary, investors prefer well-developed and cultivated areas that promise high returns. However, they do not improve the supply of local population.
Foreign agricultural enterprises prefer to develop the so-called flexible crops, i.e. plants such as the aforementioned oil palm, soya and sugar cane, which, depending on the market situation, can be sold as biofuel or food.
But there is more! If company X of State Y buys food/fuel producing areas, it is the company that sells to its State Y and not the host State Z that, instead, assigns its future profits derived from international State-to-State trade to the aforementioned multinational or state-owned company of State Y.
Furthermore, there is almost no evidence of land investment creating jobs, as most projects were export-oriented. The British aid organisation Oxfam confirms that many land acquisitions took place in areas where food was being grown for the local population. Since local smallholders are generally weak and poorly educated, they can hardly defend themselves against the grabbing of the land they use. Government officials sell or lease it, often without even paying compensation.
Land grabbing is also present in ‘passive’ Europe. Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania and Bulgaria are affected, but also the territories of Eastern Germany. Funds and agricultural enterprises from “active” and democratic Europe, i.e. the West, and the Arab Gulf States are the main investors.
We might think that the governments of the affected countries would have the duty to protect their own people from such expropriations. Quite the reverse. They often support land grabbing. Obviously, corruption is often involved. In many countries, however, the agricultural sector has been criminally neglected in the past and multinationals are taking advantage of this under the pretext of remedying this situation.
No let-up in Indian farmers’ protest due to subconscious fear of “crony capitalism”
The writer has analysed why the farmers `now or never’ protest has persisted despite heavy odds. He is of the view that the farmers have the subconscious fear that the “crony capitalism” would eliminate traditional markets, abolish market support price and grab their landholdings. Already the farmers have been committing suicides owing to debt burden, poor monthly income (Rs. 1666 a month) and so on.”Crony capitalism” implies nexus between government and businesses that thrives on sweetheart deals, licences and permits eked through tweaking rules and regulations.
Stalemate between the government and the farmers’ unions is unchanged despite 11 rounds of talks. The farmers view the new farm laws as a ploy to dispossess them of their land holdings and give a free hand to tycoons to grab farmers’ holdings, though small.
Protesters allege the new laws were framed in secret understanding with tycoons. The farmers have a reason to abhor the rich businesses. According to an a January 2020 Oxfam India’s richest one per cent hold over four times the wealth of 953 million people who make up the poorest 70 per cent of the country’s population. India’s top nine billionaires’ Inc one is equivalent to wealth of the bottom 50 per cent of the population. The opposition has accused the government of “crony capitalism’.
Government has tried every tactic in its tool- kit to becloud the movement (sponsored y separatist Sikhs, desecrated Republic Day by hoisting religious flags at the Red ford, and so on). The government even shrugged off the protest by calling it miniscule and unrepresentative of 16.6 million farmers and 131,000 traders registered until May 2020. The government claims that it has planned to build 22,000 additional mandis (markets) 2021-22 in addition to already-available over 1,000 mandis.
Unruffled by government’s arguments, the opposition continues to accuse the government of being “suit-boot ki sarkar” and an ardent supporter of “crony capitalism” (Ambani and Adani). Modi did many favours to the duo. For instance they were facilitated to join hands with foreign companies to set up defence-equipment projects in India. BJP-ruled state governments facilitated the operation of mines in collaboration with the Ambani group just years after the Supreme Court had cancelled the allotment of 214 coal blocks for captive mining (MS Nileema, `Coalgate 2.0’, The Caravan March 1, 2018). Modi used Adani’s aircraft in March, April and May 2014 for election campaigning across the country.
“Crony capitalism” is well defined in the English oxford Living Dictionaries, Cambridge and Merriam –Webster. Merriam-Webster defines “crony capitalism” as “an economic system in which individuals and businesses with political connections and influence are favored (as through tax breaks, grants, and other forms of government assistance) in ways seen as suppressing open competition in a free market
If there’s one”.
Cambridge dictionary defines the term as “ an economic system in which family members and friends of government officials and business leaders are given unfair advantages in the form of jobs, loans, etc.:government-owned firms engaged in crony capitalism”.
A common point in all the definitions is undue favours (sweetheart contracts, licences, etc) to select businesses. It is worse than nepotism as the nepotism has a limited scope and life cycle. But, “crony capitalism” becomes institutionalized.
Modi earned the title “suit-boot ki sarkar” when a non-resident Indian, Rameshkumar Bhikabhai virani gifted him a Rs. 10 lac suit. To save his face, Modi later auctioned the suit on February 20, 2015. The suit fetched price of Rs, 4, 31, 31311 or nearly four hundred times the original price. Modi donated the proceeds of auction to a fund meant for cleaning the River Ganges. `It was subsequently alleged that the Surat-based trader Laljibhai Patel who bought the suit had been favoured by being allotted government land for building a private sports club (BJP returns ‘favour’, Modi suit buyer to get back land, Tribune June21, 2015).
Miffed by opposition’s vitriolic opposition, Ambani’s $174 billion conglomerate Reliance Industries Ltd. Categorically denied collusion with Modi’s government earlier this month. Reliance clarified that it had never done any contract farming or acquired farm land, and harboured no plans to do so in future. It also vowed to ensure its suppliers will pay government-mandated minimum prices to farmers. The Adani Group also had clarified last month that it did not buy food grains from farmers or influence their prices.
Like Modi, both Adani and Ambani hail from the western Indian state of Gujarat, just, who served as the state’s chief for over a decade. Both the tycoons are reputed to be Modi’s henchmen. Their industry quickly aligns its business strategies to Modi’s nation-building initiatives. For instance, Adani created a rival regional industry lobby and helped kick off a biannual global investment summit in Gujarat in 2003 that boosted Modi’s pro-business credentials. During 2020, Ambani raised record US$27 billion in equity investments for his technology and retail businesses from investors including Google and Face book Inc. He wants to convert these units into a powerful local e-commerce rival to Amazon.com Inc. and Wal-Mart Inc. The Adani group, which humbly started off as a commodities trader in 1988, has grown rapidly to become India’s top private-sector port operator and power generator.
Parallel with the USA
Ambani and Adani are like America’s Rockefellers and Vanderbilt’s in the USA’s Gilded Age in the second half of the 19th century (James Crabtree, The Billionaire Raj: a Journey through India’s New Gilded Age).
Modi government’s tutelage of Ambanis and Adanis is an open secret. Kerala challenged Adani’s bid for an airport lease is. A state minister said last year that Adani winning the bid was “an act of brazen cronyism.”
Threat of elimination of traditional markets
Farmers who could earlier sell grains and other products only at neighbouring government-regulated wholesale markets can now sell them across the country, including the big food processing companies and retailers such as WalMart.
The farmers fear the government will eventually abolish the wholesale markets, where growers were assured of a minimum support price for staples like wheat and rice, leaving small farmers at the mercy of corporate agri-businesses.
Is farmers’ fear genuine?
The farmers have a logical point. Agriculture yield less profit than industry. As such, even the USA heavily subsidies its agriculture. US farmers got more than $22 billion in government payments in 2019, the highest level of farm subsidies in the last 14 years, and the corporate sector paid for it. The Indian government is reluctant to give a permanent legal guarantee for the MSP. In contrast, the US and Western Europe buy directly from the farmers and build their butter and cheese mountains. Even the prices of farm products at the retail and wholesale levels are controlled by the capitalist government. In short, not the principles of capitalization but well-worked-out welfare measures are adopted to sustain the farm sector in the advanced West.
Threat of monopsonic exploitation
The farmers would suffer double exploitation under a monopsony (more sellers less buyers) at the hands of corporate sharks. They would pay less than the minimum support price to the producers. Likewise, consumers will have to pay more because the public distribution system is likely to be undermined as mandi (regulated wholesale market) procurement is would eventually cease to exist.
Plight of the Indian farmer
The heavily indebted Indian farmer has average income of only about Rs. 20000 a year (about Rs. 1666 a month). Thousands of farmers commit suicide by eating pesticides to get rid of their financial difficulties.
A study by India’s National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development found that more than half of farmers in India are in debt. More than 20,000 people involved in the farming sector died by suicide from 2018-2019, with several studies suggesting that being in debt was a key factor.
More than 86 per cent of India’s cultivated farmland is owned by small farmers who own less than two hectares of land each (about two sports fields). These farmers lack acumen to bargain with bigger companies. Farmers fear the Market Support Price will disappear as corporations start buying their produce.
Modi sarkar is unwilling to yield to the farmers’ demand for fear of losing his strongman image and Domino Effect’. If he yields on say, the matter of the farm laws, he may have to give in on the Citizenship Amendment Act also. Fund collection in some foreign countries has started to sustain the movement. As such, the movement may not end anytime soon. Unless Modi yields early, he would suffer voter backlash in coming elections. The farm sector contributes only about 15 per cent of India’s $2.9 trillion economy. But, it employs around half its 1.3 billion people.
Brighter Future Waits Ahead
Our footprints on the sands of time are about to be washed up by the next wave. We need to set out new paths, urgently, after all, the real power of wisdom not hidden in knowing it all; but in not knowing enough. Because whatever we may think of our mastery of our own crafts is in reality achieving ‘mastery’ as an acknowledgment of arriving at a point of not knowing enough therefore continuous hunger and craving to search for bigger answers. Otherwise, just a few experts would have been enough for the world. Observe how after two millennia passed, we still have not figured out achieving grassroots prosperity, diversity, tolerance and equalities.
Only if our new wisdom understood will we advance or else stay lost at the beaches. Our new world of today needs new words, new vocabulary, and new narratives to allow correctly knitting the tapestries of our miseries and equally weaving strong and fit enough sails for the coming stormy winds of tomorrow. Muffled in the old-fashioned terms of the past, the double-sided, agenda-centric language used today, already lost its authenticity. Today’s language mummified in bandages of political correctness, already tombed intellectualism and spoken words into deprivations, while whatever enunciated as rehearsed acts via teleprompters is still undecipherable by the global populace. Realities now demand change to honest words to assemble new narratives, to calm restless citizenry to deliver its truthful meaning in bold progressions.
Loudly enunciated are our acceptances of our victory and defeats or we stay silent to our deceptions. There is a brighter future ahead, indeed, but firstly, if we only accept for a moment that our previous attempts on grassroots prosperity creation were failures of sorts, suddenly pandemic recovery appears meaningful. If we also accept our previous trajectory of economic development spanning the last decade was somewhat hit or miss on targets, suddenly, new horizons appear. If we accept also that all our power-skills and rich-knowledge almost maxed out, suddenly brighter futures start to appear. Because, only when we discover a window, find some empty spaces tumble into voids, and chasms new things start to pour in, new ideas flourish, the processes start as enlightenment for new discoveries to commence. No matter where we stand on this earth, a new world has once again brought us on crossroads to face new transformation for brand new adventures
Our limitations on our performance are true measurements to qualify us to enter the cockpits. Historians will recognize this pandemic recovery as a very special moment; declare this era as a small blip in the course of human endeavor and a glitch that ‘possibly’ corrected the role of government administration to allow far more talented and upskilled citizenry at helm to advance. One: The corporate leaderships of technology companies acquired extraordinary smarts many times more powerful over what their own top national political leadership team displays and thus unable to tackle any technology sides of the economy. Two: Digitized and technologically advanced vertical sectors across 200 nations and 10,000 cities shut out national political leaderships and local institutional administrators as obsolete and unprepared to deal with the required speed of response and execution and therefore losing future control of the national economic drivers of national economy in global jurisdictions. Frequent flyers know a lot about flying city to city but definitely are not certified and qualified pilots to fly jumbos around the world. The power play of the digital economy once enters the ocean of platform economies of the world will become extremely specialized, therefore, unless prepared, nation-by-nation, top political leadership and government agencies will lose grip on all such technology advancement games and become simply spectators. Study crypto-currency deployments, Space travel and satellite transportation, AI and trading games, Jack Ma and China over ruling financial sectors as a start.
Our mobilization of hidden resources and talents are proof of what we just learned coming out of fog. For the first time in 100 years, globally speaking, a new world emerges; The pandemic has already prepared the humankind to rediscover “the meaning of life” the purpose of “co-existence” while to the poor of the world “re-learn to survive” and to the rich “re learn to create common good”. Is pandemic germinating our entrepreneurial intellectualism? Is this the kind of transformation humankind has been waiting for over a century? Why is futurism calling for futuristic literacy?
Our billion hungry every night despite two millennia past, we must show our resolve or our negligence will destroy us. The poor of the world; in neglect, misery and almost buried alive, Millionaires anxiously digging their own graves, now exhausted, Billionaires digging deeper to find their own legacy if any and Trillionaires buying up heavens in the clouds to block other voices. The Towers of Babylon going half empty, displaying signs of ‘vacancy’ fires of hell at the base only provide gentle warmth to the upper celestial floors of luxury living. Where sweetness is missing in the bitter medicine of our times ignored but candies alone will never cure; the message in the bottle found on the bloody beaches tossed but the noise of fakery drowns us all. Imagine, if we compressed the last two millennia in two minutes. We just evaporated at the last second. Universe did not even notice.
Wondering, what was the possible message in that bottle, if any?
Beyond the friendship diplomacy between Morocco and Mauritania
Over the past decade or so, many politicians and diplomats have held that the most significant bilateral relationship has been...
The Present Battle over Greece’s Past is Seeding New Battles in its Future
The streets of Greece have been raging with marches, violent clashes between police and protesters, and clandestine violence since the...
The phenomenon of land grabbing by multinationals
Since 2012 the United Nations has adopted voluntary guidelines for land and forest management to combat land grabbing. But only...
The Only Wealth, There’s in Man
The famous quote of Jean Bodinprovide us with an important visualization about the human capital in developing countries, in order...
Hybrid Warfare Against Pakistan: Challenges and Response
The term ‘hybrid warfare’ entered the strategic lexicon in the early 21st century despite having been practiced in various forms...
Twentieth century was a century of great events and developments in every part of human life. The century is marked...
UNEA-5 ends with clear message: act now to tackle planetary crises
The virtual Fifth Session of the UN Environment Assembly ended on Tuesday with a clear message: our fragile planet needs more...
Americas3 days ago
U.S. Climate Policy Could Break the Ice with Russia
South Asia3 days ago
Ancestral Lineage of Hazaras: from Afghanistan to Pakistan
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Caspian: Status, Challenges, Prospects
Americas2 days ago
Rejoining the UNHRC will be the State Department’s first diplomatic mistake
Green Planet3 days ago
Climate politics and the future of carbon emissions
Middle East2 days ago
Back to Strategic Hedging and Mediation in Qatar Foreign Policy after the Gulf Reconciliation
Europe2 days ago
Dara of Jasenovac
Middle East3 days ago
A little acknowledged clause may be main obstacle to revival of Iran nuclear accord