Offers succinct commentary on topical issues that cut across both rich and poor countries. Entails critical insights on poverty, inequality, health, macro-policies and many more
Mortality statistics have a direct bearing on life expectancy (at birth). Higher morality leads to lower life expectancy and vice versa. COVID-19 represented a major mortality shock over the last 70 years, but its impact was uneven across the world.
The United States experienced the third highest loss in life expectancy because of COVID-19 in a sample of 29 high income countries. Only Bulgaria and Slovakia had worse outcomes. It is also worth noting that: ‘in the United States, the pandemic has accentuated the pre-existing mid-life mortality crisis’. (Scholey, 2022).
The countries that do well are in Northwest Europe, especially the Nordic countries.
Paul Krugman suggests that the decline in life expectancy in the United States is regionally concentrated with ‘red states’, where political conservatism holds sway, suffering disproportionately from COVID 19 deaths.
There is a statistically significant negative association between the magnitude of the decline in life expectancy and vaccination uptakes – high declines are associated lower vaccination incidence.
Figure 1: COVID-19 and life expectancy in a sample of high income countries
Here is a chart which looks at both life expectancy at birth for men and women (eO) and inequality in life expectancy as measured by the Gini coefficient (gO) over the 2010-2020 period in India. There is a sharp decline in life expectancy among both men and women between 2019 and 2020, with levels equivalent to what prevailed in 2010 for women and 2014 for men. In terms of years lost, ‘…the mortality pattern of COVID-19 reveals a drop of 2.0 and 2.3 years for men and women, respectively, between the pandemic year 2020 and the non-pandemic year 2019’. (Yadav et al, 2021).
Inequality in life expectancy – which was falling consistently between 2010 and 2019 rose sharply after that. In sum:
“The COVID-19 pandemic has negative repercussions on life expectancy and inequality in age at death and has slowed the mortality transition in India.”(Yadav et al, 2021)
I reflect on how and why Gautam Adani – a leading member of India’s Billionaire Raj – became the victim of a stock marker rout. He was once regarded as the second richest man in the world. His net worth has taken such a hit that he is now ranked the 18th richest in the world, while his group of companies has lost more than USD 100 billion within the space of a week.
Rishi Sunak’s spectacular rise in British politics has understandably drawn a great deal of global attention. His achievements are indeed for the history books: the first ever non-white British Prime Minister of Indian heritage who is also a practicing Hindu; the youngest in more than 200 years. His conspicuous status as one of the richest Prime Ministers in British history owes much to his marriage to Ms Akshata Murthy, the daughter of the Indian tech billionaire Narayana Murthy. Rishi Sunak, like very many British former Prime Ministers, is the beneficiary of elite education (Winchester College, Oxford, Stanford Business School).
In September, it appeared that Rishi Sunak was destined to become the ‘nearly man’ having lost comprehensively to Liz Truss when the rank-and-file members of the Conservative party voted for her in droves. There was a certain irony in the ascension of Liz Truss because Rishi Sunak was blessed with a strong show of support by his fellow MPs but the plebians in the party decided to disregard the collective will of the plutocrats in Parliament.
Fate smiled on Rishi Sunak when the Prime Ministership of Liz Truss imploded spectacularly in the wake of her pristine neoliberal agenda of using unfunded tax cuts, primarily directed towards the rich, to drive growth. The ‘markets’ rebelled at such fiscal profligacy at a time of high inflation and rising public indebtedness spelling the end of Ms Truss and her Prime Ministership. She could only depart with the indelible label of the shortest serving Prime Minister in British history. This paved the way for Rishi Sunak’s rise facilitated by the ‘kingmakers’ of the Conservative Party (the 1922 Committee) who changed the rules of selection to give a very high degree of weight to a candidate’s popularity among MPs. The only remaining contender (Penny Mordaunt) did not stand a chance, while the disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, seeking a triumphant return, simply gave up. Rishi Sunak was duly anointed as the leader of the Conservative Party without even having to seek endorsement from rank-and-file members.
Does the rise of Rishi Sunak in British politics herald a new era for ethnic minorities in multicultural Britain? As someone who lived in the UK for ten years during the early 1970s and early 1980s as a student (A levels and University education), I was struck by how far Britain of that period has evolved. I still recall the racist slurs (‘Paki’) that were occasionally directed at me and my family and the horrendous bashing from racist thugs that two of my friends endured. As Aamna Mohdin notes, ethnic minorities at the time were subjected to a ‘sustained campaign of terror’ by nativist agitators. Furthermore, in 1980, the year Rishi Sunak was born, there was not a single person of colour in the British Parliament. Multicultural Britain of the 21st century has thankfully moved beyond the primitive rage of the nativists of the 1970s and 1980s.
Image 2: ‘Skinheads’ in the 1980s notorious for being associated with ‘Paki-bashing’.
It is thus legitimate to ask: does the phenomenal political elevation of Rishi Sunak mean, as Indian politician Shashi Tharoor who is also a fierce critic of British colonial rule says, that Britain has ‘outgrown racism’. I am not so sure. I like to think that the British Conservative Party consists of overt racists and forward-looking realists prepared to allow for pragmatic accommodation with ethnic minorities. Racists are captive to primordial emotions that overcome their judgements. Hence, they yearn for an insular and nativist agenda that belies current circumstances. Realists know how to hide their racial prejudices while having full faith in the superiority of Western/European civilisation. Realists know that the UK, for decades now, has embarked on an irreversible path towards a multicultural, multi-faith future. Realists realise that there are many potential Rishis in waiting. They can no longer be ignored as natives who serve ‘vindaloos’ to white clients or mind the corner store through all sorts of odd hours. Furthermore, realists feel much more at home with the ‘pucca sahibs and begums’ of colour rather than the ‘white trash’ in some forgotten part of Northern England who can’t even speak English with the right accent. More importantly, the realists are fully aware that these pucca brown sahibs and begums can be relied upon to project a ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude to demonstrate their Britishness. Hence, one has the glaring example of Suella Braverman who has returned as home secretary to continue her role as aggressive culture warrior and who is keen to pursue her anti-immigration agenda. She is also on record as saying that Britain should not feel apologetic about its colonial past. In sum, I would argue that the realists in the Conservative Party are happy to have the fig leaf of diversity reflected in Rishi Sunak and many of his colleagues who are in the frontbench.
Video insert of Suella Braverman extolling the virtues of the British Empire
There are multiple reasons to believe that Rishi Sunak is most unlikely to disrupt the status quo of an iniquitous society that cuts across class and race. Hence, the Conservative Party is in a safe pair of hands. His coronation does not connote a new era for multicultural Britain. Rishi Sunak is a self-proclaimed ‘proud Thatcherite’. He voted for Brexit. He believes in a low tax, fiscally conservative regime. He will be preoccupied with soothing the frayed nerves of the markets through fiscal consolidation regardless of its socio-economic consequences. This is a conventional Conservative way of responding to economic challenges. Hence, one might see a replay of the fiscal austerity program under David Cameron that ‘broke Britain’.
Broken Britain today manifests itself in many ways, but most notably in large-scale poverty and deprivation. According to the comprehensive poverty line devised by the Social Metrics Commission, 22 percent of the population were deemed to be poor even before COVID-19. Ethnic minorities were conspicuous for very high poverty rates. Other surveys show that nearly 5 percent of the population are ‘food insecure’ with a sustained increase in the utilisation of foodbanks. With an incipient energy crisis and the lingering effects of COVID-19, poverty in the UK is likely to get worse. Do not expect Rishi Sunak to acknowledge these challenges and seek to act upon them. It is only a matter of time before the first person of colour to become British Prime Minister shows his true ideological colours.
There are, as Ronald Suny points out, two contending narratives on the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine and the humanitarian catastrophe that it has created. The dominant version familiar to many in the West is that Ukraine is the hapless victim, and perhaps the first of many, of Russian neo-imperialism. The architect of neo-imperial intent is Vladimir Putin. Such a narrative is enunciated as a morality play, with a cast of characters that range across victims, villains, and heroes. It is a story in which the victim, a morally righteous David (in the form of President Zelensky of Ukraine), is pitted against a vile and villainous Goliath (manifested in the Russian President Putin). US-led Western heroes of NATO are aiding and abetting David with weaponry, financial assistance, moral support, UN-led condemnations, and crippling sanctions on Russia. They are protecting liberal democracy in Ukraine in particular and East Europe in general. They are defending a ‘rules-based’ global order.
At the same time, the US and its Western allies are exercising restraint because they are ruling out any attempt to engage in a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia. The expectation is that this strategy will pay off as Russia concedes defeat and decides to end its invasion of Ukraine. Any attempt to seek a negotiated settlement with Russia is seen as appeasement which will only embolden Putin. It will entail a betrayal of the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to remain a sovereign nation and embrace the liberal democratic West through eventual EU and NATO membership.
The alternative view is that the perfidious Russian invasion of Ukraine is a tragedy foretold, especially by foreign policy experts and scholars of international relations in the US. Its roots lie in egregious errors of US foreign policy, and it has to do with NATO.
It was under President Bill Clinton that the project to expand NATO ‘eastward’, that is, to incorporate the ex-Soviet Republics in Eastern Europe, gathered pace. Bill Clinton and his cheerleaders celebrated such expansion. Then-Senator Joe Biden played a pivotal role in this cheerleading exercise proclaiming that ’50 years of peace’ was within the grasp of humanity. Much more knowledgeable observers were alarmed.
On June 26, 1997, a group of 50 prominent US foreign policy experts that ‘..included former senators, retired military officers, diplomats, and academicians, sent an open letter to President Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion’. They considered a ‘…US-led effort to expand NATO (to the former Soviet Republics) ‘ as a ‘…policy error of historic proportions’. They highlighted the fact that ‘In Russia, NATO expansion…continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum’ which will ‘…bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement’. They proceeded to argue that Russia, struggling to recover from the political and economic calamity of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, ‘…does not now pose a threat to its western neighbours and the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are not in danger’. This warning was duly ignored and the US Senate ratified NATO expansion starting with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in April 1998.
‘I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.’
In 2007, Vladimir Putin gave a much-noted speech at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) where he expressed his clear disapproval of a US-led ‘unipolar model’ that emerged after the end of the Cold War proclaiming that ‘I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world’. Most importantly, he observed:
‘NATO expansion … represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today?’
Yet, in April 2008, the US and its NATO allies welcomed Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO, although when it was likely to happen remained unspecified. The irony is that, as Stephen Walt points out, Ukraine was a non-aligned country until then.
One could argue that Russia’s response to the ‘serious provocation’ (Putin’s words as uttered in 2007 – see above) of NATO expansion entailed the use of military force and the use of pro-Russian proxies to protect its security concerns. The Russo-Georgian war of 2008 is consistent with this interpretation. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and a grinding conflict in Eastern Ukraine led by pro-Russian separatists might be seen as responses to the so-called Maidan revolution that led to the ouster of a pro-Russian Ukrainian President. Sadly, in this contentious affair, the US was not an innocent bystander. As Ted Galen Carpenter notes, US politicians openly aided and abetted the progenitors of the Maidan revolution in which unsavoury far-right political forces played an important role.
Those who support the view that NATO’s reckless eastward expansion and its offer to incorporate Ukraine as a member of NATO at some point in the future provoked Russian aggression also point out that the US would react in much the same way if faced with similar circumstances. Suppose Mexico was to seek a security alliance with Russia or China and allowed its territory to host foreign army bases. The US would react aggressively. This, Peter Beinart explains, would be a re-affirmation of the Monroe Doctrine formulated nearly 200 years ago in which the US states that it has the unique right to exercise its sphere of influence in its own hemisphere and any attempt by ‘foreign powers’ to tamper with this right will be perceived as ‘dangerous to its peace and security’. Hence, Putin’s 2007 proclamations appear to be a Russian version of the Monroe doctrine.
It is impossible to prove the veracity of this interpretation of the historical context to the current tragedy that is unfolding in Ukraine today. It is entirely possible that Russia would have invaded Ukraine even in the absence of NATO enlargement. This counterfactual cannot be dismissed, but those who subscribe to it do not have a tangible solution other than seeking the comprehensive defeat of Putin’s Russia. Short of this seemingly unattainable goal, what is a way forward?
Sanctions are certainly likely to cripple the Russian economy, while indirect military support to Ukraine would sustain this highly uneven conflict between David and Goliath. Despite sanctions, Russia will probably continue its brutal military interventions in Ukraine simply because sanctions, while causing a great deal of pain borne by ordinary people, do not lead to changes in the core strategy of a particular regime (think of Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and similar examples). As the IMF has warned, the longer the crisis in Ukraine persists, the greater the adverse consequences on the global economy. This is primarily because of adverse energy and food price shocks caused by further disruptions to supply chains already reeling under the impact of COVID-19. The poor and vulnerable in parts of the world far removed from Ukraine are likely to bear the brunt of adverse price shocks.
Those who subscribe to the view that NATO’s eastward expansion is a central part of the narrative on the war in Ukraine suggest it ‘could really be ended with a diplomatic solution in which Russia withdraws its forces in exchange for Ukraine’s neutrality’ (Jeffrey Sachs). There are small, prosperous countries in Europe, such as Finland, that peacefully co-exist with Russia without being members of NATO. Henry Kissinger, perhaps the personification of the US foreign policy establishment and leading scholars of international relations – such as Stephen Walt,John Mearsheimer, and others – fully concur with this prescription of ‘Finlandization’ of Ukraine.
Micheal Mandelbaum, one of the 50 who raised formal objections to the NATO enlargement project in 1997, has wistfully reflected on an alternative scenario. ‘Imagine, he says, a different global configuration, with Russia aligned with rather than opposed to the United States’. Indeed. Imagine!
Durable global and regional peace is likely to happen when the US and its Western allies move away from treating Ukraine as a morality play in which they, and they alone, are the defenders of a rules-based international order in a multi-polar world. Will they have the humility to acknowledge that the NATO enlargement project has probably led to unintended, but tragic, consequences? Will they embark on the delicate task of persuading the current regime in Ukraine that its best future lies in being a non-aligned nation buttressed by mutual security guarantees from Russia and the US and its allies? Will the West, in cooperation with Russia, be prepared to offer a massive reconstruction package to enable Ukraine to move beyond the ruins of war? Only time will tell.
The Royal Commission Report into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry will be released to the public this afternoon (4 February 2019). The Commission had already published an Interim Report in September 2018.
The Interim Report had hardly anything good to say about the industry. Rather, the Commission used the word “greed” to describe the industry’s behaviour and how the industry largely treated the ordinary customers. Otherwise, how can one explain fees charged for services not provided? Fees charged to dead people?
The Australian banking industry had been politically very successful for decades. In the post-GFC years, the industry used the excuse of ‘rising costs of funds’ in international markets for raising their interest rates asynchronous to the RBA’s rate decisions. Nobody raised an eyebrow when the major four banks reported record profits year after year while still crying poor about rising costs of funds. The crux of the matter is the banking industry fell into a culture of profit at any cost and bank executives’ remunerations were linked to profit and revenue. Thus, the bank executives in Australia all they cared for was whether they were contributing to the bank’s revenue and profit. Bank leaders did not care enough whether their employees were doing the right thing for their customers. If the bank management were thinking that they were more focused on creating shareholder wealth, shareholders thought differently. ANZ, NAB, and Westpac – all received a ‘first strike’ 2018 under Australia’s ‘two strikes’ rule. CBA received a ‘first strike’ in 2016.
So, the bottom line is: yes, we want our banks to be profitable and financially strong. Yes, we need strong banks for a strong economy. But the profit must be clean.
This is a deeply personal narrative yet layered with history. What stands out is how the narrative intertwines individual memory with collective national trauma. The author moves between moments of hope (1971, independence) and disillusionment (1975, the assassination of Bangabandhu, and later political upheavals), showing how “paradise” shifts from a homeland to a fragile state of mind.
Paradise. For me, it was never a distant dream—it was home. The land where rivers meandered through green fields, where the air carried the scent of liberation and hope. In 1972, at sixteen, I left that paradise behind, boarding a plane to the United Kingdom with a heart full of ambition and a mind still echoing the cries of victory from a bloody war of independence.Bangladesh was free, and I believed its future would be bright.
Image 1: A huge crowd celebrates the Bangladesh Liberation War
Three years later, I returned. The contrast with Britain was stark, yet I felt no dissonance. My country was poor, scarred by war, but it was mine until 15 August 1975, when paradise bled again. The Father of the Nation—our beacon of freedom—was brutally murdered along with his family in a military coup.What shattered me was not only the violence but the silence that followed. A nation that had fought so fiercely for liberty now stood mute, whether paralysed by shock or poisoned by betrayal. My dream of returning home after my education crumbled that day.
Image 2: The dark night of Bangabandhu’s assassination: how it unfolded…bdnews24.com, 15 August 2021
I tried again in 1979, hoping time would heal. But the spirit of the liberation war was fading, replaced by whispers of corruption and compromise. In 1985, I returned to settle, married, clinging to the hope that roots could still grow. Yet the soil felt strange beneath my feet. By 1988, I went back to my newly adopted paradise—the UK—carrying the ache of a homeland slipping away.
From 1995 to 2006, I made another attempt. I walked the streets of my childhood, searching for the rhythm I once knew. But the society had changed beyond recognition. The ideals we fought for were eroding; the language of freedom was drowned in the noise of greed and power. I was a stranger among my own people.
And then came the final blow. From 2006 to 2025, I watched from afar as history was rewritten. In 2024, another political upheaval erased the very memory of our liberation struggle—the foundation of our identity. The dream that had carried me across oceans was gone. My paradise was not just lost; it was betrayed.
Image 3: Celebrating the July uprising…but where is the nation heading?
Image 4: Bangabandhu Sheik Mujib’s home is destroyed as a crowd watches with a combination of fear and fascination
What does it mean to lose paradise? For me, it is not the loss of land or flag, but the slow death of ideals—the erosion of truth, justice, and memory. I fought for a country that promised freedom, dignity, and hope. Today, that promise lies buried beneath the weight of power and silence. Paradise, I have learned, is not a place. It is a state of mind—a fragile vision we carry within us. And when that vision dies, even home becomes foreign.
I am a migrant twice over—once by choice, and now by necessity. My adopted land gave me shelter, but my heart still wanders the streets of a homeland that exists only in memory. I am, and will remain, a stranger in my own paradise.
Zohran Mamdani prevailed over Andrew Cuomo in the mayoral election of New York City (NYC) held on November 4. Cuomo, a former governor of New York state and, more importantly, a scion of the Democratic Party establishment, was easily beaten by someone who was virtually unknown a year ago. A third Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, became a rather distant third.
Young, energetic, and infused with a great deal of personal charm and charisma, Mamdani demonstrated an exceptionally high degree of oratorical skills. He has an uncanny ability to connect with a diverse constituency.
Mandani’s election victory is as improbable as it is memorable. He is indeed destined for the history books. At 34, he is the youngest NYC mayor in over a century and the first one since 1969 to get over a million votes. Cuomo, despite being disgraced by allegations of multiple instances of sexual misconduct, decided to run for the mayoral election as a Democratic nominee, only to find that it was the unknown Mamdani who ousted him in the primaries. Cuomo, driven by pure ambition and a sense of entitlement, decided to run as an independent only to be defeated, yet again, by a seemingly upstart politician.
Mamdani is also the first-ever Muslim mayor of the largest city in the United States. He was born in Uganda to parents with Indian heritage. His mother, Mira Nair, is a globally well-known filmmaker. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a distinguished political scientist and anthropologist who teaches at Columbia University in his capacity as a Professorial Chair.
Mira Nair
Mahmood Mamdani
Mamdani used his religious identity like a badge of honour that reflects both his political acumen and a deep commitment to fighting Islamophobia that has become rampant in US and Western political discourse. In doing so, Zohran Mamdani seems to have been inspired by one of his father’s provocative scholarly contributions, where the author makes a distinction between ‘bad’ Muslims and ‘good Muslims’.
‘Bad Muslims’ are seen as inherently anti-American and antisemitic. They are both despised and feared as ‘Jihadists’ who reject Western hegemony. They are prepared to fight an interminable war, through acts of terrorism, against both Israel and its Western allies. ‘Good Muslims’, on the other hand, are supposed to be secular and westernised and fully prepared to accept Western hegemony. They lead quiescent lives as law-abiding citizens in both the Western and Muslim worlds. They seek to remain, as Zohran Mamdani put it, ‘in the shadows.’
In the official ‘war on terror’ that was launched by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, the underlying premise is that good Muslims need to be separated from bad Muslims through a combination of coercion and co-option. This is how anti-Americanism and antisemitism can be durably defanged. Hence, the rise of ‘Homeland Security’ (with a current budget of US$411 billion +) and a high surveillance society primarily targeting Muslims in the US-led West. Islamophobia became the norm rather than the exception.
Zohran Mamdani is certainly secular and ‘Westernised’ in the sense that he was largely educated in the United States. Still, he is prepared to step out of ‘the shadows’ by embracing the anti-establishment ethos of the ‘bad Muslim’. He openly supports the Palestinian cause and decries the genocide committed in Gaza by Israel. He uses this narrative to reinforce his ‘Democratic Socialist’ credentials where he seeks to improve the living conditions of ordinary New Yorkers through concrete measures, such as affordable rental accommodation, free public transport and universal childcare financed by modestly increased taxation of the top 1 percent of affluent New Yorkers and raising the corporate tax rate to match the rate prevailing in the neighbouring state of New Jersey.
It seems that Zohran Mamdani had the last laugh against his detractors. He read the mood of the electorate much better than his Democratic fellow travellers. More than 30 per cent of Jewish New Yorkers voted for Mamdani – no mean feat for someone painted as a Jew-hating politician. As he observed in his victory speech:
“I am Muslim. I am a democratic socialist. And most damning of all, I refuse to apologise for any of this.”
Of course, Zohran Mamdani has a long journey ahead. His powerful political opponents, including President Trump, will not quietly accept the electoral verdict. After all, multiple billionaires poured more than US$40 million into Andrew Cuomo’s campaign coffers. The pro-Israeli lobby will not wither away. Anti-Mamdani forces will be relentless in discrediting and vilifying a politician who is both a ‘socialist’ and a ‘bad Muslim’. Will they prevail? Only time will tell.
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.
As I watch Israel’s destruction of Gaza, my mind casts back to two novels/films. I recall the famous Gothic novella by Robert Louis Stevenson, where he creates the dual character of Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde. To me, they represent the civilised duality: benevolent in rhetoric, destructive in action.
Figure 1: Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde.
Stevenson presents Hyde as a harmful member of society: “torture and deform the sufferer”. Another central character in Stevenson’s novel, a loyal lawyer called Utterson, seeks to explain the illness that he believes his friend Jekyll is afflicted by. The use of the personifying verb ‘torture’ highlights the painful effect that the secret ‘illness’ is having upon Jekyll.
I also recall the iconic novel by Mary Shelley, in which an ambitious young doctor, Victor Frankenstein, engages in an unorthodox scientific experiment and ends up creating a monstrous creature called Frankenstein. To me, Frankenstein symbolises the unleashed violence conducted through state and military machinery that now acts beyond moral control.
Figure 2: Frankenstein
Some famous quotes from Frankenstein include the creature’s declaration, “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend,” and Victor Frankenstein’s advice about dangerous knowledge: “If the study which you apply yourself to has the tendency to weaken your affections… then that study is unlawful”. Other notable quotes are the creature’s powerful statement, “Beware; for I am fearless, and therefore powerful,” and his plea for companionship: “I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe”.
Imagine a world where Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde co-exist with Frankenstein. The world will be confronted with more toxicity than a nuclear aftermath.
Are we not witnessing this in the present times? Unfortunately, we are. A novel/story book can be read and forgotten, but if this story unfolded as being the truth, the so-called civilised and democratic world led by the United States portrays the part of Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde and Frankenstein, symbolising Israel, would be the character unleashing genocide in Gaza.
In both novels, the writer could control the endgame. But if the creator of Frankenstein is Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde, with a bipolar, untreatable disorder – even with the greater imagination of the writer of Frankenstein, he wouldn’t be able to end the story in a manner that we wish was the case. When Dr. Jekyll creates a Frankenstein, he is unable to control the monster, and thus, we are now witnessing this in Gaza.
If I were to rewrite the novel, I would pray to the creator to grant me divine intervention. Such a call for divine intervention is not just a literary flourish—it’s a cry for moral clarity in a world that feels increasingly chaotic. If rewriting the novels is impossible, reimagining our collective conscience is the next best thing.
Yunus, the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner and currently Chief Adviser of the Bangladesh Interim Government, could not contain his proclivity for both publicity and magnanimity when he learned that a Venezuelan politician, Ms. Maria Corina Machado, had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2025. Bangladesh’s leading English language daily, the Daily Star, reported that Yunus was effusive in his praise of Machado. The congratulatory message that he sent reads as follows.
“I extend my hearty congratulations to María Corina Machado on receiving the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her courageous fight for democracy in her beloved Venezuela,” he said in a congratulatory message.
Machado has faced oppression with steadfast resolve, never wavering in her commitment to a freer and more just future for her country and her people, the message read.
As the Nobel Committee rightly stated: “Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended — with words, with courage, and with determination.”
She has dared to imagine a better world and worked tirelessly to make it so, the message added.
There is, unfortunately, a contentious and even dark side to Machado, the apparently fearless fighter for democracy in Venezuela. She happens to be a pro-Zionist, pro-Trump, far-right politician who is happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with notorious Islamophobic racists, such as Marie le Pen of France and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands. This prompted CAIR – a leading Muslim organization – to issue the following proclamation.
“We strongly disagree with the Nobel Prize committee’s decision to award this year’s peace prize to Maria Corina Machado, a supporter of Israel’s racist Likud Party who earlier this year delivered remarks at a conference of European fascists, including Geert Wilders and Marie Le Pen, which openly called for a new Reconquista, referencing the ethnic cleansing of Spanish Muslims and Jews in the 1500s.
“We call on Ms. Machado to renounce her support for the Likud Party and anti-Muslim fascism in Europe. If she refuses to do so, the Nobel Prize committee should reconsider its decision, which has undermined its own reputation. An anti-Muslim bigot and supporter of European fascism would have no place being mentioned alongside the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other worthy winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.”
“The Nobel Peace Prize committee should instead recognize an honoree who has shown moral consistency by bravely pursuing justice for all people, such as one of the students, journalists, activists, medical professionals who have risked their careers and even their lives to oppose the crime of our time: the genocide in Gaza.”
In her own region of Latin America, the reaction to her winning the award was mixed. As AA reports:
“The Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado on Friday drew mixed reactions in Latin America, with some leaders offering praise, strong condemnation by others, Mexico choosing to remain silent.
The announcement of the award had some pointing to her past rhetoric and actions, which were characterized as violent or supportive of foreign intervention.”
Machado’s Trumpian loyalty became evident when she dedicated her award to “the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause.” At a time when there was feverish speculation and intense lobbying for Trump to get the 2025 Nobel Prize for his ostensible role as global peace maker, Machado – the seemingly surprise winner of 2025 – made sure that Trump noted her subservience.
Given the controversy surrounding Machado, why did Yunus decide to issue such fulsome praise for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner? What was his bevy of advisers doing? Alas, this represents embarrassing naivete on the part of Yunus and dereliction of duty on the part of his advisers. Yunus, given his age, is well past his prime and does not seem to engage in due diligence before making public proclamations on global issues. Sadly, someone who heads the government of a Muslim majority country ends up supporting an anti-Muslim racist. Yunus could have simply kept quiet, just as the President of Mexico did.
A vassal state is defined as ‘a state with varying degrees of independence in its internal affairs but dominated by another state in its foreign affairs and potentially wholly subject to the dominating state’. Is this what Western allies (Europe, especially the EU, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) have become vis-à-vis the United States, especially under the Trump administration? This appears to be the case following the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States in support of Israel’s ongoing war on Iran.
The European Union’s response to the U.S. strikes on Iran Saturday has exposed more than just hypocrisy — it has revealed a vassalization so profound that the European capitals now willingly undermine both international law and their own strategic interests.
Mamedov goes on to say that…
Europe’s leaders …betray international law not for tangible gains, but out of reflexive obedience …
This notion of ‘reflexive obedience’ is manifested in the following statement by the so-called E3 (France, Germany, and the UK) after the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.
We have discussed the latest developments in the Middle East earlier today.
We reiterate our commitment to peace and stability for all countries in the region. We affirm our support for the security of Israel.
We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security.
Earlier today, the United States has conducted targeted military strikes against nuclear facilities in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. Our aim continues to be to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
We call upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program. We stand ready to contribute to that goal in coordination with all parties.
We urge Iran not to take any further action that could destabilize the region.
We will continue our joint diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions and ensure the conflict does not intensify and spread further.
As if to show that Australia must not be left behind in the demonstration of ‘reflexive obedience’ to the US, the Australian Prime Minister (representing the centre-left Labour Party) decided to join the EU chorus. As Reuters reports:
Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Monday that Canberra supported the United States strike on Iran and called for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy.
The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent that,” Albanese told reporters in Canberra on Monday.
Prime Minister Mark Carney says U.S. military attacks on Iranian nuclear sites were designed to alleviate the threat of the country’s nuclear program, and he reiterated that Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
In the case of New Zealand, the Opposition (Labour and Green) has called ‘…on the Government to denounce the US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites as a breach of international law’. In response, the government observed through the Foreign Minister Winston Peters that New Zealand:
“consistently opposed Iran’s nuclear programme” and the country couldn’t be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
“In that context, we note the United States’ decision to undertake targeted attacks aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” the statement read.
“We also acknowledge the US statement to the UN Security Council that it was acting in collective self-defence consistent with the UN Charter.”
At least there is a reference to the UN Charter, albeit this is the self-serving position of the United States and its interpretation of the UN Charter.
These examples from the recent past show that the Western allies did not always show unconditional support to the USA when it unilaterally undertook major military actions overseas.
Why this has changed remains a topic for further investigation, although some analysts have suggested that the Ukraine war accelerated the process of vassalization of Europe. Meanwhile, the EU and its fellow travellers have not gained any respect or reciprocity from Trump. He considers himself to be the most powerful man in the world, running the most powerful country in the world, and is not beholden to anybody, even if they are credentialled members of the white man’s club.
At the same time, the Western allies of the USA are ceding their moral standing to the Global South, led by China and Russia. For example, in the recent deliberations at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) following the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the US, the representative from the Russian Federation noted that the ’..United States leadership “actually flaunted” and demonstrated “wholesale disregard” for the norms of international law and the UN Charter’. There is a draft resolution co-authored by China, Russia, and Pakistan that condemns the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and calls for an unconditional ceasefire of the current Israel-Iraq war. This draft resolution appears to have been overtaken by the latest statement by Trump that Israel and Iran have now reached a ceasefire agreement. It remains to be seen whether it is another example of Trumpian self-glorification or an enduring agreement.
Reflections on development and governance 