The Unsaturated Reader

Tag: united states

  • A no-nonsense 2025

    Saying out loud ‘2024’ has a certain ring to it. 2024 set out with the grand claim of being the year nearly half the world’s population would go to the polling booths. As we close in on the year, the events of the past eleven months have surely satiated the prophesiers. On July 13th, at a rally in Pennsylvania, we were witness to an attempt to assassinate Trump, a worn-out character then. Now here we are. Kopites at the Anfield (yes we are diverting) wept when Jurgen Klopp during that emotional (fawn-y) afternoon on May 20th bid farewell to Liverpool Football Club. The sentimental ones thought he was irreplaceable,  whose fist bumps thundered down the four stands of the Anfield. But here we are. It looks like the bald Dutch-nobody who was slotted into his place (pun intended) isn’t having a bad time after all. Nor is Mr. Trump. 

    To call 2024 eventful in an abstract sense would be trite, for every year is a treasury of events. The four numerals on paper are defined and remembered by the events that make it; it would be a non-existential semantic nonsense without it. Asymmetry of information from different parts of the world and a fundamental distrust are the themes that stood out to me this year. A “mad-man” at the helm of the most powerful country on earth to top it all. And perhaps his tech-genius square-faced acolyte (also known as X-lord). That the electorate has moved to the right is what political observers would say — from the perspective of centrist political parties, there’s some “catching up” to do (Macron comes to mind). Hardcore leftists will say centrists are radical right-wingers disguised in the garb of neo-progressive-conservatism. Maybe they’re right. Maybe not. It is not productive to dwell on such political (nonsense-) semantics again. Practically, it hasn’t reaped much. In the academia, perhaps some fodder for closed-door theoretical debates in unreadable, unaccessible, lofty journals. 

    The big predictions for 2025 have arrived. Did the predictions for 2024 age well? One thing is clear, while at the start of December last year Trump seemed like a remote possibility, the repercussions of such an incident being discussed in a jiffy as a non-negotiable ritual, now it’s become an indigestible reality. The entertainer has catapulted the masses to clinch a soaring victory. No more “didn’t win the popular vote” nonsense, he may have thought; he showed up at the heavy blue states, like his beloved New York for instance, to tilt the popular vote in his favour. Everything that has happened in 2024 appears hazy in comparison to the results on November 4th, for that has and will change the course of everything that is set to happen and gives everything that came before it a bittersweet flavour — on a lighter note, it is the feeling when kids who don’t quite know each other are thrust into the same room as a burly old man. They do not quite belong, yet history will sew them in the grand narrative of the events that preceded (and shaped) the biggest comeback in political history. 

    We all agree on this: Trump is the mad-man in the room. The theory was hypothesised during the time of Richard Nixon to play up his supposed irrationality and volatility in making decisions so that the communist bloc would scamper to avoid a negative reaction from him by cobbling a mutually non-adversarial settlement. This could happen well again, albeit with his NATO or even Chinese counterparts. But make no mistake, because his close aides (who are now off his books) claim that he is pragmatic despite the occasional crankiness and volatility. He’s a supreme entertainer who speaks ‘truth’ the way masses want to hear it. There’s more to Trump than there is, and 2025 will be a testament to that, be it for the good or the bad. 

    A politically suave deal-maker with an incorrigible belief in transactional alliances. Mr. Trump’s economic principles are clear: he wants to make America great again — harkening back to a non-existent mythical past — he’ll not let the trade partners who are apparently ‘cheating’ on America go scot-free, and his answer to any country that may pose a threat to the American economy? Tariffs. How about meeting America’s skyrocketing debt levels? Tariffs; making up for proposed tax cuts in revenue? Tariffs. As Tom Standage, the Economist’s deputy editor put it, Trump thinks Tariffs are some kind of magic money tree. The less exciting aspect of it is that it’s going to drive up prices for ordinary Americans. Legend has it that many of his supporters figured out what tariffs meant after the election. 

    All in all, the US has become an overstretched power. The gap between what the US is capable of, and the demands placed on it — which is usually expected of it — will grow in 2025. A snarky White House establishment will have much reckoning to do with a non-quite-in-its-control world order. 

    A big player, if not the big player, in that hitherto novel world order is China. To be fair, for all its autocracy and anti-western ideals, China does boast of some good ideas and achievements. That it may have gorged on coal is one thing, but it is at the forefront in the adoption of renewable energy technologies. It is host to the world’s biggest reserves of rare earth. Just how the US closed its doors to exports of semiconductor technology to Beijing, the latter is pepped up for a tit-for-tat. The imposition of tariffs next year could mark the intensification of an already fierce trading rivalry. Companies in the US can still boast of an edge in chip-making — they’re designed in America and manufactured in China’s estranged sibling, Taiwan — but this has only emboldened China to produce better (even less pricier) alternatives. Some of the best semiconductor models in the industry are Chinese. The US may no longer have a monopoly over, simply, chips. 

    It has become trendy for world leaders to proclaim that they must decouple their economies. Often the villain is China. But Europe has also been quietly insisting on becoming independent from the big guy across the Atlantic too. The idealistic centrist Macron has been the most vociferous advocate of it. Alas, only if the efforts to realise it could compare to the grand pronouncements. Decoupling is hard; factories and industries are not lego blocks to be removed and propped up anywhere we please. We are talking about cars and electronics. There are costs, contracts, relations, and even livelihoods at stake. Companies can’t jet off to any country as soon as it shows prospects of a burgeoning, cheap labour force. 

    Therefore, whether we like it or not, it is an interconnected world, with a few destructible walls erected here and there. Europe this year has been strikingly averse to tourism; Catalans with heads in their hands are storming the streets every month or so with anti-tourist protests. The main argument is that tourists are driving up local rental prices; more like rentiers want to lease rooms and apartments to once-in-a-lifetime visitors who are willing to pay more than local inhabitants. In this writer’s opinion, it should be a matter of regulative policies and incentives. The angst is misdirected. But this emotional disequilibrium has cleared the way for new entrants: enter the oil-giants of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has been promoting tourism in a bid to diversify its oil-dependent economy. Along with hosting football world cup, Usyk vs Fury, a 38-something Cristiano Ronaldo… choke, choke, did I mention LIV Golf? 

    Global debts have swelled, in large part fuelled by pandemic-era spending. Many advanced economies have unsustainable deficits (honourable mention: USA) — could this entice a move to austerity? America under Trump will like to remain aloof, oblivious to the wars of the world — some of which it has had a tiny hand in — and as solipsists would have it, focus inwards. This will prompt many countries to jack up their spending on defence. Space is becoming militarised (and cluttered). This turn of events will not dent the US economy or the image of its strong economy however. Expect a capital influx into Uncle Sam’s economy; the dopamine shot of a MAGA homecoming has been irresistible for investors. 

    The fate of Crypto is a little shaky. Artificial intelligence has not (yet) lived up to its hype. More than $1 trillion have been poured into AI infrastructure. The investors are becoming wary . But it could be precisely when the latter becomes disillusioned that the technology might pick up — the same was said of crypto, but again, here we are. It could make or break the future. The bottomline, as with domestic and geo-politics, is to expect the unbelievable. For one, who thought the sponge-bob-faced Elon Musk who starred in a sensible guest role in the mighty Big Bang Theory years ago would head a government department titled ‘DOGE’ with another square-faced (slightly smaller) pretentious eccentric (you-know-who)? 

    Hardcore realism is the fad — why would the plebeian not fancy a bit of combative politics? — with its attendant unnerving social phenomena — hear ‘racismo’? A transactional world than an ideological world; differences in ideology does not necessarily beget a reset in trade ties unlike alignments in the cold war era. Putin doesn’t think the rules apply to him, much to the delight of his autocrat-admirers around the world. The BRICS truly are a motley of strange bedfellows; the only principle that holds them together is their shared suspicion of the West regardless of their internal skirmishes — China was sitting in India’s backyard until very recently a deescalation-agreement of sorts was cobbled up. 

    And lastly, but certainly the irritant Democrats had at the top of their heads during the middle of the year— Biden’s age and his fragility and as with age, his adamance to step down from candidature. In a survey reported by The Economist, more rich/democratic/both countries around the world seem to favour younger leaders. A breath of fresh air, youth, dynamism is being preferred to the same-old-stock of politicians. The notable exception of course is America. Well, if Trump thinks he is as young as JD Vance, and his supporters chime in, who’s stopping him? Coming to the practical aspect of the issue, much of the rich world is ageing and China seeks to work around it by encouraging a silver economy — a market economy that caters to the old. The point is to shift the perception about them being a ‘burden’ on the economy by accommodating them in economically productive ways. Japan’s baby boomers, who’ll cross an average age of 75 next year, can look forward to something similar if the plan materialises as intended. 

    There it is, fresh perspectives for an unrevealed, neatly packed 2025. Change, turbulence, technological optimism (and doomsaying) are expected to prevail, but what unites humans from across the political spectrum is hope. The hope for change. What may be progress for one lot, could be destruction for the other. But it’s hope in its positive connotation that dones different hats that’s the shared emotion. Every person has an ideology, for indifference is also an ideology. And for all that 2024 has given us, we can be certain (and if you’re into that sort of thing,’hope’) that 2025 will be no less interesting, if not more. We are humans and it doesn’t hurt to be incorrigible optimists—at least until you reach the last word of this muse— so here’s to a no-nonsense 2025! 

  • A Trump 2.0 shouldn’t be a surprise

    With just over four days to go for the election, much is at stake for the United States and the world. The numbers are confounding, and the race painfully close. If it’s abortion for Harris, for Trump it’s immigration. Two subjects the Pope is displeased with (as the Pope expressed last month . the former more so than the latter. He exhorted the Catholic faithful to choose the “lesser of two evils.” 

    While it may seem inarguable that many would want someone prudent helming the White House, voter choices go beyond mere testimonies of competency and sound policies. Donald Trump may be all wack and rubbish to the dispassionate observer sitting afar on the other side of the globe. But to his domestic conservative-leaning audience, he’s a messiah. Somehow he has mastered the art of discerning people’s fears and putting them in sensible*, digestible terms even if it may sound stupid. GDP, growth, figures, indices etc are important in governance but they matter less when it comes to the behavioural influences that make up a voter’s mind. It’s easy to blame the economy’s woes on the people who don’t look like you, even if it is neither rational nor ideal — concepts that matter little to those running the Republican campaign. A quick-fix solution by throwing sand on people’s eyes. These are the classic tricks and manoeuvres every demagogue has up their sleeve. 

    Trump has the uncanny ability to translate the banal to one that pricks the collective conscience, like in the case of Haitians allegedly eating pets. His simplistic rhetorical style, that could only vie with that of a middle-schooler, void of any turn of phrase, something similar to rambling, IS for all its shortcomings, appealing to voters. It appeals to the average red-neck American who looks at the glitzy Democratic National Conventions with a feeling of derision and envy. He may be a tycoon, but his assurances speak to countless working-class Americans, home-makers, unemployed youth and reflect their deepest concerns. 

     It would be hard to deny there’s also a tinge of sexism at play here albeit in indiscernible ways since Harris took over. An increasing number of African-Americans, Latinos, even Indian-Americans too have been flocking to the Republican camp.

    As much as one may haver on about the economy, what voters irrespective of their education or financial status immediately understand without any subject-specific prerequisites and might have an opinion about are social issues. The age of wokeism has begun receding and people are becoming more conservative in their social outlook. Had this been only a phenomenon observed in boomers it would have been less a cause for concern. But data suggests that young men are moving to the right (while young women are among the most progressive cohorts). A polarisation in worldviews across genders and age-groups await us. 

    All of which points to why a second Trump presidency is not unthinkable. Harris is also seen as being light on policies and harping on the abortion narrative excessively despite its growing irrelevance for a fair share of the women population. Contrary to conventional thinking, abortion rates have declined since Roe v. Wade in 1971. Nor are all women hinged on the liberal women’s rights outlook. The sneer at ‘childless cat ladies’ has found favour among many middle-aged women in the US, Swifties’ lamentations regardless.

    A second Trump homecoming was touted to be dark and dangerous for the future of the country during the start of Harris’ campaign, and given how she had catapulted into fame after the gigantic convention at Chicago, Trump 2.0 seemed like an impossibility. Now the world is looking at the face of the very same darkness and danger that Americans seem to have unabashedly embraced. MAGA may not have seen its time yet. 

  • World Ahead 2024

    The Economist comes out with its ‘World Ahead’ at the end of every year showcasing its predictions and things to look out for the next year. I have been a regular reader (and viewer) of this annual ritual and the insights have been particularly illuminating. To be fair, they’re not ‘predictions’ in the strict sense of the word but the newspaper’s thoughts on prospective changes for the next three sixty five days have mostly been on point. Or so they make it seem. But in reality, how well have they fared? Does it live up to its hype? 

    The answer is in the affirmative. For instance, the year 2024 was one that was expected to be eventful. And the newspaper did a great job at throwing light on the different issues in different quarters of the world that would the forthcoming twelve months and indirectly weaving them into a narrative that will seem coherent to the eye that sees the big picture. 

    Almost half of the world’s population have gone on (or are going) to vote this year. An incredible statistic but elections are not necessarily a marker of democracy. Sham elections held to gain false legitimacy nationally and internationally have increasingly become the norm under illiberal regimes. The results of US elections are going to be consequential. Europe and Ukraine by extension must prepare for a potential homecoming-of-sorts of a Trump Presidency. China, Trump’s favourite bugbear, is growing albeit slowly. But that doesn’t stop the threat to American unipolarity which has sharply been dwindling. We are witnessing the rise of a multipolar world; America has become an ‘overstretched power’ in the words of Tom Standage, The Economist’s editor. Decoupling with China isn’t easy; manufacturing houses can shift their bases to neighbouring countries like Vietnam and India (China + 1 strategy) but the components are still being sourced from China. And that dependency may not end any time soon. The need to mitigate climate change have driven the West to mineral-rich countries such as Chile, Argentina, Brazil, New Caledonia etc. Middle powers are gaining leverage. As for the global economy—which had been ailing for a while courtesy the pandemic and picked up pace in the wake of the post-pandemic spending boom encouraged by lavish doles and generous spending programmes— it hasn’t cured of the by-large-pandemic-induced inflation curse yet. But long-term high interest rates could affect people and businesses. Artificial intelligence is the latest fad in the town, the new kid in the block about whom some are raving and some are complaining. It can aid the efficient and make a loser of the lazy. It enables faster coding but dishes out faster plagiarism-proof essays too. Powers to orchestrate disinformation campaigns and torpedo job markets can make it less desirable in the immediate future. But Silicon Valley is pumped up; it ain’t waiting for anybody. Zuckerberg is brooding in his idealistic metaverse. The elephant in the room the US keeps trying to ignore, the war in Gaza, may not abate anytime soon despite the killing of several Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. Much of the world outside the US-AIPAC nexus is becoming sympathetic to the cause of Palestine. Their plight are not going unheard. In such a fractured world, with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and the like moving to one end and the allies of the West split somewhere in the middle, becoming increasingly skeptical of the US’ agendas, the prospects for a united world are dim. When a squabble comes calling on the shores of Taiwan, will the US come to the latter’s aid? To Asia it has indeed pivoted, but to anchor itself amid China’s string of pearls is the challenge. Sink may it not, wishes the Washington tsars. 

  • It’s Kamala Harris time, at least for now

    The glistening white smile of the woman born to an African father and an Indian mother who was annointed the vice president of the United States just four years ago is surely something everybody will have noticed. It fuelled a spate of online memes, gifs, and clips. “Kamala is brat” bawled the famous singer charli xcx the day after she was nominated by President Biden after the latter took the (late) decision to step down. A jubilant Kamala Harris grooving with some pretty intricate steps to the beats of a catchy music with kids playing around is something that’ll delight the eye. If officially nominated by the Democratic Party (which warrants the Obamas’ endorsement who unusually have been holding out) she’ll be the first Black, Afro-American, Indian-American woman to be nominated. And if the results are kind to her on November 4th, she may well make history.

    Critics describe her as being ‘dangerously liberal’. One of ultra-conservatives’ biggest obsessions, abortion laws, will ratchet up straight to the top of her agenda by virtue of her being a woman alone. Harsher voices in the liberal mainstream allege that she lacks the charisma to take on Trump. And crucially that she lacks time to consolidate the voter base of the Democratic party. While there’s a partial truth to these claims, it is not unresolvable. She may lack the charisma of a political personality but she has the intelligence and vigour to demolish the lies of the 80-edging demagogue. Her qualities as a litigator and a prosecutor will come in handy in the fiery debates we can expect between the two candidates in the months to come. 

    Another shortcoming perceived by the skeptical few within the democratic party is that since she hails from a state, California, that is a democratic stronghold, that she does not bring a swing state with her. This will have to be remedied by being cautious about the vice-presidential pick. John Shapiro, the popular governor of Pennsylvania, is best placed to take up the candidature. 

    “You think you fell out of a coconut tree?” is one of her popular phrases that became viral after a speech she gave in 2023 in which she talks about how her mother “gave them [the kids] a hard time”. At one point, on a philosophical note, she said, “I don’t know what’s wrong with you young people, you think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you,” — which on the face of it is accurate, despite netizens bleating about her speech being ‘crazy’. At a broader level, we’re also shaped by the socio-political-cultural context we were born into. Like light shining through the chink of a curtain, it gives us a peak into her identity and the struggles she has had to deal with to make it to where she is today. 

    Critics like the British Etonian public-school-boy Rory Stewart will make a fuss about her candidacy being ‘coronated’ of sorts. That argument is a tad underwhelming primarily due to the paucity of time. Holding an open contest in search of a nominee would in fact throw the party into a disarray, scrambling for funds with no time being devolved to the actual presidential campaign, while Donald Trump gets all the time in the world to consolidate his base. 

    Had Biden stepped down in March, the circumstances would’ve looked different, paving the way for the new candidate to fully establish themselves in the scene, like Lyndon Johnson did several decades ago. A reluctant Joe Biden for well over two weeks had been defying calls from prominent members of the party and donors to step down from the race who had been (rightly) concerned about his fitness to run for the office. Four months is not a lot of time, but can reap results if utilised to counter the threat posed by Trump and the ultra-conservative Republicans through effective information-based campaigning. For Trump, lies galore, and truth is the only formidable weapon, at least in this writer’s perspective, that can trump lies. While we sink to our couches to see what becomes of the Democratic party’s official candidature, it’s Kamala Harris’ time, at least for now. There’s much to take pride in, and much to be relieved about, again, at least for now. 

  • Trump’s attempted assassination and America’s murky political atmosphere 

    Trump’s would-be assassinator really did us a service. The already charged political atmosphere in America has now heated up not least due to the conspiracy theories spun out of the Republican mill. Those on the leftist bandwagon on the other hand have gone so far as to claim that it’s been staged, “not a real bullet, you see; a silly pellet”, “the blood should have splattered across his face, just a streak, not convincing” . While factions are getting factionalised further in what is now a routine theatrical campaign mode for Americans there are comparisons with Trump’s apparent heroism in hitting the fist pump amid the chaos as the secret service scrambled to protect him, his ears bleeding, and Biden’s mental and physical fragility, a fact exemplified by his struggle to put together a coherent phrase and climb two stairs. The picture that was clicked by an AFP photographer which has Trump doing the fist pump with the American flag flying in the background is likely to galvanise his support base, and possibly draw in the neutrals. It sets a terrific scene. And gives us a insider perspective into what Hillary Clinton has claimed is his “animal instinct” — the ability to sense every twitch of nerve, understand the weaknesses of the opponent, put himself in the limelight, and real good street-style common sense. His words as the fist was raised were “fight, fight, fight”. Setting aside the perceptible gallantry of the phrase, what’s exactly is this “fight” against? It’s interesting given that it is Trump and his acolytes that had endorsed the apparently “patriotic” rioters to storm the capitol hill. In the last day’s assassination attempt which is unfortunate and troubling for the US, Trump has managed to turn the narrative around him. He is posturing as the one fighting against the establishment.  Even when the bullet pierced his ear, a part of him was sure that he was not going to let go of this opportunity, an opportunity like no other. He has captured the moment.

    On the other side of the political divide we have the frail Biden who can’t speak sensibly for ten minutes straight. The Democratic establishment that has been protecting him for weeks with cover-up and lies stands exposed. From calling Kamala Harris “Vice President Trump” to addressing Ukraine President Zelensky as “President Putin” (even worse) there’s no reason to think that this octogenarian will be capable of leading the government. The septuagenarian Trump may look like a shabby old man, but his will supersedes his physical deficiencies. And he strongly believes that he can beat sleepy-Joe. 

    While Trump’s assassinator may have done ironically done us a service by spiking the political atmosphere, hard-line republicans can’t belt up. Blame has been heaped on the Government for not adequately providing him with security cover. While this claim can be disputed, there are serious concerns about the functioning of the security service in the country. Multiple assassinations against sitting presidents have been attempted in the past — worse, when Obama was the President a shot into the White House went unheeded for four days dismissing it as noise from a nearby construction project, until a house keeper pointed out a broken window. The service has been riled with corruption and ineptitude. This is concerning in a country where arms are wielded freely, so much that we have reached a stage where a twenty-year old can ponder about shooting down a former president running for election. Gun violence is at a historic high and several firing incidents are reported every week. 

    What might have prompted Thomas Crooks’ to carry a rifle to the Pennsylvania rally? What might have persuaded a high-school graduate to turn into a sniper on that odd day? The case makes for an interesting investigation as the boy has been found to be a locally registered member of the Republican party. He is described as being bright at “math” and a “conservative” by his former school-mates. What the truth holds for this odd tale of attempted political murder and for the country as a whole and the tumultuous time it’s been going through remains to be seen. A few things are certain: the killer undertook a dangerous path in his pursuit for killing a popular, polarising figure, succumbing to a counter-fire in the immediate aftermath, and a precious life was lost, that of an unassuming rally-goer who may have never imagined this fate when he stepped out of his house. Trump had been scoring more in poll-ratings after the depressing debate and during the days in the run up to the assassination. Now his re-election, the prospect of a dangerous Trump 2.0 at the White House, on November 5th looks increasingly probable. 

  • The Ticking Bomb in Taiwan

    If there’s one country that deserves to be recognised as one by all states alike, and appreciated for its bravery – an apt example for why size does not determine might – it is Taiwan. Only a handful of countries have established diplomatic ties with Taiwan, the likes of which include four small Pacific islands (possibly wary of their big neighbour’s economic and military clout), a few Central American and Caribbean nations. Honduras is the latest nation to have switched recognition to China. Those that relent to having Taiwan’s embassies opened in their countries, would rather not call it by its name. “Chinese Taipei”, they call it for fear of antagonising the big red power, whose words threatening to cut trade ties would mark the demise of their economies. Even otherwise, China’s leverage has been growing. For instance, last week Saudi Arabia called upon China to help broker a deal with their long-standing rival (and nuclear-capable) Iran. The Saudis could’ve been sending a signal to the West that they have other options to count on if the West remains blasé about taming Iran. How far this signalling has been provocative to the West is questionable given that the US still commands significant authority in the region, one that’ll take China many years, if not never, to cross over.

    Politically, Taiwan may be in a fraught situation. But economically, China needs Taiwan, as much as the latter needs the former. China considers Taiwan its own — a recalcitrant son who fled his family influenced by the western mythic but who nevertheless needs some caning. For seventy years, they oversaw something of a peace that was always on the verge of falling through. China never lets go off any opportunity of intimidating Taiwan, even if it had no reason to. In a show of force last year, China conducted exercises circling Taiwan —military muscle-flexing around an island that is just about 0.37% of its size — following US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s contentious visit.

    As this blogger writes this article, Taiwan’s current president Tsai Ing-wen has touched down New York calling US-Taiwan relations “closer than ever.” It is only a matter of time before China steps up its now routine military forays across the Taiwan strait pointing out the ‘dangerous’ aspirations of the island democracy. But more condemnation would only bind the Taiwanese stronger. Turns out a majority in Taiwan were supportive of Pelosi’s visit. Despite the KMT’s calls for unison with the mainland in the name of ethnicity, more and more members of the self-governing island would refrain from identifying themselves with those in the mainland as the country grows more authoritarian under Xi Jinping. Only time can predict what comes off this tangled and menacing hate-love relationship that has become the locus of a renewed geopolitical tussle years after the last great power confrontation that drew the curtains in 1990. The clamour for independence is becoming too loud for the Chinese Communist Party to bear, yet the trade and tourism ties forged by the KMT before the takeover of the Tsai Ing-Wen in 2016 gives hope to those urging on a diplomatic conciliation with China, than an ugly confrontation that would see all major powers intervene. An economically well-to-do nation does not have much to worry, especially when it has firms around the world knocking on its doors for chips. Its semiconductor manufacturing success is one that’s difficult to emulate and which its closely guards, establishing a name for itself in the global arena. It is in the interest of the Chinese to keep animosity at bay (literally) and not attempt unpleasant flexing around the island. In a country that harps on the call for independence day in and day out, this is the most provocative thing it can do. The status quo however doesn’t help much either. The best option is perhaps is to leave Taiwan to its own, and gradually yield to the will of the people. Such an action however demands a little less ego, and a little more thoughtfulness.

  • To engage or not? The Afghan discomfiture

    Amid the tiresome process of clearing the mess that had accumulated on my desktop, a note sizing not more than 1 kilobit caught my attention. The date next to the filename read ‘2nd August’. Curious to uncover the crap I had written in it – given that I customarily tend to scribble redundant thoughts that cross my mind like how a bulbul wings its way into a Sapien’s home, by chance, however — I clicked on it. A sentence hardly fitting a line did I find; it said, ‘A negotiated power-sharing agreement is the best-case scenario for #Afghanistan.’ Reading this precisely a month later, I felt unusually flustered than amused — which I would have otherwise been — at my vain prognostication. 

    For all we know, Afghanistan may have met its Waterloo on the morning of the 15th of August. Mayhaps, we are right; or going by the most implausible prophecy, we could well be wrong. ‘Amnesty’ to be extended to former government officials, a recognition of female education – feigned or not — have been the pallid assurances meted out by the Taliban in the wake of the huge outflux of frightened citizens, — the swarming of the airports proving itself a testament to the same. Reports float around of the deaths, injuries that took place on the premises of the visibly overwhelmed Kabul airport. Posters of women being scrapped from salons, tailor shops, and Islamist videos being aired in the place of soap operas, are the other indicative concomitants of the onset of the Taliban regime, which is at the helm after a physically daunting two decades of operations. That of Taliban fighters skitting about driving toy cars, no less. 

    To think their character has metamorphosed into something of a liberal overlord seems difficult to swallow, for these were the very claims – stability and security —the Taliban had made in the 1990s. The aftermath of the bloody civil war and their surge to power needn’t be repeated. The Gordian knot that awaits the Afghans is only too gruesome to say it out loud. 

    As the Taliban scramble to finalise their new regime – which they assure, to be more accommodating than it was during their first stint in power – the ageless question of ‘what next?’ seems to me a superfluous query, how much ever my reader is led to form a conflicting conclusion by dint of the enormous accounts on the said title pouring incessantly on the web. The apposite question or rather worry, at this point in time, would be as to how the world community prepares to go about it. 

    With the disorientation that comes with the thought of the Taliban forming a government next week, one that is equally disconcerting is of having to recognise a Taliban that holds a terrible human rights record. To accord a morally decrepit bunch legitimacy and recognition in the international arena is indeed unthinkably harrowing, if ethical standards in the conduct of geopolitics are anything to go by. 

    So much so for ethical standards that have universal validation and that which weeds out the ‘bad’ ‘rogue’ states and their ‘wrong’ ‘aggressive’ deportments – but who devises these? Indubitably, the United States, on the strength of being the sole superpower, has assertively, and at the same time discreetly, imposed a global moral standard that no other lesser nation has found supercilious enough to challenge for it has assumed the role of a boarding-school matron, keeping us to our toes, with the galling awareness of anything that can go wrong —albeit by dint of cultural differentials— lest it should draw the ire of the matron-lord of the world. 

    Nations, more often than not, employ, or devise to their passions, moral arguments for pivoting their national interests or in justifying otherwise unremarkable ventures; ten points if it reminds one of Obama’s vindication for the war in Afghanistan, terming it “the good war,” – to what extent ‘good’ it had been we are indeed a witness of, after the US left unexcitable on August 31st. The writer is not making a case for doubting the credibility of these arguments, but it’s rather their nature and the roughage that feeds these judgments in the first place. Historical experience tells us that moral judgments are often modified, amplified, and concocted at uncertain times, by great powers and coalitions, and are an effective pawn in their hands, no less potent than, to take an overblown example, a puppet state. And it is these states who dictate obliquely the moral order, which it expects culturally and thus morally divergent states to follow. Moral universalism then, we may say, is to be taken with a pinch of salt. A subscription to a particular moral system, which our conscience deems right, may nevertheless bring no harm to you or the larger society in which you thrive; however, by virtue of being rational agents, we are committed to unearthing the reason that underlies these norms. On these grounds, the pertinent issue herein becomes of how we’ve arrived at a stage where we call them morally undesirable, and of whether it’s justified in weening them the sole object of our judgment. The Taliban is undoubtedly an immoral, incorrigible, clique of Jihadists, who represent the worst of conservative emotions of the rural elements that fringe the Afghan society, and who have been vehemently opposing every reform brought in by waves of Afghan rulers. In parrying these reforms, the conservative sections found an ally, first in the British after the final Anglo-Afghan war in which King Amanullah effectually warded off the Anglicans, and later in the United States of America, that nurtured the Mujahideens lined along the Pakistan-Afghan border, from whom would arise the Taliban in the 90s, and of course, the Northern Alliance, though lionised for putting up a brave resistance against the Taliban, as a matter of fact, measures no less than the Taliban in its religious and female rights convictions. 

    Moral consternations aside, there are legal challenges too in recognising the Taliban; in the context of international relations, as a legitimate international actor. Recognition of a government that has acquired power through legal means – setting aside questions of undemocratic procedures — isn’t one that surfaces in standard debates for the problems contained therein are too narrow to be plodded through. But a transfer of power achieved through extra-legal methods is one that stokes many a heated vindications and rejoinders. The Taliban’s seizure of power through sheer force, by ousting the sitting government through unconstitutional means, is a plain manifestation of such a case. That the Taliban now effectively controls the state territory and would do so hereafter with a reasonable degree of permanence, with some sections of the population acquiescing in the rule, is doubtless, and as per this conventional doctrine of international law, the Taliban may be recognised as the Afghans’ rightful representatives. But complementary to this doctrine is of whether the de facto government is the legitimate representative of the people whom it claims to govern; in other words, of whether it acquired power through democratic means. And as may be presumed from this criterion, the Taliban squarely falls outside the realm of international recognition. Still and all, it might be well said that there are sets of principles and doctrines enunciated in theory but materialises reluctantly in practice. With two Security Council permanent members – Russia and China – having expressed their explicit willingness to work with the new Afghan regime provided the latter does not lend its soil for the harvest of terroristic exploits, at the end of the day, it is up to the governments to follow their nose. The Trump administration legitimised them back in February 2020, so in a way, if the global hegemon had implicitly recognised them a year and a half back, it is only a matter of time before governments around the world, especially those residing in the adjacent regions, proceed forth to initiate negotiations. The grave implications of faltering at this stage would return to haunt these countries, especially India, if one is even modestly cognisant of the grave implications a potential epidemic of terrorist activities — the last epidemic we need — would hold for these countries. 

    To be sure, the other options left with us are of militarily fighting the Taliban and of isolating and sanctioning them; Washington has frozen $9.5 billion of Afghan funds in US banks, and the International Monetary Fund too has withheld its funds. The latter is a disastrous recourse in itself if one can take stock of what had transpired from 1996 to 2001. Thus to the looming portentous question of whether to engage or not, the answer is and should be in affirmative. State socialisation isn’t impossible to pull off; the fact that such a possibility exists itself is a vindication of how entities, individuals and states, can transform their dispositions. This writer excuses herself from making a justification for the Taliban having changed their mentality; the potential entrants of the new government defy every such claim. it is incumbent upon us to dissuade the mind from descending into quixotic expectations of moral sensibilities from the entities we interact with, for the stakes are too high. India simply cannot afford to be the moralistic messiah at this point, how much ever dashed hopes this might beget. Moreover, if we resist engaging with the ‘rogue elements’, how are conflicts to be resolved? Ghani seems to have overlooked this fact when he said that he would not yield to a power-sharing agreement. The Taliban are not pariahs from some distant land; they are ethnic-Pashtun Islamist nationalists whose sentiments resonate with that of many conservative afghans. 

    The Taliban of 2021 appear a dozen times more powerful than in the 90s. Wielding more strength than ever with the capture of the laudably recalcitrant Panjshir valley, time seems to have cleared the way for the Taliban to rule unhindered, without the fear of external forces like the United States. It won’t be an easy ride however. The ethnic, religious, and political antilogies that afflict the ‘graveyard of empires’ weaving an unfathomable mesh of oppugnant identities are too tight and disharmonious to be ignored. The possibility of a revival of the rebel fighters that reside on the mountains loom large, and is as threatening as a foreign invasion; a menace of another Taliban-like grouping, in terms of disruptive powers, for the new regime. The holes in their veil of inclusivity are widening and it won’t be long before the pall itself gets torn apart. Twenty years of a global war on terror had caused enough harm for a lifetime for the afghans. A pragmatic Taliban could do well in amending the fractured state. But ‘pragmatic’ is the word here. 

  • On China

    An increasingly “assertive”, “overly ambitious” China posing a “threat”, a “systemic challenge” to the “international rules-based order” — these are the common tropes that fill most headlines these days. But how far do these claims hold water? In line with the perceptions of some commentators, is China acting too “hasty”? Does its recourse to a “muscular” deportment testify to its far-fetched ambitions? Are its misadventures at Eastern Ladakh merely one of those tactics it is implicitly known to embrace during times of internal crises and dissensions? Seeking answers to these and many other contentious questions might help us gain a perspective — in foregrounding the actualities of the realpolitik at play and thus, with even more prudence, in judging the case scenario unfolding in the international arena. 

    As is well known, the strongest challenge to America’s global supremacy comes from China, the world’s second-largest economy; and in acknowledging this, the US is availing itself of a stratagem etched on the pages of its old playbook — akin to Truman’s doctrine but now with a substitution in its subject place — that of containing China. This will, however, prove to be difficult. Whatsoever may be masqueraded as the case for the tensions — from cyberattacks to Xinjiang to Hong Kong — and the orotund rhetoric that seems to protrude from the leaders of both the states, the bittersweet truth is that the tenor of this economically interdependent world may bode ill for their schemes; for the one who aspires to become a superpower and the other that seeks to constrain it. 

    China’s successes over the previous decade are not without credence certainly, howsoever it may be hard to swallow. From crippling poverty, amassing some 97.5 percent of its population in 1978, to ending it altogether in 2020, in concert with Xi’s promises, its bustling tech industry, now its military prowess, its achievements are too lofty to ignore. The factors that underpin this concocted rise lie in the years of insular hard work that predate its achievements, as evinced by the Chinese proverb, “hiding brightness, biding time.” At the helm of it all was however a band of leaders, that overlooked and steered its course, while leaving patent traces of that one party’s ideology — the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) — and above all — either in rectifying or upholding — the philosophy of Mao Zedong. 

    The CPC

    Drawing its inspiration from Marx, Lenin, and notably, the idealism of the May Fourth Movement, the CPC took birth on July 1, 1921, in Shanghai, mostly owing to the efforts of two Chinese intellectuals Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu. The Party was premised on the objective of securing “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” Dismayed by the rancid corruption that plagued the Kuomintang government, the party posed, figuratively, as a messiah to the young Chinese — a decent alternative in all respects.

    In 1927, all hell broke loose when a civil war erupted between the Nationalists — led by Chiang Kai Shek — and the communists. The Kuomintang government massacred thousands of workers and CPC members in Shanghai. In the four encirclement campaigns that succeeded this — which was launched by the nationalists to batter them up— the communists withstood and sometimes deftly evaded all hostilities through their guerrilla tactics. Yet in the next campaign, Chiang’s troops were prepared for more than what one could ask for, while unpropitiously, the CPC disposed of the guerrilla warfare in favour of conventional techniques — all owing to Mao’s oust from the party following the massacre of thousands of peasants in Chiang’s siege of communist bases; consequently, the communists lost it. 

    But the communists didn’t plan to call it a day yet. Like with every great venture, the one by the nationalists’ too (imperceptibly) boasted of some loopholes — which the communists made use of with an extraordinary hand of dexterity, to embark on what is infamously called as ‘The Long March’. Spanning almost a year, from October 1934 to October 1935, the march was an arduous 12,000 km trek from southeastern to northwestern China, culminating with the establishment of a military base at the Shaanxi Province. Though more than 85000 troops had pledged to stay the course, only a paltry 8000 made it. Nevertheless, the march, as heroical and mythical as it gets, propelled the re-emergence of Mao.  

    With Mao becoming the leader of the CPC once again, the party’s eyes were on fighting the Japanese in the northwest, with a hope thereby of securing the faith of the people; and admittedly, fought gallantly, did they, for a decade. The CPC thus became credible forerunners of the movement against imperialism in the eyes of the Chinese masses. Subsequently, the civil war resumed and carried on until 1945. It would not be long before the Nationalists are defeated that the People’s Republic of China would be proclaimed with Mao at its helm, and the party, brimming with a membership of 20 million — now the world’s largest political party.  

    In the same year, the Radio Beijing announced: ’The People’s Liberation Army must liberate all Chinese territories, including Tibet, Xinjiang, Hainan and Taiwan.’ The foreign imperialist powers had made an ebauche of its borders with unilateral invasions and annexations, and so the need to consolidate its territories was profoundly felt, which remained on the party agenda for the first two decades of its rule. The fervour of these objectives is felt to this day, most vividly evinced in the Galwan valley India-China clash that took place in June last year. 

    Failed Reforms

    The most well-known case that fits the aforesaid title is that of “The Great Leap Forward” campaign. Chairman Mao, in 1958, initiated agricultural and economic reforms, intending to replicate the Soviet model of industrialisation. It emphasised manpower than material incentives in the hope that this would help China surpass the technical process of industrialisation, thus bequeathing a full-bore solution to their agricultural and industrial problems. But they missed out on a few caveats. Although it ensured the collectivisation of agriculture, the ground realities were too harsh for the effectuation of the project. The fact — to which they remained deaf — that it was simply inapplicable to a densely populated country with almost zero agricultural surplus itself proved that it was too ambitious a project. Compounded by three consecutive years of natural calamities that left millions of people starving and dying, the programme began to be repealed by 1960, whence the Soviet too withdrew their aid. Dissensions within the party undoubtedly followed this where one set of leaders chalked its failure up to the red-tape bumbledom, while some went even further denouncing the whole ideal of appealing to labour alone. As audacious as it sounds, it is often said that Mao had initiated the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” against the latter set, which too ended on an unremarkable note. In this campaign, many malcontents among the leaders were temporarily purged from the party and in its stead the “Red Guards” were formed whose job was to eject the ideologically impure and elitist elements of the society, which he fathomed as posing a threat to his authority and vision. However, if truth be told, the only end that the revolution brought was the disillusionment of the masses with the government altogether. The disposal of the “Four Olds” metamorphosed into something of a game of political manoeuvre. 

    New Leadership

    With Mao, his quixotic cultural revolution too fell to death. But the sun rose on another land, or rather, on another ideological sphere, though a subset of the former — “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” It was the time when the CPC became a reformist stronghold, primarily under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping. In contrast to Mao’s reckless emulation of the Marxist-Leninist model, Deng’s theory was one adapted to Chinese circumstances, pivoted on the objects of throwing doors open to foreign investment and private businesses — a pragmatic strategy to bolster the economy, coming in as and when the time demanded it. This was not the inception of an era of development that is characteristic of the west, but rather one that allowed capital to thrive alongside a centrally planned economy. Resuscitated the economy did it; began growing at a rate never witnessed in the previous decades and the surplus of the same was used to revive the agrarian sector, in which most of the Chinese had been employed. But the augmented growth also brought with it a few offshoots — the enlargement of the wealthy elites, the very class Mao intended to wipe out a decade before. Hereupon, the creation of a truly egalitarian society, as envisaged by the founders, was out of the question. 

    The Tiananmen Square

    It was the hub of a student-led uprising — one that could’ve transmuted into a counter-revolution, as in the case of the nationalist movement that had undergone a sea change in the late 1920s with the fracturing of relations between the communists and the elite landowning class within the Kuomintang government that subsequently propelled the so-called counter-revolution on the part of the communists against Chiang Kai-Shek and his compatriots; only that this time it was by a bunch of young people clamouring for a western-style democracy. 

    The doomsayers may yell bloody murder, but the accolades to China’s name defies its purported cataclysm: world’s second-largest economy, biggest manufacturing base, hunger and poverty eradicated in totality with a life expectancy of 77 years, just two years short of the United States — in retrospect, this is a monumental achievement given China’s huge population, most falling verging old age, while its counter-part India lurks at 70-71 years. The economy has now grown to $15 trillion and is set to overtake the US economy by 2030. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” certainly seems to have borne fruits. 

    For sure the United States does have a challenger to its hegemony, but it’s certainly not one that would invade countries (as in Iraq), impose inhuman economic sanctions (Cuba), or even exude a mere threat of these, at their whims and fancies. A confluence of Daoism and Confucianism, socialism in China pines for harmony over conflict — a testimony to Xi’s words when he asserted on the centenary celebrations of the CPC that never has China subjugated or invaded other lands. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) exemplifies the model of clout China seeks to have over the world, a step up to its becoming a superpower — a status that it wishes to attain through “peaceful means.” 

    A couple of hindrances lie in its path, however, the most pressing of which is that of US-backed Taiwan, human rights issues in Hong Kong and Xinjiang — for which the western-allied nations have imposed the most stringent sanctions — maritime dispute and the hitherto unresolved territorial dispute with India. 

    The hotly contested waters of the South China Sea are claimed by several southeast Asian nations such as Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam along with China. The latter has been constructing artificial islands in South China, in an attempt to make a claim over these waters. China may have its way, but merely asserting sovereignty over these human-made islands does not amount to a legal territorial claim, at least as far as UNCLOS is concerned. This is also the reason why the US and the UK have been strolling through the seas — to prevent China from legally claiming the arena.

    Too hasty?

    To return to a question we had posed in the beginning: that China is being too hasty, trying to gobble more than what it can swallow, is a misguided notion. Its tactical display of assertiveness is one driven by pragmatic considerations — the time has indeed come for china to get out of its insularised space; if not now, it may prove too costly for it. 

    Daft hopes

    The scenario is glib for China at the moment, howsoever puffed up the predictions of it becoming a superpower in popular editorial columns may be. At the very least, it can become a peer of the United States, tiptoeing on an asymmetrical bipolarity that bodes in favour of the US in the decades to come. China trudges far behind the United States, strategically as well as militarily. A Blue Water Navy that would patrol the oceans is already underway but it would take many years before china’s naval capacity poses a challenge to the US’s mighty force. Moreover, a turbulent Southeast Asia adds to its problems, with all coalescing, despite their differences, to ward off the bigger menace – a hegemonic China – for which they look towards America. 

    That said, there may be limits to how much China can effectively compete with the United States if it seeks to assert itself in all spheres, but the tide cannot be halted, and someday, even if it takes a century from now, the gap between the indisputable superpower and the ‘rising’ superpower will peter out. 

    The best bet for the US to stymie the rise of China is to effectuate the creation of a multi-polar Asia, one that pertains to the likes of India and Japan, most haughtily flaunted in the establishment of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Although the US cannot expect India’s policies to conform to its resolve, keeping the Sino-Indian rivalry intact is an imperative. India will be, unquestionably, drawn into the ruckus; the more China enhances its regional superiority, the more the anguish for India. 

    The road ahead for China needs to be mown, and how it shall fare in its dubiously incredible goals remain to be seen. Yet, if truth be told, the time has indeed come for China to vaunt its “brightness.”