Limits of free trade
As globalization gains momentum, the leading economies are trying to go beyond bilateral and other conventional economic diplomacy arrangements. But in a ‘Regional Cooperation Framework’, a large economy invariably gets disproportionate benefits from sentimental groupings of unequal participants. Let us evaluate this in the context of India’s refusal to join the much-touted Free Trade Agreement (FTA) experiment: the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The proposed RCEP comprised the 10 ASEAN countries plus Australia, China, India Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea.
The RCEP, a China-dominated association, got a lukewarm response from India, which acted in its ‘enlightened self-interest’. Narendra Modi summed up it eloquently: “Whenever I try and gauge India’s interest in light of her joining RCEP, I do not get an answer in the affirmative; neither Gandhiji’s policy of self-reliance nor my wisdom allows me to join RCEP.” He made the statement based on realistic considerations, among them a silent confession that India’s economy is passing through a rough patch.
Noticeably, India’s GDP growth has slowed for five consecutive quarters. It is believed that the Indian economy was severely hit by the demonetization and Goods and Services Tax (GST). The core manufacturing and real estate sectors have lost their way and the situation is precarious. India’s case for joining the RCEP was weakened as it offered nothing tangible to revive the Indian economy.
Also, the RCEP conflicts with the interests of existing regional and sub-regional associations, such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the South Asian Sub-regional Economic Cooperation (SASEC), the Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal (BBIN), and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-sectoral and Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC).
India’s official position of not joining the RCEP was calculated. Delivering the recent Ramnath Goenka Memorial Lecture in New Delhi, India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said, “And it was that no agreement at this time was better than a bad agreement. It is also important to recognize what the RCEP decision is not. It is not stepping back from the ‘Act East Policy’, which in any case is deeply rooted in distant and contemporary history.”
He defended the Indian government: “Our cooperation spans so many domains that this one decision does not really undermine the basics. Even in trade, India already has Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with 12 of the 15 RCEP partners. Nor is there really a connection with our Indo-Pacific approach, as that goes well beyond the RCEP membership.” What the minister said was that India already had a ‘grand strategy’. The RCEP was not only about trade for India, it was also related to India’s strategic interests.
With India on the cusp of a decision on joining the RCEP, neighbors especially Nepal also watched closely. Nepal, which has been grappling with high trade deficit and low manufacturing base, would not have gained much with India’s entry into the RCEP, and with the possibility of dumping cheap goods from member countries.
As Nepal is passing through a developmental condition where the modes, locales and scale of productions have to keep up with mass aspirations, it should aim for “Make in Nepal-Make for Nepal” strategy. Only this can lead to inclusive and sustainable growth. Moreover, Nepali policymakers must think of unchecked outbound migration which is causing enormous losses.
India’s tryst with FTAs like the Indo-ASEAN FTA, the Indo-Korea FTA and the Indo-Japan FTA has been disappointing. Notwithstanding the initial excitement, in practical terms, the FTAs have proved faulty. The cases with other countries have not been much better. The fault lines can be spotted with the ‘late-stage capitalism’ that necessitates developing countries go ahead with the public policy of developed and saturated economies. One common case with the regional associations is that there is little scope for ‘level playing field’, as for the ‘protectionist measures’, they have nothing to offer except ‘double-standards’.
To maintain parity, an experiment like RCEP must offer fair competition to other member-countries that are not as capable as China in their ability to protect their economy. To make the RCEP or any new formation work for the ‘Asian Century’, its strategic and economic fundamentals have to be first ascertained. What matters is the fairness in intent and working for shared goal. With the RCEP, that is missing.
The author is a New Delhi-based public policy professional and columnist and can be reached at sum[email protected]
Students as partners
Students as partners is the current vogue in higher education. How students can partner in learning is an interesting exploration, even though it might be a premature discussion in the Nepali context. In this brief write-up, I discuss the idea of student as a partner in education, observe this phenomenon in several academic spaces in higher education in Nepal, and gauge the level of student participation as partners in these spaces.
Students as partners in learning suggests learning is not unidirectional. Kelly E. Matthews (2016) highlights that students as partners views student engagement as a joint endeavor to shape and influence university teaching and learning, deliberately emphasizing the relational and social elements of mutual learning.
The term students as partners in learning was popularized by an education system which believes the truth is unknown. Thus both teacher and student are in the quest of truth and together they pursue this quest, with the teacher as a ‘guide on the side’ and the student as a worker alongside. The modern or the Western education system is an example. But an education system that holds that truth is already known places the teacher on a higher pedestal or as a ‘sage on the stage’ who helps the student to learn. Such a system has limited scope for students as partners in learning. The Nepali education system reflects similar dynamics between teachers and students.
I will now dig further into the levels of participation of students as partners in the modern education system. Bovill and Bulley (2011), inspired by Arnstein (1969)’s Eight Rungs on a Ladder of Citizen Participation, came up with the ladder of student participation in curriculum design. I believe this ladder is useful in understanding student participation in general.
Bovill and Bulley have ‘dictated curriculum—no interaction’ in the curriculum design as the first rung on the ladder, where students have no role in curriculum design. The second rung is ‘participation claimed but tutor in control’. Here students are asked for feedback on curriculum, but such information is not fed-back into the curriculum. In the third rung ‘limited choice from prescribed choices,’ a tutor considers areas of the curriculum where students can participate; the fourth rung, ‘wide choice from prescribed choices,’ describes a higher level of freedom within the prescribed limits of the curriculum.
The fifth rung, ‘student control of prescribed areas’ indicates that specific areas of the curriculum are designed and controlled by students. In the sixth rung, ‘student control of some areas of choice’ and the seventh rung, ‘partnership—a negotiated curriculum’, implies that tutors and students work collaboratively to negotiate and create the curriculum. In the top rung ‘students in control’, the tutor is absent.
Nepali experience
An observation of the Nepali education system using Bovill & Bulley (2011)’s ladder of student participation reflects that student participation in Nepal largely lies on the lower half of the ladder, with some differences between academic programs that are yearly or semester-based.
The yearly programs prevalent in Nepal largely perceive teachers as the ‘sage on the stage’ who have the mastery of the content (read: syllabus) and are primarily responsible for transferring this content to the students. When attendance in class is not mandated in this system the only participation required of the students is in the annual university exams. There is little or almost no expectation that students come prepared for the class. And I have often found students search for course syllabus, past questions, model questions and answers/guess papers/guides shortly before the annual exams. In this context, students participate at the lowest rung with ‘dictated curriculum—no interaction’.
Students as partners in teaching-learning is relatively prominent in the semester-system prevalent in higher education. This system expects teachers to be facilitators of learning or a ‘guide on the side’ and expects the students to come to the class prepared about what is going to be discussed, conduct group projects, make presentations, and write independent papers with elements of critical thinking. But my experience with the semester system in Nepal has largely been with students having a second rung participation with ‘participation claimed but tutor in control’. Some academic institutions allow for relatively higher student participation with students getting ‘limited choice from prescribed choices’ which falls on the third rung.
Although there is ample evidence in literature about the benefits of engaging students as partners in education, Nepal is yet to take concrete steps in that direction. Training teachers adequately for more engaged teaching, preparing students adequately to take charge of their own learning, and encouraging them to contribute to teaching-learning, can be a big step towards building an education system where students are partners in teaching and learning.
The author is a PhD Scholar in Social Work at Boston College, USA
Trade war and Nepal
The year was 1972, and what a year it was! The global champion of capitalism, the United States, crossed the Himalayan barrier to shake hands with a communist China leaving behind past irritants like the Korean War and the Vietnam War and establishing bilateral ties that would emerge as the most important international relationship.
This new chapter in the diplomatic relationship between the two amazingly different countries, which marked the end of over two decade-long halt in the ties, was a Richard Nixon-Henry Kissinger masterstroke targeted at weakening China’s ties with the then Soviet Union.
This relationship proved resilient even during trying times like the Tiananmen Square massacre (1989), the handover of Hong Kong (1997) to mainland China, constant friction over Taiwan, the collapse of communism in East Europe and the fragmentation of Soviet Union in the 1990s. China then opened up to the world from the late 70s and joining the World Trade Organization in 2001. At the climax of the winds of change, the Berlin Wall collapsed, but the ties between the US and China remained intact.
By and large, this bond between a democracy and a communist country proved beneficial for the world as the latter opened up and became a global factory for gadgets, clothing and vehicles, among others. Over the years, academic and scientific collaboration between Chinese and American universities would strengthen, boosting research on diverse fields.
Sadly, this era of engagement seems to be coming to a close and an era of disengagement seems to have begun amid speculations that China will soon be the largest economy by relegating the US to the not-so-coveted second place.
Indications of a possible disengagement are everywhere: In high seas, land, in the air and the space. The disputed South China Sea is one of the potential flashpoints, where the US is siding against China with other claimants in favor of what it calls the freedom of navigation. China’s Belt and Road Initiative will surely cross path with the Asia Pivot Strategy, making the whole of Asia, including South Asia, a flashpoint.
In a clear sign of fraying ties, American companies have started shifting from China to Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia, among other countries.
One would be naïve to think that this disengagement would pass off peacefully. It would be equally foolish to think that the superpower and the hyperpower would engage in a full-fledged confrontation. But there’s little doubt that the two countries will seek to harm each other's interests on their own and by taking like-minded countries on board, setting off a prolonged Cold War 2.0.
Needless to say, this kind of conflagration will be disastrous for global peace, stability, and prosperity. Already, the world is witness to the ongoing trade war between the two global giants, a major factor in the economic slowdown that is taking global proportions. As China and the US have footprints everywhere, no part of the globe will be left untouched.
A war of words is also going on between the two sides. The US is accusing China of giving concessions to Chinese companies, thereby denying a level playing field for its companies, something which the US has also started doing to protect its core interests. The US is also accusing China of stealing technologies and vice-versa. The US is accusing Beijing of currency manipulation in view of Chinese ambition to promote its national currency (RMB) as an international currency. How this trade war will end up is quite uncertain.
Amid this, Nepal offers an interesting spectacle. Here, there’s no dearth of hopeless optimists, high-stake gamblers and their lofty plans to make the country prosperous by keeping the border open to allow huge influx of peoples and goods from the immediate neighborhood and beyond, and keeping the two economies like conjoined twins.
While farm and other products from the dear neighbor can enter Nepal without much hassles, most of our products find it pretty hard to make it through the border down south. Stricter border controls are out of the question, given that the onus is on our small-time politicos to make Nepal and the Nepalis bear the historical burden of unequal relations institutionalized by questionable bilateral legal instruments like the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty.
Is this bunch of optimists and high-end gamblers, by the way, seeing any opportunity to benefit from the animosity of the two giants, formulating plans similar to the ones it has made to profit from the ‘prosperity’ of the two giant neighbors? This is regardless of the fact that their ongoing and future projects are mainly aimed at promoting their own national interests, whether it’s the BRI, the IPS, Arun III, cross-border pipeline projects or cross-border power transmission lines?
Or is it assessing this trade war and the possibility of a serious global recession that may force Nepali migrant workers to return home, cause market prices to escalate, and push a huge population into abject poverty again, giving rise to a humanitarian crisis? Is it formulating some plans to tide over this worst-case scenario?.
The author is a veteran journalist
Disband the UN
The UN was set up after WWII with good intentions. Fifty-one countries got together and entered a network whose aim was “maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights” (UN website). Nobody could disagree with such a mandate.
But then cracks began to show in this ideal utopian vision. While the rhetoric assured the world that the unique international character of the UN meant it was open to all 193 member nations, it also stated: “The Organization can take action on a wide range of issues, and provide a forum for its 193 Member States to express their views, through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and other bodies and committees.”
The Security Council is made up of 15 (mostly) wealthy countries which have used their muscle power to dominate and invade small countries. They also apply sanctions to nations that they deem rogue—although the criteria for a rogue nation appears subjective, at best. At worst, an objective observer may argue that the wealthiest nations have ganged up on regional powers because they don’t want them to dominate some capitalistic sector (energy, military, or otherwise) that they themselves have an interest to monopolize.
The workings of the UN is neo-colonial. Members of a monied bureaucratic class dominated by Europeans, North Americans, Australians and Japanese are posted to various outposts in the world. Through these postings, they tell the governments of various nations how to conduct themselves on all sorts of internal issues like governance, finance, justice, and security. Interference of this sort which would never be accepted by Western nations is meted out to Third World nations on a daily basis. These nations are seen to be intransigent if they refuse these 'favors'.
No questions are accepted on why a skewed economic system which allows Western nations to dominate financially continues to operate in the 21st century.
If we are to truly follow the spirit of the UN, we need to dismantle the current system and set up an alternate system of global governance. This new UN—let’s call it the United Planet—would prioritize environmental health of the Earth over military, economic or demographic superiority of nation-states. It would not see military might as the arbiter of authority, but would follow the spirit of liberalism, in which the equality of all human beings would be the touchstone for creating a just and ethical economic policy.
The work done by the UN has been exemplary in many regards. But in no way has it brought social change fast enough for the seven billion people who are suffering from lack of basic needs (food, housing, education, health, and a living, sustainable environment.) Urban poverty besets Western nations, despite talk of great wealth. Financial and monetary policies continue to favor the rich, with certain layers of society getting the crème de la crème access to credit and cash, while those at the bottom do all the work and get very little.
None of this is working, for either the rich or the poor. It was working well for the rich till the environment started to collapse and excessive exploitation of resources led to a planetary crisis. Even the very wealthy become subject to climate change, air pollution, and water shortages. There are expensive bunkers to retreat into, but in the end there is no escape as the collapse of biodiversity may wipe out all humans.
Our world is more unequal than ever, despite glowing optimism. Technology, including AI, rears its ugly head as a means of surveillance and state control. One war, one natural disaster, and millions of people can be displaced, starving, bonded to labor, trafficked, enslaved, with no oversight or system in place to stop such an event. We’ve seen such events in our lifetime—the Rohingya genocide, migrants risking their lives in dinghies to reach Europe, the slavery of African immigrants in Libya, the detention of children of Latin American families on America’s borders, the cultural erasure of Uighurs in China.
Technology has gotten a free pass for too long. It needs to be regulated with great oversight (although we have already opened a Pandora’s box.) Covert military programs will continue to misuse technology, on a scale we cannot imagine now. Any international organization that replaces the UN must be alert to this possibility. It must constantly seek to find and delete these fascist impulses.
What we need now is a radical new system to replace the old and outdated. The new union of governments will govern in a just and ethical manner, treating all nationals of Planet Earth with equal dignity. The new union will ensure fair distribution of money and resources, prioritize environmental protection over capitalistic gain, and reward simple living over excessive consumption. All of this will happen through a system of global governance which will replace entrenched systems of racial and gender inequality, nation-state dominance, and exploitation of capital and labor.
The MeToo Movement from women, Extinction Rebellion, Greta Thunberg and all the children of the world who call for an ethical deal on sustainability—all these movements point to a time in history when change is inevitable. Governance can no longer be left to a group of elderly men. We need to ask for, and get, a radical overhaul of the way governance is imagined, and conducted, on this planet.
