This Mother's Day, it would be worth spending a minute or two praying for those mothers, who work just as hard as ours but don't get the flowers and 'thank you's they deserve.
A Save the Children survey puts Afghanistan as the worst place to be a mother - though I disagree and would put the Democratic Republic of Congo - also on the list - in that spot.
Norway tops the list owing to healthy sex-ratios, best male-female wage ratios and enviable maternity leave policies. The United States fares worst of all industrialized nations because of its poor policies towards expecting mothers.
Here is the full FP Photo essay featuring the 10 worst places to be a mother: Afghanistan, Niger, Guinea-Bissau, Yemen, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Mali, Sudan, Central African Republic.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/06/the_worst_places_to_be_a_mother?page=0,0
Saturday, 7 May 2011
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Should Economists Help Authoritarian Regimes?
I was rather enraged when Sir Howard Davies announced his resignation from the position of Director of the London School of Economics (my alma mater) on account of links that had been exposed between the School and the Gaddafi regime.
So why was I enraged? Afterall, if the School had sinned, someone responsible for its decisions ought to have resigned. In that light, the Davies resignation sounds logical.
But, NO! I was enraged because Davies shouldn't have resigned because he advised the Libyan regime on the British government's request! And even if he should have resigned, he should certainly not have resigned alone. Gaddafi has been in power since French President Sarkozy was 14, U.S. President Obama was 8 and British Prime Minister David Cameron was 3! That's how long the three NATO big-wigs have got this wrong. So why should Davies alone resign and all these other people stay in their positions of greater power and influence? Perhaps, Davies's resignation was a personal act of selflessness, perhaps it was forced by the media or the British government. But didn't we try to plug a sink-hole to save the sinking Titanic? His resignation stinks of Western hypocrisy in dealing with regimes like Gaddafi's.
I came across an excellent article on Project Syndicate. Titled 'Saif Qaddafi and Me', Dani Rodrik explores the role of advisors to authoritarian regimes citing the example Davies among many others. Now you decide for yourselves if Davies is guilty as charged or if someone from the British Government ought to have resigned instead, if at all.
"The conundrum that advisers to authoritarian regimes face is akin to a long-standing problem in moral philosophy known as the dilemma of “dirty hands.” A terrorist is holding several people hostage, and he asks you to deliver water and food to them. You may choose the moral high ground and say, “I will never deal with a terrorist.” But you will have passed up an opportunity to assist the hostages. Most moral philosophers would say that helping the hostages is the right thing to do in this instance, even if doing so also helps the terrorist."
Full article: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik55/English
So why was I enraged? Afterall, if the School had sinned, someone responsible for its decisions ought to have resigned. In that light, the Davies resignation sounds logical.
But, NO! I was enraged because Davies shouldn't have resigned because he advised the Libyan regime on the British government's request! And even if he should have resigned, he should certainly not have resigned alone. Gaddafi has been in power since French President Sarkozy was 14, U.S. President Obama was 8 and British Prime Minister David Cameron was 3! That's how long the three NATO big-wigs have got this wrong. So why should Davies alone resign and all these other people stay in their positions of greater power and influence? Perhaps, Davies's resignation was a personal act of selflessness, perhaps it was forced by the media or the British government. But didn't we try to plug a sink-hole to save the sinking Titanic? His resignation stinks of Western hypocrisy in dealing with regimes like Gaddafi's.
I came across an excellent article on Project Syndicate. Titled 'Saif Qaddafi and Me', Dani Rodrik explores the role of advisors to authoritarian regimes citing the example Davies among many others. Now you decide for yourselves if Davies is guilty as charged or if someone from the British Government ought to have resigned instead, if at all.
"The conundrum that advisers to authoritarian regimes face is akin to a long-standing problem in moral philosophy known as the dilemma of “dirty hands.” A terrorist is holding several people hostage, and he asks you to deliver water and food to them. You may choose the moral high ground and say, “I will never deal with a terrorist.” But you will have passed up an opportunity to assist the hostages. Most moral philosophers would say that helping the hostages is the right thing to do in this instance, even if doing so also helps the terrorist."
Full article: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik55/English
Thursday, 3 March 2011
What do Russians think of Gorbachev?
Mikhail Gorbachev turned 80 on 2nd March 2011. His birthday has become an occassion for much introspection, revival of old historical debates and statements of hatred against the leader, who although hailed by the West evokes a very mixed reaction at home. Many still blame him for the murder of the Soviet empire and for the economic unrest his perestroika years brought in. 
My personal take: He is obviously a great man – no doubt about it. It takes a different kind of power and grace to allow criticism of oneself in a country starving for democracy and to step down without bloodshed. He always had the option to nuke dissenting Eastern bloc countries and his own rebellious Soviet republics (only Ukraine and Kazakhstan had nuclear facilities on Soviet soil in addition to Russia). In that, he did not just dismantle the Iron Curtain, avoid a Third World War, but also, willingly, averted a nuclear catastrophe. Where I feel he went wrong was economic policies. He ‘let go’ far too soon. Decades of communism cannot be fixed with a few months, even years of perestroika. I feel he and the Kremlin should have had sounder macroeconomic policies and done more hand-holding as in the cases of South African transition after apartheid or Indian economic reforms after the 1991 bankruptcy.
Here are a couple of interesting excerpts of what some prominent Russians think of Gorbachev. The article appeared on the Russia & India Report website. Original source: Vlast magazine.
"Valery Semyonov, Vice Chairman of the regional parliament of the Krasnoyarsk Region. There would have been no changes in the country hadn’t it been for Gorbachev, and Russia would not be part of the international community now. He gave us freedom to think, move and travel abroad. The only thing that cannot be justified is the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Vladimir Pekhtin, First Deputy Head of the United Russia party in the State Duma. I believe that Mikhail Gorbachev is a demagogue and traitor. He unleashed perestroika to meet his own political ambitions, and he ruined the country shamefully. And now, he speculates in a dignified tone on how efficient the president, government and United Russia are. It doesn’t take much to criticize and advise, but when Gorbachev had a real opportunity to care about Russia’s well-being, he not just missed this chance, but he plunged the country into chaos and absolute decline. We are still dealing with the negative implications of his reforms."
My personal take: He is obviously a great man – no doubt about it. It takes a different kind of power and grace to allow criticism of oneself in a country starving for democracy and to step down without bloodshed. He always had the option to nuke dissenting Eastern bloc countries and his own rebellious Soviet republics (only Ukraine and Kazakhstan had nuclear facilities on Soviet soil in addition to Russia). In that, he did not just dismantle the Iron Curtain, avoid a Third World War, but also, willingly, averted a nuclear catastrophe. Where I feel he went wrong was economic policies. He ‘let go’ far too soon. Decades of communism cannot be fixed with a few months, even years of perestroika. I feel he and the Kremlin should have had sounder macroeconomic policies and done more hand-holding as in the cases of South African transition after apartheid or Indian economic reforms after the 1991 bankruptcy.
Here are a couple of interesting excerpts of what some prominent Russians think of Gorbachev. The article appeared on the Russia & India Report website. Original source: Vlast magazine.
"Valery Semyonov, Vice Chairman of the regional parliament of the Krasnoyarsk Region. There would have been no changes in the country hadn’t it been for Gorbachev, and Russia would not be part of the international community now. He gave us freedom to think, move and travel abroad. The only thing that cannot be justified is the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Vladimir Pekhtin, First Deputy Head of the United Russia party in the State Duma. I believe that Mikhail Gorbachev is a demagogue and traitor. He unleashed perestroika to meet his own political ambitions, and he ruined the country shamefully. And now, he speculates in a dignified tone on how efficient the president, government and United Russia are. It doesn’t take much to criticize and advise, but when Gorbachev had a real opportunity to care about Russia’s well-being, he not just missed this chance, but he plunged the country into chaos and absolute decline. We are still dealing with the negative implications of his reforms."
Five Leaders Who Can Become the Next Gorbachev
Starting with perestroika in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev changed the world. He halted the Soviet nuclear arms race, allowed democratization of Eastern Europe and of his own country, and ended the Cold War. And while Ronald Reagan had merely taunted the Soviet leadership, Mr. Gorbachev did indeed tear down that Wall. Gorbachev is not just a leader, he’s a Statesman – in the same league as Mahatma Gandhi. As the man celebrates his 80th birthday, here is a look at 5 leaders who could follow his footsteps and become the next Gorby, the Great.
5. Kim Jong Il – The most natural successor to Gorbachev’s legacy is the Stalinist North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Il. Even if he continues to stay in power and groom his son for succession, he can make significant differences by abandoning (or at least scaling back) North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, diverting the disproportional military budget to agricultural modernization to save his starving population, and freeing the estimated 200,000 captives from Korean labor camps. Any economic activity, without the help of post-sanctions foreign aid that Kim has gotten addicted to, would be a small step for “dear leader” but a giant leap for North Korea.
4. Hugo Chavez – Hugo Chavez does things differently. He openly flaunts the firing of talented personnel from oil companies to increase state control, waves meat in front of hunger strikers and the Venezuelan bad boy has even opened a 5-star resort for fleeing dictators like Mubarak. The question is – can Chavez do things differently still? Can his concept of 21st century communism finally become the “communism with a human face” that Gorbachev strived for? Can he build a social democracy and stop wasting his country’s reserves – already eroded by 1.4% negative growth and 30% inflation – on preliminary nuclear testing? His affection towards Gaddafi may prompt the Venezuelans to do what the Libyans have done. If Chavez does not introduce some reform soon, his people may not wait till the 2012 elections to hand down their verdict.
3. Robert Mugabe – Robert Mugabe, the world’s second worst dictator1 presiding over the 4th worst failed state2 did display some signs of Gorbachevian goodness when back in 2009, he took his most vocal opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai – who, incidentally, got more votes than Mugabe in the 2008 presidential elections - into the administration as his prime minister. But with well over a quarter century in power, the 87 year old Zimbabwean dictator can choose to go down history as a freedom-fighter turned despot or as the architect of Zimbabwean democracy.
2. Barack Obama – The US president already has one thing in common with Gorbachev – the Nobel Peace Prize. But there’s one big difference – Barack Obama is yet to deserve his. After almost ten years of war in Afghanistan, and eight in Iraq, the US is keen to pull out but Obama must ensure that even as US troops leave the two countries, the US does not. Non-military aid and involvement to get the countries back on track with stable, commanding (and not necessarily pro-American) governments must remain his priorities. A hasty, unthoughtful American withdrawal could lead to ethnic wars, a Yugoslavia style break-up of Iraq, and open new channels for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to infiltrate the wider region.
1. Hu Jintao – If anyone today can become even bigger than Gorbachev, it’s the Chinese Head of State Hu Jintao. While Gorbachev was struggling with a failing economy and thought it wiser to focus on domestic issues than the arms race, Jintao is in a position where he doesn’t need to and won’t be asked to make changes. Chinese credit and cheap goods have the world in their grip and few dare to challenge China’s domestic policies – therefore, Jintao’s opportunity is even bigger. Can he loosen his hold on Tibet’s jugular even though he blocks the news of Egyptian protests on Chinese internet? A Chinese perestroika will not result in the break-up of the country because unlike the USSR, China does not have an imperial history of unwilling subjects. If Jintao did indeed ‘let go’, it will only create a better informed Chinese work-force that will unlikely question the Communist Party so long as China’s wealth and growth are distributed.
To become Gorbachev, these leaders will not only have to go against the advice of their inner circles, but also against their own instincts. Four of them will need tremendous courage to open-up the media that will eventually bite and free opposition leaders who will almost instantly enjoy greater popular support. It will feel like a political suicide and in some cases, it will be exactly that. But then again, no one ever said that becoming the next Gorbachev was easy!
Notes:
1. Foreign Policy’s The 23 Worst Dictators
2. Foreign Policy’s The Failed Sates Index, 2010
5. Kim Jong Il – The most natural successor to Gorbachev’s legacy is the Stalinist North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Il. Even if he continues to stay in power and groom his son for succession, he can make significant differences by abandoning (or at least scaling back) North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, diverting the disproportional military budget to agricultural modernization to save his starving population, and freeing the estimated 200,000 captives from Korean labor camps. Any economic activity, without the help of post-sanctions foreign aid that Kim has gotten addicted to, would be a small step for “dear leader” but a giant leap for North Korea.
4. Hugo Chavez – Hugo Chavez does things differently. He openly flaunts the firing of talented personnel from oil companies to increase state control, waves meat in front of hunger strikers and the Venezuelan bad boy has even opened a 5-star resort for fleeing dictators like Mubarak. The question is – can Chavez do things differently still? Can his concept of 21st century communism finally become the “communism with a human face” that Gorbachev strived for? Can he build a social democracy and stop wasting his country’s reserves – already eroded by 1.4% negative growth and 30% inflation – on preliminary nuclear testing? His affection towards Gaddafi may prompt the Venezuelans to do what the Libyans have done. If Chavez does not introduce some reform soon, his people may not wait till the 2012 elections to hand down their verdict.
3. Robert Mugabe – Robert Mugabe, the world’s second worst dictator1 presiding over the 4th worst failed state2 did display some signs of Gorbachevian goodness when back in 2009, he took his most vocal opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai – who, incidentally, got more votes than Mugabe in the 2008 presidential elections - into the administration as his prime minister. But with well over a quarter century in power, the 87 year old Zimbabwean dictator can choose to go down history as a freedom-fighter turned despot or as the architect of Zimbabwean democracy.
2. Barack Obama – The US president already has one thing in common with Gorbachev – the Nobel Peace Prize. But there’s one big difference – Barack Obama is yet to deserve his. After almost ten years of war in Afghanistan, and eight in Iraq, the US is keen to pull out but Obama must ensure that even as US troops leave the two countries, the US does not. Non-military aid and involvement to get the countries back on track with stable, commanding (and not necessarily pro-American) governments must remain his priorities. A hasty, unthoughtful American withdrawal could lead to ethnic wars, a Yugoslavia style break-up of Iraq, and open new channels for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to infiltrate the wider region.
1. Hu Jintao – If anyone today can become even bigger than Gorbachev, it’s the Chinese Head of State Hu Jintao. While Gorbachev was struggling with a failing economy and thought it wiser to focus on domestic issues than the arms race, Jintao is in a position where he doesn’t need to and won’t be asked to make changes. Chinese credit and cheap goods have the world in their grip and few dare to challenge China’s domestic policies – therefore, Jintao’s opportunity is even bigger. Can he loosen his hold on Tibet’s jugular even though he blocks the news of Egyptian protests on Chinese internet? A Chinese perestroika will not result in the break-up of the country because unlike the USSR, China does not have an imperial history of unwilling subjects. If Jintao did indeed ‘let go’, it will only create a better informed Chinese work-force that will unlikely question the Communist Party so long as China’s wealth and growth are distributed.
To become Gorbachev, these leaders will not only have to go against the advice of their inner circles, but also against their own instincts. Four of them will need tremendous courage to open-up the media that will eventually bite and free opposition leaders who will almost instantly enjoy greater popular support. It will feel like a political suicide and in some cases, it will be exactly that. But then again, no one ever said that becoming the next Gorbachev was easy!
Notes:
1. Foreign Policy’s The 23 Worst Dictators
2. Foreign Policy’s The Failed Sates Index, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)