Editorial
G20: Resolving Global Crisis
Indonesia gathered the leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies commonly referred to as G20 in its
island paradise of Bali for a two-day summit from November 15 to 16 to discuss how they could cooperate on building a more stable future. But while this year’s summit has a post-pandemic theme of “Recover Together, Recover Stronger,” geopolitical divisions are taking centre stage.
Unfortunately, this year’s G20 meetings attracted more international attention than in previous years. The summit took place against the backdrop of global political and economic crises: a challenging post-pandemic recovery, the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, soaring food and energy prices, and the worsening climate crisis. It was expected that the gathering would provide an opportunity for the world’s biggest powers to address those pressing global challenges.
The summit was preceded by a bilateral meeting between United States President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the first time the two had met since Biden became president. Although there were few tangible results, it was overall a positive meeting after relations between the superpowers plunged to near-historic lows earlier in the year. Conversely, Putin’s in-person absence spared the summit a major distraction and helped it focus on economic matters.
The G20 is a multilateral forum representing the world’s largest economies. It involves 19 countries – Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States including the European Union. The forum represents more than 60% of the earth’s population, 75% of global trade, and 80% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP).
This summit was organised as the world edges toward a global recession. Countries’ central banks have been hiking interest rates to curb inflation, but prices struggle to return to pre-pandemic levels. The World Bank reports that these hikes, coupled with financial market stress, could lead to global GDP growth slowing down to 0.5% next year, which would destabilise major economies and significantly slow poverty alleviation in developing countries.
During last week’s meeting, the world economic leaders adopted a declaration deploring Russia’s aggression in Ukraine “in the strongest terms” and demanding its unconditional withdrawal. They also recognised that while most members condemned the war in Ukraine, “there were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions”.
On the global economy, the G20 nations agreed in their declaration to pace interest rate rises carefully to avoid spillovers and warned of “increased volatility” in currency moves, a sea change from last year’s focus on mending the scars of the COVID-19 pandemic. The reference to spillovers was a nod to emerging economies’ concerns about the potential for huge capital outflows if aggressive U.S. rate increases continue.
Also, the leaders pledged to take coordinated action to address food security challenges and applauded the Black Sea grains initiative. But the body has come under intense criticism by Global Citizen, a civil society group, for the absence of concrete steps on hunger. The group says, “Fifty million people are at the brink of starvation as we speak. There is no time for the G20 to issue calls to action, they are the ones who have to act.”
About climate change, leaders of the foremost economic countries agreed to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, confirming they stood by the temperature goal from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. That could boost negotiations at the U.N. COP27 climate summit in Egypt, where some negotiators feared the G20 would fail to back the 1.5C goal — potentially thwarting a deal on it among the nearly 200 countries at the U.N. talks.
However, is the G20 not merely repeating old commitments from previous years or noting developments elsewhere, rather than taking on leadership themselves? When the forum last met in April, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had just cut its global growth forecast to 3.6 per cent for this year and next and experts warned this could get worse given potential downside risks. Since then, several of those risks have materialised and the multiple crises facing the world have intensified.
The human tragedy of the war in Ukraine has worsened. So, too, has its economic impact, especially through commodity price shocks that are slowing growth and exacerbating a cost-of-living crisis that affects hundreds of millions of people and especially poor people who cannot afford to feed their families. And it is only getting worse.
Inflation is higher than expected and has broadened beyond food and energy prices. This has prompted major central banks to announce further monetary tightening, which is necessary but will weigh on the recovery. Continuing pandemic-related disruptions, especially in China, and renewed bottlenecks in global supply chains have hampered economic activity.
Indeed, the outlook remains extremely uncertain. Think of how additional disruption in the natural gas supply to Europe could plunge many economies into recession and trigger a global energy crisis. This is just one of the factors that could worsen an already difficult situation. It is already tough in 2022 and possibly going to be tougher in 2023, with an increased risk of recession. That is why we need decisive action and strong international cooperation led by the G20.
Therefore, the global economic body must practically tackle the root causes of hunger, extreme inequality and poverty, human rights violations, conflict, climate change, food, and energy price inflation. G20 must develop an economic and social rescue plan that protects the rights of the poorest people and tackles extreme inequality. If the group cannot come together and function at this time of real economic hardship, then it calls fundamentally into question its effectiveness and relevance. So, the challenge for the G20 is to prove that it is still fit for purpose coming out of these annual meetings.
The initial announcement by United States President, Donald Trump, to cut funding for international
HIV/AIDS initiatives sent shockwaves through the global health community. In Nigeria, a country facing a significant HIV/AIDS burden, the potential consequences were dire. However, the subsequent waiver granted by the administration has provided a lifeline for the millions of Nigerians who rely on the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) for their treatment and support.
PEPFAR has been an important partner in Nigeria’s fight against HIV/AIDS. Since its inception in 2003, PEPFAR has committed more than $7.8 billion to the country, catering to approximately 90 per cent of HIV treatment requirements. With this funding, Nigeria has been able to enhance its HIV prevention, treatment and support services and has witnessed a reduction in HIV/AIDS deaths.
The waiver granted by the Trump administration guarantees that PEPFAR’s life-saving medicines and medical services will continue to reach the needy. Antiretrovirals (ARVs) are the most common type of medicine used to treat HIV and reduce the virus’ spread. Through the provision of ARVs, PEPFAR helps prevent the spread of HIV and enhances the quality of life of those with the condition.
Although Nigeria was recently exempted from the requirement, the signs are evident: the country has to graduate from dependence on donor funds for its HIV/AIDS control programmes. Over the years, partners including the U.S. government have been central to the provision of treatment to people living with the virus. However, it is time for Nigeria to own its national response to HIV/AIDS.
Nigeria’s HIV/AIDS burden remains critical, accounting for 10 per cent of the global total. In 2023 alone, there were 75,000 new infections and 45,000 HIV-related deaths. The battle against Mother-to-Child Transmission remains challenging, with only 35 per cent of the target 75 per cent being met. Nearly 1.7 million Nigerian children have been orphaned due to HIV. Vulnerable populations, especially women and children, continue to disproportionately suffer.
To transition away from donor dependence, a multifaceted approach is necessary. Firstly, the country must increase its domestic financing for HIV/AIDS programmes. This can be accomplished through innovative funding mechanisms, such as leveraging public-private partnerships and exploring local revenue sources. Secondly, the government needs to strengthen its healthcare system to ensure equitable access to testing, treatment, and care. This involves expanding access to antiretroviral drugs, investing in community-based models, and addressing the stigma associated with HIV.
Thirdly, Nigeria must prioritise prevention efforts. This entails promoting condom use, providing comprehensive sexual education, and increasing awareness about the risks and modes of transmission. By focusing on prevention, the country can decrease the incidence of HIV infections and ultimately lessen the burden on its healthcare system.
Finally, Nigeria should develop a sustainable human resource strategy for its HIV/AIDS response. This involves training and equipping healthcare workers, engaging community volunteers, and empowering people living with HIV to advocate for their rights. A well-trained workforce is essential for delivering high-quality services and ensuring the long-term success of the response.
The transition beyond donor dependence is a complex but necessary journey for the country. By increasing domestic financing, strengthening healthcare systems, prioritising prevention, and investing in its human resources, the country can create a sustainable and effective response to HIV/AIDS. Also, the government should consider alternative funding mechanisms, such as increased domestic funding, public-private partnerships, and philanthropic initiatives. The time to act is now, for the well-being of present and future generations.
Nigeria’s National Agency for the Control of AIDS (NACA) has made momentous strides in combating HIV/AIDS, including expanding access to testing, treatment, and education. However, challenges persist, hindering the effectiveness of these efforts.
One major obstacle is limited access to healthcare facilities, particularly in rural areas. This impedes timely diagnosis and treatment, reducing the likelihood of optimal outcomes for those living with HIV. Additionally, stigma surrounding the disease remains a formidable barrier, preventing individuals from seeking testing and care. Inadequate awareness campaigns further contribute to low testing rates and delayed diagnosis.
Addressing these challenges requires concerted action by the government and stakeholders. Allocation of adequate funding is crucial to expand healthcare infrastructure and ensure the availability of essential services. Moreover, targeted interventions to reduce stigma and promote awareness are vital for increasing testing and early detection.
Collaboration between civil society organisations and grassroots movements is also essential for advocating for protection of HIV funding. Advocacy campaigns can mobilise public support and pressure lawmakers to prioritise the fight against HIV/AIDS. By addressing these challenges and ensuring sustainable funding, Nigeria can depend less on donor countries, drastically reduce HIV transmission, and provide the necessary care to those affected by the disease.
Nigerians are outraged by the Federal Government’s approval of a 50 per cent increase in telecommunications tariffs, with organised labour threatening to mobilise workers to boycott telecom services. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC) have described the upcoming tariff as outrageous, lamenting that it will worsen the already harsh living conditions of workers and the masses.
Similarly, the Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG) rejected the hike, stating that it was ill-timed and did not take into consideration the struggles of Nigerians. The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) also criticised the review, calling it an illegal, unconstitutional, and oppressive policy that undermines the fundamental rights and freedoms of Nigerians. It is a difficult moment for the industry.
Recall that the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) approved a 50 per cent increase in tariffs for telecom operators last Monday, instead of the 100 per cent raise that operators had requested. This decision quickly angered the consumers’ association, which criticised the government’s approval as not only punitive but also insensitive.
We wholeheartedly agree with the stance of labour and other groups on this very sensitive matter. We unequivocally condemn the 50 per cent increase in telecom tariffs. Though telecom operators cite higher operational costs and inflation as reasons for the hike, the timing and impact raise serious concerns in the current economic situation. It is a blatant attack on the well-being of the Nigerian worker and a betrayal of the people to corporate interests.
Telecommunication services are essential for daily communication, work, and access to information. However, the average Nigerian worker already spends approximately 10 per cent of their wages on telecom charges. For a worker earning the current minimum wage of N70,000, this means an increase from N7,000 to a staggering N10,500 per month or 15 per cent of their salary, a cost that is unsustainable.
This hike exemplifies the government’s apparent ease in prioritising corporate profits over citizens’ welfare. It is shocking that the government approved a 50 per cent tariff increase for telecom companies within a month, yet took nearly a year to approve the recent minimum wage for workers, despite the rising cost of living and inflation eroding purchasing power.
The questions are: When will the government stand up for the citizens it swore to protect? When will the National Assembly rise to its responsibility and hold the Executive accountable for policies that blatantly undermine the welfare of the majority? When will the common man finally heave a sigh of relief in Nigeria? We urge the government, the NCC, and the National Assembly to review the implementation of this ill-advised increase.
It is difficult to understand the state of mind of the managers of the nation’s economy. Sadly, these managers have alienated themselves from the reality of today. How can a government approve a 50 per cent hike in the tariff of telecom services when even the N70,000 minimum wage has been eroded by inflation, electricity tariff hikes, exorbitant fuel costs, transportation, and other social services?
Even if there is a need for an increase, why does it have to be 50 per cent? If, after dialogue, it is agreed that a raise is necessary, we should all consider a more reasonable increase rather than the 50 per cent hike. Fifty per cent is excessive and will only worsen the already harsh living conditions of workers, placing a heavier burden and more suffering on them and the general population.
The recognition of telecommunication services as essential components of modern society cannot be overstated. In an era characterised by rapid digital transformation, these services are fundamental not only for personal communication but also for facilitating broader socio-economic engagement. The proposed tariffs increase in the telecom sector raises critical concerns regarding equitable access to vital services that support communication, education, healthcare, and commerce.
In a democracy, the people should be the central focus of all government actions and policies. Every decision should aim to improve their quality of life. This plan must be carefully scrutinised with the welfare of citizens in mind. An increase in telecom tariffs will negatively impact many Nigerians, as the internet has become an essential tool for business, communication, and daily activities.
The Tide calls for the immediate suspension of the 50 per cent hike in tariffs. Instead, we recommend a more reasonable adjustment of a maximum of 10 per cent, which balances industry sustainability with the current economic realities in the country. We also demand that the NCC engages in genuine, inclusive consultations with consumer advocacy groups, civil society organisations, and other grassroots stakeholders before implementing any tariff adjustments.
-
News4 days agoNigeria Strengthens Economic Ties With Germany To Boost Investment, Jobs
-
Featured4 days agoFubara Flags Off Upgrading Of 135 Primary Healthcare Facilities In Rivers
-
Nation2 days ago
NCSU Flays Police Take Over Of Rivers PDP Secretariat
-
Opinion2 days ago
Transforming Nigeria’s Health Sector
-
Rivers4 days ago
Bonny Protest Neglect, Seeks CSR MoU Implementation
-
Nation4 days ago
FG Begins Tolling On Abuja-Keffi-Akwanga-Makurdi Highway
-
Rivers2 days ago
Dep Gov Hails LG Boss Over Development … Says ONELGA’ll Always Stand With Fubara
-
Business4 days ago
NDYC Seeks NDDC Commercialisation … Uncompleted Projects Completion