By the Permanent Mission of Cuba to the United Nations.

New York City, 8 October 2019. The blockade continues to be the fundamental obstacle to the implementation of both the Economic and Social Development Plan until 2030 and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This is only demonstrated if we mention the value of the damages caused to production and service sectors in Cuba between April 2018 and March 2019: 79 million dollars, which represents an increase of 28% in relation to the same previous stage.

Can you imagine what it would mean for Cuba to transform the cost of the blockade into the country’s ability to pay? This would allow, in the medium term, to have an official, substantive and sustained source of financing that would give greater dynamism to the investment programs linked to the strategic sectors of the National Economic and Social Development Plan until 2030.

In financial terms, it would allow the country’s financial exposure abroad to be favorably reversed, both qualitatively and quantitatively, consolidating the confidence of foreign investors and creditors and substantially increasing the capacity to access financial and capital markets.

But the current Cuban scenario is quite the opposite.

Strategic and prestigious national industries such as Biopharmaceuticals are affected every year with millionaire economic losses in research, development, production and commercialization of their products, as a consequence of the blockade. U.S. measures against Cuba not only limit academic and scientific exchange, but also deprive the U.S. people of receiving the benefits of biotechnology and pharmaceutical products developed in Cuba, which are novel and promising for human health.

Examples abound: the importer-exporter FARMACUBA reported the existence of difficulties in obtaining raw materials for the manufacture of medicines as a result of the blockade against Cuba. Between the 1st of April 2018 and the 31st of March 2019, in the company producing medicines “8th of March” there were interruptions in the productive process, due to the impossibility of acquiring the raw material with the required periodicity. Approximately 2,000 oral suspension units and 61,184 capsules were discontinued.

Meanwhile, a manufacturer of medicines from an Asian country reported not being able to ship the injectable Phenytoin 250mg/5ml to Cuba, because the banks of that country rejected the processing of any documentation related to the island, for fear of being sanctioned by the U.S. This situation led to seek another supplier in Latin America under less favorable conditions.

On the other hand, the Colombian supplier PROENFAR was contracted for the purchase of large volume parenteral serums, but having a U.S. shareholder, the operation could not be completed, affecting the production of 1 million 995 thousand 300 bags of serum.

This is an unofficial translation, original text in Spanish: http://misiones.minrex.gob.cu/es/articulo/industria-biofarmaceutica-cubana-sufre-los-embates-del-bloqueo

In the picture Brando Benifei , Member of the European Parliament from Italy.

Brussels, October 3: The European Bangladesh Forum (EBF), a Bangladeshi diaspora organization based in Europe at an international conference on “Bangladesh and South Asia: Security Challenges and Threats from Violent Extremism and Role of Government and Civil Society” in Brussels underscored the need to forge more concerted efforts and work together with the governments to stop violent extremism across the globe. Speakers in the conference said, none is free from extremist threats in this globalized world and said, dialogue is the one of the main solutions to counter it.  

European Bangladesh Forum EBF organized this conference in the European Press Club in Brussels with EBF President Ansar Ahmed Ullah in the chair. In the conference speakers stressed, in the age of globalization now the threats and challenges of violent extremism including all religion and racial conflicts cannot remain limited only in the South Asia or in any region, rather its destructive impacts equally threat the people of the USA and Europe at the same level.

Hence we have to work together to stop the violence and extremism with long term integrated plan, they added.

EBF Vice President Bikash Chowdhury Barua presented welcome address in the conference. In the opening session of the conference noted development activist and human rights activist from Bangladesh Asif Munier present key-note paper on “Rise of Violent Extremism and Instability in South Asia including Bangladesh: Key Threats, Challenges and Way Forward”. Associate Member of the South Asia Institute from the University of Heidelberg, Germany Dr Wolfgang-Peter Zingel presented talk on the Political Economy of Violence in the South Asia and Visiting Fellow of Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies in Brussels Dr Tommaso Virgili presented talk on Islamism, Religious Intolerance and Outgroup Hostility between Bangladesh and Europe. Asian Head of Germany international broadcaster Deutsche Welle Debarati Guha addressed the occasion as guest of honour.

The technical session was chaired by EBF Advisor Dr Ahmed Ziauddin, while renowned British Political Analyst and Journalist and Recipient of ‘Friend of Bangladesh Award’ Chris Blackburn talked on Lifting the Veil: Radicalism in Bangladesh. Member of the European Parliament from Italy Brando Benifei and the Member of Parliament from the Netherlands Niels van den Berge addressed the session. Among others, First Secretary of Bangladesh Embassy in Brussels Fakhruddin Ahmed, Belgium Coordinator of Global Solidarity for Peace M M Murshed, noted community leader Dr Farouque Mirza, Dutch Representative from Ahmadia Group Kawsar Ahmed, President of Secular Forum Switzerland Khalilur Rahman Chowdhury, Writer Priojit Debsarkar, community leader from Belgium Bazlur Rashid Bulu, community leaders from Germany Rokeya Sultana Rothe and Kamal Bhuya took part in the discussion.    

Speakers urged mutual understanding, respect, integration to the mainstream society and sense of belongingness with respect and dignity especially for the young communities in the global communities including the European and Asian society to prevent the involvement of the youth members with the extremist groups. 

Member of the European Parliament Benifei said, as the second and third generation of the immigrant families in Europe and especially in Italy cannot integrate themselves in the mainstream society and at the same time because of the attractive offer of the extremist groups, the young communities have become prey to the violent activities. Under these circumstances initiatives have to be adopted to stand beside the young people to increase their sense of respectful belongingness, he added. 

Speakers also warned that not any particular religion should be tagged with the violent extremism increasing the fire of racial and class conflicts among different religious groups. Rather they urged the strategy of setting all groups in the table of dialogue to prevent the tendency of extremism in the concerned region.     

Dutch MP Niels van den Berge in his speech said, it will not bring any solution, if the vulnerable and threatening groups are kept and left behind in seclusion. Unlike they should be brought to the table of mediation and dialogue to bring them back to the mainstream society. There is no alternative of dialogue to ensure the peace in the society, mentioned the young Dutch MP.     

A total 65 representatives from civil society, social and human rights organization, media outlets, researchers, development activists, European politicians, professionals from Bangladesh, Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and the United Kingdom took part in the conference. 

Ms Margarita Šniutytė-Daugėlienė joined Eurojust as National Member for Lithuania on 20 August. Ms Šniutytė-Daugėlienė replaced Ms Laima Čekelienė, who returned to Lithuania after serving as Eurojust National Member for 11 years.

After receiving a Master’s Degree in Law from Lithuanian Law University in Vilnius in 1999, Ms Šniutytė-Daugėlienė began her legal career as a public prosecutor in the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of Klaipeda, Lithuania, where she worked for 13 years, dealing with international legal cooperation and analysis of prosecution policy, as well as conducting and supervising criminal investigations. From 2011 to 2017, Ms Šniutytė-Daugėlienė served as EJN contact point.

In 2012, Ms Šniutytė-Daugėlienė was promoted to Chief Public Prosecutor of the 2^nd Criminal Prosecution Division at the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of Klaipeda, which specialises in fighting fraud, money laundering, smuggling, other crimes against the economy, business order and the financial system. She worked there for four years supervising these investigations. During that time, Ms Šniutytė-Daugelienė attended several coordination meetings at Eurojust.

In 2016, Ms Šniutytė-Daugėlienė was appointed as Deputy Prosecutor General. During that time, she supervised international cooperation activities, training and protection of the public interest, including the activities of territorial prosecutor’s offices, of the Prosecution Service. She filled that position until her arrival at Eurojust.

Commenting on her appointment, Ms Šniutytė-Daugelienė said: ‘I learned about particularities of the work of Eurojust ten years ago during a Eurojust marketing seminar in Lithuania. I am so happy to finally be able to serve both my country and my colleagues at Eurojust as National Member.

My twenty-year prosecutors’ experience as well in international cooperation matters should provide me with an excellent basis for carrying out my duties here in the Eurojust family. I fully understand the role and added value of Eurojust in fighting serious organised cross-border crime and I will do my best to contribute to helping Eurojust to play a leading role in the areas of security and justice. I look forward to the opportunities and challenges ahead.’

Photography by Eurojust.

By Dr. Andrew Sheng.

This month, Malaysia celebrates its 62nd anniversary of Independence, led by 94-year old but digitally savvy Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Singapore also celebrated its 54th National Day this month, with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong speaking in Malay, Mandarin and English about how to prepare Singapore for climate change. At the 74th anniversary of Independence, Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo announced an ambitious plan to move the capital from Jakarta to Borneo.

Traveling around ASEAN this month made me realize that while the rest of the world is more preoccupied with the turbulent present, Southeast Asia is already thinking and preparing for the future.

The reason for this is pretty straight forward. At 600 million people with more than US$2.5 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP), ASEAN economies remain one of the youngest and fastest growing region in the world. ASEAN’s success since the 1960s has been built on trade, peace and stability, and dedication to economic growth rather than politics. Its future success hinges on its political neutrality, despite attempts by the Great Powers asking the region to choose sides.

In Hanoi for a Young Scholars Initiative meeting of young academics, I was struck by how Vietnam was already planning for a digital economy by 2030 and 2045.

Having touched 7.1 percent GDP growth in 2018, and with just under 100 million population, Vietnam has been a major beneficiary of China shedding its low-cost industries and the diversification of the Asian global supply chain.

In 2010, Vietnam achieved the World Bank’s middle-income status and at the current trajectory, could be larger than Singapore’s economy by 2029, according to a DBS study.

In order to maintain its growth momentum and to provide jobs for its growing youth, Vietnam envisaged four possible digital futures, as buyer or seller of digital products and services.

In the first Heritage scenario, using traditional engines of growth with low digital transformation, the additional growth could be minimal.

In the second scenario of Digital Exporter, using overseas companies hiring Vietnamese workers for exports, the projection shows some improvement, but only marginal benefits.

The third scenario of Digital Consumer leverages off Vietnam’s own large consumer market, but the amount of current jobs at risk would be one-third higher than the two earlier scenarios.

The fourth scenario of a Digitally Transformed Economy, across all industries and government services, predicted an increase of 1.1 percent additional annual GDP growth, but 38.1 percent of current jobs would be at risk of transformation or disruption.

In essence, Vietnam realizes that its own industries can be cannibalized by relying only on the foreign sector and should therefore have a total domestic transformation that engages digitally with the rest of the world. That scenario lays out a road map that would give priority to infrastructure, network security, increasing digital skills and capabilities, modernizing government, an industry 4.0 and national innovation plan, and significant tax and regulatory reform.

Arriving in Jakarta last week for a conference on digital finance, I was struck how traffic from the airport has significantly improved, while everyone was also very focused on how digital transformation, social justice and climate change would be critical to Indonesia’s future.

The move out of Jakarta, one of the most congested urban conglomerations in the world, would cost $33 billion over 10 years to build the new capital in Kalimantan. But another $40 billion would be spent on transforming Jakarta, as two-fifths of the city is below sea level and parts are sinking due to rising seas and soil settlement.

Indonesia is moving fast into the digital space, because its internet user growth rate is three times faster than the global average, and its internet user community is only 56 percent or 150 million out of its total population of 268 million. President Jokowi understands fully that “data is the new type of wealth for our nation, it is now more valuable than oil”.

But since Indonesia is one of the biggest markets for Google, Facebook, Youtube and WhatsApp, the key to future growth will be the access to data. Will Indonesian companies, government and start-ups have access to data so that they can compete equally with multinationals that are willing to pay for such data? If we as individuals cede our private data to these platform companies, which then sell them as “private income”, when will data become a public good for growth?

One reason why I am optimistic about ASEAN as digital economies is that they are actually more innovative than the present indicators suggest. If you look at the Global Innovation Index 2019, you would find that Switzerland is number 1, the United States (3) and Singapore (8), while Hong Kong, China and Japan are 13, 14 and 15th respectively. On the other hand, Malaysia ( 35 ), Vietnam ( 42 ), Thailand ( 43 ) and Philippines ( 54 ) are behind Latvia ( 34 ) and nearer India ( 52 ).

These scores are essentially weighted in ways like the famous IQ tests, which were essentially Euro-centric in bias. In the digital space, innovation and ability to capture markets are very much in the SPEED x SCALE x SCOPE framework. China was able to compete rapidly with the US, because of the scale of its internal market (800 million internet users), high speed broadband infrastructure available, and scope of hybrid services across multiple sectors (Alibaba and WeChat).

Clearly, within ASEAN, Indonesia, Vietnam and Philippines have scale, with populations over 100 million each. ASEAN’s real strength is the youth of the population, already digitally savvy and moving into middle and higher income ranges. Hong Kong and Singapore score highly, but that is due to the higher weighting given to institutions, infrastructure and market sophistication, as you would expect from world-class cities. But Singapore came only 34th in terms of creative output, and Hong Kong came 33rd in terms of knowledge and technology outputs.

It is precisely because the ASEAN countries have youth, diversity of culture and access to world-class knowledge, as well as strategic geographical location, that they will become the cutting edge digital future. And since they are, as prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic rightfully claims, ‘champions of multilateralism’ so much needed in a ‘theatre of brewing expectations’, that of  ‘still worryingly bilateral’ Asia.  

No economy today can afford to be complacent. Least of all in terms of flawed indices. To think that Hong Kong, considered by the Heritage Foundation to be number one in economic freedom, can descend into protests because of an intergenerational dispute over the rule of law and inequality, means that we need a root-and-branch review of how to compete in a complex digital world.

***

About the author:

Dr. Andrew Sheng is distinguished fellow of the Asia Global Institute at the University of Hong Kong and a member of the UNEP Advisory Council on Sustainable Finance.

An earlier version of this text appeared in Jakarta Post under the title: A digital August in ASEAN.

By Meseto Abe.

Following the massive  socio-economic success of the largest continent, corruption is the next battleground in the development of the Asia-Pacific. Lately, it has hampered inclusive and sustainable development and is a primary cause of the difficulty experienced by developing Asian-Pacific countries in advancing beyond the middle-income bracket. 

Fostered by weak regulation and enforcement frameworks, corruption comes in many forms, including bribery, embezzlement, and cronyism. It undermines not only business ethics and positive social norms, but also people’s trust in political and economic systems, institutions, and leaders.

Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which measures corruption in 180 countries annually, reveals that high-income countries experience far less corruption than their lower-income counterparts do. With Singapore in sixth place and Afghanistan in 177th, the Asia-Pacific is home to countries at both extremes of the CPI. China and India, the world’s most populous countries, are ranked 77th and 81st, respectively.

Countries in the Asia-Pacific have made some efforts to combat corruption, but that the problem remains widespread throughout the region tells us that these are not enough. In fact, there seems to be a willful lack of attention among these countries about tackling corruption head-on.

Corruption affects every aspect of society

This lack of attention may be due to the widespread belief that corruption helps “grease the wheels” in business activities. Top companies pay large amounts to receive faster and better service from authorities; this, the thinking goes, makes the economy more efficient. In the Asia-Pacific, this often manifests itself as bribes, gifts, banquets, and favors given by business entities to politicians and bureaucrats. In the view of its proponents and those who tolerate it, corruption speeds up the wheels of commerce and positively impacts companies’ development by easing bureaucratic barriers. Corruption can also facilitate a company’s entry into a highly regulated economy that is difficult to penetrate otherwise.

But these benefits hold true only for a small number of companies. Corruption has an inverse U-shaped relationship with company revenue: a company may gain benefits when it pays bribes, but the benefits are subject to diminishing returns after a certain amount. Also, corruption has a significant negative correlation with companies’ overall satisfaction with their business environment. These two points seem to indicate that rather than “greasing the wheels,” corruption actually “sands the wheels.”

In fact, corruption has adverse effects on overall economic development. It reduces investment, lowers growth rates, and negatively impacts efficiency. At the company level, corruption absorbs returns from business activities and distorts entrepreneurial spirit and behavior. Companies that are involved in corruption report rises in operational costs of 10 percent on average, in addition to greater uncertainty. These factors ultimately have an impact on their strategic and investment decisions. This could explain why some studies have shown that foreign direct investment in countries that are perceived as corrupt is almost 5 percent lower than it is in countries that are relatively corruption-free.

Corruption also negatively impacts political and societal landscapes. As money that is meant for the public is funnelled away, the cost of providing and maintaining public goods and services increases. Vital goods and services like roads and telecommunications networks eventually fall into disrepair or are not delivered at all due to a lack of funds.

Corruption also undermines the rule of law and the government’s ability to combat externalities such as pollution and security risks. In addition, it hinders development by diverting resources away from productive sectors and reducing human capital and tax revenues. Corruption has been shown to decrease national productivity and diminish the effectiveness of foreign aid. On a macro level, these and other effects of corruption can strip a country of gains from trade in the absence of good institutions. Corruption also makes it more difficult for the poor and other disadvantaged groups, such as women and minorities, to obtain public services, thus deepening inequality.

How can countries reduce corruption?

Governments should introduce anti-corruption laws, which typically require government officials to declare their assets, and enforce strict penalties for corrupt practices. For example, in the wake of recent high-profile revelations of bribery and embezzlement at major state-controlled enterprises, Singapore’s anti-corruption watchdog plans to strengthen anti-graft laws with more severe financial penalties.

The introduction and strengthening of anti-corruption laws can have a massive impact. In 2005, India passed the Right to Information Act, which aimed to make administrative procedures transparent. The law reduced corrupt practices significantly and has since been hailed as a pivotal achievement in the country’s fight against corruption. The rule of law and administrative actions must be constant to be effective in reducing corruption.

Governments can also implement a number of reforms in their legal systems and administrative processes. Such reforms could include measures that provide oversight of the financial sector, public procurement, customs procedures, construction licenses, land registration, and corporate establishment and dissolution. These require adequate institutional capacity and financial support to be successful. Kazakhstan, for instance, has recently strengthened its anti-money-laundering regime: it is now largely compliant with international standards. However, the government still lacks the resources and expertise to properly enforce the regulations. To successfully tackle corruption, strong, transparent, and accountable institutions that deal with taxation, budgeting, and spending must also be established.

Indeed, an effective fight against corruption requires the building of robust democratic institutions, particularly those that champion trade openness, fair competition, and press freedom. Institutional structures are also important, as more decentralized states have lower levels of corruption. As can be expected, social norms and culture are important determinants of corruption levels, but they can be hard to measure. In general, strengthening governance is a good way to reduce corruption, because inefficient bureaucracies make it easier for corrupt practices to be carried out.

Beyond national governments, the United Nations and its various agencies must raise awareness of corruption in the Asia-Pacific. Addressing and combating the issue will pave the way for countries in the region to work towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

While Transparency International plays a leading role in exposing corruption worldwide, the World Bank has drawn up, and continuously updates, anti-corruption policies for governments. The International Monetary Fund also recently unveiled its new framework for addressing corruption. Developing countries in the Asia-Pacific must embed the principles of both the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the OECD Bribery Convention in their governance frameworks. Engagement with international organizations can facilitate the development of an effective national anti-corruption strategy.

For this purpose, “a committed political leadership and broad political support are necessary” – says the independent expert in the field, Luigi Coretti of Canada. It well captures a consensus on the matter in the community of specialists. Coretti concludes:  “Engagement with local stakeholders, such as civil society organizations, the media, and academic institutions, helps build a sense of national ownership and ensure the acceptability and effectiveness of coordinated and comprehensive actions.” Both governments and companies are encouraged to report to these stakeholders their anti-corruption activities and outcomes achieved. They should also use all available communications channels, such as websites and flyers, to provide more insight into their assessment mechanisms and corrective actions.

Finally, it is to hope that more comprehensive research will be conducted to help identify ways to eradicate corruption and other business obstacles in the Asia-Pacific. One crucial issue in this arena is that many previous studies on corruption have been conducted jointly with local authorities, so their results are questionable. With the participation of the authorities in such research, surveyed firms and people are likely to be hesitant to offer their candid opinions on the level of corruption among officials. Before any anti-corruption strategies can be determined for a given country, we must have the full picture of the problem of corruption.

About the author:

Masato Abe, specialist at the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific