Monday, August 2, 2021
Sunday, August 1, 2021
Hüseyin Macit YUSUF
TMT ruhunu ilelebet yaşatacağız…
2 Ağustos 2021 Pazartesi
Sevgili okuyucularım 1 Ağustos Toplumsal Direniş Bayramı'dır. Bizde dün, Toplumsal Direniş Bayramı olarak Kıbrıs'ın fethinin 450., Türk Mukavemet Teşkilatı'nın (TMT) 63., Güvenlik Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı'nın (GKK) 45., kuruluş ve yıldönümlerini kutladık.
Bu Bayram'ın Kıbrıs Türk halkının bugünlere kolay gelmediğini göstermesi açısından anlamı büyüktür.
Daha ada fethedilmeden, yani 500-600 yıl önce, adaya gelmeye başlayan, 1571'de adanın fethiyle bu topraklara kök salan ve bu toprakları vatan yapan Kıbrıs Türkleri, adanın İngiliz idaresine geçtiği 1878'den itibaren, Anavatan Türkiye'nin desteğinde gerçekleşen 'Varoluş Mücadelesi' sonunda kendi bağımsız ve egemen devleti KKTC'yi kurmayı başarmıştır. Bu mücadelede Türk Mukavemet Teşkilatı'nın belirleyici rolü inkâr edilemez. Özgürlüğümüzü, bağımsızlığımızı ve egemenliğimizi Kahraman Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerimize, Türk Mukavemet Teşkilatı'nın kahraman mensuplarına, Mücahitlerimize, Anadolu'daki vefakar kardeşlerimize ve Kıbrıs Türküne borçluyuz.
TMT'nin kuruluşunun üzerinden 63 yıl geçmesine rağmen Kıbrıs Türkünün Kıbrıs'taki varoluş mücadelesi hâlâ sürmektedir. Rum-Yunan ikilisi Kıbrıs'ı Yunan yapma hedefinden vazgeçmiş değildir. Kıbrıs'ın tamamının Elenleştirilmesi projesinde Türkiye adadan çıkarılmalı ,Kıbrıs Türkü de sözde federasyon adı altında Rumların egemen olacağı üniter bir yapıda, Rum'a yamalanarak yok edilmelidir. Rum-Yunan ikilisi bu amaçla, hedeflerine ulaşmak için, başta Avrupa Birliği ve ABD olmak üzere bölgemizdeki birçok ülke ile şer ittifakları kurmaktadırlar. Bu ittifakların hedefinde Türkiye ve KKTC vardır.
Cumhurbaşkanı Ersin Tatar'ın, Kıbrıs Türk halkının ve Anavatan Türkiye'nin desteğini alan, egemen eşitlik temelinde iki devlete dayalı çözüm modeli ve Maraş Açılımı Rum-Yunan ikilisinin 2 asırlık plan ve hayallerini yıkmıştır. Cumhurbaşkanı Tatar ve Anavatan Türkiye, bundan sonraki süreçte federasyon çözüm modelinin kesinlikle görüşülmeyeceğini, KKTC'nin uluslararası statüsünün tanınmaması halinde de resmî müzakerelerin başlamayacağını dünyaya duyurmuştur. Rum tarafı ile ortak zemin bulunması mümkün değildir. 53 yıllık müzakere süreci anlaşma/uzlaşma olmayacağını net bir şekilde göstermiştir. Önümüzdeki süreçte yapılması gereken KKTC'nin Anavatan Türkiye dışındaki ülkeler tarafından tanınmasını sağlayacak adımları cesaretle atmak olmalıdır.
Kıbrıs'ta oynanmakta olan oyun büyüktür. Emperyalist kan emici vampirler Doğu Akdeniz'deki zengin hidrokarbon kaynaklarına gözlerini dikmiştir. Bölgemizde büyük bir kriz çıkararak bu kaynakları elde etmeye çalışmakta ve bunun için de Rum-Yunan ikilisini taşeron olarak kullanmaktadırlar. Anavatan Türkiye ve Mukavemetçi Kıbrıs Türkü 7 düvele karşı kararlı bir tutumla haklarımızın sonuna kadar korunacağını bildirmiştir. Demokrasi ve insan hakları savunucusu olduğunu iddia eden Batı, uluslararası anlaşmalarla elde ettiğimiz haklarımızı yok saymakta ve 1963'ten beri bir Rum devletine dönüştürülen sözde Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti'ndeki haklarımızın Rumlar tarafından gaspedilmesine göz yummaktadır.
Aynı Batı, Güney Kıbrıs Rum Yönetimi Başkanı Anastasiadis'e alkış tutarak, destek vererek, tek egemenlik, tek vatandaşlık, tek temsiliyet, BM ve AB karar ve normları çerçevesinde iki toplumlu, iki bölgeli bir Birleşik Kıbrıs yaratarak, Kıbrıs Türkünün osmosis yoluyla, Girit'teki Türklerin başına geldiği gibi, yok olmasının önünü açacak oyunlar peşindedir.
İşte tam da bu nedenle Türk Mukavemet Teşkilatı'nı bu çarpık beyinli emperyalist güçlere, dost-düşman herkese, bir kez daha anlatmakta fayda vardır.
1 Nisan 1955'te ortaya çıkan ve adayı Yunanistan'a bağlayarak Enosis'i gerçekleştirmek isteyen EOKA tedhiş örgütünün başlangıçta İngiliz idaresine karşı eylemleri, daha sonra Türk Toplumu'nun imhası faaliyetlerine dönüşmüştür. Bunlara karşı koymak amacıyla Volkan, Karaçete, 9 Eylül Cephesi, adı altında Türk Toplumu'nun savunmasına yönelik Mukavemetçi gruplar oluşturulmuştur.
Bilahare KKTC Kurucu Cumhurbaşkanı Rauf Denktaş, Kemal Tanrısevdi ve Burhan Nalbantoğlu tarafından Temmuz 1957'de temelleri atılan TMT, 1 Ağustos 1958'de Genelkurmay 2. Başkanlığına bağlı bir direniş örgütü halinde yeniden organize olarak Türk ordusunun kahraman komutanlarının liderliğinde millî direnişimizi sürdürmüştür.
Kurulduğu zaman sadece birkaç çaktım almaz silaha sahip olan TMT mensupları gayrinizami harp kuralları içinde örgütlenerek eğitilmiş ve EOKA terörüne karşı Kıbrıs Türk Halkının varlığını ve yaşam hakkını şehitler pahasına savunmuştur.
21 Aralık 1963'te başlayarak 20 Temmuz 1974 Mutlu Barış Harekatına kadar fasılalarla süren Rum saldırılarına ,soykırım teşebbüslerine karşı Türk Mukavemet Teşkilatı Kıbrıs Türkünü koruma görevini başarıyla yerine getirmiştir.
Herkesin, özellikle de Rum-Yunan ikilisinin, AB ve ABD'lilerin anlaması için bir kez daha tekrarlarsak TMT'nin kuruluş amaçları şöyledir:
* Kıbrıs Türklerinin can ve mal güvenliğini sağlamak,
* Enosis'e ve bu hedef doğrultusunda yapılan girişimlerle estirilen Rum-Yunan terörüne karşı durmak,
* Türklere yapılacak saldırıları geri püskürtmek,
* Türk Toplumunun birliğini ve bütünlüğünü sağlamak, Enosis'i savunan AKEL'in Türk toplumu içinde ideolojik etkinlik kurmasını ve iç cepheyi bölmesini önlemek,
* Rumlara ve İngilizlere karşı Kıbrıs Türklerinin haklarını savunmak,
* Anavatan Türkiye ile sıcak ilişkileri ve Türk Halkının Anavatana bağlılığını sürdürmek.
Kıbrıs Türkleri olarak bugün bağımsız-egemen bir devlete sahip isek ve saldırgan Rum güçleri bu devlete dokunamıyorsa, bunun sağlayan öncelikle TMT, Güvenlik Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı ve Kıbrıs Türk Barış Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı'dır.
Onların yaktığı Türklük meşalesi hiçbir zaman sönmeyecektir. Aramızdan ayrılan TMT mensuplarının, başta ebedi Liderimiz Devletimizin Kurucu Cumhurbaşkanı merhum Rauf Denktaş ile varoluş mücadelemizin lideri rahmetli Dr. Küçük'ün aziz hatıraları önünde eğilir, hayatta olanlara ise minnet ve şükranlarımı sunarım.
Kıbrıs Türkünün varlığına ve bin bir zorlukla kurduğumuz Devletimiz KKTC'ye karşı girişilecek her türlü eyleme karşı, TMT mensubu atalarımızın bize emanet ettikleri ruhla ve imanla mücadele edeceğimizden kimsenin şüphesi olmasın. Şunun bir kez daha bilinmesini isterim ki, TMT içimizde ölmez bir ruhtur ve bu ruhu ilelebet yaşatmaya da kararlıyız.
Yeniçağ - 02 Ağustos 2021
Iran and the Divisive Rule of the Mullah
by Amir Taheri
August 1, 2021 at 4:00 am
Ayatollah Khomeini said that the regime he planned to install in Iran would have one guideline: "Doing the opposite of what the cursed Shah did."
[Khomeini's] position started by dividing Iranians into Muslims and non-Muslims. He then divided them further into Shiites and Sunnis. He went on to divide the Shiites into twelvers and others.
But, here, too, Khomeinists might be on the wrong side of history. The ongoing protests seems to be reviving the national unity and a sense of Iranian-ness fostered over the past centuries, thus singling out the Khomeinist ideology as the common enemy of the nation.
While the Shah tried to forge a single, unifying identity, Khomeini based his strategy on dividing Iranians. That position started by dividing Iranians into Muslims and non-Muslims. He then divided them further into Shiites and Sunnis. He went on to divide the Shiites into twelvers and others. (Image source: iStock)
In an "audience" granted to a number of anti-Shah intellectuals just weeks after seizing power, Ayatollah Khomeini said that the regime he planned to install in Iran would have one guideline: "Doing the opposite of what the cursed Shah did." For the past four decades he and his successors have remained faithful to that promise and have taken double care to prove that.
The Shah wanted to keep Iran out of war and military conflict and succeeded in doing so for more than three decades, at times by taking painful decisions. Khomeini and his successor led Iran into an eight-year long war with Iraq plus a series of military involvements in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Afghanistan.
The Shah cast Iran as a bulwark against terrorism and the use of violence as a political weapon to the point that he would not even allow the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to have an office in Tehran. The Khomeinist regime, on the other hand, provided a haven for all manner of terrorist organizations from Thailand and Philippines to Colombia and Peru, passing by the Middle East and Europe. It also financed the creation of an African-American group seeking a "black state" in Mississippi. The Hezbollah, an umbrella group for militants controlled by Iran, ended up having more than 17 branches in the Greater Middle East.
The Shah sought friendly or at least cordial relations with all of Iran's neighbors. As a result, by the time he left the country, Iran was the only nation in the region to have fully demarcated borders with all neighbors and thus free of irredentist disputes that bedevil so many relations in the Middle East.
Broadly speaking, the Shah pursued an ambitious industrialization policy based on the assumption that Iran, poor in water resources, should focus its agriculture on high-value crops capable of competing in international markets while importing mass consumption crops such as wheat and rice from countries that enjoyed a comparative advantage.
In contrast, Khomeini claimed that the Shah wants Muslims to depend on "the Infidel" even for daily bread and marginalize the agricultural sector where Islam had its deepest roots. As a result, Khomeini and his successors went for an ill-taught policy of building small dams to use the waters of rivers and lakes for producing low-price crops. This led to massive damage to the country's ecological balance, leading to the virtual disappearance of over 200 rivulets, lakes, moorlands and rivers, among them the country's greatest lake, Urumia and such mighty rivers like Zayandehrud and, to some extent, even Karun.
"Bringing women into public life" was one of the Shah's top priorities. Iranian women were among the first in the "Muslim world" to secure voting rights and get high public positions as members of parliament, senators, Cabinet ministers, ambassadors, mayors, and even army, police and air force officers. In 1979, when mullahs seized power, the share of women in the top 2,000 public jobs was around 17 percent. Since then, under Khomeinist rule, that has dropped to three percent in 2021.
However, the biggest and potentially more important difference between Iran's policies under the Shah and during Khomeinist rule concerns the crucial issue of national identity. In 1979, Iran was probably the only country in the region to enjoy a broad consensus on its identity as a nation-state.
That identity had taken shape over some five centuries, completing its template with the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, the formation of the first Western-style state institutions, the reforms carried out under Reza Shah Pahlavi and the economic and social progress made under his son Muhammad Reza Shah. With its motto "unity in diversity", this was partly based on half-historic and half mythological reading of Iran's long history and designed to minimize parochial differences and promote an archetypical "Iranian man or woman" in the name of patriotism with "mihan", a word hard to translate but indicating belonging to a single homeland, as key concept.
Khomeini in contrast denied the very concept, arguing that there was no Iranian nation and that the identity of his Islamic Republic indicated that Iranians were part of a universal Islamic "ummah".
That position started by dividing Iranians into Muslims and non-Muslims. He then divided them further into Shiites and Sunnis. He went on to divide the Shiites into twelvers and others. Then it was the turn of twelvers to be divided into "osuli" (fundamentalist) and "akhbaris". Then the "osulis", supposed to provide his core base, were divided into "wala'is" (those who believe in walayat al faqih or "guardianship by the jurists") and "taqlidis" or those who followed traditional ayatollahs who did not endorse the new system.
While the Shah tried to forge a single, unifying identity, Khomeini based his strategy on dividing Iranians to bolster the claim that the only thing that kept Iran together was walayat al-faqih. Khomeinist philosophers like Mesbah Yazdi, Abdul-Karim Sorush, Hassan Abbassi and Rahil Pourazghadi have tried to back that claim with pseudo-theological mumbo-jumbo.
Khomeini's strategy has left the immense majority of Iranians wondering how to define themselves in a system that denies their common, plurimilennial identity. That, in turn, has encouraged different and contradictory reactions. Many Iranians now regard Islam and in particular Shiism as their enemy. Some try to revive long dead or dormant provincial, linguistic or ethnic identities. Khomeinism has set the young against the old with those born after the revolution, accounting for more than half the population, blaming their elders for the nation's current miseries.
That strategy has also divided Iranians into those at home and those in the diaspora, accounting for some 10 percent of the population. This was dramatically illustrated last week in the Tokyo Olympics, when an Iranian woman athlete competing as a refugee defeated another Iranian woman under the Islamic Republic flag. When the two embraced warmly after the match, many Iranians felt that the Iranian-ness shaped over the centuries was still alive and well.
Khomeinism has led to antagonism between men and women as the former are shocked by the militant opposition of the latter to what they see as a patriarchal system.
Khomeinism has tried to pursue its divisive strategy by branding the current protests in more than 100 towns and cities across Iran as the work of "secessionist elements", thus justifying the killing of unarmed people in the streets.
But, here, too, Khomeinists might be on the wrong side of history. The ongoing protests seems to be reviving the national unity and a sense of Iranian-ness fostered over the past centuries, thus singling out the Khomeinist ideology as the common enemy of the nation. The fight is on.
Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987.
This article was originally published by Asharq al-Awsat and is reprinted by kind permission of the author.
The Ultra-Conservative Leanings of Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan Raise Eyebrows
By Dr. James M. Dorsey
July 29, 2021
Pakistani PM Imran Khan, image via Twitter @ImranKhanPTI
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 2,108, July 29, 2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Widely seen as a populist with ultra-conservative leanings, Pakistani PM Imran Khan increasingly appears to reinforce widespread traditionalist attitudes that reject religious tolerance as well as the rights of women and minorities.
Pakistani PM Imran Khan is aligning his country, in religious and social terms, closer to Turkey than to his country’s traditional allies, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has bolstered religious education at home as well as in Turkish schools abroad and recently withdrew from an international women’s rights convention.
Khan’s FM, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, reportedly was scheduled to meet recently in Islamabad with Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel Jubeir amid concern about regional security as US forces withdraw from Afghanistan and the Taliban rapidly gain ground.
Saudi Arabia, once a bulwark of religious ultra-conservatism, has, like the UAE, sought to sand down the raw edges of its longstanding austere interpretation of Islam, liberalize social mores, enhance women’s mobility and professional opportunities, and position the kingdom as a proponent of a moderate form of Islam that highlights religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue while supporting autocratic rule.
Except for his empathy with authoritarianism, Khan appears to be going in the opposite direction. In doing so, he can dip into a deep reservoir of ultra-conservatism in Pakistan that was fueled in part, until the rise in 2015 of Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, by decades of Saudi financial, material, and religious support.
Last month, the PM pushed the implementation of educational reform that would Islamicize syllabi across the board from primary schools to universities. Arabic would be mandatory for the first 12 years of a child’s schooling. Critics charge that religion would account for up to 30% of the new syllabus.
Fueling controversy, Khan recently blamed increased sexual violence in Pakistan on women who fail to dress properly. “If a woman is wearing very few clothes, it will have an impact on the men, unless they are robots. It’s just common sense,” Khan said.
The PM went on to say that the practice of wearing a veil existed so “that there is no temptation in society.”
Earlier, Qureshi, the foreign minister, told CNN that Israel had “deep pockets” and was home to “very influential people” who “control media.”
When accused by the interviewer of employing antisemitic tropes and asked to condemn antisemitism, Qureshi sidestepped the question by saying: “I will not justify any rocket attacks…and I cannot condone the aerial bombardment that is taking place.” Qureishi was speaking in May as Israel was responding to rockets fired by Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza, at Israeli civilian communities and cities.
A recent explosion in Lahore that killed three people and wounded 27 others appeared to suggest that there could be regional consequences to the ultra-conservative moves. The explosion was seen by analysts and officials as India’s warning to the government not to ease a crackdown on Islamic militants who have long done Pakistan’s bidding in disputed Kashmir.
Khan’s national security advisor, Moeed Yousuf, said an investigation had concluded that the explosion was a car bomb planted by Indian intelligence near the home of Hafiz Saeed, a leader of the outlawed Jamat ud-Dawa and founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmir-focused group banned as a terrorist organization.
It was not immediately clear whether Saeed was at home at the time of the explosion. Sentenced to multiple prison terms on terrorism-related charges, he might have been allowed to serve time under house arrest, according to several sources.
Without identifying India by name, Pakistan’s Punjab province police chief, Inam Ghani, said a UAE-based Pakistani national had recruited local Pakistanis to place the bomb.
Earlier this year, the UAE mediated a revival of a lapsed ceasefire between India and Pakistan along the Line of Control that divides Kashmir into Indian and Pakistani-controlled areas. The line was often a flashpoint along which Pakistani-backed militants operated.
A UN-designated terrorist, Saeed has had a $10 million bounty put on his head by the US Department of Justice. Saeed is believed to have masterminded the 2008 attacks on multiple targets in Mumbai that killed 165 people.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international anti-money- laundering and terrorism finance watchdog, recently refused to remove Pakistan from its grey watchlist because the country had not been vigorous enough in the prosecution of UN-designated terrorists.
Grey listing carries no legal sanctions but restricts a country’s access to international loans. Qureshi, the Pakistani FM, estimated that the grey listing cost his country’s economy $10 billion a year.
PM Khan’s ultra-conservative leanings suggest that Saudi and US hopes that Pakistan, the world’s second-most populous Muslim-majority country, might pave the way for the kingdom’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel is a figment of the imagination.
A former senior adviser to Khan, Sayed Zulfi Bukhari, denied days before the reported talks with Jubeir, the Saudi minister, that he had secretly visited Israel for meetings with senior government officials.
Bukhari tweeted “DIDNOT go to Israel. Funny bit is Pakistani paper says I went to Israel based on ‘Israeli news source’ & Israeli paper says I went to Israel based on a ‘Pakistani source’-wonder who this imaginative Pakistani source is. Apparently, I’m the only one who was kept out of the loop.” Bukhari resigned weeks before the tweet after being accused of abuse of power in a government report.
The issue of Saudi recognition of Israel was likely a topic in talks in Washington two weeks ago between US officials and visiting Saudi Deputy DM Prince Khalid bin Salman.
Saudi Arabia, in a move primarily targeting the UAE, which last year established diplomatic relations with Israel, signaled its refusal to follow suit by altering its application of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) customs tariffs.
The kingdom said it was exempting from GCC preferential treatment goods that include components manufactured in Israel or made by companies fully or partially owned by entities on the Arab League boycott list because of their commercial relations with Israel.
Dr. James M. Dorsey, a non-resident Senior Associate at the BESA Center, is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University and co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture.
A Big Step Forward for Global Tax Justice
Jul 26, 2021
The European Union should not merely emphasize its multilateral credentials, but must demonstrate that coordinated international action can deliver for all if every country invests in it. And the recent global agreement to reform corporate taxation does just that.
BRUSSELS – Multilateralism has been on the defensive in recent years. In a global setting that is more multipolar than multilateral, competition between states seems to prevail over cooperation nowadays. However, the recent global agreement to reform international corporate taxation is welcome proof that multilateralism is not dead.
But it is not healthy, either. While globalization has continued during the COVID-19 pandemic – albeit more unevenly than before and despite people’s feelings of increased isolation – interdependence is ever more conflictual. Even soft power is being weaponized, with vaccines, data, and technology standards all becoming instruments of political competition.
The world is also becoming less free. Democracy itself is under attack, amid a pitched battle of narratives over which political and economic system can best deliver for its citizens.
The European Union continues to believe in and work for a predictable world of rules-based multilateralism, open markets, positive-sum outcomes, and social justice and solidarity. We remain convinced that today’s challenges – from fighting the pandemic to tackling climate change – can be handled only through global cooperation. The EU will thus continue to lead on reviving rules-based multilateralism, in order to show our citizens the concrete benefits of a seemingly dry, technocratic concept.
After all, the alternative to such multilateral engagement – “going it alone” – means reduced access to vaccines, insufficient climate action, festering security crises, inadequately regulated globalization, and increasing global inequality. No country, not even the biggest, can succeed on its own. For all these reasons, Italy has rightly put multilateralism atop the agenda for its current G20 presidency.
But it is not enough for the EU merely to emphasize its multilateral credentials. Europe must demonstrate that multilateral action can deliver for all if every country invests in it. And the new global tax agreement does just that.
The deal, endorsed earlier in July by G20 finance ministers and backed by 132 countries, will establish a global minimum tax rate of at least 15% for multinational corporations and ensure that these firms pay taxes in the countries where they generate their profits. This is a historic step toward fairer globalization and a landmark achievement of effective multilateralism.
In recent years, governments have taken important steps to tackle tax evasion by individuals. According to the OECD, the automatic exchange of tax information between states netted €95 billion ($112 billion) in additional tax revenue for G20 countries between 2009 and 2019, while deposits in tax havens fell by 34%.
But curbing tax avoidance by multinationals, an even bigger problem, has proved more difficult. The OECD estimates that multinationals’ tax avoidance results in global revenue losses of $100-240 billion each year, or 4-10% of total corporate-tax proceeds. Moreover, the current international corporate tax system was designed more than a century ago and is increasingly out of sync with today’s globalized and digitalized economy.
The EU has long strived to mount a global response to this challenge. But it was the constructive engagement of US President Joe Biden’s administration over the past six months that enabled the recent breakthrough. This was a striking and welcome sign of America’s return to supporting a multilateral vision of the world.
The 132 jurisdictions currently supporting the new corporate-taxation deal represent 90% of global GDP. And while the agreement will not by itself fully solve the issue of multinational firms’ tax avoidance, it is a decisive step forward. It marks the beginning of the end of the global race to the bottom in corporate tax rates, a contest that has produced some very rich winners but also billions of losers who can now start regaining faith in the power of rules.
The agreement will lead to higher and more stable government revenues at a time when all countries must bear the costs of battling the pandemic and mobilize the investments needed to tackle the climate crisis. And it will deliver greater fairness at a time of increasing inequalities between the developed and the developing world.
Above all, the recent tax accord shows how multilateral action can foster a more equitable form of globalization. We now need similarly effective international responses in other areas, from vaccine access and the climate crisis to data security and technology standards.
Future generations will not forgive us if we waste the pandemic’s main lesson: that we are in this together. We need wise strategies and bold tactics to deliver on a truly multilateral agenda for all.