Tag: Sri

  • Sri Lanka’s new president quickly issues sweeping crackdown on protests

    Sri Lanka’s new president quickly issues sweeping crackdown on protests

    [ad_1]

    Ranil Wickremesinghe is the interim president of Sri Lanka per a parliamentary vote, after an unprecedented popular protest brought down former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s administration. But while naming an interim president may help the country manage some of its staggering debt, it’s unlikely to bring about the kinds of change protesters demand.

    Gotabaya appointed Wickremesinghe prime minister in May after his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa resigned from the post during the protests. Now, Wickremesinghe — who served as prime minister five previous times and was also finance minister during his most recent term — will serve as president until the country holds a popular vote in 2024.

    Wickremesinghe’s closeness with the Rajapaksa clan — Gotabaya and Mahinda, who was president from 2005 to 2015; their brother Basil, the former finance minister; their brother Chamal, who has held multiple posts; and Mahinda’s son Namal, who served as sports minister under Gotabaya — has made him unpopular with protesters.

    That’s with good reason; on Friday, just two days after Wickremesinghe secured the presidency, police and security forces conducted a violent pre-dawn raid on the main protest encampment in Galle Face, as Amnesty International reported.

    According to the report, the police, special forces, and military staged “a massive joint operation” on the GotaGoGama camp at the Presidential Secretariat — the office of the President of Sri Lanka. Protesters have been staying in tents there since April and were due to vacate parts of the encampment Friday; however, around 1 am local time, security forces descended on the camp with no warning, after having blocked off the encampment’s egresses.

    “There were about 200-300 demonstrators at that time, I would say,” one eyewitness told Amnesty. “Suddenly [the forces] came out from [behind] the barricades and totally destroyed and broke down the tents. There were enough police and military to swamp the area. The police and especially the army beat up peaceful protesters.”

    Amnesty reported at least 50 injured and nine arrested, although activist and attorney Swasthika Arulingam, who’s been involved in the protests in Colombo since March, told Vox that only eight were arrested, all of whom had been bailed out as of noon Eastern time Saturday.

    “We need to reorganize the struggle,” Arulingam told Vox. “People are shaken.”

    Though protesters achieved the unthinkable — getting the Rajapaksas out of leadership despite nearly two decades in power — concerns remain about Wickremesinghe’s ties to the previous administration.

    Financial stability requires political stability

    Wickremesinghe is a longtime political actor who’s held many positions in Sri Lanka’s government. Although he is the head of the United National Party (UNP), the Rajapaksas’ Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) backed him in the parliamentary election to secure his position as the interim president of Sri Lanka.

    Wickremesinghe’s main priority as president is — or should be — helping the country refinance its massive, unsustainable debt and secure loans from the International Monetary Fund, as well as implementing crucial economic reforms to ensure that the economy remains stable in the decades to come. “These are reforms Sri Lanka has been talking about for decades, has been unable to execute, but will have to be now implemented,” Constantino Xavier, a fellow with the Foreign Policy and Security at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress in New Delhi and a nonresident fellow with the India Project at the Brookings Institution told the Brookings Institution’s podcast The Current on Friday. “Reforms in terms of the labor sector, in terms of the public sector companies that still have monopolies in various sectors, from the energy [to] the port sector in Sri Lanka.”

    Wickremesinghe, Xavier said, is “the only individual that has emerged as satisfying different actors” including the IMF and Sri Lanka’s Western creditors who are critical to helping Sri Lanka refinance its debt. “Ranil Wickremesinghe is generally seen as a technocrat that is quite popular in particular with the Western countries that play an influential role here,” Xavier said, although he acknowledged that Wickremesinghe is deeply unpopular with protesters.

    Despite his unpopularity, though, Sri Lanka needs a measure of political stability to continue negotiations with the IMF, the previous session of which concluded in late June, while Gotabaya was still in charge. “I think getting a president in place means you restart the process right away; I think that will be top of the list,” Tamanna Salikuddin, director of South Asia programs at the US Institute of Peace, told Vox in an interview last week.

    On Monday, before he was elected interim president and just after he declared a state of emergency, Wickremesinghe announced that IMF talks were near their conclusion and that “discussions for assistance with foreign countries were also progressing,” Reuters reported last week, quoting a press release from Wickremesinghe’s office.

    The protest movement started over disastrous financial policy under the Rajapaksas, built on the back of their rapacious consolidation of power and dismantling of democratic institutions, as Xavier explained on Friday’s podcast. “They have centralized power politically that has come with some benefits: obviously, that the country has been led with a strong, for some people, authoritarian streak and very decisive governance, but at the same time also the weakening of critical institutions like the Central Bank of Sri Lanka,” he told The Current host Adrianna Pitta. “So therefore when you are progressively over 10, 20 years weakening those governance structures, and the Central Bank of Sri Lanka I mentioned […] because it is really the heart of the financial crisis of the country that has taken on loans without much scrutiny on the sustainability of refinancing mechanisms.”

    Though tackling the approximately $51 billion in debt that Sri Lanka owes is the first priority for its government, looking forward it’s not clear how Sri Lanka can build a sustainable economy when its tourism industry is decimated due to Covid-19, and its agriculture sector due to failed policies.

    “There’s been one body blow after another,” Salikuddin said, referring not only to Covid-19 but also to a 2019 series of bombings at churches celebrating Easter and Russia’s war on Ukraine. “Now, with the collapse, you have countries all over the world issuing safety travel notices, so I don’t see tourism coming back any time, at the same rates that they’re hoping for.”

    Will the Rajapaksas face justice?

    Despite the turmoil Sri Lankans have endured under Gotabaya and his family — chiefly the lack of medicine, basic food supplies, and fuel as well as a disastrous ban on importing chemical fertilizers, which decimated Sri Lanka’s agricultural sector — the Rajapaksas and their cronies might never be held to account.

    They have thus far evaded culpability for alleged human rights abuses during the end of the 30-year civil war between ethnic Tamil militants fighting for a homeland in the north of Sri Lanka and the country’s Sinhalese majority. Mahinda was president in 2009 when the war ended, and Gotabaya was his defense minister; during his time in that role, in the final months of the war, according to a UN panel report, the Sri Lankan military was alleged to have committed atrocities including sexual violence, forced disappearances, and killing of Tamil civilians, claims that the Sri Lankan government denied at the time.

    “I think it’s really interesting to think how the Rajapaksas came to power,” Salikuddin told Vox. “They crushed — with a lot of allegations of human rights violations and war crimes — crushed the Tamils, and that led them to power on this Sinhalese nationalism, Buddhist nationalism wave. So they could tell the majority Buddhist nationalists, ‘Look, we ended this 30-year civil war. We won.’ And the Sinhalese, Buddhist nationalists were okay looking the other way.”

    However, for Tamil and other sidelined minorities, “I think the wounds are still existent,” Salikuddin told Vox. “There’s never been any truth and reconciliation, there’s never been any [addressing] of all the missing persons, or of the war crimes of the Rajapaksas.”

    As of now, Gotabaya is in Singapore, but only on a temporary basis. Thus far, he hasn’t asked for or been granted asylum, the Straits Times reports, so it’s unclear how long he plans to stay.

    Mahinda and his son Namal, the former sports minister who Bloomberg reports is being groomed for a future in political leadership, will not leave Sri Lanka, an unnamed aide told Al Jazeera last week. Meanwhile, Basil, the former finance minister and the brother of Mahinda and Gotabaya, was reportedly turned back at the airport by officials, according to Bloomberg.

    In the immediate term, though the protests have been significant and sustained, and have brought about some victories, “much of what we’ve seen in terms of the protests in Colombo and international media is actually a very urban progressive elite that is on the streets, that is asking for a fundamental reset of the country,” Xavier said, adding that “the majority of the Sri Lankan electorate, I would risk, is still behind the Rajapaksas. This is the conservative, rural, southern vote of the majority ethnic group called the Sinhala group. So therefore, no solution in Sri Lanka can happen without that popular support, particularly when the very painful reforms period will begin in a few months.”

    Furthermore, the fact that crackdowns have already begun two days into Wickremesinghe’s tenure, despite the fact that the protests have been largely peaceful, doesn’t bode well for the future. When asked if she thought the Rajapaksa dynasty would face justice for the downfall of the Sri Lankan economy, Arulingam said, “Not anytime soon.”

    Correction, 8:20 pm: A previous version of this article misstated Ranil Wickremesinghe’s political affiliation. He is the head of the United National Party.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sri Lankan protest camp raided

    Sri Lankan protest camp raided

    [ad_1]

    The move follows months of turmoil in the country that saw a new president elected

    Sri Lankan security forces raided an anti-government protest camp outside the presidential office in Colombo on Friday. It comes amid a months-long political crisis sparked by a financial meltdown.

    A joint operation involving the military, police and police special forces was launched in the early hours to recover the presidential secretariat from the protesters as they have no legal right to hold it,” police spokesperson Nalin Thalduwa told Reuters news agency.

    According to police, the raid led to nine arrests, two of those detained were injured. The organizers of the protest claim that at least 50 people were injured, including several journalists. They also say they planned to hand over the presidential offices peacefully, an intention the police said they had no knowledge of.

    Read more

    Sri Lankan protest camp raided
    Riots erupt as president flees country

    The demonstrators accused authorities of a violent crackdown. “They beat us really cruelly,” an activist told Reuters. “Mr Wickremesinghe doesn’t know what democracy is,” he added.

    Media footage from the scene appears to show soldiers in riot gear, armed with rifles, marching towards the camp, known as Gota Go Gama, that had been in place since April. The name of the camp makes an apparent reference to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka’s former president, and calls for his resignation.

    The move comes after Ranil Wickremesinghe was sworn in as president on Thursday his predecessor fled the country and resigned. Sri Lanka has faced unrest for several months over severe food and fuel shortages and record inflation.

    The crisis has been blamed on the Covid-19 pandemic, which cut tourist revenue for the island, and Rajapaksa’s ban on chemical fertilizers, which was a major blow to the agricultural sector.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dinesh Gunawardena to be named Sri Lanka’s next Prime Minister

    Dinesh Gunawardena to be named Sri Lanka’s next Prime Minister

    [ad_1]

    COLOMBO: Sri Lanka’s new president will appoint senior lawmaker Dinesh Gunawardena as the crisis-hit country’s next prime minister, four political sources said on Thursday.
    President Ranil Wickremesinghe is slated to appoint his new cabinet on Friday, a day after he was sworn into Sri Lanka’s highest office following mass protests that forced predecessor Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country and resign.



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Wickremesinghe sworn in as Sri Lankan president amid protests | Politics News

    Wickremesinghe sworn in as Sri Lankan president amid protests | Politics News

    [ad_1]

    Six-time prime minister and veteran politician an unpopular choice among protesters who forced his predecessor out.

    Ranil Wickremesinghe has been sworn in as Sri Lanka’s eighth president by the country’s chief justice.

    The 73 year old, who has been prime minister six times, took the oath of office on Thursday morning, the president’s media office said.

    Wickremesinghe won 134 votes in the 225 member parliament in a secret vote on Wednesday, after Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled the country amid months of protests and a deepening economic crisis.

    Protesters have also objected to Wickremesinghe becoming president, saying he is too close to the discredited Rajapaksa family.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sri Lanka chooses new leader aligned to ousted former president

    Sri Lanka chooses new leader aligned to ousted former president

    [ad_1]

    Sri Lankan lawmakers chose six-time Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe as president Wednesday to succeed the ousted leader who fled the country, in a vote that risks reigniting political turmoil in the troubled South Asian island nation.

    Wickremesinghe said he has spent 45 years of his life in parliament and is happy it has given him the honour of becoming president. “I need not tell you the status our country is in. Now that the election is over we have to end this division. We had 48 hours to stay divided but from now on I am ready to have a dialogue with you,” he said, asking other political parties to work with him.

    Former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed Wickremesinghe as prime minister in May, hoping to bring stability to a country engulfed in its worst economic crisis in memory. Wickremesinghe became acting president after Rajapaksa fled the country last week and resigned by email.

    Wickremesinghe, 73, is a seasoned politician with wide experience in diplomatic and international affairs. But he is unpopular among voters who view him as a holdover from Rajapaksa’s government. Protesters outside the president’s residence were chanting “Go home, Ranil” after his election.

    The vote of 134 lawmakers put Wickremesinghe ahead of former government minister Dullas Alahapperuma, who received 82 votes. The Marxist candidate had three.

    People watch parliamentary proceedings being shown on a giant screen on the lawns of the Presidential Secretariat on Wednesday in Colombo, Sri Lanka. (Abhishek Chinnappa/Getty Images)

    Wickremesinghe will serve the remainder of Rajapaksa’s term, which ends in 2024. Rajapaksa fled the country and resigned by email last week after protesters furious over the country’s economic collapse stormed his official residence and took over key state buildings.

    As president, Wickremesinghe now has the discretion to appoint a new prime minister.

    Presidents in Sri Lanka are normally elected by the public. The responsibility falls on parliament only if the office of president becomes vacant before a term officially ends.

    That has happened only once before in Sri Lanka when then-Prime Minister Dingiri Banda Wijetunga was chosen by parliament uncontested in 1993 after former president Ranasinghe Premadasa, father of the current opposition leader, was assassinated.

    Shortages of food, medicine, fuel

    The economic crisis has left Sri Lanka’s 22 million people struggling with shortages of essentials including medicine, fuel and food while the government negotiates a bailout with the International Monetary Fund. And the resulting political crisis has left worries about whether a new government will be enough to fix the economy and placate a public furious at its politicians’ failures.

    Serving in a double role as the finance minister, Wickremesinghe has been leading the crucial IMF talks. He has delivered weekly addresses in Parliament cautioning that the path out of the crisis would be difficult, while also pledging to overhaul a government that increasingly has concentrated power under the presidency.

    Security personnel stand guard in the premises of the parliament building in Colombo, as voting begins to elect the new president on Wednesday. (Adnan Abidi/Reuters)

    The public, however, sees him as a holdover from the Rajapaksa government that led the country into economic catastrophe.

    Only a few lawmakers had publicly said they would vote for Wickremesinghe given the hostility against him. Dozens of lawmakers loyal to Rajapaksa whose homes were burned down by protesters in May were said to be backing Wickremesinghe on the assurance that he would severely punish the perpetrators and maintain law and order.

    All 225 members of parliament including the speaker were eligible to vote on the ranked-choice ballot. Two members abstained and a few ballots were declared invalid.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion – The Demise of the Rajapaksa Dynasty and Prospects for Peace and Justice in Sri Lanka

    Opinion – The Demise of the Rajapaksa Dynasty and Prospects for Peace and Justice in Sri Lanka

    [ad_1]

    On 9 July 2022, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa agreed to step down from the presidency amid widespread protests in Colombo. On 13 July he fled to the Maldives on a military jet and went to Singapore on the following day. In Singapore he tendered his resignation first by email and then by diplomatic post. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was sworn in as acting president on 15 July. The Sri Lankan parliament is set to elect a new president on 20 July to serve for the rest of the current term. Sajith Premadasa, Leader of the Opposition, is expected to run for the position. Rajapaksa’s departure effectively represents the end of a 13-year (2005-15; 2019-22) regime held by his family.

    This is the culmination of rising tensions which have been building up over years (not months, as explained below). Before this pivotal moment in July, the government had declared the state of emergency on 1 April and, after the resignation of most of the cabinet, Mahinda Rajapaksa (Gotabaya’s elder brother and former president in 2005-15) had resigned as Prime Minister on 9 May.

    The immediate cause of the current turmoil in Sri Lanka is the worst economic crisis since independence. Because of fuel shortages, the government has had to ban petrol sales to private citizens, while prizes of food keep rising. On 10 June, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) even warned that the Sri Lankan government would risk “a full-blown humanitarian emergency” because of the lack of food and medicines. Although the accusation that China has employed ‘debt trap diplomacy’ in Sri Lanka is open to dispute, the borrowings incurred by the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) infrastructure projects, especially those in the southern hometown of the Rajapaksa family, have worsened its already precarious economic situation.

    On 18 May 2022, for the first time in the country’s history, Sri Lanka failed to pay $78m in interest on two sovereign bonds. According to the International Monetary Fund, Sri Lanka’s foreign debt stands at $38.6 billion, of which 10% is owed to Chinese creditors. On the surface, the share is not high; however, the terms of Chinese loans are clouded by non-transparency with an estimate saying that the real share is 19.9%.

    The Rajapaksa regime has inflicted a more severe damage on the country: domestic peace and justice. The new government will have to deal with the longstanding problems of Sinhalese-Buddhist ethno-religious nationalism and the unresolved struggle for accountability for the crimes committed during the 26-year-long civil war (1983-2009) between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), commonly knowns as the Tamil Tigers. Sinhalese-Buddhists believe that they are Buddha’s chosen people, and war against others (e.g. Tamils and Muslims) to defend Sinhalese-Buddhism is legitimate. The Rajapaksa regime was indeed built on an ultra-exclusive form of ethno-religious nationalist and triumphalist rhetoric which glorified the government for putting an end to the civil war, without acknowledging the numerous war crimes committed at the time.

    The civil war was fundamentally anchored onto the longstanding discrimination against the Tamil minority, in the northern and eastern part of Sri Lanka. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), both sides to the conflict, especially the government army, had committed serious breaches of international law, allegedly amounting to war crimes, notably during the final stages of the war in 2009. The UN Human Rights Council’s Resolution 46/1, passed on 23 March 2021, called on the Sri Lankan government to fulfill its international legal duty to investigate any alleged human rights abuses committed during the war and prosecute any culpable individuals. These calls have, however, been largely ignored.

    The only glimpse of accountability that was provided by the Sri Lankan government was through the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), headed by Mahinda Rajapaksa. The LLRC, however, was faulty in its mandate and results as it only provided a partial account of the human rights violations committed during the war and actually praised the government for avoiding civilians, thus deflecting criticisms away from the government and the military by blaming the LTTE. This did not come as a surprise to external observers, because Gotabaya was then the Defence Secretary.

    Despite the appalling economic situation affecting all of the Sri Lankan population, in Tamil-dominated areas the major problem still lies in the lack of justice and the alienation of this group from the political life of the country. For fears of reprisals by Sinhalese-Buddhist, Tamils have therefore not joined the anti-Rajapaksa protests. Not only Tamils, Muslims have also become targets of intolerance and hate campaigns in recent years. The Sri Lankan population is therefore far from united and economic struggles are just one of the notable challenges facing the country. Impunity, widespread injustices, and the failure of providing the country with transitional justice are major obstacles to Sri Lanka’s search for durable peace and stability.

    While the most pressing concern for the next government is certainly economic recovery, the bigger question is whether the new leaders, like the Rajapaksas, will still rely on Sinhalese-Buddhist ethno-religious nationalism to rule the country or finally ensure postwar accountability. Besides the rise of individual autocratic political leaders, ethno-religious nationalism has led to illiberal populism and democratic regression in Sri Lanka.

    As Sri Lanka is seeking a bailout from the IMF rather than China, the international community has a role to play in pressing the new government to pursue inter-ethnic reconciliation and transitional justice. However, whether the new president is committed to it is debatable, as the father of Sajith Premadasa, Ranasinghe Premadasa, former President in 1989-1993, was believed to be assassinated by the LTTE.

    Further Reading on E-International Relations

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After Sri Lanka, Dozen Other Countries in Danger Zone of Economic Collapse

    After Sri Lanka, Dozen Other Countries in Danger Zone of Economic Collapse

    [ad_1]

    Traditional debt crisis signs of crashing currencies, 1,000 basis point bond spreads and burned FX reserves point to a record number of developing nations now in trouble.

    Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Russia, Suriname and Zambia are already in default, Belarus is on the brink and at least another dozen are in the danger zone as rising borrowing costs, inflation and debt all stoke fears of economic collapse.

    Totting up the cost is eyewatering. Using 1,000 basis point bond spreads as a pain threshold, analysts calculate $400 billion of debt is in play. Argentina has by far the most at over $150 billion, while the next in line are Ecuador and Egypt with $40 billion to $45 billion.

    Crisis veterans hope many can still dodge default, especially if global markets calm and the IMF rows in with support, but these are the countries at risk.

    ARGENTINA

    The sovereign default world record holder looks likely to add to its tally. The peso now trades at a near 50 per cent discount in the black market, reserves are critically low and bonds trade at just 20 cents in the dollar – less than half of what they were after the country’s 2020 debt restructuring.

    The government does not have any substantial debt to service until 2024, but it ramps up after that and concerns have crept in that powerful vice-president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner may push to renege on the International Monetary Fund.

    UKRAINE

    Russia’s invasion means Ukraine will almost certainly have to restructure its $20 billion plus of debt, heavyweight investors such as Morgan Stanley and Amundi warn.

    The crunch comes in September when $1.2 billion of bond payments are due. Aid money and reserves mean Kyiv could potentially pay. But with state-run Naftogaz this week asking for a two-year debt freeze, investors suspect the government will follow suit.

    TUNISIA

    Africa has a cluster of countries going to the IMF but Tunisia looks one of the most at risk. A near 10 per cent budget deficit, one of the highest public sector wage bills in the world and there are concerns that securing, or a least sticking to, an IMF programme may be tough due to President Kais Saied’s push to strengthen his grip on power and the country’s powerful, incalcitrant labour union.

    Tunisian bond spreads – the premium investors demand to buy the debt rather than US bonds – have risen to over 2,800 basis points and along with Ukraine and El Salvador, Tunisia is on Morgan Stanley’s top three list of likely defaulters. “A deal with the International Monetary Fund becomes imperative,” Tunisia’s central bank chief Marouan Abassi has said.

    GHANA

    Furious borrowing has seen Ghana’s debt-to-GDP ratio soar to almost 85 per cent. Its currency, the cedi, has lost nearly a quarter of its value this year and it was already spending over half of tax revenues on debt interest payments. Inflation is also getting close to 30 per cent.

    EGYPT

    Egypt has a near 95 per cent debt-to-GDP ratio and has seen one of the biggest exoduses of international cash this year – some $11 billion according to JPMorgan. Fund firm FIM Partners estimates Egypt has $100 billion of hard currency debt to pay over the next five years, including a meaty $3.3 billion bond in 2024.

    Cairo devalued the pound 15 per cent and asked the IMF for help in March but bond spreads are now over 1,200 basis points and credit default swaps (CDS) – an investor tool to hedge risk – price in a 55 per cent chance it fails on a payment.

    Francesc Balcells, CIO of EM debt at FIM Partners, estimates though that roughly half the $100 billion Egypt needs to pay by 2027 is to the IMF or bilateral, mainly in the Gulf. “Under normal conditions, Egypt should be able to pay,” Balcells said.

    KENYA

    Kenya spends roughly 30% of revenues on interest payments. Its bonds have lost almost half their value and it currently has no access to capital markets – a problem with a $2 billion dollar bond coming due in 2024.

    On Kenya, Egypt, Tunisia and Ghana, Moody’s David Rogovic said: “These countries are the most vulnerable just because of the amount of debt coming due relative to reserves, and the fiscal challenges in terms of stabilising debt burdens.”

    ETHIOPIA

    Addis Ababa plans to be one of the first countries to get debt relief under the G20 Common Framework programme. Progress has been held up by the country’s ongoing civil war though in the meantime it continues to service its sole $1 billion international bond.

    EL SALVADOR

    Making bitcoin legal tender all but closed the door to IMF hopes. Trust has fallen to the point where an $800 million bond maturing in six months trades at a 30% discount and longer-term ones at a 70% discount.

    PAKISTAN

    Pakistan struck a crucial IMF deal this week. The breakthrough could not be more timely, with high energy import prices pushing the country to the brink of a balance of payments crisis.

    Foreign currency reserves have fallen to as low as $9.8 billion, hardly enough for five weeks of imports. The Pakistani rupee has weakened to record lows. The new government needs to cut spending rapidly now as it spends 40% of its revenues on interest payments.

    BELARUS

    Western sanctions wrestled Russia into default last month and Belarus now facing the same tough treatment having stood with Moscow in the Ukraine campaign.

    ECUADOR

    The Latin American country only defaulted two years ago but it has been rocked back into crisis by violent protests and an attempt to oust President Guillermo Lasso.

    It has lots of debt and with the government subsidising fuel and food JPMorgan has ratcheted up its public sector fiscal deficit forecast to 2.4% of GDP this year and 2.1% next year. Bond spreads have topped 1,500 bps.

    NIGERIA

    Bond spreads are just over 1,000 bps but Nigeria’s next $500 million bond payment in a year’s time should easily be covered by reserves which have been steadily improving since June. It does though spend almost 30% of government revenues paying interest on its debt.

    “I think the market is overpricing a lot of these risks,” investment firm abrdn’s head of emerging market debt, Brett Diment, said.

    Read all the Latest News, Breaking News, watch Top Videos and Live TV here.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sri Lanka’s protests are just the beginning of global instability

    Sri Lanka’s protests are just the beginning of global instability

    [ad_1]

    Sri Lanka’s president finally resigned. Protesters celebrated, and they had reason to: Their mass demonstrations — including a takeover of the presidential mansion — drove President Gotabaya Rajapaksa from office.

    Sri Lanka’s economy is in free fall. The country doesn’t have enough money to buy essentials: food, medicine, and especially fuel. Buses can’t run, schools can’t open. The economic crisis was years in the making because of mismanagement, but terror attacks in 2019, and later the Covid-19 pandemic, which shriveled Sri Lanka’s tourist economy, pushed it to the brink.

    But the domestic political turmoil unfolding in Sri Lanka also links back to the instability across the globe, including the war in Ukraine and all of its consequences.

    It may seem strange to link street protests against the Sri Lankan government to a war in Europe, but food and oil markets are global. A shock in one place ripples everywhere. The Ukraine war compounded supply chain pressure in the wake of Covid-19, and Moscow’s war in Ukraine and Western sanctions against Russia have squeezed agricultural exports — critical supplies like grain and sunflower oil — from the entire Black Sea region. These products can be replaced on the global market, but at a cost. Fuel prices are also up, and if it costs more to buy diesel for a tractor or to transport cargo, food becomes more expensive still. Food becomes all that much harder to afford for poor countries, and for poor people in rich countries.

    The United States and Europe are seeing these price shocks. So are people in Ghana and Mozambique and Mexico and Ecuador and Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Food, fuel, and other essentials are getting more expensive, everywhere. Many of these governments want to intervene, but their economies were already pummeled by the Covid-19 pandemic, and so they don’t have the funds to respond to these crises.

    That means standards of living will fall in many countries, and that more people will slip into poverty. The United Nation’s World Food Program has warned that the number of food-insecure people has risen to 345 million; nearly 50 million people in more than 45 countries are at risk of falling into famine conditions.

    But the global instability that causes prices to rise also creates more instability. Food prices, for example, are rarely the only reason that a government falls, but they can help crystallize simmering discontent in a country. “If you can point to rising food prices, it is a sign that something is failing in the implicit contract between the government and the governed,” said Cullen Hendrix, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and professor at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.

    Vox spoke to Hendrix about why food costs can coincide with political unrest, and where and when that happens — and why Sri Lanka likely represents just the beginning of the volatility about to envelop the globe.

    This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.


    Jen Kirby

    This is a big question, but what is happening, broadly, around rising prices around food and fuel, and political unrest?

    Cullen Hendrix

    We need to decompose that into thinking about food prices and thinking about fuel prices.

    Up until about 2000, the two of those weren’t really correlated. You had periods where you had very high food prices and very low oil prices, or very high oil prices coinciding with low food prices.

    The 2000s are when those two things start to trend much more together. In some ways, the current crisis looks the most like the 2007-2008 food price crisis, because we have simultaneous crises in both food markets and oil markets in terms of elevated prices as a response to, in this case, instability caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In 2007 and 2008, it had more to do with climatic shocks, and then the ways that many producer countries — countries that normally export food — decided to institute export bans.

    So, having kind of decomposed those two things, we probably need to take food and fuel prices separately.

    Jen Kirby

    Okay, so how do they work?

    Cullen Hendrix

    Generally speaking, there is a positive relationship between higher prices for food in international markets and protest activity. This relationship is particularly evident in democratic and semi-democratic countries. Protest dynamics tend to be less responsive to global food prices in more authoritarian countries.

    With respect to oil prices as separate from food prices, the research on this topic is a bit more mixed. It’s certainly the case that higher fuel prices can erode real incomes. They can eat into purchasing power, and they can generate significant grievances with incumbent regimes, who are being asked to do something about these higher prices. But it turns out that these higher oil prices are also a source of revenue that many governments that export oil can capture, and they can use that to reinvest back into price supports and mechanisms of ensuring social stability.

    A good way of thinking about this is to look back at the Arab Spring, and the places where the Arab Spring protests got the most traction, like Tunisia and Egypt, are small oil exporters, if they export oil at all. Whereas countries like Kuwait were able to weather the storm because although they were paying a higher bill for their food imports, they were also reaping these windfall profits associated with higher commodity prices for their main export, being oil. They were able to invest in lavish public spending at a time when, in the wider region, many governments were having to go on austerity diets and slash social spending at precisely the time when doing so was most likely to enrage the populace.

    Jen Kirby

    So people are frustrated with inflation in places like the United States and Europe, but as yet, we haven’t seen a mass wave of protests over, say, gas prices. That may happen, but I’m also wondering if this is more likely to happen in countries with less-developed economies, and where the government may have limited ability or capacity to respond.

    Cullen Hendrix

    We know less about the ability of the government to respond, but your point about average incomes is definitely well taken. If you’re in a developing country, and you’re spending 50 percent of your take-home income on food, and much of that food is unprocessed — you’re actually buying bulk wheat, or maybe wheat flour — the increase in food prices hits you much harder than it does, say, for you and me, where we spend a much smaller proportion of our income on food. It’s not as significant a source of hardship. And a lot more of the money that we spend on food, actually, is money spent on packaging and marketing and the like, as opposed to people who are living maybe half a step removed from the underlying bulk commodity.

    So higher-income countries see less of this kind of protest. We have seen things like the antecedents of what you’re talking about. If you remember back to the yellow vest protests in France and Belgium, those were protests in response to reductions in the subsidies for diesel fuel.

    Jen Kirby

    One of the things I sometimes struggle with in covering protests is that food and fuel prices can factor among them, or be the “spark,” but they ultimately lead to a longer list of grievances against a government. It can be hard to disentangle, and I am wondering, how do you make sense of exactly what role food and fuel prices play in protest movements?

    Cullen Hendrix

    At any sufficiently large protest, people are going to be there for a variety of reasons. Food and fuel prices may be significant for some participants, but they may not be particularly significant for others.

    It’s not typically the most food-insecure people that wind up participating in these protests. It’s not the truly hungry. It’s that if you can point to rising food prices, it is a sign that something is failing in the implicit contract between the government and the governed, in terms of being able to secure people’s ability to have plentiful and appropriate food at a bearable price. If you think about that as being the bedrock of the social contract in these regimes going all the way back to Roman times — that’s where the concept of “bread and circuses” comes in — then, yes, they’re kind of a canary in the coal mine for the broader inability of the government to address the grievances and the needs of the populace.

    Jen Kirby

    And so I think part of the challenge now, and correct me if I’m wrong, but for countries like Sri Lanka, where you have that fundamental breakdown of the contract, because of what’s happening around the globe — specifically, the war in Ukraine — it is much harder for those countries to figure out an adequate response because they have less tools at their disposal?

    Cullen Hendrix

    One hundred percent. The issue in a place like Sri Lanka — and if you look through the list of other places that are experiencing these kinds of inflation protests, like Albania, Argentina, Panama, Kenya, Ghana — these are not places with a ton of what economists would call fiscal space. They do not have the ability to offset these price increases with ramped-up government spending and targeted transfers and subsidies to offset the pain. These are cash-strapped governments; they went into the crisis cash-strapped, many of them because of the ongoing effects of the Covid pandemic.

    Jen Kirby

    You mentioned the food crisis in 2007 and 2008. But what are some historical precedents for when higher global food prices created political instability?

    Cullen Hendrix

    I was getting ready to say — I hate to bang on Russia, but I don’t hate to bang on Russia, as this has been their fault before. If you go back to 2010-2011 and the Arab uprisings, the food price spike occurred because Russia decided unilaterally to impose an export ban on wheat, barley, a bunch of other kinds of grains, in response to heat waves and wildfires that were projected to decimate their harvest. In order to maintain domestic food supplies and lower prices, they decided to not export.

    The problem was that many of the countries that were counting on those exports — the same way as it is now, the countries that are counting on Black Sea exports, both from Russia and Ukraine — were the countries in the Middle East and North Africa, which are deeply food import-dependent. Then, as now, they’re basically thrust back into international markets at much higher prices to try and satisfy their need for food imports.

    There were obviously elements to the Arab uprisings that had nothing to do with food prices, but it is important to understand the contributing factor that food prices can play.

    The Arab Spring protests were largely coordinated and organized by people who had lots of anti-regime sentiment and had been organizing around it. But what brings otherwise apolitical people out into the streets to participate in these mass movements often are these kinds of political issues that are much more picayune, as opposed to the broader dissatisfaction with the regime, or indeed, the regime type.

    Over time, a lot of those protests that were related to food and fuel prices metastasize into protest movements around the form of government, like, “Why don’t we get to elect our government? Why are we run by these corrupt authoritarians?” But there was a significant part of it that began with the food and fuel price spikes.

    Jen Kirby

    Is there something of a tipping point when it comes to food price spikes — like when they reach certain levels, the likelihood of instability increases?

    Cullen Hendrix

    I’m hesitant to say that there is a tipping point where I can say, “Once food gets above X price, then it’s on.” I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence for that.

    I will say that the prices we’re currently seeing are, if not historic, near historic. The last time we saw food prices this high in international markets was in 1974. Back then, global food trade was a much smaller share of actual food consumption. Higher global prices mattered less for people’s ability the world over to feed their families.

    Jen Kirby

    What are the places you’re paying attention to when it comes to political unrest as a result of rising food prices?

    Cullen Hendrix

    I would keep an eye on West Africa, particularly Ghana and Nigeria. I think that there is potential for maybe Pakistan. The non-oil-rich Middle East and North African countries, and maybe Central America. I think that’s a significant issue, because it’s co-occurring with droughts. But it’s also the case that these countries, because of rapid rates of urbanization, are becoming increasingly dependent on global markets, and these are countries with fragile governance systems to begin with.

    Jen Kirby

    Basically sounds like the whole world.

    Cullen Hendrix

    I mean, the outlook isn’t great. These markets are being reined in a little bit. The higher oil prices that are a function of these kinds of political instability tend to be relatively short-lived. They’re persisting longer now, just because of how large an exporter Russia is and the scale of instability. Typically, in the past, other big exporters have increased exports to offset the effects of this kind of destabilization. But I wish I had better news for you.

    Jen Kirby

    What are some possible interventions that the United States or other wealthier governments might be able to do to ameliorate some of these brewing crises in poorer parts of the world?

    Cullen Hendrix

    The G-7 and then the G-20 both attempted to push through agreements not to use export bans. India gets a carve-out because India is, you know, a developing country, and I think it’s more political theater than it is actual constraint on food supply and food exports.

    In terms of longer-term — and this is where we get really speculative — ultimately, we need to reform the global food producing system in ways that increase resilience, not just to climate change, but also to these kinds of geopolitical shocks, because I don’t think this is going anywhere. If you look at the projections of the kinds of countries that are going to be seeing increasing yields and potentially larger harvests moving forward, it is places like Russia, Kazakhstan, the United States, and Canada.

    That said — and this is the thing that I think is potentially more controversial — I’m of the opinion that we probably need to see more subsidization of agriculture in developed countries, as opposed to less. I wish it were the case that we could convince voters in Iowa to subsidize food production in places like Thailand or Kenya; unfortunately, electoral politics don’t work that way. But the subsidies that are paid by taxpayers in developed countries are actually subsidizing consumption at the global level.

    That’s not necessarily a super popular opinion, especially among folks who are fairly wedded to agricultural development in developing countries as a mechanism for growth. But I do think that’s something we need to be getting serious about, because I don’t think, in the near term, we’re going to be able to offset these kinds of volatility that can be created by these countries with very large market shares having their supply just go offline. There’s not enough slack in the global food system to make up for that.

    If I’m understanding you correctly, the global food market basically works the way it works. But having a place like the United States or Canada, which does have the capacity to supply more people, they could make up for some of the pressure when Russia or another major area is taken offline or creates major disruptions?

    Cullen Hendrix

    I tend to believe in markets, but I will say that markets for basic necessities like food, these are not markets you want to operate according to cold economic logic. The market for food is not a market where you want to wind up at the end of the sale with no available supply. We can’t have that because we need to have buffers in the system precisely because of events like the ones we’ve seen. And so if that’s physical grain reserves, [or] if it’s governments willing to use what they call virtual reserves, which are basically governments, in a coordinated fashion, intervening in markets to short these futures contracts to drive prices back down.

    There are things that can be done. It’s just going to take an investment of resources and, I think, broader awareness of the enlightened self-interest that it does not make the United States any safer and more prosperous to exist in the world where many of our trading partners and many of our strategic partners around the world are facing instability because they can’t feed their populations.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sri Lanka’s organic farming disaster, explained

    Sri Lanka’s organic farming disaster, explained

    [ad_1]

    Sri Lanka’s economy is in free fall. Runaway inflation reached 54.6 percent last month, and the South Asian country is now headed toward bankruptcy. Nine in 10 Sri Lankan families are skipping meals, and many are standing in line for days in the hope of acquiring fuel.

    The dire situation culminated last weekend in an uprising in which an estimated 300,000 protesters took over President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s home and offices and set fire to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s home. Rajapaksa resigned after fleeing the country, leaving Wickremesinghe as interim president.

    There’s no singular cause for the crisis, which had been building for years due to political corruption and right-wing authoritarian politics that weakened democracy. In April 2019, the crisis accelerated after suicide bombings at churches hurt the island nation’s critical tourism industry, which weakened its currency and made it more difficult for the government to import essential goods.

    At the end of 2019, tax cuts slashed government revenue, while in 2020 the Covid-19 pandemic further decimated the tourism industry, with skyrocketing inflation pouring more fuel on the fire.

    Pandemic aside, that’s not an atypical set of conditions for the collapse of a developing country like Sri Lanka. But in the spring of 2021, President Rajapaksa made an unusual decision: He banned synthetic fertilizer and pesticide imports practically overnight, forcing Sri Lanka’s millions of farmers to go organic. It proved disastrous, as a group of Sri Lankan scientists and agriculture experts had warned.

    President Gotabaya Rajapaksa standing behind a United Nations podium.

    President Gotabaya Rajapaksa addresses the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, 2021, in New York City.
    Justin Lane/Getty Images

    According to one estimate, the president’s agrochemical ban was poised to save Sri Lanka the $400 million it was spending yearly on synthetic fertilizer, money it could use toward increasing imports of other goods. But Rajapaksa also argued that chemical fertilizers and pesticides were leading to “adverse health and environmental impacts” and that such industrial farming methods went against the country’s heritage of “sustainable food systems.”

    “There is a section of the Sri Lankan NGO society and civil society, which has been arguing for the spread of organic farming in Sri Lanka for quite a while. … This has also been actively supported by many international groups,” R. Ramakumar, an agricultural economist at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in India, told me.

    Instead of fixing the crisis, however, the move only worsened it.

    “The organic policy was implemented to sort of ameliorate an ongoing crisis … ironically, what it did was that it ended up exacerbating the crisis,” Ramakumar said.

    The agrochemical ban caused rice production to drop 20 percent in the six months after it was implemented, causing a country that had been self-sufficient in rice production to spend $450 million on rice imports — much more than the $400 million that would’ve been saved by banning fertilizer imports.

    The production of tea, Sri Lanka’s literal cash crop — it’s the country’s biggest export — fell by 18 percent. The government has had to spend hundreds of millions on subsidies and compensation to farmers in an effort to make up for the loss of productivity.

    Farmer MM Jinasena works in a paddy field in Tissamaharama, Hambantota district, in April 2022.
    Ishara S. Kodikara/AFP via Getty Images

    While agrochemicals cause a host of environmental and public health problems, which in part inspired the ban, they also help farmers grow more food on less land, which is critical for small, developing countries like Sri Lanka that rely on agriculture for both sustenance and export income. Moving away from an agrochemical-heavy food system makes sense in a lot of ways, but the Sri Lanka example underscores the importance of being mindful of the economic, political, and social context of any reform.

    Around five months into the ban, farmers were allowed to begin using synthetic fertilizers on tea and a few other crops while keeping the ban in place for others, but by that point, much of the damage was done.

    The blinkered organic rollout accelerated an economic crisis long in motion, but it also crystallized the stakes of the debate over conventional versus organic farming, demonstrating just how critical high-yield crops are in economies still based largely on agriculture.

    Sri Lanka, which only recently emerged from a catastrophic civil war, had been a bright spot in international development: In 2000, 17 percent of Sri Lankans were undernourished and by 2019, that figure fell dramatically to 7 percent, lifting around 2 million people out of hunger. The economic crisis that has now reached a boiling point, caused in part by the organic farming disaster, will horrifically, and ironically, undo some of that progress.

    Agriculture is all about trade-offs

    Synthetic fertilizer makes crops grow faster and bigger than organic fertilizer, such as animal manure, and pesticides control insect infestations and diseases that can destroy crops. Experts say the widespread adoption of the two agricultural inputs since the mid-20th century, known as the Green Revolution, helped lift countries like Sri Lanka out of grinding poverty.

    A Sri Lankan tomato farmer shows pest-infected crop which he blames on unavailability of chemical pesticides in Keppetipola, Sri Lanka on July 1, 2021.
    Eranga Jayawardena/AP

    “Sri Lanka started subsidizing fertilizers in the 1960s and we saw that rice yields tripled,” says Saloni Shah, a food and agriculture analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, a US-based environmental nonprofit that advocates for technological solutions. “[Sri Lanka] became self-sufficient in rice … that’s huge for all Asian countries, from the food security standpoint.”

    That resulted in much of the labor force moving out of agriculture and into higher-paying jobs, Shah says, a story that played out across the globe over the past 60 years. But the expansion of conventional agriculture hasn’t been without steep costs; agrochemical use is also rife with serious environmental and public health problems.

    Pesticide exposure is linked to a range of health issues, including respiratory and central nervous system symptoms, and around 1 in every 8 suicides worldwide is done by ingesting pesticides, with especially high rates in South Asia.

    When synthetic fertilizer and pesticides leach into waterways, they can kill off wildlife and poison drinking water sources, and their production and application emit high amounts of greenhouse gases and degrade soil.

    Many organic agriculture advocates also argue that low-income countries’ reliance on imported chemicals from high-income countries strips them of their own food security and makes them vulnerable to the kind of agrochemical price hikes that Sri Lanka experienced. A majority of Sri Lankan farmers supported an organic transition, but wanted more than one year to do so — and they needed more support than they were given to switch to organic.

    In 2008, Indian farmers from the Farmers Heritage Movement show a canister to be used with natural fertilizer in the village of Chaina.
    Pedro Ugarte/AFP via Getty Images

    As horrible as the effects of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are, they have to be weighed against the consequences brought to bear by crop yield loss: hunger, decreased export income, increased deforestation, and, if banned outright, as Sri Lanka has shown, political crisis. But there are ways to minimize the effects of agrochemicals without abandoning them altogether.

    Minimizing the harms of industrial agriculture

    The US-based environmental nonprofit World Resources Institute (WRI) says that it’s not enough to just maintain current yields — governments around the world need to increase yields per acre to feed 10 billion people by 2050, lest farmers be forced to clear more and more land to make up for lower yields, with massive environmental effects.

    Meeting that inevitable demand — while also minimizing the environmental and public health issues brought about by agrochemicals while continuing to increase crop yields — is tricky but possible. Shah, the food and agriculture analyst, says a more sustainable approach requires making crops higher-yield through breeding, making nitrogen fertilizers more efficient, and instituting “precision farming” technologies, like drones and sensors, to more accurately analyze where fertilizer is being over- or under-applied.

    A 10-year study in China, in which 21 million farmers were trained on how to better manage soil, water, and fertilizer, shows the progress that can be made. The program resulted in an 11 percent yield increase for maize, wheat, and rice, and a 15-18 percent reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use.

    Practices popular among organic agriculture proponents would also help, like employing cover cropping, double cropping, adding organic fertilizer along with chemical fertilizer on fields, and planting trees and shrubs on farms, known as agroforestry.

    A farmer at the World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi, Kenya, which strives to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and improve the sustainability and productivity of agricultural landscapes. Agroforestry, the practice of planting shrubs and trees beside crops, can increase farm productivity and improve soil health.
    Wendy Stone/Corbis via Getty Images

    “I think that in the Western world, we can get lost in the organic/conventional debate,” Shah said. “Agriculture is the backbone of economic development — for livelihoods, for food security. … It should be less so about ideology and which one is better, but more so what combination of technologies, practices, and market conditions will be helpful to spur development and to empower farmers.”

    But implementing any of these practices in the near future won’t be possible in Sri Lanka, given that they’d all require money the government doesn’t have.

    “It seems like it’ll be a long road to recovery,” Shah added. “It’ll depend on what type of financial aid package they’re able to negotiate with the [International Monetary Fund]. And if they’re able to reduce some of the debt burdens.”

    “I’m speculating now at this point,” Ramakumar, the agricultural economist, said, “but if they follow the voice of science and reason, then it is not an irretrievable situation … But it depends on who comes to rule Sri Lanka and what policies they adopt.”

    In time, Sri Lanka may get some relief from the tension of its agricultural trade-offs. According to the economic theory of the Environmental Kuznets Curve, once countries reach a certain level of per capita income, economic growth and environmental pollution can decouple as the country can afford to implement stronger environmental regulations and practices without sacrificing economic growth, like crop yields.

    Decoupling the two is far from guaranteed, but some countries have achieved it. As Sri Lanka gets richer, it’ll be more able to prioritize the environment and public health without millions going hungry, but the current crisis — made worse by the sudden, hastily executed organic transition — has made that day farther away.

    [ad_2]

    Source link