Young Diplomats

Initially seen as a mere local problem, the virus that flourished in the Wuhan province at the beginning of the ‘Year of the Rat’ spread rapidly, reaching every corner of the world and thus putting the globe under an unprecedented threat.

In fact, this new form of influenza not only has raised sudden concerns linked to the appropriateness of the general healthcare system and its capacity to tackle un unexpected emergency, but it also led both people and experts to start questioning whether this pandemic will have long-terms consequences in this current, interconnected era.

In particular, it is essential to focus on the impact that the illness could have on globalization. Defined as ‘the process of interaction and integration among people, companies and governments worldwide’, it lived a key turning point in the aftermath of the Cold War when, in pursuing a goal of more inclusivity, countries adhered to the principles of the Washington Consensus and embarked towards a path of a broader liberalization of the economy. Since 1989, the world has been characterized by decades of free movement of people and goods but, given the present circumstances, it is unavoidable to put this context under examination. More specifically, the COVID-19 has already heavily undermined the global economy in terms of production, demand and supply among a wide range of sectors, from cars to iPhones, from the pharmaceutical to the entertainment and travel industries. This shock generated with the extended shutdown of many Chinese factories, which resulted in a disruption of the production of a lot of goods both in Asia and Europe. This evolved in a downward trend in countries deeply interconnected to China, such as Japan, South Korea and Australia. To mention a few cases, Hyundai halted production at its factories because of a shortage of parts made in China, and Nintendo is facing a delay in delivering gaming consoles. Already recognized as a leading actor for the global output, this drop reiterated yet again the massive dependence that the modern economy has on China, especially at the retail operations level.

The outcome of this disruption highlighted the need of a reassessment of the world’s resilience in China, a tendency that was already underway with the trade war declared by President Trump, which consisted in imposing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods from China, hoping that this could force companies to bring back productions to the U.S. Now, the corona outbreak is being taken by the whole administration as an additional indicator to reinforce pressure on companies to leave China. But the american tycoon is not the only one who displayed such protectionism oriented tendencies. The pandemic has indeed brought the concept of nationalism into the spotlight again, with extreme right-wing nationalistic leaders such as President Bolsonaro of Brazil and Viktor Orbán accusing globalization to be the main responsible for the numerous economic woes of their respective countries. What can be deduced from this scenario is that integration of the world economy is undeniably in retreat on almost every front, as demonstrated by Brexit, by the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in 2017, as well as India’s removal from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) to protect domestic industries and jobs, to the western backlash against migration. These are clear proofs that multilateralism has taken a backseat, to the point that Walden Bello, a Philippine economist, coined the term ‘deglobalization’, which implies the idea of making the domestic market the center of gravity of the economy rather than the global one, in addition to using tariffs and quotas to preserve local industries and agriculture from being overrun by the products of transnational corporations. This new theory suggests that deglobalization is a matter of ethics, that prioritizes values above interests, cooperation above competition and community above efficiency.

Even tough this vision can appear quite radical, it is undeniable that globalization has been a major contributor to the decline of inflation over time, speeding even more when China joined the WTO in 2001. It is also true that greater interconnectedness leads to greater vulnerabilities, and that the COVID crisis thrown the global economy into a tailspin. But, on the other hand, it must be acknowledged that globalization brings with itself an incomparable set of advantages, including the creation of more employment opportunities and lowering the risk of currency manipulation problems. For these reasons, it can be stated that globalization is not destined to die, but will probably undergo significant changes despite the fact that there are still too many uncertainties surrounding the duration of the pandemic. Moreover, because of the way the global economy has developed since 1980, to question globalization today is equivalent to question the world’s relationship with China. In this sense, an entire of partial shift from China for trade and manufacturing can put at risk the personal legacy of Secretary General Xi Jinping, who has made technocratic competence the focus of his legitimacy. But a detachment from the Chinese supply chain could also weakens China’s position in the international relations realm, since the national origins of the disease can reaffirm the belief that China is dangerous and incapable of behaving responsibly.

Although many businesses have realized the risks of counting only on China, in order to resolve the potential damage that derives from the COVID upheavals, both governments and firms would need to learn how to achieve the perfect balance between concerns of the local, national and the global sphere. At the same time, companies must be prone to recognize that trade is becoming more regional and should invest more in doing business with regions in order to shorten supply chains and decrease costs. This doesn’t mean that this kind of pattern has to become a new universal rule, but it is likely to bring at least a temporary relief from the harm that the Chinese virus will inevitably cause to the global economy.

The novel coronavirus has changed the circumstances of life in which we tend to lived in. Steven Pinker wrote in 2018 in book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress that “the date shows that the world is becoming a better place.

Why WHO waited for two months to declare Covid-19 as epidemic?

According to him, any aspect of human well-being that you measure has shown an increase.  We live longer, more of us go to school, life is safer, and fewer of us die in wars.” But an outbreak of virus spanning the globe which emerged in Wuhan (China) has changed the world, and created so many conspiracies for example some people believes without an evidence that some military laboratories in UK and the USA deliberately started this outbreak in order to hit Chinese economy. And hence many questions ask for a red question mark: why this deadly virus started in Wuhan that is a densely populated city in China, not in Beijing because the wild animal’s meat is used in country wide.

Why WHO waited for two months to declare Covid-19 as epidemic? How Italy became second epicenter (which accepts more immigrants than any other country in Europe). On the other hand, President Donald Trump named coronavirus as a Chinese virus, and that might be true due to Chinese ambition to be a super power and for a lot of reasons. Firstly, the this virus emerged in Hubei province and travelled across the world infecting thousands, but it couldn’t hit Beijing and Shanghai which are known as heart of China because of being centers of Chinese industries corporations. Secondly, China seemed to be already prepared for this epidemic (now pandemic); one can give many reasons like creating hospitals in a few days, or having no any crash in stock market while Europe and the US had a huge loss a few days.

After all, as by March 31st, there are 571,605 active cases since 36,797 people have died globally assume that the pandemic is genuine that the entire world looks as though it is at war and globalization vanished. The question is how the world would look like when there would be an end of this disastrous crisis; will it bring major changes in the conduct of international political economy, in global health system or it will bring a shift in global power vacuum? The answer is, yes. As we are witnessing a decline in international trade and commerce, the first major and immediate change would be increase in global trade but on lesser profits, it assumes that the post-covid-19 world would encourage free and increased trade would wide. Secondly, countries would be more attentive towards healthcare system, investments on health and science would be increased. However, many countries would realize their incompetent healthcare system which has not been able to deal with this health emergency and has come close to a collapse. Thirdly, many of the political scientists and researchers believe that, covid-19 will also bring decline in populism (populist leaders like Boris Johnson or Donald Trump would go home) and power would be shifted from US to China. Scientist and doctors would become new heroes; they would be center of political and economic policies. And finally, micro-biological and AI revolutions will occur that would dramatically change the field of science and new discoveries and medicine would be introduced to the world.  At last, World Economic Forum quotes an agenda that “our post-coronavirus world will be built on what we say and do now.”

COVID-19 and future of Globalisation
By: Vishnu Sasikumar

The recent corona virus outbreak has taught a lot of lessons to the globe within a short span of a month or more. The virus has penetrated almost in every part of the globe , spanning across the six continents, making its presence felt in nearly 149 countries. As the globe grapples to fight and contain this outbreak, it has learnt a lot of lessons, such that it might affect the future alignment of the system of the International Relations.

COVID-19 has shown or rather proved the extent to which the world has globalised. An outbreak which had its origins in Hubei province of China, has made its presence felt in the other side of globe and not even spared the island nation of Australia, New Zealand. Hubei, which was more or less a remotely known province, is now in the headlines of almost every news agency, multi lateral organisations of the world. While the world is currently combating the pandemic, there are certain questions which the pandemic has left, which need to be answered once it is contained.

The first and foremost question is regarding the nature of globalisation which has taken place around the globe. While the optimists argued the overall movement of goods, services, people, money would benefit all the countries of the world, the recent COVID-19 outbreak has rather reinforced the sceptical view which argued that globalisation as a phenomena only existing in the network between Washington, London, Tokyo and Beijing, i.e. Globalisation in practice only benefits the economically affluent countries of the world and these countries frame the rules , beneficial for themselves through their influence in Multi-lateral institutions. The COVID -19 has spread at a phenomenal rate throughout the world, with the epicentre now shifting towards Europe. One of the main reasons for spread of this outbreak might be China being the epicentre of the outbreak. China is the manufacturing hub of the world and there is a humungous amount of flow of goods, services and people to and fro China. Few years ago, there was an Ebola outbreak in the African mainland. This virus was far more dangerous than COVID-19, with the former’s mortality rate being nearly 50 percent and the rate of transmission was a bit lower than COVID-19. But ebola couldn’t affect the globe because one of the primary reasons being its point of origin. . The whole COVID-19 proves the unevenness or unequal distribution caused by globalisation. It has led us to question the current nature of globalisation and rethink in a new way.

The second question pertains to the responsibility for the pandemic that has occurred. Currently no country is stepping forward and taking the blame, all the fingers are pointing towards China. China is facing criticisms for its animal markets, non-transparent administrative apparatus and delay in responding to the emergency situation. The Chinese authority stepped in and undertook measures only during the Stage3 or Stage4 of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Even after being the epicentre and even when the first cases due to an unknown virus were reported back in November and December, the administration intervened in much later. According to the World Bank and IMF, the world economy is set to lose nearly USD 1.3 trillion due to COVID-19. According to Asian Development Bank, in worst case scenario, India is set to lose USD 29 Billion. There are voices which demand for a reparation from China for the collateral damages caused by this pandemic but unlike the Treaty Of Versailles where the whole blame was placed upon Germany, there is no such provision which holds a party responsible for the damages caused by epidemics, pandemics etc. which again take us to the question, Who is to be blamed. There needs to be some provisions in international charter, laws or some conventions where the party or parties must be held responsible for the collateral damage caused due to a pandemic which has aggravated due to negligence or has been created with the purpose of creating a biological weapon on the part of above mentioned party/parties. The latter is altogether on a different tangent and requires separate mechanism and techniques. While all these things are not even being thought of, the Chinese Administration is already spreading propaganda in its favour, trying to shirk away from the responsibility and blaming the U.S. for the same, which has yet another geo-strategic interest. Globalisation has also brought with it, the psychological phenomena of “DIFFUSSION OF RESONSIBILITY.” The Blame game played in the case of COVID-19 already proves it.

The third question points to the open borders, especially in the European continent. There were no doubts that open borders in Europe had a lot of advantages, but at the same time the disadvantages associated with the same are now highlighted in the current pandemic situation. With Italy becoming the second hotspot for COVID-19 in Europe, it is clear as how the virus has gripped all of Europe under its influence. Many countries in the Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries were contrary to the images associated with epidemics. Even after their excellent HDI records, excellent health system and infrastructure, these countries are also among the worst hit due to COVID-19. The Open Borders of Europe, the provision of Schengen visa are the things which have been thought upon. There seems a rise of right wing nationalist politics in these countries, demanding for closure of borders as a necessary step, which must be extended even after the pandemic is contained. COVID-19, in a way has fuelled up right wing nationalism and conservatism in Europe and has provided impetus for the same. The Governments of the respective countries are working, rather than relying on the supra-national E.U. The failure to contain the COVID-19 outbreak in Europe would be attributed to the failure of E.U. as an organisation or as a super government and this would prove the Euro-sceptics true. This is interesting to note, especially after the BREXIT, which has already weakened the EU. It would be interesting to see how the EU works or aligns itself after the pandemic has been contained.

The fourth question or the point which COVID-19 has shown is the rise of new arena or dimension of competition between the countries to gain the world superpower or leader status. History is testimony to the fact that there has been competition among countries at different historical junctures in different arenas to gain dominance all over the world. The countries have taken part in arms race, space race, IT race etc. The cold war was a culmination or rather an era where all these were taking place. The recent one being the race to be the pioneers of 5G technology, in which China and U.S. have locked horns against each other, for they know that the pioneers of 5G technology would be the pioneers of the new world where data is everything. The new arena which now has invited the globe for a match is the health sector. There are already conflicts or differences among the countries over the development of vaccine for COVID-19. The recent one being between the U.S. and the Germany, where the latter is blaming the former for stealing their findings. All the major players are in the race of finding a cure for COVID-19, for they know that the one who finds the cure for the same will have a leverage in conducting the world affairs. The U.S. is going ahead at a fast pace in order to make use of this opportunity to regain the waning power status and to counter the Chinese dominance and rise, which resonates with Trump’s policy to make America great again.

It would be interesting to see how the world responds to the above mentioned questions and how the international globe re-aligns itself once this pandemic is contained. This can even change the whole weltanschauunng of the globe. But one thing is for sure, things won’t be the same . COVID-19 has become an impetus for possible changes in world.

After the general elections of 2019 in India, Narinder Modi has again embellished the crown of Prime minister of India on his head.

All the dreams, including the dream to make India greater and brawny power of the world, are concerned with the first prime minister of India Mr. Nehru. From the very first day the Indian premier leadership including Nehru is trying to make the foundation of the country strong. No doubt, the political parties of both Nehru & Modi are different as Nehru had a hefty CONGRESS while Modi has BJP (Bharti Janata Party). But the dreams, desires, aspirations are analogous to make their beloved country “Greater India” in the entire context e.g. political, economic, social, education, and defense & security. With the inauguration of Modi administration in 2014, India commences its voyage towards exceeding progress and decided augmentation. Under the headship of Narindra Modi, India tries to make itself economically, socially and politically more strong and get sure internal sovereignty.

Furthermore, due to sophisticated Indian premier, India gets eminent position on international level.

Now, India is ranked in the influential as well as dominant player of world affairs in general and energetic runner in Asian political marathon race with nuclear power. Under Modi, the contemporary India is quite different as compared to India during the days of Nehru.

The eras are reasonably diverse. The immense population growth, unstructured education system, peace & stability in the region, demolish terrorism from the region, publish the soft image of India in the world newspapers and play the movie cassette titled “Soft India” on TV channels are the some intentions carried by current Indian premier. Besides internal troubles, the exterior threats including terrorism and the rising China give also red signal to fresh leading management of New Delhi. According to the political pundits of India, think tanks and analysts, the rising China is the biggest external threat to Indian security. The Chinese policies and strategies e.g. Periphery strategy, Strings of Pearls, OBOR (One Belt One Road initiative) and CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) are the ubiquitous threats for India and her acquaintance and now a days, the USA is the foremost top ranked pal of India.

In modern era, every state wants more power and besides this acquisition of power, the main national interests of states are to make more affirm their existing power. The same story is associated with the world sole superpower USA. In Asian continent, the main theme of US policies and strategies are to make American power and unilateralism insistent. After the end of Cold war and disintegration of USSR (Union of Socialist Republic), the US won the Crown of world solitary superpower and introduced “MADE IN AMERICA” Liberal world Order.

After this incredible victory of the US, the popularity of the American power strokes the sky. The victory in the independence war in 16th century, W.W.I, W.W.II and in Cold War were proved that the US is exceptional power. The US wants its exceptionalism. As a specific term “American Exceptionalism” was first referenced by author Alexis de Toqueville in Democracy in America, a book published in the 1830s. Throughout the latter half of the 19th century, when America began to build its empire, the idea that the US was special and blessed by God reigned supreme. In addition, America’s victories over Japan and Germany revitalized the belief that the US is unique and a new expression for American exceptionalism was born. On January 9, 1961, John F. Kennedy said, “Today, the eyes of the world of all people are truly upon usand our government, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill.” Kennedy was promoting the idea that not only is the US economically and socially unique, but its political system is an example of a model government. After the Cold War, the American model became the new norm; American exceptionalism became a much more popular concept.

In 1996, Bill Clinton said that “America remains the indispensable nation” and that “there are times when America and only America, can make a difference between war and peace, between freedom and repression.” This American exceptionalism term further materialized one more idea of “American Paternalism”. American paternalism refers to America’s belief that other states in the international system need the US and the American desire to interfere in the affairs of other states for the good of that state, the international system, or both. In many ways, American paternalism is derived from American pride and linked to American exceptionalism. As the hegemonic power, the US has a tendency to treat its relations with other countries as parent-Child relationships, which is one of the reasons the US feels comfortable violating state sovereignty and interfering in the affairs of other states for moral reasons such as human rights violations, civil war, etc. The United States relationship with present international system is different from the relationships that other states have with the current system. In the aftermath of W.W.II, the world was in shambles and the US set out to construct a new international system and a new world order, one which it hoped would bring peace, development and prosperity. The US was challenged by the USSR, and because the both were interested in building inconsistent kinds of worlds. After the collapse of USSR and the end of Cold war in 1991, American vision for the world became a reality. With the establishment of the new American-led liberal world order came the emergence of American paternalism as it is now. American paternalism is also directly connected to the American desire to preserve its leadership in Asia. The US believes that not only is American leadership in Asia in the best interests of the US, but it is also in the best interests of Asia and according to American leadership, the US sees itself as a parent for the international system and Asian region. American hegemonism is the byproduct of American exceptionalism and paternalism. According to the political specialists, the US is indeed a global hegemon. American hegemonism is the desire to promote and preserve this hegemonic status as well as protect its power at all costs, makes the US a threat to revisionist challengers including Russia, North Korea and rising China. With the beginning of 21st century, the world structure has reshaped from uni-polar to multipolar and with the passage of time the friendships, relationships, rivalries and national interests of the states have been re-examined. The living example of above sentence is the romance between India and the US with the turn of 21st century. After the 50 years of estrange relations, the two democracies India and the US decide to renovate their relations in potent strategic nexus. Now, India is the top listed country in the documents of Washington as steadfast, strong and committed ally. On the contrary, Pakistan who was the active member of the US made security alliance blocs like SEATO, CENTO and fought proxy war against USSR during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1970s, is now, very far from the US kindness and considerations. The rising China, developed Japan, Russian juxtaposition with Asian states, Chinese OBOR & CPEC projects, emergence of SCO, the economic & natural resources supremacy of Asian region, the Indian Ocean significance, natural resources of central Asia and Chinese expansion and sea lanes of communication (SLOC) from straits of Harmuz to Persian Gulf and Chinese active appearance in (SLOC) give red signal to the US hegemonism in Asian region. The US takes China as a revisionist state as like as the USSR after the World War II. The political pundits argue that this is second Cold War as well as emergence of bipolarity between the US and China and the present American leadership will repeat its history by making alliance in Asian continent same like during the Cold war era against USSR and the US will try its best to change the bipolar to unipolar system another time because the US takes rising China as USSR part II in 21th century. 

The US is taking alliance making theory and give heavy aid to Asian countries, do agreements, sign nuclear deals like India, build strategic partnership to counter its present competitors and rising revisionists states and try its best to preserve its ideology of exceptionalism, paternalism and hegemony in Asian region.  Therefore the Trump’s slogan during his election campaign was “Make America great again”. From Nixon to Obama and now Trump, the foremost objective of the US is to maintain its hegemony in Asia and protect its national interests. For the acquisition of national interests, once again America is making ally in the region and India is the most favorite state in Asia generally and in South Asia specifically. Additionally, the permanent seat in United Nations Security Council (UNSC), economically development, brawny defense, advancement in arms, soft image at international level, threat of rising China and the dream of “Greater India” are crucial factors behind the Indian juxtaposition in the arms of the US and both states ready to start polite lovely strategic romance with the identification of “strategic partnership”. Apart from the Indian non-alignment policy, Nehru slogan of Asia for Asians, India-USSR proximity in Cold War, the paradoxical role of the US during India-Pakistan wars, ideological differences, diverse national goals and estrange relations during the Cold war, Now, after the end of the Cold War and especially with the awake of 21st century the US and India renovate their relations from estrangement to strong partnership. According to the Indian Diaspora and leadership, the rising China expansionism in Asia, Chinese involvement in Indian Ocean and OBOR project, vigorous course of actions in seaports in Asia, CPEC project in Pakistan, Chinese growth towards South East Asia, Africa, Middle East, Central Asia & Latin America regions and the energetic escalation of SCO in Asia are the threats to Indian security in contemporary era. The beginning of strategic partnership with the US is the foremost & only solution for India to overcome this rising China threat. In addition, India has very inadequate options to counter the rising power of China. First, if India adopt the non-alignment policy, this is not suitable for this modern era. 

Today, one state is dependent on another state. Second, if India adopts internal balancing in the context of Balance of power to balance China, India is not internally powerful, stable and has not numerous resources. The last and more suitable option is to do bargain with the US against their common threat (China). There are several reasons behind this Indian bargaining with the US. First, the US is superpower. Second, the US has its own hidden interests in it and takes China as emerging threat to the US hegemony in Asia. Third, India is emerging power of Asia and associated with Indian Ocean and SLOC. Forth, the US is scared that if Asian powers e.g. India, Russia, China Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Pakistan and Australia get united in coming future then American power in Asia will be ended. So, in closing remarks, India and the US have vivid future because both democracies are indispensable for each other in modern geopolitics. Apart from most fifty years estrange relations during Cold War, divergences of ideas, clash of interests, diverse in some values but the rising power of China is the crucial factor behind the foundation of strong strategic nexus between India and the US. The political analysts argue that It is again Cold War which will be between the US and China. And America is trying by leaps and bounds to win this Cold War again by any means because the US doesn’t want to lose its excpetionalism status. On the other side, India also wants to stop the rising power of China to embellish the crown of Asian power on its own head. That’s why, apart from Past divergences of interests, currently, Modi visit to US with titled “Howday-2019” and reciprocally Trump Visit to India labeled “Namste Trump”, both of the Leaders of democratic states Modi and Trump are following the words “Old wines in the new glasses” and they have their own interests which are associated with each other and both are hopeful to their bright future trade, economic, defense and strategic relations.

Creating a favorable environment for local investment

The energy landscape in Nepal continues to shift, with the increase in demand.  Today, almost the totality of energy is being generated from hydropower. However, 21 million people still rely on energy supplied form biofuels and waste.  The constrained production of the energy for the domestic supply, along with the rising energy security concerns, has attributed to the greater significance of coal. Also, the rising import of the region’s dependence on oil has accumulated worrisome picture for the future of the country. In alignment with the ambitious goal of achieving the production of 15 gigawatts to meet the increasing domestic demand for electricity, Nepal needs to increase investment more in the energy sector. This has been further echoed by the World Bank report, emphasizing on the twofold to fourfold increment in the public and private investment to mobilize the existing energy resources and explore the sector’s export potential. As per the report, the investments in the electricity sector will have to be increased substantially to an average of $1.3 billion to $2.1 billion annually between 2018 and 2040.

As a landlocked country, Nepal has always been banking on the potential of hydropower to accelerate the country’s economic amelioration, with the hope of alluring foreign investment in the power sector. During a couple of past summits on energy, the key of attracting foreign investment on the hydropower has been the much-discussed topic, with Nepal’s President Bidhya Devi Bhandari stating “In the wake of major political change in the country, our main goal is to achieve rapid economic growth,” at the Power Investment Summit 2018. “We need to develop infrastructure to promote our economic development. Harnessing hydropower is an infrastructure development and constitutes a base for prosperity.” The litany of the former conferences on energy, hydropower has always highlighted the same issue of mobilizing hydropower with an increase in foreign investments. However, with the outcome of little ineffective results, and no follow up action taken, the so-called strategy of holding conferences have yielded hopelessness among Nepalis.

In the coming days, instead of only focusing on alluring foreign investments, Nepal’s accomplishment in the energy sector in the recent past should be discussed, with the focus on how Nepalis can also actively participate in the regional energy trade, transmission lines infrastructure, and financing. Nepal has the potential and should be embodied as the source of clean hydropower for the Asian region. And undoubtedly, Hydropower is the sector that can draw the public’s attention on investments. Initiatives and efforts must be made to remind and persuade people to invest in the hydropower sector and protect the money that is being put into energy by thoroughly expanding domestic and regional demand for the electricity generated. Meanwhile, the other developing nations around the same region have succeeded in exploring their resources to value chain in manufacturing and garments and have consequentially attracted investors. These countries have also succeeded in attracting their diaspora to invest back in their home origin. Nepal, on the other hand, has continuously failed in meeting the demand of Nepalis residing overseas for special provisions to non-residents.

Thus, the question remains, why is Nepal’s progress stagnated? The accumulation of all the factors ultimately boils down to poor governance and shared by a lack of accountability. Furthermore, efficient formulation of policies with effective implementation catered towards a proper national vision is in short shortage. The government much be proactive in carrying out all the energy-related development activities. Recently, Barshaman Pun, Minister for Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation has emphasized his dissatisfaction with the government for their inactive approach towards the country’s development, at the 12th National Irrigation Seminar. Attributing to the recent smoothness in stable government, with no protest and manifestation, he enquired in the slowdown of spending development budget and ignited on how every political party and administrative representative should review the work. Furthermore, instead of finding solutions to the problem, redefining the problem to tackle its root causes should be the mentality going forward, and this is exactly the reason why people are so pessimistic. The government always rushes towards holding various energy Investment Summit for the sake of a summit and attracting foreign investment without even beginning to address the root causes.

Foreign investors are only allured to put their penny into the country that promises good results, a country that provides good incentives and economic transparency with a guaranteed absence of bureaucratic troubles. It is hard to entice investors to the country, even when the Nepali business sector discerns their profound reluctance to invest and start their business in their own country. Thus, the attention now needs to be diverted to improving transparency ineffective handling of governance, to provide environment and opportunities for local investment in the renewable sector to meet the regional demand of the country.

Signs and protestors proclaiming “Injustice is not an investment,” “Climate change is not a game,” and “We’re still here”… The heated adrenaline is almost palpable if you step onto college campuses today. The kids are asking for divestment.

According to Fossil Free, universities have divested around $14 trillion to date. Divesting means that they will actively sell shares in companies that spark environmental or social concerns. In the words of 350.org, this implies “a fast and just transition to 100% renewable energy for all,” “no new fossil fuel projects anywhere,” and “not a penny more for dirty energy.”

Today, over 25 academic institutions have partially or completely divested their endowments, but what do these figures mean? Who are these colleges and universities? And who will follow in their footsteps?

Let’s start by taking a look at a few case studies.

Stanford University: The Early Front-Runner that Lost Momentum

When Stanford announced back in 2014 that it would purge its $18B endowment of coal stocks endowment, Stanford turned heads; its prestige and elitism alone made an impact for the divestment movement. However, since then, Stanford has made a name for itself for entirely different reasons.

Over the past few years, Fossil Free Stanford has rallied for and organized peaceful sit-ins countless times to protest the university’s decision to retain investments in ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Royal Dutch Shell, among others. In 2016, the university rejected a bid supported by students, faculty, and alumni to divest the entire $22.2B endowment from holdings in oil and gas companies. “We feel hurt and disappointed that Stanford’s administration has chosen to remain invested in climate injustice and in the destruction of our future,” student activist Michael Penuelas said.

In a 2018 Statement on Investment Resposibility, the university instituted the first Ethical Investment Framework for divestment, deeming investments that were “abhorrent and ethically unjustifiable,” such as apartheid, genocide, human trafficking, slavery and violations of child labor laws as candidates for divestment.

Unfortunately, global warming was not severe enough to make the cut.

Syracuse University: The Unlikely Success Story

When announced in 2015 after a meeting between administrators and a student organization called Divest SU, Syracuse’s $1.2B divestment was monumental for a few reasons – for one, it was the largest endowment to be completely divest from fossil fuels (other universities have divested from coal and tar sands only). The university also committed to pursuing investments in companies related to solar energy, biofuels, and advanced recycling.  Syracuse’s chief financial officer announced that the divestment had not hurt the school’s financial performance and that in 2017 performance actually increased by 12%. The impact of divestment on universities’ financial position may differ by institution, as an analysis at Arizona State University estimated a 2-12% loss in endowment value, but overall, this shows that divesting doesn’t have to be accompanied with financial sacrifice.

Georgetown University: The Next to Divest

Georgetown University is one of the latest universities to jump on the divestment bandwagon. In February 2020, the university pledged to remove fossil fuels from its $2 billion endowment. The timeline gives Georgetown five years to divest from publicly traded fossil fuel companies and 10 years to divest from private corporations. In the student body referendum conducted a few days earlier, over 90% of students supported divestment, and, similarly to Syracuse, Georgetown not only divested, but also recommitted its funds to renewable energies.

Divesting can definitely earn substantial media attention. Georgetown’s divestment news received praise from 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben and coverage in The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Washington Post. Many took to Twitter to demand their alma maters to divest as well, citing Georgetown as an example to follow, among private Catholic institutions.

This move also attracted criticism from skeptics viewing it as a pure PR stunt. In an article entitled “The shallow symbolism of fossil fuel divestment,” Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote, “Every share of ExxonMobil stock sold by Georgetown is a share simultaneously purchased by some other investor — almost certainly an investor with no desire to demonize or punish fossil fuel companies. As an ExxonMobil investor, Georgetown may have some leverage over company policies. As an ex-investor, it has none.”

Some universities are arguing that divesting their endowment is not the answer, pointing to plans for carbon neutrality and plastic-free campuses. It’s proven that divestment doesn’t necessarily reduce share prices in the short-term, so whether divestment is the best course of action to achieve the desired outcomes for the planet, is highly debatable and, in many cases, remains to be seen.

What’s the future for climate change divestment?

As the energy for climate justice picks up, we are seeing more pressure, particularly from young, go-to-streets student bodies, to take more radical action. In November 2019, during a Harvard-Yale game, protestors stormed the field, yelling, “Fossil fuels have to go!” For over a decade, students have been campaigning for Harvard to divest its $41 billion endowment, the largest in the world. Although the UC system came on-board in 2019, no Ivy League schools have made the jump to full divestment. But there are strides in the right direction and more support for the business case around divestment. “We believe hanging on to fossil fuel assets is a financial risk,” expressed Jagdeep Singh Bachher, the UC’s chief investment officer, and Richard Sherman, chair of the UC Board of Regents’ Investments Committee, explaining the fiduciary duty they have to pension holders, professors conducting research, and students studying on scholarships.

Insiders at Harvard reveal some behind-the-scenes politics influencing pushback against divestment. The Harvard Cooperation appoints its own members to oversee the endowment, who are subject to the approval of an alumni-elected Board of Overseers. Nathan Goldberg, a Harvard alum from 2018 expressed, “…Former overseers have told us that if there’s a mandate from alumni, there are people willing to follow.”

If an academic heavyweight like Harvard comes on-board, it will certainly change the sentiment globally in favor of divestment, but we still need more research into the repercussions of divestment. Does divestment truly slow the growth of fossil fuel behemoths? Does it hurt or help the university’s financial performance for shareholders in the long run? By answering these questions, we can pave a path for future divestment – or call colleges to take alternative actions and make different public announcements to denounce climate change.

The strategy for accelerating the transition to a low-carbon energy system, without limiting economic growth, is arguably the most important energy challenge today, underpinning the need for fulfilling the rising demand of Nepalese.

The global rate for the carbon emissions from fuel combustion accelerated rate in 2017, with the decline in the clean energy investment by 8% in 2018. The increasing frequency of extreme weather events has reiterated the need for a quicker transition to a low-carbon world, echoing the urgency of reducing emissions and limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Energy drives economic growth. Although the wide acknowledgment of the role of energy in economic growth is discussed and documented tremendously, the concomitant issues regarding the types of energy produced and its impact on the environments have also opened floors for enticing debates around the world. Today, approximately 80 % of total energy consumption in the world is contributed by fossil fuel sources, and have stirred detrimental repercussions, raising questions on its efficiency. The conventional usage of fossil fuel causes carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to enrages alteration in the balanced ecosystem. Thus, the urgent need to embark on the end of the fossil-fuel era is on the horizon, with the increasing awareness and share of clean energy usage. Owing to the effectiveness of renewables like solar, hydro and wind consistently exceeding expectations, development of varied electric vehicles and the availability of other options like nuclear energy, the governments worldwide are acknowledging the urgency of tackling climate change.

It has been 5 years since the Paris agreement 2015 came into force to keep global warming below 2◦ c by 21st century, and since then, several countries have joined the momentum to accelerate towards cleaner energy, followed by the world’s fastest-growing economies like China, and India also joining the bandwagon to promote the production and consumption of renewable energy. With the rapidity of climate change deteriorating the natural environment, causing the retreat of glaciers, the need for the transition towards cleaner energy is even more important for developing countries like Nepal, as the need for accessible and affordable energy not only helps the degrading environments but also fundamentally supports the expansion of other industries, that ranges from modernizing agri-business to increasing opportunity for trade and transportation.

Whilst Nepal stands today as one of the countries with abundant water resources, its continuous failure to balance and maximize the benefits of this asset has deterred negative ramifications in its development. Poor water management planning has escalated into the worsening of the effects invigorated by the natural calamity that further puts additional stress on the environment, worsening floods and landslides, causing depletion of fisheries, and hardening the access to clean drinking water. The management of the water is complex, but there are constructive solutions to redeem its problems. Furthermore, a hydrologist from ICIMOD, have discerned the paucity of reliable data and, structured and standardized data collection guidelines as major existing problems in the current hydropower development industry.

One of the ways can be ensuring an effective creation of a data-driven framework for effective management of water resources that can aid the country to mobilize the potential of water for Nepal.

Despite the existence of renewable energy production potential, Nepal still to these days depends on the petroleum product. Biomass, in the form of firewood, agricultural waste, and animal dung, has consistently dominated energy supply and consumption. The usage of traditional biomass, which covers over the four-fifths of total energy supply need in Nepal, notoriously contributes to deforestation, indoor air pollution, and triggers other respiratory health problems. Over 80% of Nepal’s rural population heavily relies on biomass and/or fossil fuel, further exacerbating the existence of various health problems affecting women and children particularly. It causes loss of agricultural productivity resulting in reduced fodder for livestock. So far, Nepal has managed to produce 30 megawatts of power from an accumulation of small and micro-hydro projects. Furthermore, the country’s installed 850,000 solar power for domestic lighting and successively constructed more than 400,000 biogas plants.

With all these developments, yet somehow, the central question remains unaddressed:  what is the plan for accelerating the transition of energy parallelly with the rapidly growing population?

Maximize utilization with the data-driven hydropower development in Nepal.

Despite having a rich water resource, the existence of poor water management coupled with environmental stressors has obstructed the optimum utilization of these resources. The emphasis on better coordination can eventually lead to smarter management and policy. Various numbers of ministries are involved in water management and the dearth of proper coordination among them leads can be attributed to the poor allocation of water resources and lost opportunities.

In addition, the availability of reliable hydrological data can be equally crucial for influencing the acceleration towards cleaner energy. Countries like Nepal, can only fully optimize their resources for immense hydropower generation in the presence of data that are updated and timely available. The dearth of hydrological data is one of the major impediments to fully unleashing the potential of available resources. According to Economic Survey 2018–2019, released by the Ministry of Finance, Government of Nepal, Nepal has a potential of harnessing about 83 GW, of which about 43 GW has been regarded as being technically and economically feasible. But in the absence of adequate hydrological data to support national strategies, its total installed capacity is around 1.1 GW. The policymakers must be supplied with a good range of verified data, to make decisions on the cost and benefits of pursuing various projects and its likely outcomes. The coordination between water-based research institution and policymakers need to be well communicated to formulate policy, considering the perspective from a range of diverse stakeholders who use and appreciate Nepal’s water resources.

Nepal’s bestowed with the abundant hydropower resources and the much-needed economic development can only surface, by exploring the available resources rather than importing resources that only adds more loss to the country.  The investment in fossil fuel has stagnated globally with much of the emphasis directed towards renewables. Thus, Nepal a country with rich water resource needs to differentiate mainstream hydro from other renewables sources. As per the reports, Nepal has the potential to produce at least 40,000 MW of hydroelectricity, with the current production only amounting to 1000 MW. Currently, there are several projects catered towards the development of hydropower in Nepal, with the preliminary work on the Chisapani-Karnali Multipurpose Hydroelectricity Project, which at a capacity of 10,800 megawatts (MW) will be Nepal’s largest project, all slated to go on the floor. Other major projects include Naumure, Sunkoshi –II, Sunkoshi –III, Kaligandaki and Nalsingad. With the use of clean renewable energy to achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs), Nepal can gradually claim its path towards a green economy with a healthy and prosperous environment.

As the country is still in the transition phase to a federal democratic model, the new government has the opportunity to designate the bureaucratic power to build a solid policy foundation for initiating a standardized data collection guideline to promote the consistency of data collected by an environmentalist in the hydropower industry. Thus, with the promulgation of effective coordination, and data-driven planning can accelerate the potential of water resources.  The hydrological resources are an indispensable part of life, and in the particular context of Nepal, It’s a way of life. Every people living in Nepal has the role of maximizing water utilization and should continually insist on governments, and private research institutions to use the most vital resource strategically and sustainably for the benefit of the country’s long term success.

Kobena Acqua began his popular poem with the eponymous line in the navel of the soul as an imagery of the traditional method of detecting the formation of new life in the womb. In the traditional African society, it is enough to put the hand under the navel and feel the throb of the fetus.

But to the experts, this is unorthodox. What if there are other causes behind the movement that is felt? There is need to subject such claim to some sorts of test. Not until the urine test is out should anyone give a false hope that pregnancy is truly there. With the high level of assurance the traditional midwife holds her claim as against negative test result by the expert, the conflict in Aqua’s poem began to crystallize. An ideological clash!
The experts of course have been having a field day. Pregnancy test is just a case out of many. But, do we yield all ground to them and abandon all the traditional ways of medication before the evolution of the modern medicine. Acqua rejected! If you think it is madness that nurtures such lucidity to hold unto what we have found to work in traditional medicine, then, we would prefer to be more mad! Things have however changed greatly. The practitioners of alternative medicine have come to realize they do not need to choose madness as Acqua blurted in exasperation. The leverage the experts enjoy is in their approach. Intuition and experience is no longer enough in medication. We have to adopt research. We have to go methodical!
Covid 19 pandemic has meant everything antithetical to human normal way of life. The world is in a topsy-turvy kind of. Many nations, states are forced on a lockdown to minimize the spread of the virus. Social distancing is the new trope of taking responsibility. How long can the world nations sustain lockdown? If the developed economies are already feeling the strain what becomes of those whose large populations are in the informal sector? People in different parts of the world are reportedly beginning to ignore social distancing and quarantine rules. In Israel, ultra-orthodox Jews clashed with police while protesting Coronavirus restrictions. There have been similar cases in Berlin and Pakistan. The state of Georgia in the United States has abandoned most legal controls imposed over coronavirus while Nigerian government has hurriedly announced a phased ease of lockdown in the three states where it was initially imposed.
Many countries appear to be undoing their initial success in limiting the spread of the virus. The world is in a desperate need of solution as over 3 million people have been infected and there have been more than 240,000 deaths from the virus. The experts seem to focus on only one direction, and that is vaccination. Ordinarily, it takes five years to develop a vaccine. May be at best, the process would be condensed to like 18 months. Acqua’s assertion has begun to find an echo in some parts of Africa. Some institutions in Nigeria have begun clinical trial of plant based curative medication to the deadly virus. There seems to have been a breakthrough in Madagascar where the virus is said to have been managed with traditional herbs without disrupting the economic life.
As Friedman rightly observed, the virus is seen by some as an excuse by the elite to seize control of society. The way the experts and world leaders are limiting the search for solution to the development of vaccine will only further fuel the misgivings. Such mental set is a costly fixation in problem solving. Jennifer Wiley in her popular research on expertise and mental set said, “When a problem requires a broad search for a solution subjects with a large amount of domain knowledge may actually be at a disadvantage, because their knowledge may confine them to an area of the search space in which the solution does not reside. In other words, domain knowledge (expertise) may act as a mental set promoting fixation in creative problem solving attempt”. Some have even alleged that the experts and their world bodies are only serving the interests of world pharmaceutical giants. A governor in Nigeria who contracted the virus mentioned how he was told to take black seed oil to boost immunity and to that he attributed his cure. It is certainly not enough to tell people not to take any curative medication not certified by the experts while the experts refuse to acknowledge plant based solutions that are product of research.
Covid 19 is a disruption and disruption is what it is. It is marked by disorderliness. But when the voice of authorities is recognized in the chaotic situation, we begin to reorganize our thoughts, views and efforts toward orderly solution. The search for medication should be complementary and not one directional. This is not time to promote distrust in the authorities. But let the experts broaden their research for solution and prove there is no bias for where the solution comes from. This is a fight for collective survival and we can’t afford that people should go all out of their minds. For in the navel of the soul as Acqua said:
We too have felt at times
The throb
Of a straining heart
A spirit refusing to be drowned
In its own water before birth.

By:Kamoli Ahmed

Historically, India and US had a very cold relationship, mostly due to US Support to Pakistan. But after George W. Bush came into power, India and US have been on good terms and the Nuclear Sanctions imposed by Bill Clinton in 1998 were pulled off through India-US Nuclear Deal in 2008, the bilateral trade between India and US tripled between 2004 and 2008.

The tenure of Barack Obama was the golden age for India-US relations on all levels as US formally started supporting India’s bid for a permanent seat in UNSC and also for admitting India into Nuclear Suppliers Group and Weapons Trade has also increased exponentially due to common geopolitical interests and this increased even more after Osama bin Laden was caught hiding in Pakistan in 2011. What this also meant is that major incidents like the Devayani Khobragade incident failed to cause any long-term issues between the nations while it would have earlier

Barack Obama addressing Indian Parliament in 2010
India was classified as a major non-NATO ally in 2004 but the offer was rejected by India due to the policy of Non-Alignment. However after Narendra Modi came into power in 2014, India has adopted a policy of Multi-Alignment going for strong relations with rival nations like USA and Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia etc and that also meant even stronger relations with USA in the face of Pax Sinica which will affect both India and US adversely which resulted in the Quadrilateral Dialogue between India, US, Japan and Australia which started in 2007 and was rejuvenated in 2017 and more importantly, Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement was signed in 2016 which allowed both nations to use each other’s bases for minor uses thereby classifying India as a strategic partner of US.
But Donald Trump’s presidency has been a whole another affair, the problem with Trump is that he is a businessman who only looks to exploit other nations to benefit him in the short run and is extremely averse to working together to attain long-term goals. While he has no problem praising India and more importantly, Narendra Modi, it is only an effort to woo Indian-American voters who are overwhelmingly Democrats and this has paid rich dividends for him as he is now viewed favourably among Indian Americans and Indians.

Donald Trump speaking at Motera Stadium, Ahmedabad
But beyond the PR, his policies are pretty much disastrous for Indian Interests in the long term. His numerous trade tariffs and barriers have hurt Indian industries and he doesn’t hesitate to use vile words like Tariff King to describe India who is only trying to exercise her rights and America’s lax attitude to Geopolitics also gives a free hand to China who has been continuing with debt trap diplomacy in South Asia which is contradictory to Indian Interests in the region. Trump’s antics to cut legal immigration and strictening H1-V visa rules have also hurt many Indian citizens. He has also forced India to not buy oil from Iran because he doesn’t like the Nuclear Deal his nation signed which makes India too dependent on Arab States for oil. His decision to pull out of Afghanistan by de facto legalising Taliban will be catastrophic to India as Taliban is directly or indirectly the instigators of Terror in Kashmir.
But this doesn’t mean that all Democrats see India in a favourable view either, many Democrats on the Progressive wing like Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris don’t seem to be great fans of India, and more importantly, of the current government and Bernie Sanders is especially concerned about Kashmir, while the merit of their statements is a whole another question, what can be agreed upon is that it is not good for India in any manner and reduced involvement of US in World Affairs which is flaunted by many progressives will do harm for India.
But the presumptive opponent of Trump, Joe Biden, is a different figure, he was the Vice President of Barack Obama and his stance on Foreign Policy pretty much resembles that of Obama’s which is definitely good news for India. If he wins elections, it is likely that legal immigration to US will be increased and many dumb trade barriers will be removed thereby helping Indian Industries and it is likely that US will finally start facing China head-on in the World Stage instead of running away which is what Trump is trying to do, so in short, expect less PR events like Howdy Modi and Namaste Trump as most Indian-Americans are already Democrats and expect more on substance like closer co-operation between companies, education sector etc which will be good for Indians as a whole, not just the leaders and their parties.

Goré— Following the last outbreak of civil wars in the Central African Republic (CAR) in 2013;
thousands of Chadians living in the country sought refuge in Chad, mainly in the country’s
southern provinces. The Chadians who have returned to their country of origin; they are called
“returnees” — Thousands of those returnees lived in CAR for decades and generations, were
then forced to return to Chad due to conflict and ethnic cleansing. More than 115,000 of the
returnees are currently in Chad; about 80,000 of them are currently living in the poor Southern
parts of the country; in the Logon Occidental and Logon Oriental provenances. Goré is one of
poorest and most underdeveloped parts of the country; is already hosting more than 43,000
Central African refugees and about 45,000 Chadian returnees from CAR and few other refugees
from Democratic Republic of Congo. During a four-week visit to the south parts of the country;

Young Diplomats’ Africa regional director, Idriss Zackaria; has paid a visit to several camps in
the regions, seeking for an innovative programme to integrate refugees and returnees, and
provide peace awareness programme.
When home doesn’t feel like home
For many of the “returnees”; Chad is an unfamiliar place and totally unknown world. Even
though some of them are proud to get home safely, however, they face enormous difficulties and
challenges; including their lack of belonging, coping with change and facing fear, lack of
documentation and subsequent inability to access basic services; almost a total dependence on
humanitarian assistance, and having to share meager resources with host communities that are
themselves poverty-stricken. In addition to their attachment to a foreign country that some of
them call it “home” and relative unfamiliarity with their homeland result in insurmountable
obstacles to their ambitions and dreams.
Youssouf Ahmat, 41, a father of eight children, he returned to Chad six years ago with his wife
and his children. In CAR – precisely in Bossangoa; the capital of Ouham – he was a cattle trader
and broker, but he lost everything including his house and his cows during the civil war. Today
he can’t run a new business but he kept working as a broker in Goré and some other villages’
markets around Goré. When we first met him, he sounded to us like a tribal leader – very strong
personality and kind.
Ahmat’s story is amazing just like many other returnees we met at Danamadja camps, when he
thinks about his life back in CAR; sadness, nostalgia and mixed feelings are inevitable. He told
us “It is nostalgic and sometimes it hurts when I think about all the things that I lost just within a
few days after years of hard working and achievements.” Ahmat still believes that CAR can be
his second home, but said that he considers Chad to be his first home because Chad is where all
his family belongs; it is the safest country for him even thought he is facing difficult economic
situations for the moment. “I have been struggling so hard to put some bread on the table for my
children. It’s been a complex for me and my family for the last six years. It’s almost impossible
for the kids to adjust to the new changes, they don’t feel like they belong” Ahmat added
Dahabaye Ahmat, a mother of seven children. She lost her ex-husband during the civil war. She
was living in a neighborhood which was heavily hot by violence. When she first arrived in Chad

she was resettled in Danamadja camps, a ten-minute drive from Goré – distance doubles during
the rainy season – in the deep; Dahabaye reflected some heartfelt emotions – said that the death
of her ex-husband had been the most painful emotional period of her life. ‘’CAR is a nightmare
for me and my children; I don’t even want to think about it. My ex husband was killed and cut
off to pieces by the Anti-Balaka militias, I couldn’t save him. CAR was probably better only for
the market. Here, you can hardly sell anything. I’m here with my daughters. WFP is helping us
but not as much as before. I receive five USD per month. They sometimes take three months to
provide food for us, but I am ok to be here as long as God is taking care of me and my kids” said
Dahabaye
Should I stay or should I go?
Perhaps; the life of many of these returnees starts with a single question at Danamadja camps:
Should I stay or should I leave? For Oumar Ali; that question was answered when he first arrived
to Chad. According to him; getting home safely and finding shelter is not the end of his
nightmare. As he tells us his story, we have a sense that there is something terribly wrong in this
situation. ‘’we have lost our individuality and humanity in these camps, it is impossible to see a
doctor, trader, teacher, mechanics, farmer or anyone that can tell me something about the way
forward. I only see mothers, fathers, children and grandparents who share the same struggles and
fears with me. We have become homeless in our own home. That’s why, there is no reason for
me to stay here anymore, I am leaving.’’ Ali added
The desire to return to CAR varies among Chad’s returnees. In Danamadja, some traders say that
they lost everything and do not want to set foot again in CAR. Many of them intend to start
businesses in Chad and are confident about finding a place in Chad’s economic and social fabric
despite the hardships. According to Ahmat, he is still interested to go back to CAR only when
there’s security and peace “If there is security for everybody, we will manage to start again from
here. Then we will go back to CAR. Simply; because we know how to make money there” said
Ahmat
In their own words, their quest to find safety is coasting them their economic dignity; “I don’t
want to go back to CAR even though my economic conditions are difficult here. I don’t want to
risk the lives of my children. I am going to stay here for the rest of my life.” Dahabaye replied
Remaining in legal limbo with no way forward
By contrast, most of the Chadian returnees say they do not want to stay in Chad and will return
to CAR when it is safer. Many of them emphasize that they do not have connections with their
relatives in Chad, having never been to the country. In Danamadja camp, an old man who lost his
herd spoke about new job prospects back in CAR: “I have close friends who work in the
diamond and gold trade and others in trade in general; I’ll see what I can do to work again”. All
of them focus on how, before the crisis, they lived peacefully with their fellow citizens and regret
that, as Muslims, they are seen as supporting Seleka group. “They thought we were part of the
Seleka because we are Muslims” confides the old man before adding, “If the crisis ends, we’ll
definitely go back to Central African Republic and we’ll start again like before. However, I can’t
go anywhere else for the moment…transport is too expensive and risky now.” While some

returnees remain optimistic, others realize that given the level of violence in CAR, reconciliation
will be almost impossible, or a long and difficult process.
It is remarkable to see how a vision shared by all the returnees whom we interviewed, one related
to the lack of sense of belonging, which is a critical first step in supporting their recovery
journey. However, the Danamadja camps offer a good sample of the diversity for the returnees
affected by the crisis: from herders with or without their cattle, to farmers, merchants, gold
dealers and students. Many Fulanis – Uda, Sankara, Mbororo and Jaafun – targeted in the bush
with their cattle by the anti-balaka are in the camps. Other Arab traders, such as Misseriya,
Awlad Rashid or Salamat who lost everything during days of anti-balaka lootings, are also
camped with them. Finally, there are, to a lesser extent, some Gbaya people, Manja, Ngbaka and
Kaba from farming communities, in addition to a few number of haussa, Borno and Gouran who
fled the violence. As the CAR refugees and the “Chadian returnees” rarely have identity cards,
and among the latter many claim Central African citizenship or deny Chadian connections, it is
still easy to determine who Chadian is and who Central African is.
From these facts one may conclude that, food distribution plan needs to consider beneficiary's
interests. Due to funding constraints, the last food distribution at Danamadja site took place in
April. The site has already suffered, what people here call “the village” are shelters built in the
neighboring forest with no schools or social initiatives. It is worth mentioning that social and
economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic could be worse than its health consequences at
these camps in the short and longer term.