Statistics and Figures

It is estimated that there was a steep decline of 23.9 per cent in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the months of April to June 2020, which coincides with the impositions of lockdowns. This figure also becomes significantly grimmer when we compare it to last year’s GDP growth of 5.2 per cent in the same quarter. Similarly, there were other sectors which saw a decline in the Gross Value Added (GVA) of April to June 2020 compared to growth in April to June 2019. Electricity, gas, water supply and other utility services shrank by 7 per cent, whereas they had seen an 8.8 per cent growth a year ago. There was a decline of 10.3 per cent in public administration, defence and other services. These services had seen a growth of 7.7 per cent last year.

But perhaps one of the most shocking figures comes from one of the worst-hit industries – trade, hotel, transport, communication and services related to broadcasting. They witnessed a decline of 47 per cent in the first quarter, compared to an earlier growth of 3.5 per cent. The only positive growth was witnessed in agriculture, wherein the GVA grew at a 3.4 per cent rate compared to last year’s 3 per cent in the same quarter. 

What do these numbers mean?

These numbers tell us that the lockdown brought with it impacts that were not just short term. Driving down GDP to such an extent means that it will take more time to bring it back up. There have been several such long-term impacts – the lockdown caused disruptions in critical supply chains. With limited incomes, the demand for consumer goods fell. The savings of businesspeople sitting at home continued to dwindle. There was widespread unemployment. While people were stranded due to hastily imposed lockdowns, they continued to barely survive and use their earnings on basic necessities. The impact of the lockdown was a significant dent in the growth of the Indian economy.

But in this era of international trade and globalisation, the impact in India cannot be featured in an isolated discussion. The impact on the world economy also negatively impacted the Indian economy. Arun Singh, who is the chief economist at Dun and Bradstreet India said, “A fall in the optimism levels amid heightened uncertainty has led to a ‘double whammy’ – closure of businesses leading to global supply chain disruptions and a steep fall in the consumption.” Until the rest of India’s trading partners and the world economy as a whole doesn’t find its footing, a complete recovery can prove to be difficult.

Why has there been such a huge impact in India?

While all countries witnessed some sort of economic decline, some countries were comparatively quicker to get back up on their feet. For example, the Chinese economy saw a growth of 3.2 per cent in the months of April to June 2020. This was preceded by a decline of 6.8 per cent in January to March 2020. However, India hasn’t been as lucky in its economic recovery. There are several reasons for this, the first being the length and intensity of lockdowns. India had a countrywide lockdown for several weeks and in some regions of the country, it went on for several months. But more importantly, economic recovery goes hand in hand with the number of cases a country has. The sooner a country can drive down the number of infections, the earlier they can go back to reopening their economies. Lesser infections will inevitably mean less spending on healthcare and fewer people out of the workforce. Reopening the economy will not have as much of a positive impact if workers are isolating at home due to sickness. 

The “New Normal” and the Future of the Economy

It is a given that in order to get the economy back, the debate between healthcare and economic recovery needs to be interpreted in a much more multi-nuanced way. Both of these aspects need to go hand in hand. To reap economic benefits, the health of the citizens needs to be taken into account. Efforts in these sectors are being made and these efforts are also proving to be fruitful.

The “New Normal” of the Indian economy will perhaps ironically be the most abnormal of situations our economy has been in – one that is ruled by the stock market and rates like always but also greatly influenced by a disease and the healthcare systems of the country. The new normal will be painted by uncertainty and more fluctuations than usual. Moreover, national recovery will have to be followed by a global recovery as well.

Conclusion

The recovery in India has recently started to look up with reports of economic activity slated to see positive growth of 0.5 per cent in January to March 2021. However, this is dependent on the absence of a second wave in the near future. This further goes to prove the importance of keeping health in mind while pursuing economic recovery. Like almost everything that is related to the pandemic, economic recovery’s solution also includes keeping public health guidelines in place. From encouraging workers to wear masks to making people work from home, the pandemic has completed transformed the scene of economic activity in India and all over the globe and not just ushered in a new normal of the Indian Economy but for every aspect of our life.

The post THE “NEW NORMAL” OF THE INDIAN ECONOMY appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Reasons behind the rise of populism

To counter populism, we must counter the reasons that led to the rise of populism. One of the main reasons has been economic inequality – it gives leaders a foundation to base their populist ideals on and comes with a section of the population that is extremely frustrated and can easily subscribe to the aforementioned populist ideals. This is similar to what happened in the United States of America when Donald Trump was elected as President. He used the idea of the political elites ruling the country to garner votes. This idea can be summed up very well through a quote from his inaugural address, “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.” 

Secondly, populism is characterised by a call for homogenizing societies. This stems from disapproval of pluralism and people with lower educational levels are more susceptible to believing anti-immigration ideas. Populist leaders often pretend to address the whole nation but often are referring solely to their supporters. They refer to their supporters as “we the people” or some variation of this. These leaders can tend to alienate one or more particular groups in order to demonize these groups and portray them as “the other”. Usually, these groups are immigrants, people of colour or gender and sexual minorities. 

Main characteristics of populist leaders

The wide spectrum of populism and the geographical diversity of populist nations can make it difficult to identify who is a populist leader. Every leader who refers to the nation as “we the people” doesn’t automatically become a populist leader. Populist leaders can be characterized by their two things – the first being the alienization of a certain sect of people. As described above, populist leaders can only rise to power if they have a group – either external, but mostly internal to their countries – that they can demonize. Europe has seen an increase of negative portrayals of immigrants in populist advertising.

Secondly, populist leaders will often believe in a radical centralization of power – they use speeches which make them seem God-like. Populist governments have one central figure whose charisma and revolutionary capabilities are presented as the saviour from the continued oppression of political elites.

The Threat and the Solution

Populist rhetoric and the marginalization of communities can pose a serious threat to democracy. Populist rhetoric is often spread through misinformation which undermines the transparent workings of a government. Populism often fuels much more dangerous political mishaps in our societies. Perhaps the most dangerous example of this is Europe in 1930s. Hitler’s populist tendencies included villainizing Jews, the disabled and every “non-Aryan” person, along with charismatic and larger-than-life speeches. Populism fuelled fascism and right now it is fuelling the alternative far-right in western liberal democracies. 

Populists vehemently oppose experts or more specifically scientific professionals. Jan-Werner Müller, a professor of politics at Princeton University writes in The Guardian, “Populists are not by definition liars. They are only committed to one particular empirical falsehood: the notion that they, and only they, represent what populists often call “the real people” – with the implication that other politicians are not only corrupt and “crooked”, but traitors to the people, or, as Trump has often put it, “Un-American”. This is very characteristic of populists – creating “the others” and differentiating themselves form this. Not listening to scientists and the educated strata of the society can have grave consequences – such as the half-baked response of the American government in dealing with the coronavirus.

The solution to populism lies in solving the issues that cause it. Economic inequality and anti-immigration ideas are issues that go beyond the sphere of one country. While domestic attempts to combat these are necessary, they are not always effective when you have a populist government that benefits from these issues. Moreover, these issues are highly affected by events of globalization, international trade and migration. Hence, the nature of these issues makes it such that international cooperation becomes necessary. 

The United Nation Secretary-General, António Guterres said that multilateralism is the key to combating populism.  While this is certainly true, the international community has several more concrete things they can do. Pushing for the elimination of corruption and curbing the spread of misinformation is crucial. Corruption plays a huge role in keeping populist leaders in control. The principles of the United Nations Convention against Corruption can be applied in the discussion surrounding populism. Secondly and perhaps most importantly, populism can be curbed by educating the general public on the ideas of democracy and pluralism. The biggest strength of populist leaders is the insecurity or lack of awareness of citizens that they exploit. In this sense, if people are educated on the principles of democracy and moved way from set ideas of homogeneity, it can make populist leaders a rarer phenomenon.

Conclusion

Populism can cause the eradication of democratic principles. Populists come to power through acting on the weakness of the people and their lack of awareness. If we are to counter populism, we have to make the people aware of the aforementioned democratic principles and promote pluralism. However, while populism is combated, the negative effects or consequences of populism needs to be dealt with. Countries need to include disadvantaged groups in political discussions, such as by changing methods of representation. Calls for radically anti-immigration policies need to be disregarded especially in a time when so many countries are plunged in internal conflicts. 

The post RIGHT-WING POPULISM AND ITS RISE appeared first on WISER WORLD.

According to the World Bank, women make up 49.5 percent of the world’s population, however, there are only 3 countries (Rwanda, Bolivia and Cuba) in the world that have 50 percent or more women in Parliament in single or lower houses. It is important to identify why women don’t get into politics to combat these reasons and lead to the betterment of the whole society. 

Social Barriers

Firstly, the underrepresentation of women is caused by social barriers before their entry into politics. The general populace’s ideas of traditionally feminine characteristics are incompatible with the characteristics that people in positions of powers need to have. This does two things – from their childhood, girls are not encouraged to be leaders as much as boys are. They are instead taught to be docile and homely and puts them at a disadvantage from the very beginning. Parents, even today, bring up their daughters and sons in different ways. Since women are never made to believe that they can suit leadership roles, as well as men, can, they become less likely to enter politics. Moreover, this gender stereotyping leads to another phenomenon – when we eventually do see women in power, it causes people “discomfort” due to the mixture of two supposedly incompatible set of characteristics. This sentiment can be summed up by Alexandra Ocasio Cortez’s quote – “The idea that a woman can be as powerful as a man is something that our society can’t deal with.”

Unequal Starting Points

The traditional differences in the way that men and women are brought up also leads to a difference in their professions. Men are much more likely to have better careers and be in more positions of power. For example, there are less than 5 percent of women who head Fortune 500 companies.  This inequality can be a huge hindrance to entry in politics. Resources and money are important to become potential candidates for parties. There is not just a disparity in material resources, but also immaterial resources, such as time (women have to take on the burden of household responsibilities more), self-confidence (due to the earlier mentioned different upbringing for women which doesn’t help build their image as a leader) and networks. 

Often times political parties recruit their candidates from the corporate world. However, this is a field dominated by men which means that they have the upper hand in forming the right networks. This obviously makes it more likely that more men, rather than women enter politics. Moreover, political gatekeepers tend to be most often men who tend to recruit political candidates via their male-dominated networks.  Therefore, the fact that people who are into politics are mostly men kind of creates a cycle that prohibits women from getting into politics. 

Removal of men from political photographs shows the dire need for more women in politics.

Continuation in the Political Field

The gender stereotyping and the way we differently bring up men and women means that even if, despite these hindrances, a woman does get into politics, continuation is difficult. The discomfort that the voter base has with women in power means that they are held to a different standard to those of men. Female leaders are held more accountable than their male counterparts and the media is much harsher on them.

This uneven punishment is because the media and the people involved subconsciously do not think that women are cut out for politics, which makes them tougher on women in case they fail. The media especially can continue to treat female politicians poorly. The way the media presents female politicians shows us that they are not as worthy to be in power as men are, or that their priorities are supposed to be different – they are asked more questions about their families and personal relationships than male politicians are, and have their personal lives invaded. Their appearances are also given more importance than their substance. Despite all of these, some women still rise to enter politics.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is important for us to promote the representation of women in politics. But simply doing this is not enough – it is also important to promote it in the correct way. When we do commend women in politics, we tend to do it through a narrow scope – we view these achievements as individual efforts of exceptional women, whereas the truth is that there are also numerous parties at play here – women in political party backrooms, riding associations and women’s organizations.  Recognizing the efforts of everyone in promoting women’s participation is the first step to make sure we have more women and a better democracy.

Moreover, the discussion of female representation cannot end here. Caste, economic status, sexual orientation are all factors that affect the experiences of women in politics. Women from lower castes or lower economic strata will have a much harder time becoming politically successful. Similarly, the experience of a trans woman or a non-heterosexual woman is bound to be tougher due to ingrained biases. Representation of women in politics does not only help better women’s issues but leads to a betterment of society as a whole – in areas where Indian panchayats are headed by women, the number of drinking water projects was 62 percent higher than in areas with men-led panchayats. This is why it’s crucial to encourage women in politics and facilitate discourse related to this.

The post WHY DO WOMEN NOT GO INTO POLITICS? appeared first on WISER WORLD.

There are several reasons why vaccines are not trusted, including religious and political reasons. This is exasperated by the misinformation that is spread wildly about the science behind vaccines, and the validity of such claims. Ultimately, it all boils down to how much government entities and other community leaders can propel misinformation about vaccines, and the fact that decisions about vaccines might affect the community at large.

Medical Objections Against Vaccinations

A study conducted by Andrew Wakefield in 1998 linked autism to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. It was later discredited and retracted, however, this study is still referenced as a reason to not vaccinate children, or has at least kept the idea prevalent. People often believe that vaccines are more harmful than the diseases they might prevent because of their side effects. The same sentiment is being referenced to in recent objections about a coronavirus vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies and governments are moving at record speeds to come up with a vaccine for the coronavirus. However, this is also fuelling uncertainty and hesitancy about vaccines.

The common folk is worried about compromising quality in the race for a vaccine, and some experts agree: Oksana Pyzik, who is a senior teaching fellow at the University College London School of Pharmacy says, “The fact that it’s being crunched into such a short period has been a cause for concern”. There is also a large mistrust of big pharmacy companies at play here along with a general mistrust against science and experts. People believe that the science that is provided in support of vaccines is either falsified for profit or can be proven incorrect in the future. In the case of the coronavirus vaccine, trials are being conducted one after the other without time to properly gauge the implications of the previous trial. Vaccine development can take decades; hence it is only natural that there are doubts about the safety of a coronavirus vaccine developed in less than a year.

Religious and Political Objections

Vaccines can also bring religious objections – the MMR vaccine and the rubella vaccine had been previously derived from fetal tissue. Opposition to abortion present in religions such as Hinduism, Islamism and Jewism can translate into opposition to vaccines. Religious reasons such as these are brought into play when we consider the fact that schools grant exemptions to children based on religious grounds. Schools might continue to do so even when a coronavirus vaccine comes into being, which can be a concern for overall public safety if parents want to send unvaccinated children to school citing religious objections.

Objections to a vaccine are often part of a bigger picture which includes discourse on government intervention. Opinions on a vaccine can vary along party lines, with 81% of Democrats and only 51% of Republicans keen to get vaccinated in the United States. Certain people can value individual liberty and not want the government to intervene in vaccination-related decisions, which is why Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 said that the United States will not make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory. The idea that vaccination is increasingly becoming compulsory in order to attend school is, in turn, fuelling the anti-vaccination sentiments. People valuing freedom are interpreting this as an infringement of their rights. A study titled “The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation” found that there is a correlation between anti-vaccination sentiments and “reactance” which is described as “the tendency for people to have a low tolerance for impingements on their freedoms”. 

Coronavirus Vaccines and Future Steps

Dr Anthony Fauci has also said that a vaccine taken by only two-thirds of the public would not create the herd immunity we want – in order for economies to get back up and running. In uncertain times such as these, one of the ways to vaccinate people is to either have governments make vaccinations mandatory. Dr Fauci’s previous comment about mandatory vaccination being unlikely in the United States could be indicative of an approach many countries could take. In such a scenario, it is important that there are discussions and discourse regarding vaccine safety. 

People often do not rely solely on doctors for medical advice, or at least have different sources than can influence their medical decisions. There needs to be a coming together of leaders in the community – religious leaders, celebrities and politicians – in order to combat misinformation and to encourage people to get vaccinated. Secondly, it is important to address religious concerns. Though most religious organizations do not actively oppose vaccination, there is sometimes opposition to vaccination in certain religions. Religious leaders could be instrumental in combating vaccine hesitancy – against coronavirus and other preventable diseases. 

Such a sentiment on discourse about vaccines is best represented by Dr Mike Ryan’s quote. Dr Ryan, who is executive director of World Health Organisation’s health emergencies programme, said that people need to be allowed to have conversations about vaccines – “It’s not a one-way street. It’s not about shoving things down people’s throats. It’s about having a proper discussion, good information, good discussion on this and people will make up their own minds,” he was quoted saying.

Properly publishing information on how vaccines are developed and how safe they are can quell medical objections to vaccines. Propelling rumours and misinformation is important – despite the sped-up process, vaccines are still going through required checks and tests before being made available to the public. Moreover, data from trials is being verified from other sources too. People often have worries about the authenticity of medical equipment. For example, the WHO says that 1 in 10 medical products are either fake or below a certain standard. This is all a part of the mistrust people have of “big pharma”, and even the government. Conspiracy theories have cropped up saying the government might inject microchips in the vaccines. Such rumours increase vaccine hesitancy and need to be combated by emphasising the importance of vaccines in public safety.

Conclusion

All efforts and resources including medical personnel, money and infrastructure that is being put into the development of a coronavirus vaccine will be in vain if people refuse to get vaccinated if and when a vaccine becomes available. Making the vaccine mandatory is something a lot of countries might be unable to do. In this situation debunking conspiracy theories and having trust in public safety experts and doctors is crucial. In fact, it is important to trust medical experts in all matters related to vaccines. Even the WHO has included vaccine hesitancy in its list of top 10 global health threats and that goes on to show how important it is for discourse to happen on the importance and safety of vaccines. 

The post VACCINE: A LIFESAVER OR A CONSPIRACY THEORY? appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Current Economic Inequality

While economic growth has certainly been witnessed in the region, the growth has been worryingly unequal. Recently, with the growth of digitalisation and improvements in technology, while productivity has increased, there has been a trend to favour capital over labour. This has contributed to income equality, which is exacerbated by another trend of favouring skilled labour over unskilled labour. Most ASEAN countries are currently stuck in a middle-income trap. 

The data from ASEAN countries is surprising – they all score highly on the Gini Index, which is used to measure economic inequality. Among all ASEAN countries, Thailand scores the worst. According to the Bank of Thailand’s research institute – the Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research – Thailand’s 36 per cent of corporate equity is held by just 500 people, while they have a population of about 69,625,582 people. The average yearly household income of these people is around US$10,000. But in stark contrast to this meagre amount, the aforementioned 500 reap around 3.1 billion baht (US$102 million) per year in company profits. 

Economic Inequality and Political Instability

Economic inequality can lead to political turmoil and therefore threaten the peace and security of the region. Unmet expectations can lead to a lead to a dissatisfied voters’ base. Such a voters’ base is likely to vote for populist governments or cause civil unrest. Rattana Lao, lead author of a study by the Asia Foundation called Thailand’s Inequality: Myths and Reality of Isan said that “Research has shown that one of the leading indicators that pushed people toward political turmoil and protest is the fact that they are not satisfied with their economic condition and the uneven treatment that they receive.”

A crucial realisation that fails to be accounted for in most discussions surrounding economic inequality is that regional disparities also constitute as a worry. Specifically, when talking about political instability, people from poorer regions rely more on government supports and can have unrealistic expectations from their governments. These people are more likely to be engaged in politics and hence can determine voting outcomes. The dissatisfaction of electors can turn into a series of protests, as witnessed in the case of the Arab Spring. 

Thomas I. Parks, the Country Representative for Thailand at The Asia Foundation writes in regard to the aforementioned report, “The challenge now for Thai leaders is to find the best mix of programs and policies and stick to them. In the coming years, the government must carefully monitor and evaluate the results of its policies and programs, and the lessons learned, and then make adjustments whenever needed.” Regional disparities and the level of income inequality has to dictate policies if governments want to avoid civil unrest. 

Economic Inequality and Hindrance to Trade

Unfortunately, income inequality goes beyond political instability. Persistent-income inequality can significantly impede growth and weaken demand, therefore affecting trade and ASEAN’s goal of economic integration. Believers of trickle-down economics are proven wrong if we look at the experience of ASEAN countries. According to the International Monetary Fund, if the income share of the top 20 per cent increases by 1 per cent, we witness an associated 0.08 percentage point decrease in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in the next 5 years.

There is a clear correlation between economic equality and sustainable economic growth. Policy measures need to strive for equal access to resources and opportunities, otherwise, we may witness some sort of economic growth, but it will only be limited and unsustainable. Economic development, which is what countries should strive for, includes sustainable growth – and it is only possible when there is an overall economic upliftment of everyone in society.

Moreover, ASEAN’s goal of promoting trade in the region is affected when we look at the driving factors of income inequality. Factors that have been identified as contributors include globalisation and warped fiscal policies of governments. For example, Multinational Companies (MNCs) do not pay proper taxes which helps them retain profits but also indirectly takes away crucial funding from government schemes, and therefore this help never reaches the poor. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Chief Economist, Laurence Boone said: “At the global level, we must ensure that firms pay their fair share of taxes to create value and employ people.” On the one hand, it is impossible to reject globalisation due to the adverse damage it would do to trade, but on the other hand, it is crucial to make sure the benefits of globalisation are reaped by everyone. Similarly, fiscal policies of countries cannot seek to just remove income inequality – they need to be in line with ASEAN’s policies of economic integration (and therefore, globalisation). In these aspects, ASEAN needs to make sure that it’s member countries remain in tune with its agenda, while at the same time make sure that income inequality is eradicated. 

Conclusion

Both the main objectives of ASEAN are put in jeopardy with the context on economic inequality. In fact, having one objective threatened also affects the other – for example, political instability also disincentivizes people to invest and drives down economic growth. Similarly, slow trade and economic growth leads to resentment amongst the people, and therefore political instability. Ultimately a dangerous cycle can form.

Political instability reduces the likelihood of proper collaboration on an effective economic agenda and trade policies. Frequent regime changes and different leaders might essentially make ASEAN’s goal of proper and effective economic integration difficult to achieve. This, in turn, will lead to poor economic policies, followed by low and unsustainable growth fuelling economic inequality. Economic inequality and hindered trade by creating dissatisfaction amongst citizens will again lead to continued political instability and fragmentation.

In order to make sure that officials’ capacity to implement proper trade policies is not undermined, it becomes crucial to recognise the real-life impact of income inequality and understand the disastrous affects it can have on just numbers and figures of growth, but in lifting people’s social class and living standard. ASEAN’s objective of a better region is threatened by the security risks that economic inequality poses. For example, the recent coronavirus pandemic also disproportionately will affect the poor. In situations such as these, economic equality and consequently equitable access to resources (healthcare, information, a steady source of income etc.) becomes a priority. Poverty and economic gaps don’t just make it tougher for people on the lower end to recover, it also makes every situation tougher for a nation to escape from, and therefore also makes it tougher for a regional entity such as ASEAN. 

The post ECONOMIC INEQUALITY: THE UNLIKELY OBSTACLE FOR ASEAN appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Food Insecurity Before the Pandemic

 The Middle East and surrounding regions have always suffered from food insecurity when compared to the rest of the world. According to a report by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, “The number of chronically undernourished in the region has doubled from 16.5 million people in 1990–1992 to 33 million people in 2014–2016.”

War and a generally unfavourable climate have persisted for producing and distributing food in the region. This led to a dependence on imports for food, which was a worrying trend. There is a huge deficit between the import and export of food in the region. Even when food was available, it did not lead to a transition of nourished populations. 1 in 5 people in the Middle East and the areas around it have been undernourished. The number of poor in the region is high, and according to the FAO, the poor typically have to spend between 35 and 65 per cent of their income on food. In such a backdrop, food insecurity was likely to worsen with the pandemic.

Food Insecurity in Light of Covid-19

There are several ways the pandemic has worsened food insecurity – several people have lost their livelihoods. Lessening in purchasing power has led to tighter budgets and food becomes difficult to afford. Plus, the quality of food that can be afforded also decreases. People shift to packaged, processed foods and away from fresher foods, leading to a significantly less nutritious diet. But the price of food has definitely risen in the pandemic – In Syria alone, a 200 per cent price hike for basic food has been noted in under a year – a level not seen before in the country’s nine-years of civil war.

This is especially worrying considering that the pandemic has also weakened the already feeble food supply chains. Consider the aforementioned dependence on imported food – restrictions on movement and enforced social distancing is a unique characteristic of the pandemic, which is going to affect trade like never before. The world merchandise trade can drop between 13 and 32% in 2020 due to the pandemic – such occurrences will affect the availability of food. Even domestically, food transportation requires movement which is being restricted as much as possible. 

Apart from these obvious ways, there are a host of related problems that the pandemic has brought. Recently, locust outbreaks have affected food crop production. Closing down of borders and restrictions on movement will hinder locust control operations, further deteriorating crop production. In lots of areas, nutrition is provided to children when they go to school. However, with the coronavirus pandemic shutting down schools, another way to access food has become unavailable. From war-torn countries, refugees and asylum seekers cross the borders to get better lives and basic amenities. These displaced people will have to remain in situations with no access to basic amenities such as food and clean water as the pandemic forces borders shut. 

Moreover, the region already has a host of diseases. For example, for the last few years, Yemen has also been dealing with an endemic of cholera – between October 2016 and November 2019, over 2.2 million cases of cholera had been reported in the country. With the coronavirus likely to put pressure on the already weak healthcare infrastructure of these regions, these endemics can also worsen. All in all, both pandemic and endemic are slated to disrupt people’s livelihoods and safe access to food.

Conclusion

The region, already having unfavourable factors such as war, locust outbreaks, other endemics and unstable regimes has always suffered from food insecurity. The further unemployment, restrictions on the movement of goods both globally and domestically and rising food prices caused by the pandemic have all led to an even tenser situation. Food insecurity is not just a problem, it is also a cause of different problems. Food insecurity in this pandemic is made dangerous by the perception that “foreigners” bring in the virus. This attitude can lead to discrimination and further shunning of refugees. Limited food supplies in refugee camps can cause strife between local communities and refugees.

The people in this region are already at risk – due to poor healthcare facilities and less nutritious diets, they are likely to have underlying health conditions and suffer from malnutrition. This makes for weaker immunity systems. The region has been engulfed in a vicious cycle – of food insecurity leading to weaker immunity systems, followed by higher cases and more diseases. This, in turn, leads to disruption of food supply chains and hence, food insecurity. The heartbreaking reality is that even if these countries can somehow manage to save their citizens from coronavirus – they might just die from hunger anyway.

The post THE TWIN DANGERS OF FOOD INSECURITY AND CORONAVIRUS IN THE MIDDLE EAST appeared first on WISER WORLD.