Myra commented on "Central Park - The Gates: Detlef Palm"
21 hours ago
Great photos Detlef. I remember that event well and I am one of the visitors who received a square swatch of the orange fabric.
Habib Hammam commented on "Charter of the Gaza "Board of Peace" : Shared by Kul Gautam"
23 hours ago
President Trump's enlarged Council of Peace as presented in Davos is a dangerous initiative. It is an attempt to create a substructure to undermine and overtake the United Nations. Since members must ante up $ 1 billion to join, this limits membership to the better off countries mainly in the Western hemisphere and leaves out poorer countries all over the world. Money, not equity is the principle that guides this notion.
Imagine if President Trump opens up membership not only to countries but also to some of the multi billion Dollar companies who would then have a big say in matters that affect peoples' lives. Companies have no responsibility for people's well being, only to make more profit. HNH
Imagine if President Trump opens up membership not only to countries but also to some of the multi billion Dollar companies who would then have a big say in matters that affect peoples' lives. Companies have no responsibility for people's well being, only to make more profit. HNH
Yesterday
@Detlef: I actually agree with you on your core point; capitalism is the default, and regulations are necessary to stop it from eating itself. However, that argument was settled a long time ago.
Where we may differ is on the marginal question, which is the only one that really matters in practice: how much regulation, of what kind, and at what cost.
Europe is a useful cautionary tale here. Over the past 20-30 years, we have layered regulation upon regulation; labour markets, product markets, capital markets, energy, technology, with admirable intentions, but little regard for cumulative effects. The result has not been a “civilised capitalism”, but one that is increasingly sclerotic: low productivity growth, weak innovation, chronic underinvestment, and an inability to scale new firms. Capitalism hasn’t been restrained into virtue; it has been regulated into a coma.
By contrast, the societies that have lifted hundreds of millions into the middle class, East Asia above all, did not reject capitalism, nor did they smother it. They regulated selectively, pragmatically, and often temporarily, with growth as the non-negotiable objective. When regulation conflicted with growth, growth usually won.
So yes, the question is not whether to regulate, but whether regulation is actually solving the problem it was designed to solve or quietly creating new ones: rent-seeking, insider protection, risk aversion, and stagnation. A regulated market economy that no longer generates dynamism or opportunity ultimately undermines its own legitimacy.
Where we may differ is on the marginal question, which is the only one that really matters in practice: how much regulation, of what kind, and at what cost.
Europe is a useful cautionary tale here. Over the past 20-30 years, we have layered regulation upon regulation; labour markets, product markets, capital markets, energy, technology, with admirable intentions, but little regard for cumulative effects. The result has not been a “civilised capitalism”, but one that is increasingly sclerotic: low productivity growth, weak innovation, chronic underinvestment, and an inability to scale new firms. Capitalism hasn’t been restrained into virtue; it has been regulated into a coma.
By contrast, the societies that have lifted hundreds of millions into the middle class, East Asia above all, did not reject capitalism, nor did they smother it. They regulated selectively, pragmatically, and often temporarily, with growth as the non-negotiable objective. When regulation conflicted with growth, growth usually won.
So yes, the question is not whether to regulate, but whether regulation is actually solving the problem it was designed to solve or quietly creating new ones: rent-seeking, insider protection, risk aversion, and stagnation. A regulated market economy that no longer generates dynamism or opportunity ultimately undermines its own legitimacy.
Yesterday
I learned that the following three have been invited and agreed to become a member of the peace council:
Mordor's ruler Sauron has brought peace to Middle-earth and has a solution for every conflict. His fortress, Barad-dûr, is surpassed only by the Trump Tower in New York.
The galactic emperor Palpatine's ability to shoot deadly lightning bolts from his fingertips should effectively stifle unnecessary discussions in the high-profile council.
Coriolanus Snow, the President of Panem is supposed to entertain the Peace Council.
Mordor's ruler Sauron has brought peace to Middle-earth and has a solution for every conflict. His fortress, Barad-dûr, is surpassed only by the Trump Tower in New York.
The galactic emperor Palpatine's ability to shoot deadly lightning bolts from his fingertips should effectively stifle unnecessary discussions in the high-profile council.
Coriolanus Snow, the President of Panem is supposed to entertain the Peace Council.
Yesterday
@Thomas: In the last 35 years, I have not met a colleague or friend who opposed to a regulated market economy. Capitalism is the default. What remains in dispute, despite frequent theatrics to the contrary, is not whether we should have capitalism, but how much regulation is needed to prevent it from undermining itself.
Yesterday
Trump's U-turn on Greenland had little to do with European and Canadian leaders standing up to him; it was all about the stock market, the bond market and the dollar all tanking simultaneously that got Trump's attention. When money talks, Trump listens.
The Board of Peace, hopefully, jolts the UN out of its coma, and it is unlikely to survive Trump's reign.
The Board of Peace, hopefully, jolts the UN out of its coma, and it is unlikely to survive Trump's reign.
Unknown commented on "Mark Carney's speech at Davos : Shared by Kul Gautam"
Yesterday
Canada and Finland are the new leaders of the free world.
Yesterday
Thank you, Detlef, for your endorsement. I note that you recognise the role of capitalism in lifting billions out of poverty. That fact should be reflected in all future development agendas and aid strategies. Had that been done systematically over the past several decades, the outcome would have been much better.
Yesterday
It is certainly true that the IMF and World Bank have made mistakes, sometimes serious ones. No large international institution operating in a political world has a spotless record. But that is a different claim from saying that the IMF or World Bank pressed countries to take on unsustainable debt.
Let us look at each of your examples:
Latin America in the 1980s:
Most of the excessive borrowing was driven by sovereign governments and private banks in an environment of negative real interest rates, recycled petrodollars, and strong political incentives to spend. The bulk of the lending came from commercial banks. The IMF entered after the crisis erupted, largely as a lender of last resort. With hindsight, risk was mispriced by almost everyone, but that is not the same as IFIs urging reckless debt accumulation.
Asia in 1997:
The crisis was primarily triggered by weak domestic financial regulation, currency pegs and short-term foreign borrowing. IMF advice on capital account liberalisation was indeed too generic at the time, but debt was accumulated mainly by domestic banks and firms, not because the IMF told governments to borrow heavily. Importantly, many Asian economies recovered rapidly and repaid IMF loans early, which mitigates the narrative of policy failure.
Loans to authoritarian regimes:
This criticism has merit, but it reflects Cold War geopolitics and donor-country pressures, not an institutional desire to promote bad debt. Lending often continued for strategic reasons well outside the control of technocratic staff. That is a political failure, not evidence that IFIs advocate unsustainable borrowing as a development strategy.
In short, the IMF and World Bank are imperfect, sometimes slow to learn, and constrained by politics. But the historical record does not support the claim that they encouraged countries to accumulate debt they knew to be unsustainable. Ultimately, borrowing decisions are sovereign decisions driven by domestic politics, short-termism, and optimism bias. The IFIs typically arrive once problems become unmanageable without their interventions.
Let us look at each of your examples:
Latin America in the 1980s:
Most of the excessive borrowing was driven by sovereign governments and private banks in an environment of negative real interest rates, recycled petrodollars, and strong political incentives to spend. The bulk of the lending came from commercial banks. The IMF entered after the crisis erupted, largely as a lender of last resort. With hindsight, risk was mispriced by almost everyone, but that is not the same as IFIs urging reckless debt accumulation.
Asia in 1997:
The crisis was primarily triggered by weak domestic financial regulation, currency pegs and short-term foreign borrowing. IMF advice on capital account liberalisation was indeed too generic at the time, but debt was accumulated mainly by domestic banks and firms, not because the IMF told governments to borrow heavily. Importantly, many Asian economies recovered rapidly and repaid IMF loans early, which mitigates the narrative of policy failure.
Loans to authoritarian regimes:
This criticism has merit, but it reflects Cold War geopolitics and donor-country pressures, not an institutional desire to promote bad debt. Lending often continued for strategic reasons well outside the control of technocratic staff. That is a political failure, not evidence that IFIs advocate unsustainable borrowing as a development strategy.
In short, the IMF and World Bank are imperfect, sometimes slow to learn, and constrained by politics. But the historical record does not support the claim that they encouraged countries to accumulate debt they knew to be unsustainable. Ultimately, borrowing decisions are sovereign decisions driven by domestic politics, short-termism, and optimism bias. The IFIs typically arrive once problems become unmanageable without their interventions.
Unknown commented on "Mark Carney's speech at Davos : Shared by Kul Gautam"
Yesterday
Interesting in all the smoke and mirrors and oxygen taken by Greenland (is Davos talking about anything else - climate change, Ukraine, SUDAN, etc??). we can recall what Hans Christian Andersen (ironically he is DANISH) wrote about the emperors new clothes: ".....Those would be just the clothes for me," thought the Emperor. "If I wore them I would be able to discover which men in my empire are unfit for their posts. And I could tell the wise men from the fools. Yes, I certainly must get some of the stuff woven for me right away." He paid the two swindlers a large sum of money to start work at once.
They set up two looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on the looms. All the finest silk and the purest old thread which they demanded went into their traveling bags, while they worked the empty looms far into the night.
"I'd like to know how those weavers are getting on with the cloth," the Emperor thought, but he felt slightly uncomfortable when he remembered that those who were unfit for their position would not be able to see the fabric. It couldn't have been that he doubted himself, yet he thought he'd rather send someone else to see how things were going. The whole town knew about the cloth's peculiar power, and all were impatient to find out how stupid their neighbors were.
"I'll send my honest old minister to the weavers," the Emperor decided. "He'll be the best one to tell me how the material looks, for he's a sensible man and no one does his duty better." So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said. - A CHILD NOTED THIS - LIKEWISE ANY CHILD CAN SEE THE GREENLAND CRISIS IS SELF CREATED BY THE EMPEROR AND HIS MINISTERS AND THE PUPPET MASTERS BEHIND THE CURTAIN MAKING ALL THIS HAPPEN. AND OF COURSE HUGE SWATHES OF THE PUBLIC PLAY ALONG WITH THE CHARADE.
They set up two looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on the looms. All the finest silk and the purest old thread which they demanded went into their traveling bags, while they worked the empty looms far into the night.
"I'd like to know how those weavers are getting on with the cloth," the Emperor thought, but he felt slightly uncomfortable when he remembered that those who were unfit for their position would not be able to see the fabric. It couldn't have been that he doubted himself, yet he thought he'd rather send someone else to see how things were going. The whole town knew about the cloth's peculiar power, and all were impatient to find out how stupid their neighbors were.
"I'll send my honest old minister to the weavers," the Emperor decided. "He'll be the best one to tell me how the material looks, for he's a sensible man and no one does his duty better." So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said. - A CHILD NOTED THIS - LIKEWISE ANY CHILD CAN SEE THE GREENLAND CRISIS IS SELF CREATED BY THE EMPEROR AND HIS MINISTERS AND THE PUPPET MASTERS BEHIND THE CURTAIN MAKING ALL THIS HAPPEN. AND OF COURSE HUGE SWATHES OF THE PUBLIC PLAY ALONG WITH THE CHARADE.
Unknown commented on "Human errors at tipping point? 2 of 2: Ramesh Shrestha"
Yesterday
There are cases where WB and IMF pressed countries to borrow that in hindsight wa bad for the country: 1. The 1980s Latin American Debt Crisis
In the lead-up to the 1982 crisis, international financial institutions (IFIs) encouraged developing countries—particularly in Latin America—to borrow heavily to finance development and "import substitution industrialization". When interest rates rose and commodity prices fell, these nations could not repay the debt. Critics argue the World Bank and IMF failed to warn of, or actually encouraged, this over-borrowing, and later enforced strict austerity measures that worsened economic downturns.
2. The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis
Prior to 1997, the IMF encouraged Asian economies (such as Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea) to liberalize their capital accounts, allowing huge inflows of foreign capital and debt. When the crisis hit, the IMF prescribed high-interest rates and fiscal austerity, which many economists (including Joseph Stiglitz) argued worsened the crisis, making it nearly impossible for local businesses to repay debt and leading to widespread insolvency.
3. "Odious Debt" in Dictatorial Regimes
The World Bank and IMF have been heavily criticized for maintaining or increasing loans to corrupt and dictatorial regimes allied with Western powers, even when funds were known to be misappropriated.
Congo-Zaire (1980s): Loans continued to Marshal Mobutu despite reports highlighting massive misappropriation of funds.
Indonesia (Suharto era): Continued financial support was provided despite, critics allege, the regime’s poor human rights record and financial mismanagement.
Post-Genocide Rwanda: The IMF/World Bank demanded repayment of debts contracted by the Habyarimana regime. Sources ( I am not so sure of validity of these - but I think if we collectively look back we could not say that WB and IMF hav been perfectly diligent in each case - in the end they are political and bend to pressure of the moment: https://www.cadtm.org/The-Case-for-Abolishing-and-Replacing-the-IMF-and-the-World-Bank. and https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/imf-criticism/
In the lead-up to the 1982 crisis, international financial institutions (IFIs) encouraged developing countries—particularly in Latin America—to borrow heavily to finance development and "import substitution industrialization". When interest rates rose and commodity prices fell, these nations could not repay the debt. Critics argue the World Bank and IMF failed to warn of, or actually encouraged, this over-borrowing, and later enforced strict austerity measures that worsened economic downturns.
2. The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis
Prior to 1997, the IMF encouraged Asian economies (such as Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea) to liberalize their capital accounts, allowing huge inflows of foreign capital and debt. When the crisis hit, the IMF prescribed high-interest rates and fiscal austerity, which many economists (including Joseph Stiglitz) argued worsened the crisis, making it nearly impossible for local businesses to repay debt and leading to widespread insolvency.
3. "Odious Debt" in Dictatorial Regimes
The World Bank and IMF have been heavily criticized for maintaining or increasing loans to corrupt and dictatorial regimes allied with Western powers, even when funds were known to be misappropriated.
Congo-Zaire (1980s): Loans continued to Marshal Mobutu despite reports highlighting massive misappropriation of funds.
Indonesia (Suharto era): Continued financial support was provided despite, critics allege, the regime’s poor human rights record and financial mismanagement.
Post-Genocide Rwanda: The IMF/World Bank demanded repayment of debts contracted by the Habyarimana regime. Sources ( I am not so sure of validity of these - but I think if we collectively look back we could not say that WB and IMF hav been perfectly diligent in each case - in the end they are political and bend to pressure of the moment: https://www.cadtm.org/The-Case-for-Abolishing-and-Replacing-the-IMF-and-the-World-Bank. and https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/imf-criticism/
Yesterday
Ramesh, thank you for engaging. This is exactly where the discussion becomes interesting.
On the role of international financial institutions, I would push back on a common assumption. I am not aware of any case where the IMF, the World Bank, or the regional development banks have advised countries to accumulate unsustainable debt. On the contrary, their standard advice has always been fiscal prudence, revenue mobilisation, and debt sustainability. Countries run up excessive debt largely on their own, often for human and political reasons.
Democratic short-termism plays a role here. It is far easier for elected governments to deliver visible benefits through borrowing than to raise taxes or restrain spending and risk electoral punishment. Churchill’s old quip about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others still applies rather well in this context.
That said, high public debt is not new. History shows that over-indebtedness gets resolved one way or another, rarely elegantly. The textbook solution is fiscal consolidation combined with growth, but the politically easier and historically more common route has been to inflate debt away. From post-war Britain to the United States in the 1970s, inflation has been repeatedly used to reduce debt burdens in real terms.
For that reason, some caution in how we hold our savings is sensible. Long-dated bonds and low-interest bank deposits perform poorly in such environments. Ray Dalio, among others, has written and spoken extensively about historical debt cycles and the role of diversification into real assets. His work is worth a look; you can find him on YouTube.
And here I will end on a culturally familiar note: Indians have long understood that an allocation to gold is not superstition but insurance. In periods of inflation, currency debasement, or financial stress, that instinct has tended to age rather well.
None of this implies imminent collapse. It does suggest, however, that today’s debt dynamics are manageable only if we are honest about how such episodes have played out before, both economically and politically.
Optimism, yes, but optimism informed by history.
On the role of international financial institutions, I would push back on a common assumption. I am not aware of any case where the IMF, the World Bank, or the regional development banks have advised countries to accumulate unsustainable debt. On the contrary, their standard advice has always been fiscal prudence, revenue mobilisation, and debt sustainability. Countries run up excessive debt largely on their own, often for human and political reasons.
Democratic short-termism plays a role here. It is far easier for elected governments to deliver visible benefits through borrowing than to raise taxes or restrain spending and risk electoral punishment. Churchill’s old quip about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others still applies rather well in this context.
That said, high public debt is not new. History shows that over-indebtedness gets resolved one way or another, rarely elegantly. The textbook solution is fiscal consolidation combined with growth, but the politically easier and historically more common route has been to inflate debt away. From post-war Britain to the United States in the 1970s, inflation has been repeatedly used to reduce debt burdens in real terms.
For that reason, some caution in how we hold our savings is sensible. Long-dated bonds and low-interest bank deposits perform poorly in such environments. Ray Dalio, among others, has written and spoken extensively about historical debt cycles and the role of diversification into real assets. His work is worth a look; you can find him on YouTube.
And here I will end on a culturally familiar note: Indians have long understood that an allocation to gold is not superstition but insurance. In periods of inflation, currency debasement, or financial stress, that instinct has tended to age rather well.
None of this implies imminent collapse. It does suggest, however, that today’s debt dynamics are manageable only if we are honest about how such episodes have played out before, both economically and politically.
Optimism, yes, but optimism informed by history.
Rohini commented on "Central Park - The Gates: Detlef Palm"
2 days ago
Cool I remember the orange flag gates
Unknown commented on "Human errors at tipping point? 2 of 2: Ramesh Shrestha"
2 days ago
I very much appreciate your observations. Just to reiterate, no one can deny the progress made, especially over the past seven decades, which I also briefly mentioned in the beginning of the article. You mention of increasing middle class in China, India, etc. Indeed, it is true because these countries do not blindly accept recommendations coming out of international financial institutions, which was what Malaysia also did during Asian financial crisis in mid -1990s. The current model of economy has produced super rich individuals while governments are amassing debt. Japan has 9000 bn debt, US has 38 tr debt, etc. Do you honestly believe that the current financial system and broken leadership can continue to fuel our economy? Ramesh
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Carina Prakke commented on "Mark Carney's speech at Davos : Shared by Kul Gautam"
2 days ago
A friend of mine, in the USA, asked if we could swap leaders. We can't.
Both countries have the leader that their respective majorities selected. It's not a question of a better leader (not only, at least) - it's the people who vote for them; and each country got a leader who reflects majority thinking.
If that's not a wake-up call, I don't know what is. It also means that it's going to take a generation or two to change, and that's downright scary.
I'm so thankful that we have PM Carney to steer our ship through these turbulent times.
Both countries have the leader that their respective majorities selected. It's not a question of a better leader (not only, at least) - it's the people who vote for them; and each country got a leader who reflects majority thinking.
If that's not a wake-up call, I don't know what is. It also means that it's going to take a generation or two to change, and that's downright scary.
I'm so thankful that we have PM Carney to steer our ship through these turbulent times.
Unknown commented on "Refugees and asylum seekers in the US : Shared by Fouad Kronfol"
Jan 22, 2026
Salih, as President of Iraq, had the full authority to sign the Refugee Convention, but opted not to. A head of state can sign a convention, but not ratify it. The signing process only involves the state expressing its intention to be bound by a convention, while ratification is the formal confirmation. If a state signs a convention but does not ratify it, it is not legally bound by the convention, and the state can withdraw from it at any time. Even so, the new head of the UNHCR did not sign the Refugee Convention while head of state in Iraq. That fact will not make it easier for him to convince states that have not signed the convention to do so. A review of the UN's appointment process for top positions should be part of the reform process.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Jan 21, 2026
This is an interesting piece, but it suffers from a familiar modern affliction: mistaking anxiety for analysis.
It is certainly true that humanity faces risks such as leadership failures, geopolitical tension, climate change, and technological disruption. Yet to present these as evidence that we are approaching some civilisational breaking point ignores a stubborn fact: by almost every measurable indicator, humanity has never been better off than it is today.
We are richer, healthier, taller, better educated, better fed, and longer-lived than at any point in human history. Extreme poverty has collapsed globally over the past 50 years. Child mortality has fallen dramatically. Literacy, especially among women, has surged. Famine, once humanity’s permanent companion, is now rare and overwhelmingly political rather than natural. Even inequality, often invoked as proof of systemic failure, must be weighed against the unprecedented rise of the global middle class, particularly in Asia.
The essay invokes Newton’s laws as though progress must inevitably provoke catastrophe. But human history suggests the opposite: we repeatedly encounter limits, adapt, and move beyond them. Industrialisation did not end in Malthusian collapse; it produced modern agriculture. Pollution did not doom the West; it produced environmental regulation and cleaner technologies. Energy scarcity did not end growth; it produced nuclear power, renewables, and the prospect of abundant clean energy.
The critique of leadership is emotionally satisfying but historically thin. There was no golden age of wise, selfless leaders. The 20th century, so often romanticised, produced two world wars, genocide, totalitarianism, and nuclear brinkmanship. Today’s leaders may be flawed, but today’s world is vastly less violent, interstate war is rarer, and international cooperation, however imperfect, has prevented catastrophes that would have been unthinkable a century ago.
As for the “unsustainable economic model”: capitalism has defects, but it has done something no other system has achieved: it has lifted billions out of poverty. The middle class is not disappearing globally; it is shifting geographically. China, India and Southeast Asia are experiencing the very rise in living standards that seemed impossible a few short decades ago. That this creates tension and adjustment costs does not mean the system is collapsing; it means it is evolving.
The portrayal of humanity as enslaved, lonely, atomised and powerless is rhetorically powerful, but empirically weak. People today have more choices about how to live, work, love, and think than at any previous time. That freedom can be disorienting, but it is not oppression.
Finally, the essay treats technology, especially AI and cyber systems, as a threat detached from human agency. In reality, technology is the greatest force for human flourishing we have ever unleashed. AI, biotechnology, and clean energy are not harbingers of collapse; they are tools that will make us healthier, more productive, and more resilient, just as past innovations did.
Optimism is not denial. It is confidence grounded in history. Humanity has never been perfect, but it has been astonishingly good at solving the very problems it creates. The future is not guaranteed, but neither is it bleak. The evidence suggests something far more radical: the future will be better than the past.
It is certainly true that humanity faces risks such as leadership failures, geopolitical tension, climate change, and technological disruption. Yet to present these as evidence that we are approaching some civilisational breaking point ignores a stubborn fact: by almost every measurable indicator, humanity has never been better off than it is today.
We are richer, healthier, taller, better educated, better fed, and longer-lived than at any point in human history. Extreme poverty has collapsed globally over the past 50 years. Child mortality has fallen dramatically. Literacy, especially among women, has surged. Famine, once humanity’s permanent companion, is now rare and overwhelmingly political rather than natural. Even inequality, often invoked as proof of systemic failure, must be weighed against the unprecedented rise of the global middle class, particularly in Asia.
The essay invokes Newton’s laws as though progress must inevitably provoke catastrophe. But human history suggests the opposite: we repeatedly encounter limits, adapt, and move beyond them. Industrialisation did not end in Malthusian collapse; it produced modern agriculture. Pollution did not doom the West; it produced environmental regulation and cleaner technologies. Energy scarcity did not end growth; it produced nuclear power, renewables, and the prospect of abundant clean energy.
The critique of leadership is emotionally satisfying but historically thin. There was no golden age of wise, selfless leaders. The 20th century, so often romanticised, produced two world wars, genocide, totalitarianism, and nuclear brinkmanship. Today’s leaders may be flawed, but today’s world is vastly less violent, interstate war is rarer, and international cooperation, however imperfect, has prevented catastrophes that would have been unthinkable a century ago.
As for the “unsustainable economic model”: capitalism has defects, but it has done something no other system has achieved: it has lifted billions out of poverty. The middle class is not disappearing globally; it is shifting geographically. China, India and Southeast Asia are experiencing the very rise in living standards that seemed impossible a few short decades ago. That this creates tension and adjustment costs does not mean the system is collapsing; it means it is evolving.
The portrayal of humanity as enslaved, lonely, atomised and powerless is rhetorically powerful, but empirically weak. People today have more choices about how to live, work, love, and think than at any previous time. That freedom can be disorienting, but it is not oppression.
Finally, the essay treats technology, especially AI and cyber systems, as a threat detached from human agency. In reality, technology is the greatest force for human flourishing we have ever unleashed. AI, biotechnology, and clean energy are not harbingers of collapse; they are tools that will make us healthier, more productive, and more resilient, just as past innovations did.
Optimism is not denial. It is confidence grounded in history. Humanity has never been perfect, but it has been astonishingly good at solving the very problems it creates. The future is not guaranteed, but neither is it bleak. The evidence suggests something far more radical: the future will be better than the past.
Jan 21, 2026
This is not a joking matter. The position of High Commissioner for Refugees is one of the most demanding and norm-anchored roles in the international system. It requires unimpeachable standing on refugee protection, not merely seniority or symbolism.
During the years when Barham Salih occupied senior offices like Deputy Prime Minister, Prime Minister and President, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fled the country. There were also periods when Iraq refused to accept the return of failed asylum seekers from Europe, creating diplomatic and legal stand-offs. It is fair to ask what responsibility he bore for this during his time in national leadership.
Appointing a High Commissioner from a non-signatory state, with a mixed record on displacement and returns, inevitably raises questions about credibility. UNHCR does not need symbolism or “lived experience.” It needs leadership that can credibly press all states, especially wealthy, non-signatory ones, to comply with the refugee protection regime they have long managed to wriggle out of.
During the years when Barham Salih occupied senior offices like Deputy Prime Minister, Prime Minister and President, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fled the country. There were also periods when Iraq refused to accept the return of failed asylum seekers from Europe, creating diplomatic and legal stand-offs. It is fair to ask what responsibility he bore for this during his time in national leadership.
Appointing a High Commissioner from a non-signatory state, with a mixed record on displacement and returns, inevitably raises questions about credibility. UNHCR does not need symbolism or “lived experience.” It needs leadership that can credibly press all states, especially wealthy, non-signatory ones, to comply with the refugee protection regime they have long managed to wriggle out of.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Unknown commented on "Refugees and asylum seekers in the US : Shared by Fouad Kronfol"
Jan 21, 2026
Let’s keep a sense of proportion. Things could be worse. The IMF Board might yet appoint Nicolás Maduro as Managing Director and cite his “lived experience” with inflation.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Jan 21, 2026
Indeed. We are now invited to welcome the appointment of a former head of state, H.E. Barham Salih, as High Commissioner for Refugees. H.E. Salih is from Iraq, a country that has never ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Is it really baffling that Washington is less than thrilled about underwriting an organisation whose leadership choices seem increasingly guided by an enthusiasm for DEI hiring, rather than demonstrating commitment to the legal obligations at the very heart of the Refugee Convention? Using other people’s money to signal virtue has always been easier than persuading wealthy, non-signatory states to assume real responsibilities.
H.E. Salih's priority should be to explain to Europe and the US why the rules apply only to them.
Is it really baffling that Washington is less than thrilled about underwriting an organisation whose leadership choices seem increasingly guided by an enthusiasm for DEI hiring, rather than demonstrating commitment to the legal obligations at the very heart of the Refugee Convention? Using other people’s money to signal virtue has always been easier than persuading wealthy, non-signatory states to assume real responsibilities.
H.E. Salih's priority should be to explain to Europe and the US why the rules apply only to them.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Unknown commented on "Refugees and asylum seekers in the US : Shared by Fouad Kronfol"
Jan 21, 2026
Exactly—and that abdication is a choice, not a law of nature. The Gulf states’ refusal to sign the Refugee Convention, establish asylum systems, or offer durable solutions is not a technical oversight but a deliberate strategy to avoid responsibility. That strategy has been indulged for far too long.
If the new High Commissioner is indeed an Iraqi, a credible starting point would be to stop treating wealthy Muslim states as permanent bystanders to refugee protection and to press them—publicly—to accede to the conventions, build asylum systems, and shoulder obligations commensurate with their wealth, influence, and regional role in the conflicts that generate displacement. Until then, lectures to Europe and the US ring hollow. Responsibility cannot only remain a Western legal duty.
If the new High Commissioner is indeed an Iraqi, a credible starting point would be to stop treating wealthy Muslim states as permanent bystanders to refugee protection and to press them—publicly—to accede to the conventions, build asylum systems, and shoulder obligations commensurate with their wealth, influence, and regional role in the conflicts that generate displacement. Until then, lectures to Europe and the US ring hollow. Responsibility cannot only remain a Western legal duty.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Jan 21, 2026
There are very few Syrian and Iraqi refugees in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Gulf states because those countries do not operate asylum systems. They are not parties to the UN Refugee Convention, offer no legal refugee status, and have no pathway to permanent residence or citizenship. Their migration model is built around temporary, tightly controlled labour under sponsorship, not the long-term protection and rights that refugees require. Accepting refugees would mean permanence, legal obligations and social integration, precisely what Gulf regimes seek to avoid. Europe, by contrast, received refugees not primarily out of kindness or generosity, but because its legal and institutional framework requires them to.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Unknown commented on "Refugees and asylum seekers in the US : Shared by Fouad Kronfol"
Jan 20, 2026
The migrants could, of course, try to reach high-income countries in the Arab and Muslim world, like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, etc. It would also be consistent with the Islamic ummah, as many are Muslims. Such an approach should not be alien to the new Iraqi head of the UNHCR. It would also be appropriate as both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have aided and abetted the wars in Sudan and Yemen, resulting in humanitarian catastrophes that inevitably will create millions of refugees and migrants.
Unknown commented on "Charter of the Gaza "Board of Peace" : Shared by Kul Gautam"
Jan 20, 2026
Amen!
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Unknown commented on "Charter of the Gaza "Board of Peace" : Shared by Kul Gautam"
Jan 20, 2026
Why beat around the bush…DJT is President of US, head of NATO, Czar of Board of Peace, Overseer of the (rump) UN, and Commander in chief of the Whole World . His associates, but not equals, are Ji and Putin.Punto !
Jan 20, 2026
What is striking here is not merely the romanticisation of coercive systems by people who never lived under them, but who made a career within Western capitalism while now denouncing it rhetorically.
There is something dishonest about former aid professionals who spent decades redistributing wealth generated by market economies, drawing generous UN salaries and now enjoying pensions underwritten by capitalist surplus, while posturing as moral critics of the system that paid for their lives. If capitalism is so irredeemably immoral, one might ask why its fruits were so readily accepted.
This is not an argument against aid, international law, or solidarity. It is an argument against selective indignation and cost-free virtue. International law cannot be “reclaimed” by nostalgia for authoritarian experiments, nor by moralising from the comfort of pensions earned in the very order being condemned. Credibility, like law, depends on consistency. Without that, critique becomes theatre, not accountability.
There is something dishonest about former aid professionals who spent decades redistributing wealth generated by market economies, drawing generous UN salaries and now enjoying pensions underwritten by capitalist surplus, while posturing as moral critics of the system that paid for their lives. If capitalism is so irredeemably immoral, one might ask why its fruits were so readily accepted.
This is not an argument against aid, international law, or solidarity. It is an argument against selective indignation and cost-free virtue. International law cannot be “reclaimed” by nostalgia for authoritarian experiments, nor by moralising from the comfort of pensions earned in the very order being condemned. Credibility, like law, depends on consistency. Without that, critique becomes theatre, not accountability.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Jan 20, 2026
The golden age of progress: East Germany, where equality was so perfectly achieved that everyone was equally forbidden to leave; and Tirana, where DEI flourished under a regime that also managed food rationing, secret police and labour camps. Never mind that these “achievements” required walls, prisons, and a ban on dissent. With these benchmarks, the West’s failure is an excessive attachment to freedom, choice, and not being shot for holding a different opinion.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Jan 20, 2026
Don't forget that East Germany was more equal than West Germany, and remember that, now discriminated against, Gypsy teachers used to teach Albanian children in Tirana. Those were DEI achievements never equalled in the West.
In Response to a comment by Unknown
Jan 20, 2026
There exists a peculiar cognitive dissonance in contemporary Western discourse: young people wearing Che Guevara t-shirts whilst sipping $10 lattes; university students championing systems that murdered scholars by the millions; comfortable activists romanticising ideologies under which their activism would have earned them a bullet.
Jan 19, 2026
So true Thomas…the Covid pandemic already taught us the value and need of these manual workers and carers to all societies. Let us hope that politicos and planners will follow up on the positive aspects of this economic and social transformation to the benefit of the previously neglected classes of workers.
Jan 19, 2026
That would be a lovely outcome, lifting the downtrodden and reducing inequality, something the UN failed to do. The multilaterals should go down on their knees and thank the likes of Musk and Altman.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Jan 18, 2026
One question the report raises is whether the Fourth Industrial Revolution will, over time, narrow or widen existing inequalities. Much of the current debate assumes that those most exposed are workers whose jobs are susceptible to automation. Yet, there is another, less-discussed possibility.
For the foreseeable future, 4IR technologies will automate cognitive, clerical and administrative tasks far more readily than physical, care-based or outdoor labour. AI will not soon be tilling fields, harvesting crops, cleaning homes, or caring for the frail elderly. These sectors are where many marginalised workers are concentrated.
This creates a potential opportunity. As white-collar and routine knowledge work is increasingly automated, and as ageing and shrinking populations reduce the available workforce in many countries, the scarcity and indispensability of manual and care labour will grow. This should raise the social and economic value of farm hands, domestic workers and carers, work that has long been underpaid and undervalued.
If that shift is managed well, stronger labour protections, migration safeguards and greater social recognition should logically follow, allowing increased demand to translate into better wages and working conditions.
In this sense, the 4IR may offer an opportunity to rebalance how societies value different forms of work. Policymakers may find that they have no choice but to ensure that this shift benefits those doing the most essential, and least replaceable, jobs.
For the foreseeable future, 4IR technologies will automate cognitive, clerical and administrative tasks far more readily than physical, care-based or outdoor labour. AI will not soon be tilling fields, harvesting crops, cleaning homes, or caring for the frail elderly. These sectors are where many marginalised workers are concentrated.
This creates a potential opportunity. As white-collar and routine knowledge work is increasingly automated, and as ageing and shrinking populations reduce the available workforce in many countries, the scarcity and indispensability of manual and care labour will grow. This should raise the social and economic value of farm hands, domestic workers and carers, work that has long been underpaid and undervalued.
If that shift is managed well, stronger labour protections, migration safeguards and greater social recognition should logically follow, allowing increased demand to translate into better wages and working conditions.
In this sense, the 4IR may offer an opportunity to rebalance how societies value different forms of work. Policymakers may find that they have no choice but to ensure that this shift benefits those doing the most essential, and least replaceable, jobs.
Unknown commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 18, 2026
Brava Myra for your outstanding peek-a-boo !
Not many of us had a clue
That windows all over send a cue,
Of Life and humans that have a glue
Which your camera captured so true.
The black and white is the best hue
To focus attention on the lieu
Where simple actions and pleasures so few
Appear as though they are new.
I hereby join the others in the queue
To express appreciation to you
For sharing this particular view.
Not many of us had a clue
That windows all over send a cue,
Of Life and humans that have a glue
Which your camera captured so true.
The black and white is the best hue
To focus attention on the lieu
Where simple actions and pleasures so few
Appear as though they are new.
I hereby join the others in the queue
To express appreciation to you
For sharing this particular view.
Unknown commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 18, 2026
Great!
Jan 18, 2026
Maybe US no longer being.a viable place where the global south elites send their children from Uni is one of the final straws. The US does not export anything to the global south, is out of bounds now for trips to Disneyland, for Uni ? USAID and soft aid no longer there - all that remains is threat of tariffs or other bullying. While the US rattles the sword China keeps building highways, hospitals and the global south are learning Mandarin while their young people look East for Uni and the future.
Unknown commented on "List of International Organizations from which the US Will Withdraw"
Jan 18, 2026
of course the ministry should play that role - but why would they waste much time on the UN family - who comprise a single % digit of aid? If China is building a hospital and roads and power supply - why would the government give a toss about UN WOMEN with a workshop or the DCT of 100,000 USD from UNICEF for which they need to sign several forms, endure HACT assessment, spot-checks and harassment? The UN becomes less relevany by the minute as the world moves into a different gear. If the UN cannot coordinate itself without a pompous UNRC at D2 level - with a team of P5 and P4 coordinators and economists working only for the UNRC - then we are truly lost.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Unknown commented on "List of International Organizations from which the US Will Withdraw"
Jan 18, 2026
Coordination of the development programme is the role of the ministry and not the UN. The humanitarian coordination function that was for the short term and inspired the “industry” to churn cash and Jobs!
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Jan 17, 2026
Kul, I agree with your diagnosis that coalition-busting may be replacing coalition-building. That is a danger, but the deeper issue is structural. American foreign policy treats diplomacy as a loyalty test rather than an instrument. Tariffs on allies, performative UN votes, and transactional demands are symptoms of a shift away from alliance-building. Fear may produce short-term compliance, but it does not produce durable alignment.
Calling out the “Emperor for having no clothes” may be emotionally satisfying, but many governments calculate that public defiance carries real costs while quiet hedging does not. What we are seeing is not fawning so much as risk management. Allies work around Washington rather than with it. They preserve cooperation where possible while insulating themselves where necessary. That is a signal of American decline in influence.
And it brings us back to the UN votes. When even sympathetic or sceptical states choose consensus language over alignment with the US, it is not because they love UN bureaucracy. It is because they do not trust Washington to distinguish between reform and rupture.
Power matters, as you note. But power that repeatedly isolates itself may find that its armour is heavier than it used to be and less flexible than it once was.
Calling out the “Emperor for having no clothes” may be emotionally satisfying, but many governments calculate that public defiance carries real costs while quiet hedging does not. What we are seeing is not fawning so much as risk management. Allies work around Washington rather than with it. They preserve cooperation where possible while insulating themselves where necessary. That is a signal of American decline in influence.
And it brings us back to the UN votes. When even sympathetic or sceptical states choose consensus language over alignment with the US, it is not because they love UN bureaucracy. It is because they do not trust Washington to distinguish between reform and rupture.
Power matters, as you note. But power that repeatedly isolates itself may find that its armour is heavier than it used to be and less flexible than it once was.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Jan 17, 2026
Yes, Thomas: "Across much of the Global South, China is seen as an ally or necessary partner, while the US is viewed as powerful, unpredictable, and increasingly self-absorbed. America matters, but no longer inspires". Europe has some tough choices to make - either to rearm, become a "real power" again in the conventional sense, or partner with the Global South to re-write the rules of a new world order - still based on the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, the Bretton Woods & WTO rules, etc. but updated to the realities of 2025 and the emerging AI-future, rather than those of 1945 or earlier era, Pax Americana must not be replaced by Pax Sinica, or some other multipolar world with regional spheres of influence, but by a true multilateral world order based on the realization of the enlightened interdependence of humankind - and the emerging demographic reality of the Afro-Asian continents comprising more than 3/4th of humanity before the end of the current century.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Kul C Gautam commented on "America First or America Alone? : Shared by Kul Gautam"
Jan 17, 2026
Yes, Thomas Ekvall: "A superpower that repeatedly finds itself voting alongside only Israel, Argentina, and a handful of microstates is not leading by example; it is advertising its own diplomatic marginalisation". Reckeless coalition-busting rather than coalition-building seems to be the new strategy of the "Dear Leader". Tariffs on its closest European/NATO allies that don't toe the imperial wish to possess Greenland, is the latest example of America First = America Alone. The Dear Leader confuses fawning & fear by allies as "respect". When will self-respecting leaders start calling: The Emperor has No Clothes? But he does have the most powerful armour!
Gulbadan Habibi commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 17, 2026
I love all these black and white pictures.
Margherita Amodeo commented on "Finding Rainbows and Stars - A personal journey (Doreen Lobo)"
Jan 17, 2026
Dearest Doreen, You are such a wonderful woman. A true inspiration to all of us. Loads of love and blessings, Margheritax
John Gilmartin commented on "WINDOW PEEKING (by Myra Rudin)"
Jan 17, 2026
Beautiful work Myra, Thank you for staying in Black and White, these are classic.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Labels
Comments
Labels:
Comments
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment
If you are a member of XUNICEF, you can comment directly on a post. Or, send your comments to us at xunicef.news.views@gmail.com and we will publish them for you.