If the Trade War continues, how long will it take for China's economy to collapse?

Assuming the US slaps tariffs on all Chinese imports, as US president Donald Trump has threatened to do. If it continues to run this way, both of them will have to pay a big for it. As the reactions from the financial markets seem worse and which creates the possibility to cut the GDP of the United States by more than 0.9 percent in 2019, while Chinese economic output would be 1.6 percent lower than it otherwise would be, IMF said.

US will impose tariffs on the US $267 billion of Chinese goods-covering nearly all of Chinese imports as well as it's Automotive imports too, which would create risks for many countries which are directly or indirectly involved in trade with them except some of the countries like Vietnam.

China retaliated with 25 percent tariffs on the US $50 billion of US imports and variable tariffs of 5 percent to 10 percent on the further US $60 billion of US imports. That was past and many believed that the trade war was going to be finished by negotiations but things went disturbingly wrong since Donald Trump surprised everyone by announcing plans for imposing tariffs again on Chinese imports.

One of the declarations came from Washington, and another from Beijing created lots of troubles that would end up making worse for both of their economies.

The US has failed to escalate its GDP in recent years. In 2018, the GDP growth of the US was 2.9% but due to the engagement in a trade war with China, it ended up with lower growth of 2.5% in 2019. IMF is now frightened to foresee  US growth of 1.8% by 2020 if the trade war never stopped within.

In contrast, China is also a big loser in terms of GDP increase(the Chinese Currency was manipulated well). China's GDP downfall from 6.6% in 2018 to 6.2% in 2019. Herein, IMF is expected to predict Chinese economic growth of 5.6% in the imminent future.

But That's not the way things currently look. China has played fast and loose with the rules of the global trading system. Mr. Trump is right somehow in his assessment that China would come off worse in a protectionist battle. No question, the US could win a trade war against China but it would be the dictionary definition of a Pyrrhic victory.

Why should China be more friendly towards Bangladesh?

source: national flag odf Bangladesh and China/AFP

During the nineteenth century, Great Britain was preoccupied with the dubiety that one of the European powers could extend its dominance beyond Europe as well as politically wrecked Islamic Asia. At that time, the ruler of Great Britain had an apprehension that Russia’s encroachment target would be its southern part- Afghanistan. And subsequently, it could sustain its marching toward India.

As of that time, from British diplomats to military personnel, all perceived that there are two ways to counter the imminent collision- either to accommodate Afghanistan under British rule or give it recognition as a buffer state between Great Britain and Russia. That endeavor of the British rulers has been widely known as ” the great game” in history. Consequently, Great Britain invaded Afghanistan as if it could deploy the British-Indian joint military forces to sustain its new rule. Although some historians opine that it was a combined agreement of Russia and Great Britain to denote Amo Darya as the border between Russia and Afghanistan. Although, the Soviet Union didn’t infringe on the boundary deal afterward. But after 150 years, while the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan-instead of the assumed British army- it was the US that confronted the invasion and set off another great war of the twentieth century. Eventually, the game was over, along with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and the partition of the Indian Subcontinent, it was deemed by many geopolitical experts that another great game would not likely be brought about earlier in the twenty-first century. But it began to revive. Due to the end of the second world war, the changing political order inseminated the seeds of another great game in the world- specifically in South Asia. And indeed, the US and China are now the two verges of the newest version of the great game. In addition, the South-Asian countries are the middle of the pulling between these two new rivals. Without a doubt, Bangladesh conveys a significant rule among these nations.

Bangladesh is attracting world powers not only for its geographical position but predominantly for its current economic advancement- especially in the last ten years. Bangladesh has the second-largest economy among the South Asian nations. Moreover, it is considered the heaven of investment. Therefore, it is anticipated that the world’s wealthiest countries, primarily China and the US, will be eager to strengthen bilateral relations with Bangladesh. By doing so, for the last two decades, these two countries have been continuing their leadership in the trading and investment sectors in Bangladesh. Between these two, including India, China has knocked all these old partners in trade and commerce.

China and Bangladesh have enjoyed a warm bilateral relationship over the past 45 years. These two nations have played an exemplary role in cooperating for the sake of their bilateral progress. Continuing this trend, Bangladesh has seen an influx of Chinese investment. In 2016 when Xi Jinping had a state visit here in Dhaka, he pledged to provide $38 billion to the infrastructure sector, which was the highest sum ever signed with Bangladesh by any single country. Along with this, our agriculture and garment sectors have been extending due to the favor of Chinese technologies. China was the biggest supplier of arms to Bangladesh from 2009 to 2013, accounting for 82% of the total arms imported by Dhaka in this period. Our 90% of Navy equipment is purchased from China. They have exported modern ships and weapons to us (stealth warships, Long-range guided missiles, etc.) at aberrantly discounted prices. Adding to that, they have also helped to set up Missile production facilities and Shipyards in Bangladesh.

In contrast, Bangladesh has been one of the leading exporting clients for China. In the last two years, roughly 33% of total imports came from China. Until now, it is the highest import for Bangladesh with any single country. Moreover, Bangladesh is the second-largest arms export destination (next to Pakistan). Apart from this, about 37000 Bangladeshi had traveled to China before the pandemic hit Wuhan, contributing a more enormous sum to China’s Tourism sector. Most importantly, responding to China’s invitation to join Chinese-backed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project- denying the dissension from India- Bangladesh is now a proud member of BRI.

Bangladesh always shows its warm welcome for such economic cooperation. But when it comes to joining the military pact, it cordially shows its lucid reluctance. Accordingly, the country had adopted a specific motto in its foreign policy: Friendship to all, malice to none. Even long before the independence, Bangladesh gainsaid against West Pakistan’s exertion to enter into the groups (SEATO and CENTO) which were comprised for security purposes. After the liberation, it followed the same path.

Regarding all these factors, there is no ambiguity that the two developing nations have been embroiled in each other’s progression for several decades. Yet, how can China be worried that Bangladesh would deny this warming cooperation and dig its grave by joining the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad)?

Nevertheless, China seems unhappy and skeptical as well about Bangladesh’s next move. It was expressed on 10 May, when Li Jiming, the Chinese ambassador, warned Bangladesh, in advance, not to join the Quad despite Dhaka’s apparent stance on this issue. He emphasized, “Obviously, it will not be a good idea for Bangladesh to participate in this small club of four (Quad) because it will substantially damage our bilateral relationship.

Quad- a group of like-minded countries to ensure a free, open, and inclusive Indo-Pacific region-support for freedom of navigation and territorial Integrity. However, it is merely a definition rather it has a goal to build a strong navy network that would halt Chinese aggression across the Seas. On account of this, the group is regarded as Asian NATO to many experts. Bangladesh has nothing to do with this except expressing its opinion on ensuring a free and inclusive water path. Since it is yet to get an invitation from Quad itself. So it is likely irrelevant to express any advance willingness to think of participating, let alone being an active member in reality.

Responding to the Chinese envoy’s controversial remarks, Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dr. AK Abdul Momen said, “Dhaka maintains a non-aligned and balanced foreign policy, and it will decide what to do according to those principles. But yes, any country can uphold its position,”

Meanwhile, these recent remarks have raised a myriad of questions from the ordinary people of Bangladesh. Due to the border killings, religious conflicts, and some two-faced attitudes in solving the Rohingya crisis, India is somehow losing its reliable position, which is being supplanted gradually by China. In this regard, if China acts absurdly as its only South Asian rival (India) has been doing to its neighboring countries, it could damage bilateral relations for a long.

Bangladesh has repeatedly cleared its position that it has a solid aversion to joining Quad; instead, it is only keen on being part of a community that could be conducive to strengthening its economy and connectivity. Following this, it has maintained a balanced tie with all the major powers. Bangladesh perceives that it is not in a situation to partake in any specific belt of the major powers. On account of this, it is giving all its priority to upholding its economic status by setting aside its political power. Rebutting Henry Kissinger’s basket case theory and gradually morphing into a stable developing nation- as it has held its position high on the world stage, will it be excessive if Bangladesh claims to have cooperation, mutual respect, and diplomatic attitude from its friendly nations as it contains for others? 

What should be the public financing priorities and strategies to ensure youth employment is consistent with economic growth

As Bangladesh has been walking on the road of progress, it can't deny Youth employment as a significant challenge in Bangladesh. The country is currently running through a phase of demographic dividend, and according to SANEM, it will continue to enjoy this dividend until 2030. In contrast, it also depicts 79.7 of the total unemployed population between the age of 15-29 years. Hence, the concerns lie ahead as to how better we are prepared to turn this challenge into an opportunity and subsequently enjoy the benefits. 

In Bangladesh, Jobs have been seen now as equal to chasing a golden deer. According to a recent World  Bank study, the working-age population will increase by 170,000 every month in Bangladesh; and to keep employment rates constant, 1.1 million additional jobs would be needed every year. What have we done to ensure it? 

Even though it requires not only quantity but also decent jobs, that is still constant. Lack of proper skill, the influx of foreign workers to the job sectors, and inequality in the job sectors have been detected as the root of this problem. In this place, Govt can step forward with window opportunities such as initiating free skill development for youths, halting to prioritize foreign workers, and ensuring equal distribution. Therefore, despite the short posts of Govt sector (only 3.8% of the whole), it has created another unemployment crisis for persistently relying upon it.

Graduate young are not usually keen to take endeavor for something by themselves. Because as regards the job market in Bangladesh is pretty precarious. Govt can take initiatives here in many ways- providing them short- and long-term loans with a nominal interest rate, later on supervising a specific period of time to help them overcome primary obstacles. Since the individual proprietorship creates 61% of jobs, it must be chosen as the first priority for Govt to characterize public funding by favoring this sector. Instance, Small, and Medium  Industries should be given priority. Doing so could bring a pragmatic and substantial way to create more jobs along with Economic progress. 

Bangladesh has not been doing well enough in transforming to the next phase of industrialization. The manufacturing sector in Bangladesh is significantly evaporated with low value-added readymade garments, and this is deemed to be the heaviest impediment for it to successfully step into the next generation of manufacturing, exceptionally to high value-added manufacturing. For instance, the  Government should consider the emphasis on producing various goods to mitigate the risk of the crash of a single-dependent one. Moreover, Bangladesh is to come out of the LDC country's list by 2024. Expert says it will vacate more jobs due to the fall of export to 2.4 billion dollars. 

Notwithstanding, we will be experiencing a rise in GDP growth during that time. Because employment  is not the only significant criterion of economic advancement, it is named "jobless growth." Currently, South Asian countries are in the face of this problem. Financing is only the public sector that causes this problem.  

Therefore, Bangladesh needs to attach strong emphasis on improving the existing low level of human capital by enhancing investment in education, skill development, and health facilities and making such spending more efficient. In this case, both the Government and the private sector have significant roles to play. Only then would youth employment be consistent with economic growth.

Is it possible for the market to prioritize its profits while upholding societal good?

Note: Photo is collected from Freepik

"If you want to remain small, solve small problems." If you want to be big, solve  big problems. " -Jack Ma 

As market failure causes many social and environmental problems in the first place, thus it is the responsibility of the market to make an impactful change towards society while it makes a profit. However, it is not a matter that the market should act only for social welfare alone. But, I insist on the part that, with no financial desire, a company seems to be unsustainable or weaker because they are donor inclined and ultimately less impactful. You must find a way to make money while making a difference in society. And it has been possible. 

Back 60 years, companies and organizations were less inclined to consider social welfare than to make a profit alone. Albeit, It is not entirely a pristine idea;  capitalism has just changed its true meaning. We are supposed to believe that  Business should be set for money-purpose. Owing to several social and environmental threats, the world has turned into the opposite.  

Growing up in a marginal area, I was one of the children who had to face common barriers in getting a proper education. This is a prevalent scenario in most of the rural areas in Bangladesh. The impediments behind it were not only a scarcity of money but a lack of consciousness and cooperation. Undoubtedly the same barriers have not been wholly rooted out yet. Nevertheless, the worst thing that was supposed to happen to us didn't go that way.

A nongovernmental organization called BRAC stepped up and brought us exactly what we were required to manage my study. They provide us with all we need to study without any financial exchange. Currently, the organization is considered the largest non-governmental organization in the world. Moreover, over the last  40 years, involved in social welfare programs, it has both achieved reputation and profit not only in Bangladesh but also overseas. BRAC is now running its programs to alleviate poverty in 11 countries- most of them are in Asia and  Africa. 

 

Furthermore, multinational firms such as Microsoft, Facebook, and Google have also had a significant influence around the world as well. When these tech firms have managed to contribute to social welfare, no institutions or charity foundations like them will not be able to do such things as they have been doing alone. That is why it would be difficult to find a person today who has never heard of Microsoft or  Google and does not know what products they offer. 

It's not merely the thing that BRAC, Microsoft, and Google employ the highest talented minds that create the best products, but rather the market for their impact-oriented social services that have been underway for an extended period of time around the world. 

Let’s look over a true story. For example, There was a shopkeeper who used to sell toys. Those were different types of toys but mostly all white with blue eyes and blond hair that didn't resemble black girls anyway. Then He came up with an idea to produce three dolls representing the three main ethnic groups in Nigeria:  Igbo, Hausa, and Yoruba. A part of the profit from the dolls was also planned to be used to promote education there in Nigeria. The student in question found a  dilapidated school in a low-income neighborhood with the aid of some street boys,  which he wanted to renovate with some of the proceeds from the doll sales. He wanted the workers he engaged in renovating to employ and train local people in the area while the school was renovated. This arrangement helped develop the area's skills remarkably. 

When the project was completed, he was enlisted for a state government award which drew attention in Nigeria not as a businessman but as a social worker promoting ethnic equality. Since then, all the National newspapers in Nigeria have started to cover his outstanding work throughout the country. Along with the national newspapers in Nigeria, globally known media like CNN, Forbes, CNBC,  and BBC Africa also published the social business idea that helped him make more money and gain fame swiftly. Today, he has got a global voice because of these dolls.  They have brought him more money and fame than all his other toys. 

Hence, it is now crystal, and enough corroborated that CEOs can run companies without any risk by gaining revenues and considering societal goods altogether.  And for this, we have some the companies like BRAC and Microsoft, which hold the idea to innovate, improve something and resolve social problems through working on their business. 

Reference 

Business.com Editorial Stuff (Apr 08, 2020), Can You Make  a Profit and Be Socially Responsible?  

https://www.business.com/articles/can-you-make-a-profit-and-be-socially-responsible/ 

McSherry, Tom (2020), Social Entrepreneurship: How You  Can Profit By Making A Difference,  

https://yaro.blog/9525/social-entrepreneurship/ 

Power, Rhett ( Sep 16, 2018), Here's How To Balance  Profitability And Social Good,  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rhettpower/2018/09/16/heres-how-to-balance profitability-and-social-good/?sh=42a368e43e91 

Sandel, Michael (2008), Justice (1st edition), Penguins 

Sandel, Michael (2012), What money can’t buy (2nd Edition),  Penguins 

Smith and Lankoski ( June 19, 2018), Balancing Profit and  Social Welfare: Ten Ways to Do It,  

https://knowledge.insead.edu/responsibility/balancing-profit-and-social welfare-ten-ways-to-do-it-9421

Sullivan, Paul ( Aug 28, 2020), Investing in Social Good Is  Finally Becoming Profitable,  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/your-money/impact-investing coronavirus.html 

Young Leaders of American Initiative (2020), 3 Ways to  Turn a Profit While Doing Good, https://ylai.state.gov/3-ways-to turn-a-profit-while-doing-good/ 

Yale Insights ( May 30, 2019), Is Making an Impact the Path to  Profit? 

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/is-making-an-impact-the-path-to-profit

Why the US should reconsider muddling along with any sort of war ahead

Note: US Marines board a transport aircraft headed to Kandahar, Afghanistan, as British and US forces withdraw from a complex in Helmand province in 2014. Photo: Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images

From the nineteenth century's regime-change operation to the modern post-9/11 ‘war on terror, the US became entangled in numerous conflicts to establish its political and economic influences worldwide. History depicts America first stepping into regime-change operations in 1898 by favoring Woodrow Wilson’s policy, “teach them to elect a good man.” However, these involvements culminated in the Cold war era while the U.S. was desperately starving to bring targeted nations under Democracy. During this time, regime change got the upper hand, overtly or covertly, that the U.S. attempted 60-plus operations to replace the target nation's leadership and policies in favor of its interests; in most cases, it was successful in bringing down its objectives into reality. But the 21 century’s warfare is not as synoptic as it was forty years ago, immensely denaturalized and differentiated in the context of assessing the actual cost and benefits of wars. 

War is costly and is invariably devastating since it directly engages with the consumption of human lives. Following that pattern, the post-9/11 wars are deemed to be so devastating that they have caused the deaths of as many humans as has never happened since the Second World War. According to the Brown University poll, at least 800,000 people have been killed in these quagmires. In addition, a minimum of 310,00 civilian deaths have been confirmed since Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom began being executed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Inclusively for the US, the death number was never trivial as well.

 Following the US Department of Defense, approximately 51,000 US service members have died or were wounded aggregately in this period of senseless wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Controversies derive: did this human cost satisfy any greater purpose or converge any moral standpoint compatible with America's values? 

Indicting Saddam Hussein (former president of Iraq) of having secretly developed the Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD), the US, in conjunction with 48 other countries, just hastily dispatched troops to battle Iraq's dictator regime. Though months later, the fact was elicited even from the US officials that there was no such a clandestine program. It was merely arrant propaganda conducted by the CIA and some government officials. Unfortunately, this groundbreaking truth was inadequate to change America's unflinching attitude towards invasion. However, it was not an exceptional delineation of US foreign policy. 

In place of combating a dictator or a few terrorist organizations, the US was seen to be keen on muddling along with the wars with the entire nation, which, in the aftermath, not only induced anticipated civil wars but accelerated the emergence of the deadliest terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. Ironically, the U.S. currently considers these organizations as one of the biggest threats to both US national security and the Middle East. David Kilcullen, a former advisor to General David Petraeus and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, spoke to Channel4 news, “There, undoubtedly, would have been no Taliban and ISIS if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.” How imprudent is it that one induces to emerge a threat and subsequently battles and funding own money against it? How longer will citizens allow the government to drag the nation on the verge of the same traps? 

The US has a history of getting backed by its citizens in terms of incumbent wars like the two world wars and the "war on terror." In October 2001, a poll conducted by CNN/Gallup/USA Today indicated that 88 percent of Americans backed military intervention in Afghanistan. However, since the new generations have been witnessing most of their wars winded up with almost no gains. Still, with huge losses and sufferings, Americans’ bellicosity has sharply decreased. Following another survey in 2019, it was revealed that this support rate had dropped to 41 percent. In this sense, Americans have now set the government off answering why their brothers and sisters are deployed to foreign soil and why congress is still pouring a significant share of their budget into these wasteful wars. 

Furthermore, misleading information about recent warfare evolved suspicions on Military expenditure and accurate troops deployment, which have impacted large-scale subsiding of the public trust in the Government. Although, the US constitution depicts (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7) that citizens keep the right to know about receipts and expenditure of all public money from time to time.  But this clause is primarily used in black and white, hardly implemented in terms of the economic costs of the latest wars. 

The economic costs of the post-9/11 wars subsumed not only the expenditure incurred for operations, equipment, and military personnel but also the interest cost on this debt. The post-9/11 wars were executed altogether, predicating on the foreign debt of $2 trillion. Since 2001, these interest payments have been rising at such a rate that the $2 trillion debt during the initial stage of invasion in Afghanistan has already resulted in cumulative interest payments of $925 billion. Even if military interventions in the foreign states ceased immediately, the interest payment would still climb. It is estimated that the dollars America has already spent for reconstructions in Iraq and Afghanistan outran the investment of the Marshall plan launched to rebuild Europe after World War II.

As COVID-19 upsurges, it is as if new fuel has been added to the yellowed flame of the unemployment rate, which is currently edged up to 5.9%. The Pentagon says this annual average of 260 billion has opened almost 1.8 million defense-related jobs. However, Experts say that this exact amount of expenditure could have created about 2.5 million jobs in clean energy or could have supported 3.7 million jobs in health, nearly 4 million jobs in Education broadly, and close to 5 million jobs if proper spending was carried out for primary and secondary schooling. On average, the $260 billion could have created more than 3.8 million jobs. That concluded, almost 2 million jobs are just fading away as an opportunity cost of devastating wars. 

Notwithstanding, Washington indeed has something to claim as credit, like its military engagement repulsed Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and toppled the dictators in Libya and Iraq, ensuring a safe ground for democracy and freedom of speech in the region. Yet, do these pyrrhic accomplishments legalize Washington's ground over its military interference? Whilst the defeated Afghan Al-Qaeda has generated other branches in African states, toppling Saddam begets another responsibility to topple the North Korean and Iranian regimes. Will the US relentlessly respond to all these external affairs in the future?  

In the context of some crucial cases like Terrorism and Global security, the US must take part if the objectives and outcomes are apprehended and achievable and compatible with the global values. However, as the US has been confronting domestic issues like race, immigration, healthcare, abortion, and so on- policymakers must stop living in a fool's paradise by deploying troops and funding money in overseas wars. They- should instead be concerned about its domestic urgencies, including the post-COVID-19 future, which alone would eventually conserve the utility of various tools of American statecraft and support for democracy in the future. 

References 

Aftergood, Steven (2018), The Costs of War: Obstacles to Public Understanding. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2018/costs-war-obstacles-public-understanding 

Berry, Wendell (2006), A-Citizens-Response-To-The-National-Security-Strategy. https://orionmagazine.org/article/a-citizens-response-to-the-national-security-strategy/ 

Hassan, Hassan (2018), The True Origins of ISIS: A secret biography suggests that Abu Ali al- Anbari defined the group’s radical approach more than any other person. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/isis-origins-anbari-zarqawi/577030/

Savickas, Daniel J. (2016), Thrifty-authoritarians-us-regime-change-1945-present. http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1572/2/thrifty-authoritarians-us-regime-change-1945-present 

Stiglitz, J. E., & Bilmes, L. J. (2012). Estimating the costs of war: Methodological issues, with applications to Iraq and Afghanistan. In The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Peace and Conflict (pp. 275-315). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392777.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195392777-e-13?rskey=7QUbc3&result=2

Statement of Antony J.Blinken (March 3, 2021), A Foreign Policy of American People. https://www.state.gov/a-foreign-policy-for-the-american-people/

Why Islamophobia Is On The Rise In The US And Europe.

Thomas Friedman, a Jews-American economist, once said, “Had Muslims be running Europe in 1940, then 6 million extra Jews would be still alive today.”

After the establishment of Muslim rule in Spain in 711 AD – Europe was gradually ruled by Muslim overlong for more than 800 years. Subsequently, during the period of the Ottoman Empire- Islam began to flourish across the whole of Europe. Hence, They set out to contribute to Europe in some significant contexts- Science, Art, Philosophy, Politics, and so on. Al-Khwarizmi, who introduced Westerns with Mathematics and modern Algorithms; Ibn Sina, who is deemed as the father of early modern Medicine, lived in the golden age of Islam. However, in the progressive journey of almost 1400 years, the current spectacle of Islam seems antithetical to what it was in the first place. A few aspersions have forcefully been politicized with the glory of Islam- Islamophobia is the newest one of them.

Islamophobia- the new concern was outset in 1970. Yet, it grabbed popularity in the 90s- when Salman Rushdie, an Indian- British novelist, excoriated Prophet Mohammad (SWA) in his book ‘Satanic Verses’. However, that was not the first hit on Islam but a colossal one. Consequently, the whole Muslim community across the world expressed severe condemnation against such defamation of their Prophet- some stepped a bit further.

Threatening Rushdie for this stricture, Iran declared a death penalty that set the West off to respond in an unprecedented way. It was as though the west was persistently waiting for this outrageous situation to be taken place. Exemplifying Iran, some of the Western states ,along with mainstream media, began to propagate mythical aspects of Islam as to how Muslims are run by their Shariah Law and could declare open killings to suppress free speeches. Albeit, this propaganda war didn’t sustain much longer until the gruesome onrush of 9/11. Which is still passed as the deadliest terrorist attack in US history.

The Post 9/11 period induced an entire change in world politics. A new fear stemmed from the lesion that flowed beyond the flashpoint. Political and social reactions to this incident led to fuel excessive bigotry and violence toward Muslims. Using this sentiment, the west began to portray Islam as a religion of violence and extremism. Except for the 9/11 attack, anti-Muslim groups were seen to strengthen their stance by bringing the precedents of bombings in the London Underground series of terrorist attacks in Mumbai, prolonging the ideological war in Syria and Afghanistan. Whereas Christians or other religious faiths have never been through the same accusation despite conducting Crusades, two deadly World Wars, Spanish incursions, European Colonialism in Asia and Africa, Anti-Jewish programs, or even countless bomb attacks in the US and Europe. Even mosques attacked in New Zealand and the most recent terrorist attack in Canada couldn’t reflect the prospective concern as they are deduced to be. But considerably, it raised a huge concern as to whether religious fundamentalism was responsible for persuading these attacks.

Having Studied 315 cases of Suicide Terrorism from 1980 to 2005, Robert Pape, one of the terrorism experts of the University of Chicago, revealed- there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Fundamentalism of any other religion. Moreover, these attacks are predominantly perpetrated for the strategic purpose of states and organizations. Even when Islamic State (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda proclaimed to conduct their so-called Jihad merely against the non-Muslims- why are they frequently seen capturing, torturing, and slaughtering countless innocent Muslims? If terrorists are precisely led by the law of Islam, why mosques and Islamic artifacts were demolished in Pakistan? Does it provide any perception that in the name of Islam, some lean toward annihilating Muslims?

Elsewhere, some of the indecisive questions that are still sustaining concern who backed Al-Qaeda to fight against Russia in Afghanistan; who is responsible for ‘the emergence of ISIS and patronizing this notorious organization’ to combat against Assad regime in Syria? Can the western governments ever negate their failure to initiate new fears across the world? Can some of the western media ever spare themselves from believing the facts repeatedly?

Since the Eighteenth century, the news media and press have been turning over as the major sources of power and referred to as the “fourth estate” or “fourth power.” Following the agenda-setting theory, the press doesn’t reflect as it is based on- rather, many of them filter information in favoring the interest of states, groups, and individuals. They have been attempting to centralize and marginalize the idea that only Muslims, in particular, are responsible for any sort of Extremism, whilst the world is now witnessing plenty of terrorist attacks conducted by in the faith of Christianity, Buddhism, and Judaism. Investigating all the terrorist attacks in the US between 1980-2005- an FBI investigation report revealed that 94% of them were committed in the name of White Supremacism, race, and other religious faith. Then, why is Islamophobia on the rise in the US and Europe?

A recent study by the University of Alabama showed that in the US, terrorist attacks by Muslim Extremists receive 357% more press attention than any other non-Muslim terrorist attacks. Apart from this, another research led by Signal AI – where 200000 articles of 11 attacks in 80 different languages, concluded that Islamic State (ISIS) inspired attackers are three times more likely to be portrayed as “terrorists” than far-right and White-Supremacist attackers. As a result, anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and America has alarmingly been skyrocketing in the last few years. Surprisingly, the hate crimes in 2020 recorded in these two continents are far more than in the year of the 9/11 attack. Experts opine that this anti-Muslim motto is now generated by politics rather than faith. Pursuant to this, Trump in the US, Macron in France, and Modi in India are frequently exemplified for exercising an anti-Muslim posture to win the election race. A survey showed 4that 4% of the citizens in the US say a candidate’s endorsement of the ban on Muslims would increase his approval in the election.

Since we are living in an era of hate, Islamophobia is not only practiced to get political vantage but is also deemed to be a profitable business either at the organizational or state level. The fact is- motivated by anti-Muslim hatred, the extremists who are involved in pulling down the mosques and in gunning down innocent Muslims could hardly identify their shadows in this business. Ironically, instead of preventing terrorism rather they head to create another version of it. What it looks like when defining a minority of Muslims as terrorists, states encourage Extremists’ to shoot other innocent Muslims down the street, in mosques, or elsewhere? Isn’t it another version of terrorism?

Conducting research in 2019, Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) manifests the idea that those who have no knowledge at all of Islam are keen to take part in anti-Muslim violence. Hence, 57% of Jews citizens in the US are more favorable towards Muslims as they know Muslims in person. Where white Evangelicals are appeared to be the least tolerant of Muslims as they keep no clear perception of Islam.
Knowing about Islam is a basic predictor for lowering Islamophobia, whereas knowing a Muslim is only a modern predictor. More explicitly, knowing a Muslim as a friend is not as powerful of a protective factor against Islamophobia as knowing about the faith itself. Every religion is based on faith. They are profoundly interconnected with the root of Worshippers’ thoughts and acts. Worshippers do shape them, complete them, and are even responsible for transforming them into diverse shapes and colors. What religion itself has to do if it is misinterpreted and misconceived by a minority of its beliefs.

Nonetheless, Islam is not a pacifistic faith- indeed, no religion can ever be. Islam allows Military actions in certain limited contexts- as every religion maintains in terms of their self-defense. Perhaps, a minority of the believers misinterpret and carry it out of context. There are 1.8 billion Muslims observing their faith around the world- and for the sake of argument, if it is assessed that less than 0.01% of aberrant believers allow violence, terror, and discriminate killings- then what about the other 99.99% of law-abiding Muslims who have embraced Islam as a religion of peace, cooperation, love, and compassion?

Note: This piece has been published in the Dunya News Blog. Find it here.