Author: Yan

I am an Adjunct Professor, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. I am also a former Chief, Labour Market and Employment Policies Branch, ILO, Geneva. I was educated as an economist at Manchester, Western Ontario and Cambridge. I am one of the founding editors of the Journal of Asia Pacific Economy (Routledge, London and New York).
Uncategorized

The political journey of a nobel laureate

Screenshot preview
favicon

It is February 2007. Only a few months ago, in December 2006, Muhammad Yunus earned the unique distinction of being the first ever Bangladeshi to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his pioneering work on micro-credit to the poor as a primary vehicle for lifting millions out of poverty. The institution that he led – Grameen Bank – shared the Nobel Prize.

Fresh from his global triumph, Yunus set his sights on the Bangladesh political landscape. Much to the surprise of mainstream politicians and the general populace at large, Yunus publicly launched a new political party Nagorik Shakti (Citizen’s Force) on 18 February 2007, which, he proclaimed, would contest in 300 constituencies whenever an election was announced. Thus, Yunus, ‘the banker to the poor’ emerged as a politician who embraced secularism and progressive, pro-poor politics and sought to lead the country into a new direction. Bangladesh, he felt, was in the grip of capricious, highly partisan, and short-sighted career politicians who were represented by the two biggest parties in the country: Bangladesh National Party (BNP) and Awami League (AL). Yunus declared:

“There is no way I can stay away from politics any longer. I am determined…and it does not matter who says what about me,” 

Unfortunately, the determination and enthusiasm associated with a new political party did not last long. Yunus withdrew from this new venture because it did not garner enough support. Nagorik Shakti was abruptly disbanded on 3 March 2007, that is, roughly two weeks after it was created. He ruefully acknowledged:

“I have decided to back out from my efforts for forming a political party, bowing to the practical aspects of the situation.” 

Yunus, the failed politician of 2007, did not anticipate that further trouble was brewing that would affect his global image. Unknown to him, Tom Heinemann, an award-winning Danish investigative journalist, started his intrepid field work on microcredit schemes in 2007 across three countries, Bangladesh, India and Mexico. This laid the foundation for an explosive 2010 documentary in which Heinemann argued that micro-credit, far from being an instrument for lifting people out of poverty, mired the poor and vulnerable in unsustainable ‘micro debt’.  A new documentary by DW (2025) substantiates the findings of Heinemann. Subsequent professional evaluations have found that the impact of micro-credit schemes on poverty ranged from ‘zero’ (Roodman, 2012) to ‘weak’ (Churchill, 2020).

Tom Heinemann

Heinmann also made the sensational claim that Yunus engaged in financial malfeasance. This allegation was not proven in an investigation by the Norwegian government which exonerated him from any financial and unethical wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, the Heinemann documentary added grist to the mill of then Hasina regime that was bent on a sustained campaign of persecution against Yunus. He lost his custodianship of Grameen Bank and became embroiled in all kinds of legal cases. Was Yunus being punished by a ruthless government for daring to challenge the political status quo as he briefly did in 2007? Probably.

Yunus managed to activate his formidable PR and political skills to portray himself as a noble victim of an authoritarian government and elicit both global and national sympathy for his predicament. At that point, one doubts whether he even imagined that he would be able to re-emerge as a politician and be at the helm of national affairs. This is what happened in August 2024. The long reign of the AL led by Hasina came to an abrupt and ignoble end as self-appointed student leaders, supported by the masses, unleashed a bloody and violent uprising and forced Hasina to seek refuge in neighbouring India.

After the failure of 2007, Yunus made a triumphant return to national politics, while his arch-nemesis Hasina languished in India. Under the recommendation of the student leaders, Yunus was appointed Chief Adviser to an Interim Government supported by an Advisory Council.

Has Yunus learnt the lessons of his 2007 short-lived experiment to engage in politics? In some respects, yes. There is indeed a new political party called Jatiya Nagorik Party (National Citizens Party -NCP). The similarity of this label to Nagorik Shakti can be readily detected. The key difference is that it is being run by student leaders of the anti-Hasina movement. So, in formal terms, there is a discreet distance between NCP and Yunus, but there is a widely understood notion that the NCP has the blessings of the interim government. Yunus appears to have the best of both worlds. He will not be held responsible if NCP fails to sustain itself electorally. If NCP emerges as a major electoral force, then Yunus has a lot to gain. He will indeed reign supreme and succeed in his long-standing quest to break the political status quo in Bangladesh.

Yet, the future for Yunus is not so clear. In seeking political redemption and retribution, the noble laureate has experienced several setbacks – such as the rise of Islamic radicalism, diluting the integrity of the judicial process, failure to improve the law and order situation, being evasive about holding elections, unable to engage in policies that can revive economic growth, reduce poverty and create jobs. While Yunus has actively courted one influential constituency —the self-appointed student leaders and Islamist parties —he has found himself at odds with the BNP. Bangladesh’s largest political party has insisted that an unelected, interim government must be quickly replaced by an elected parliamentary government by December of this year. The powerful Bangladesh Army has lent support to the BNP’s stand.

How does Yunus, the politician, respond under such challenging circumstances? Even a global icon like Yunus has limits to his authority and influence if he lacks electoral legitimacy. A sustainable pathway to power does not lie in prolonging the life of an unelected interim government or in offering preferential treatment to an upstart political party like NCP. Perhaps he should pay heed to the sagacious advice of one of his well-wishers:

” Yunus is 84 years old. His best bet to protect his legacy is to avail a safe exit by holding a free and fair election and facilitating a peaceful transition to a democratically elected political government, which would have more legitimacy than his interim administration and be in a better position to move the country forward.”

Uncategorized

The parable of the iconic film Sagina Mahato- does it foretell a path trodden by a Nobel Laureate?

By Aunul Islam

 Aunul Islam, read for his PhD at Imperial College, London. He graduated from The University of Manchester. He is a Quality Assurance Specialist in Higher Education and a Technology Consultant. He is an ex-civil servant of the UK government. A keen gardener, he finds solace through nature in this dysfunctional world order.

Figure 1 Legendary Indian actor Dilip Kumar as Sagina Mahato

Figure 2: Prof Yunus, who leads the Interim government of Bangladesh

The political drama continues to unfold after the fall of Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh, in August 2024. It has been more than seven months since that epochal event. I have tried to understand and fathom the various twists and turns that are taking place.

At the helm of the interim government is Prof. Yunus, a Nobel Peace Prize winner (Unlike prizes in science, literature, etc, which are very much technically vetted, the Peace prize has its own controversy as it is influenced by political manoeuvring, particularly by the USA).  According to Yunus, the students put him there to lead the nation and were supported by various advisers with different portfolios. Having seen much news, podcasts, political analyses, and – at the core-  several interviews given by Prof. Yunus himself, my mind cast back to a decades-old Bengali Film, based on a true story,  entitled “Sagina Mahato” (1970).    At the core of the narrative lies the story of how a factory worker, from North Bengal, Sagina Mahato, is manipulated by powerful, behind-the-scenes actors (represented by Amal) into becoming a labour leader and ends up as an apparent traitor to the cause of his comrades.

At this juncture, my analysis of the present political scenario in Bangladesh will be based on the two characters, Sagina Mahato and Prof. Yunus. One can understand how Sagina Mahato, a labour worker, who had no education and political knowledge and acumen, can easily be led to his personal and political doom. I fail to understand why Prof. Yunus should be in such a position, which, in my opinion, is spiralling into an abyss.

Several issues stand out. First, the rise of Islamic radicalism in Bangladesh is being tolerated by the Yunus regime, as the New York Times claims in a recent piece. Second, he continues to blame the ousted Hasina regime for the fragile law and order situation in the country, but how long can the Hasina regime be the scapegoat for the ills of today? Third, he has been evasive about holding elections, other than suggesting that they will be held sometime between December 2025 and June 2026. This ambivalent approach has perturbed even his well-wishers, such as Mahfuz Anam, editor and publisher of the prominent Bangladesh newspaper The Daily Star. Is the ambivalence merely a way for Prof. Yunus to cling to power by stealth? As Anam says:

“As his lifelong admirer and sincere well-wisher, I think that an undue extension of his tenure would mire Prof Yunus into unnecessary and, for him, undignified controversies”.

Sagina Mahato’s failure had led to affecting the lives of a few thousand workers, whereas the missteps by Prof. Yunus will affect a whole nation of approximately 18 million people. It is unfathomable why he should do so.  I leave it to experts in social theories of human character and leadership to fully understand him.

I can only leave a final thought by sharing two quotes:

“If you don’t know how to lead, why put us in this death trap”? – An unknown soldier.

“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace becomes a circus.” — Turkish proverb.

Uncategorized

Trump tariffs and the US-China trade war

Source: Financial Times

President Trump and his loyalists are true believers in the omnipotence of tariffs. They believe such taxes on imports will deliver economic nirvana to Americans. Tariff-jumping companies – both of US parentage and beyond – will return to US shores to jump-start manufacturing and create much-needed jobs, especially for the residents of the American ‘red states’.  Revenues from higher tariffs will fill the coffers of the Treasury enabling Trump to engage in pork-barrelling and funding pro-rich tax cuts.

Trump and his acolytes despise bilateral trade deficits. Such deficits reflect an underlying malaise: tthe rest of the world is allegedly ‘ripping off’ the US. Hence, the idea is to ‘carpet bomb’ hundreds of countries with punitive tariffs with China becoming a particular target of opprobrium. The global effective tariff rate is now the highest in the world since the turn of the 20th century.

While countries such as Vietnam have capitulated by offering to implement zero tariffs on American goods and services, and while some long-term allies, such as Australia, have offered no retaliation, China has taken a different approach. It has engaged in an active trade war with the USA by imposing retaliatory tariffs – see Exhibit 1 – and has announced complementary restrictions on American companies doing business with China.

Exhibit 1

Source: New York Times, 11 April, 2025

Which party will prevail in this clash of two titans of global commerce? To start with, Trump has blinked, despite his asinine proclamation that various countries of the world are prepared to ‘kiss his ass’. (warning: distasteful video content). He has been humbled by developments in global financial and bond markets. Stock market prices have declined sharply in response to the Trump tariffs. More importantly, one detects a restive bond market with returns on long-term US Treasury bonds rising sharply to 5 percent.

This has ominous implications for US borrowing costs as well as the cost of financing sovereign bonds in other parts of the world. Trump was forced to engage in strategic retreat by imposing a ’90 day’ pause on tariffs worldwide with the conspicuous exception of China. But…the Chinese authorities must have noted, in common with others across the world, that Trump’s seemingly invincible aura has been tarnished.  

Furthermore, many of the supposed benefits of the Trump tariffs represent wishful thinking rather than a pragmatic assessment of likely outcomes. Thus, the idea of tariff-jumping companies relocating to the USA is far-fetched, given that this is a process that takes time and relies on a predictable tariff regime. Trump has shown that the trajectory of tariffs under his regime will be highly erratic shifting with shifting economic and political circumstances.

The notion that tariffs will yield a revenue bonanza for the US government also ignores empirical regularities. Many decades ago, economist Arthur Laffer discovered the Laffer curve on the tax-revenue relationship: very low taxes lead to very low revenue collection, but very high taxes also have the same result. The Laffer curve is valid for the tariff-revenue relationship as well. At current prohibitive rates, the Trump tariffs are unlikely to yield a revenue bonanza – see Exhibit 2 – as the ‘volume effect’ of import compression will more than likely offset the ‘value effect’ of higher import duties.

Exhibit 2

Source: https://asiatimes.com/2025/03/tariffs-have-a-laffer-curve-too/

Once again, the Chinese authorities are likely to conclude that the incidence of the Laffer curve will prevent the Trump administration from building a war chest that it can draw on in its trade war with China.

Other factors at play put China at a strategic advantage vis-a-vis the USA.

China is no longer a country populated by ‘peasants’ as the American Vice President JD Vance would like to believe. It is now at the forefront of new technologies, ranging across renewable energy, electric cars, robotics, and AI. It no longer relies on cheap imports flooding the US market. Thus, China has undertaken both product and market diversification of its exports. In any case, China has a vast domestic market in which consumption growth is now the highest in the world led by millions of millenials – see Exhibit 3a. This deflates the oft-noted view that the overly centralized Chinese economic system over-invests and under-consumes. China is certainly politically centralized, but this is combined with a radically decentralized economic system that operates at the mayoral level. This is the ‘new China playbook’. (see Exhibit 3b)

Exhibit 3a and 3b–Consumption growth and the new China playbook

China also has a tight grip on rare earth minerals that are critical to the US tech and defense industries. One must not forget too that Elon Musk – the richest man in the world and one of Trump’s main supporters – has heavily invested in China to produce and export Tesla EVs. China, if it really wanted to be mean-spirited, could exploit these US-specific vulnerabilities.

China, as Mahbubani often points out, is the ‘oldest continuous civilization’. Deeply held notions of national humiliation by Western powers in the past (1840-1949) have shaped China’s outlook on contemporary international relations. A civilization is unlikely to be upstaged by an upstart Western power.

One should not, of course, paint a rosy picture in which China wins, and the USA loses in this trade war. Both countries will have bloody noses and will suffer a great deal of pain, as the Yale Budget Lab points out. Other model-driven estimates suggest that the USA will suffer more socio-economic losses relative to China – see Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 4

A US-China trade war will unfortunately impose considerable collateral damage to the rest of the world. Low- and middle-income countries are likely to suffer the most and will become the victims of this US-led, self-inflicted damage to a rules-based global trading system. Even worse, the putative trade war could lead to a catastrophic conflict on a global scale.

Uncategorized

US and Europe: the end of the transatlantic alliance as we know it?

The newly appointed US secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, made his inaugural speech to NATO and European allies at a Defence Ministerial on February 12. As a Trump loyalist, he conveyed his forthright message to an august audience. His speech was received in stony silence by grim-faced European officials and politicians.

Exhibit 1: Hegseth speaks to NATO allies…

His proclamations portend a major rupture in the transatlantic alliance that has endured since the 1950s. Thus:

  • European security should be the sole responsibility of Europe
  • Rich European countries should not expect the US to continue to act as Europe’s security guarantor through NATO
  • These countries should aim to spend 5% of GDP on defence even if the US does not.
  • The priorities of USA lay in Asia and in securing its own borders against millions of illegal migrants seeking to enter the USA from South America.

Perhaps the most conspicuous statements by Hegseth pertained to the way the US perceives the future of Ukraine.

Thus:

  • It is unrealistic to expect Ukraine – and Europe at large – to return to ‘pre-2014 borders’, that is, Russia can expect to retain Crimea and probably the vast bulk of Ukrainian territory that it has acquired since the Russo-Ukraine war that started on February 24, 2022
  • It is unrealistic to expect Ukraine to become a member of NATO.
  • Any ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine would have to be monitored by European and non-European troops – but not NATO and certainly not by the USA.

There were understandably adverse reactions from Europe, although the British Defence Minister, evoking the long-standing British tradition of understatement, simply said to Hegseth, ‘we hear you’.

President Zelenskyy was clearly crestfallen but put on a brave face. This did not restrain the editor of the Kyiv Post from lamenting that God Bless ‘America,’ but God Help Ukraine and Europe Fend for Themselves!

European and Ukrainian fears were exacerbated when Trump held a telephone discussion for 90 minutes with Putin. Both leaders agreed that they should meet at a summit in Saudi Arabia where they would finalize the contours of a ceasefire plan that clearly favoured Russia. The embattled Zelenskyy was given a consolation prize by receiving Trump’s post-Putin courtesy phone call.

Exhibit 2: Trump and Putin talkfest

Trump sought from Ukraine a formal agreement to gain preferential access to its rich mineral deposits which he saw as richly deserved compensation for the billions that the USA poured into Ukraine to fight Russia.

Trump also noted that Putin was right to raise concerns about Ukraine not joining NATO as far back as 2007. He felt that Russia should be part of the G7.

Russo-phobic European leaders were apoplectic but there was little that they could do to stop the Trump juggernaut on the ‘America First’ foreign policy that was taking shape in front of their disbelieving eyes. What happened, they wondered, to commitments by the previous US administration that said that Ukraine was on an ‘irreversible’ path to NATO membership? What happened to Biden’s promise that Ukraine would receive its unconditional support and poured billions into sustaining its proxy war against Russia even during the dying days of his administration?

The US Vice President, JD Vance, went even further than Trump and Hegseth. He noted that an enormous and probably unbridgeable chasm has opened between Europe and USA. It was a clash of views and values about the world at large. Unless centrist politicians in the region respected views and voices of American, MAGA-inspired nationalism in Europe, America had nothing to do with Europe. To Vance and fellow travellers, the far-right AfD in Germany was worthy of an audience but not Olaf Scholz, the beleaguered German chancellor. He and his entourage did not even bother to listen to speeches by French President Macron and the EU president Ursula Von der Leyen.

Exhibit 3: Vance issues a stern lecture to European leaders….

It is remarkable that, in the space of a few days, the Trump administration appears to have reconfigured the basic tenets of the transatlantic alliance that was consolidated during the Cold War. It is pathetic to watch Zelenskyy take on the mantle of European leadership. He made the delusional proclamation of forming a formidable European army in which Ukraine would play a pivotal role to deter Russian aggression in the absence of any tangible support from USA.

The harsh reality is that the European leaders allowed themselves to become subservient to the US and simply followed the Russo phobic policy of previous US administrations that reached its zenith under Biden. They tried hard to cling to the fantasy that Russia really does not belong to Europe and that it ought to be isolated and defeated diplomatically economically and militarily even if it means pouring billions into broken nation like Ukraine – billions that could have been spent on the welfare of European citizens. Along comes someone like Trump and ruptures such a fantasy.

Politics and Governance, Uncategorized

Democracy promotion, regime change and US foreign policy: The case of Bangladesh

On August 5, 2024, a student-led movement toppled Sheikh Hasina’s deeply entrenched authoritarian regime. The redoubtable Economist magazine voted Bangladesh ‘the country of the year’ (2024) because students led a movement that ‘toppled a tyrant’ and paved the way for a brighter future.

Do the student leaders really deserve such praise, or was there the not-so-hidden hand of external forces?

It is reasonable to argue that the legitimacy of a home-grown pro-democracy movement is impaired when it is co-opted by powerful external actors whose geopolitical considerations might not be aligned with a country’s national interest.

The Economist is silent on this issue, and there is hardly any national debate on this vexed question, perhaps because the media is still not free in the post-Hasina era.

The prime suspect that aided and abetted the expulsion of the Hasina regime is the USA.  This proposition is supported by a combination of historical records and circumstantial evidence.

To find out more, follow this link: