foreignpolicy--2020-04-17--After Flattening the Curve, Austria Takes a Gamble

VIENNA—Wear a mask , keep your distance , and welcome in !
On April 14 , Austria became one of the first countries in Europe to try to reboot its economy .
It won ’ t be an easy task .
While residents queued in front of home-improvement stores Tuesday morning to buy garden furniture , tomato plants , and lettuce seeds , shopping boulevards packed with small businesses remained quiet .
On Vienna ’ s once bustling Mariahilfer Strasse , storefront signs detailed protective shopping requirements—masks and social distancing—but there were few customers around to read them .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Alexander Roth , the owner of two jewelry stores on Mariahilfer Strasse , one of which is still closed .
“ But I don ’ t have high expectations for this week .
Or the next , ” he said , speaking through a surgical mask .
The coronavirus pandemic has crippled European economies , but as infection rates have decreased , Austria has begun to roll back its emergency restrictions .
Since March 16 , all nonessential shops have been closed—along with schools , workplaces , playgrounds , restaurants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller than 4,300 square feet , home-improvement stores of any size , and federal parks have been allowed to reopen ; larger stores are set to follow in May .
Other European countries , such as Denmark , have prioritized schools , but in this small Alpine nation , mounting political and economic pressure has led the government to focus on small-business owners first .
A 38-billion-euro ( $ 41 billion ) crisis fund and Chancellor Sebastian Kurz ’ s proclaimed “ cost what it may ” approach failed to keep unemployment from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people out of Austria ’ s 9 million are now without work—a 66 percent increase in unemployment in a single month and the highest rate of unemployment since records began in 1946 .
Another 600,000 are on “ short-time work , ” a scheme in which workers—many of them employed by shuttered small businesses—continue to receive around 80 percent of their salary , nearly all of it paid by the government .
Economists warn of an unprecedented tidal wave of bankruptcies to hit in the coming months as savings diminish , plus a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reopen extends past the economic to the social and political .
Calls for a reopening have been particularly acute in Vienna , home to nearly one-quarter of Austria ’ s population—and boasting a population density 45 times higher than the country ’ s average .
While other Austrians enjoyed use of their private gardens and cars , many Viennese seethed .
The crisis quickly laid bare social fault lines in one of the world ’ s wealthiest nations .
Leaving the house was still allowed if necessary , including to go for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17,000 cases nationwide , police deemed outings unnecessary , and fined people up to 500 euros for infractions such as lingering on a park bench or not meeting social distancing requirements while playing with their children in public spaces .
Adding fuel to the fire , the federal government shut down its large parks , the only green space for many urbanites .
Families seeking respite from self-isolation crowded into smaller city-managed parks—paradoxically left open .
The closure quickly became a political issue .
With city elections slated for October , the socialist-led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kurz and the minister responsible , Elisabeth Köstinger , as unempathetic and out of touch with the needs of the Viennese .
Köstinger fired back , saying the entrances to the parks were too tight , and was ridiculed with memes that compared the park ’ s broad imperial gateways to the tight entrances of grocery stores .
For the conservatives , the closed parks became a political liability and serious obstacle to doing well in the mayoral race .
The public ’ s frustration began turning into anger .
“ Open the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians such as Vienna ’ s mayor .
Weighing the effectiveness of its coronavirus response , the government did just that .
Austria has been one of the most successful countries in Europe at handling the pandemic .
While neighboring Italy has more than 2,800 cases per million people , Austria has about 1,600 and a fatality rate less than one-eighth of Italy ’ s .
Apart from the early lockdown , a rigorous mobile testing and health monitoring program caught cases early and kept people at home .
Just 10 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a low rate that three-quarters of the country ’ s intensive-care unit beds remain vacant and patients from Italy and France have been taken to Austria for treatment .
Ten days after the lockdown was imposed on March 16 , the number of new cases peaked with 971 infections .
It has fallen steadily since .
On Tuesday , the day stores reopened , the health ministry recorded just 142 new cases .
The rate of infections , once doubling every few days , now doubles only every two weeks .
Of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to the government , fewer than 380 have died .
This success , the government said in daily press conferences , was owed to the public , which , for the most part , took the crisis seriously and remained in self-isolation .
When Kurz talks about the reopening of the economy , he makes it sound like a well-deserved reward .
But while the public health response has been stellar , far less planning has been done for the so-called second phase—the partial reopening of the economy while keeping the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clear strategy to effectively trace and contain new infections , which could result in another surge of infections .
“ It ’ s not a decision based on evidence , but a political move , ” said Thomas Czypionka , head of the Health Economics and Health Policy group at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Vienna and a visiting senior research fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science .
Without a clear strategy on how to detect and contain new cases , the rate of infection could increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to contain cases would be the anonymous and voluntary collection of health data already measured by devices such as Polar Watches or Fitbits , Czypionka said .
Anomalies within a group of people in close proximity to one another could point authorities to potential clusters .
The clusters could then quickly be contained .
“ If 60 or 70 percent of the population donate their data , that would suffice , ” he said .
But that ’ s not part of the government ’ s plan , and it likely won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public reacted angrily after a senior politician proposed a mandatory app that would trace people ’ s contacts .
Instead , the focus will be on trying to protect the elderly and high-risk groups by asking them to isolate themselves , to test all residents of nursing homes , and to find clusters by testing people when they show symptoms as quickly as possible .
If necessary , an affected village or community could be placed under quarantine—the same strategy employed before the nationwide lockdown , when the rate of new infections was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the streets and mobility increases , social distancing and obligatory masks might not be enough to keep the virus at bay .
The worst-case scenario is an onslaught of new infections that forces another shutdown of the entire economy .
“ We can ’ t rule out that there ’ ll be another nationwide shutdown , ” Clemens Martin Auer , one of the government ’ s top advisors for the pandemic , told Foreign Policy .
While the government hasn ’ t been shy about communicating the risks , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second phase will be a success on the public .
The thrust : If the curve goes back up , it ’ s because people didn ’ t behave .

VIENNA—Wear a mask, keep your distance, and welcome in! On April 14, Austria became one of the first countries in Europe to try to reboot its economy. It won’t be an easy task.
VIENNA—Wear a mask, keep your distance, and welcome in! On April 14, Austria became one of the first countries in Europe to try to reboot its economy. It won’t be an easy task.
While residents queued in front of home-improvement stores Tuesday morning to buy garden furniture, tomato plants, and lettuce seeds, shopping boulevards packed with small businesses remained quiet. On Vienna’s once bustling Mariahilfer Strasse, storefront signs detailed protective shopping requirements—masks and social distancing—but there were few customers around to read them.
“I’m relieved to be back,” said Alexander Roth, the owner of two jewelry stores on Mariahilfer Strasse, one of which is still closed. “But I don’t have high expectations for this week. Or the next,” he said, speaking through a surgical mask.
The coronavirus pandemic has crippled European economies, but as infection rates have decreased, Austria has begun to roll back its emergency restrictions. Since March 16, all nonessential shops have been closed—along with schools, workplaces, playgrounds, restaurants, and cafes. Now, stores smaller than 4,300 square feet, home-improvement stores of any size, and federal parks have been allowed to reopen; larger stores are set to follow in May. Other European countries, such as Denmark, have prioritized schools, but in this small Alpine nation, mounting political and economic pressure has led the government to focus on small-business owners first.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic.]
A 38-billion-euro ($41 billion) crisis fund and Chancellor Sebastian Kurz’s proclaimed “cost what it may” approach failed to keep unemployment from skyrocketing. More than half a million people out of Austria’s 9 million are now without work—a 66 percent increase in unemployment in a single month and the highest rate of unemployment since records began in 1946. Another 600,000 are on “short-time work,” a scheme in which workers—many of them employed by shuttered small businesses—continue to receive around 80 percent of their salary, nearly all of it paid by the government. Economists warn of an unprecedented tidal wave of bankruptcies to hit in the coming months as savings diminish, plus a subsequent corresponding unemployment spike.
The need to reopen extends past the economic to the social and political. Calls for a reopening have been particularly acute in Vienna, home to nearly one-quarter of Austria’s population—and boasting a population density 45 times higher than the country’s average. While other Austrians enjoyed use of their private gardens and cars, many Viennese seethed. The crisis quickly laid bare social fault lines in one of the world’s wealthiest nations. Leaving the house was still allowed if necessary, including to go for a walk. But in more than 17,000 cases nationwide, police deemed outings unnecessary, and fined people up to 500 euros for infractions such as lingering on a park bench or not meeting social distancing requirements while playing with their children in public spaces.
Adding fuel to the fire, the federal government shut down its large parks, the only green space for many urbanites. Families seeking respite from self-isolation crowded into smaller city-managed parks—paradoxically left open. The closure quickly became a political issue. With city elections slated for October, the socialist-led city government attacked the conservative party of Kurz and the minister responsible, Elisabeth Köstinger, as unempathetic and out of touch with the needs of the Viennese. Köstinger fired back, saying the entrances to the parks were too tight, and was ridiculed with memes that compared the park’s broad imperial gateways to the tight entrances of grocery stores. For the conservatives, the closed parks became a political liability and serious obstacle to doing well in the mayoral race. The public’s frustration began turning into anger. “Open the federal gardens!” tweeted citizens and politicians such as Vienna’s mayor.
Weighing the effectiveness of its coronavirus response, the government did just that. Austria has been one of the most successful countries in Europe at handling the pandemic. While neighboring Italy has more than 2,800 cases per million people, Austria has about 1,600 and a fatality rate less than one-eighth of Italy’s. Apart from the early lockdown, a rigorous mobile testing and health monitoring program caught cases early and kept people at home. Just 10 percent of cases have ended up hospitalized, such a low rate that three-quarters of the country’s intensive-care unit beds remain vacant and patients from Italy and France have been taken to Austria for treatment. Ten days after the lockdown was imposed on March 16, the number of new cases peaked with 971 infections. It has fallen steadily since. On Tuesday, the day stores reopened, the health ministry recorded just 142 new cases. The rate of infections, once doubling every few days, now doubles only every two weeks. Of the more than 14,500 who have been infected, according to the government, fewer than 380 have died. This success, the government said in daily press conferences, was owed to the public, which, for the most part, took the crisis seriously and remained in self-isolation. When Kurz talks about the reopening of the economy, he makes it sound like a well-deserved reward.
But while the public health response has been stellar, far less planning has been done for the so-called second phase—the partial reopening of the economy while keeping the virus at bay. The government lacks a clear strategy to effectively trace and contain new infections, which could result in another surge of infections.
“It’s not a decision based on evidence, but a political move,” said Thomas Czypionka, head of the Health Economics and Health Policy group at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Vienna and a visiting senior research fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Without a clear strategy on how to detect and contain new cases, the rate of infection could increase again.
The best way to continue to contain cases would be the anonymous and voluntary collection of health data already measured by devices such as Polar Watches or Fitbits, Czypionka said. Anomalies within a group of people in close proximity to one another could point authorities to potential clusters. The clusters could then quickly be contained. “If 60 or 70 percent of the population donate their data, that would suffice,” he said.
But that’s not part of the government’s plan, and it likely won’t be. The media and the public reacted angrily after a senior politician proposed a mandatory app that would trace people’s contacts. Instead, the focus will be on trying to protect the elderly and high-risk groups by asking them to isolate themselves, to test all residents of nursing homes, and to find clusters by testing people when they show symptoms as quickly as possible. If necessary, an affected village or community could be placed under quarantine—the same strategy employed before the nationwide lockdown, when the rate of new infections was dramatically rising.
As people go back on the streets and mobility increases, social distancing and obligatory masks might not be enough to keep the virus at bay. The worst-case scenario is an onslaught of new infections that forces another shutdown of the entire economy. “We can’t rule out that there’ll be another nationwide shutdown,” Clemens Martin Auer, one of the government’s top advisors for the pandemic, told Foreign Policy.
While the government hasn’t been shy about communicating the risks, it’s also placing the burden of whether the second phase will be a success on the public. The thrust: If the curve goes back up, it’s because people didn’t behave.


foreignpolicy--2020-04-17--Pentagon Considers Extending Enlistments During Pandemic

The U.S. Defense Department is trying to keep its strategy to get ready for a potential future war with China and Russia during the coronavirus pandemic by pushing the military to extend enlistments , Matthew Donovan , the Pentagon ’ s undersecretary for personnel and readiness , told Foreign Policy in an interview .
Donovan , who previously served as the Air Force ’ s No .
2 civilian and has held his current role in an acting capacity since December , had to step aside for confirmation in early March as the disease ravaged American society .
By the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ the whole world had changed , ” Donovan recalled .
“ I knew that the personnel and readiness organization was going to be knee-deep in all of this stuff.
” Until the Pentagon has a vaccine for COVID-19 in hand , Donovan expects the agency “ to be operating under a little bit different routine , ” making up for gaps in recruiting by convincing would-be retirees to stay in the armed forces .
The Defense Department will continue rotating troops forward toward Asia but in a “ phased approach , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been edited for length and clarity .
Foreign Policy : How will the U.S. military ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic impact readiness for a future war ?
Matthew Donovan : Everybody across the globe is kept informed as far as the impacts to readiness .
I know that ’ s a concern a lot of folks have , [ but ] we ’ re not seeing impacts right now .
We know anecdotally they ’ re happening .
I can give you a couple of examples .
We do a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world with our coalition partners , with our allies , and with friendly nations .
A lot of those have been either reduced in scope or outright canceled since about the February time frame .
We know that there ’ s a high-level impact to readiness from those large-scale exercises that we do .
Now , as far as training and readiness activities at the local level , those are still continuing in most places around the world because they don ’ t have to travel .
If you take the case of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still flying and maybe at a little bit more reduced schedule .
So we ’ re not really seeing that core readiness being impacted .
Even on the exercises that have been reduced in scope , a lot of them are reduced in scope to a tabletop exercise , if you will , or main players are probably called in virtually to work on a war game , which is not unlike the real world because we very rarely have all the players sitting in a room anyway .
I think eventually we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of right now , it ’ s nothing that we ’ re really that concerned about .
FP : Do the military ’ s geographic combatant commands have enough resources to deal with a major contingency with the USS Theodore Roosevelt currently pier-side in Guam and so many guardsmen and reservists tied up in fighting the pandemic ?
MD : The Navy ’ s been pretty clear that if there was a contingency that required the use of the Teddy Roosevelt that they would be able to get her underway and be effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have crews all over the world that you could fly in and man the ship and move out .
Now it ’ s not an ideal situation , obviously .
But we ’ re not in that contingency situation right now .
FP : In light of what happened on the Roosevelt , are there other installations or platforms that the Defense Department is worried won ’ t allow for social distancing ?
MD : The Navy has certain environments where it ’ s not possible to maintain social distancing .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Simply washing hands , cleaning , and disinfecting surfaces helps a lot with that .
So the force health protection guidance that we ’ ve put out in its various supplements is sort of broad guidance across the force , and then the services take that guidance and tailor it to their individual situations .
I think generally you will find that across the entire force , that ’ s what the services are doing .
Another example is the basic training that we do .
The services institute isolation periods if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they put them into the general population of a training base .
FP : Can you tell me about the impact you ’ ve seen on recruitment during the pandemic ?
The services have ambitious recruiting targets to prepare for a potential war with Russia and China .
MD : Our recruiting targets were actually being met up until the pandemic hit .
From what I understand , the Marines , who have more of an attrition-style force , have met 100 percent of their recruiting goals through virtual meet .
All the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtual world and IT in order to process troops and get them through the recruiting process .
They ’ ve had to reduce the throughput a little bit because of these mitigation measures that we ’ ve put into place in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 .
So , generally , the services , plus or minus a percent or two , are running at about 60 percent of the capacity that they had before the pandemic .
That ’ s still a significant amount of people to get through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting about 60 percent of the new recruits into the system , they ’ re also taking an increasing retention .
What I have recommended to the services is that they take a real hard look at extensions of enlistment periods , or delaying dates of separation or retirements for folks who are eligible to do that , in order to keep that side of the equation up .
FP : How seriously is the Pentagon considering a measure like “ stop loss , ” which would keep troops in the ranks past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary Mark Esper has been clear that stop loss is one of the tools that he has , but he ’ s only going to use that as a measure of last resort .
It has long-term impacts to folks who wouldn ’ t have otherwise separated and have follow-on plans .
If you think about the economy in the way it is right now with unemployment skyrocketing , over the next weeks and months , they ’ re probably worried about whether they will have a job when they get out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extension for another year .
Let the economy recover and then you ’ ll be in a better position on the way out .
So I think the mitigation measures that we would do by extending those enlistments and allowing people to stay longer will minimize that .
Long term , we ’ re probably going to have constraints on us until we get to a vaccine for COVID-19 .
Once we get a vaccine , then it becomes more of a routine like smallpox or polio or all those vaccinations that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think much about because it ’ s just not a problem anymore .
I do believe that we have folks working hard on it .
But in the meantime , we ’ re probably going to have to be operating under a little bit different routine than we had in the past until we get to that point .
FP : The Defense Department has hoped to rotate more troops to Asia .
How will the travel restrictions from COVID-19 impact that ?
MD : The secretary is very engaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place .
We ’ ve got a lot of lessons learned on what we would be able to do .
We know more about COVID-19 too and the way it ’ s acting .
We really need to get to a true screening test capability where we can give our commanders a high level of confidence that their folks are either test-positive and can be isolated and treated or they test negative and they have a high level of confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the rest of their unit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests .
The testing will confirm that you ’ re positive for COVID-19 , but it will not confirm if you ’ re negative .
So it causes us to have to put into place those isolation concepts to make sure that we ’ re minimizing the risk to our units and the families as well .
But we ’ re learning that there are certain hot spots where it ’ s more prevalent , but there are other areas where we ’ re seeing very few infections .
So we may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach on how we do this .
We have folks that the travel restrictions sort of froze in place of where they were and some folks got caught in the middle of a permanent change of station move .
It came on so rapidly that , you know , some folks and their household goods moved but then they were told they couldn ’ t go , and now they ’ re sort of stuck in that limbo .
We need to be able to prioritize which movements are going to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue .
And then of course , we have folks who are in operational war zones as well who need to be rotated back so they can get home and take care of their families .

Explore the benefits included in your subscription.
Explore the benefits of your FP subscription.
Stay updated on the topics you care about with My FP. Sign up below.


foreignpolicy--2020-04-17--NATO Chief Rebukes China Over Coronavirus Disinformation

The top leader of NATO criticized China and other government actors for sowing disinformation in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic , warning that disinformation campaigns could exacerbate the global health crisis .
“ The disinformation campaigns we have seen—they are also supported by government actors , including China—try to divide us and try to undermine our resolve , ” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview with Foreign Policy .
“ It can make the health crisis more serious , because it can mislead people into what works and doesn ’ t work in dealing with the health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Western leaders who have criticized Chinese and Russian-backed disinformation campaigns since the outbreak of the pandemic that has infected over 2 million people and killed over 150 worldwide .
It ’ s one aspect of the growing tensions between the United States and China that has put its allies and partners in Europe in a tight spot , grappling with competing security and economic ties even before the pandemic hit .
Italy , for example , has faced scrutiny over cozying up to Beijing by signing onto its massive Belt and Road @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration criticized the United Kingdom for partnering with the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei to build its 5G infrastructure .
Even as Beijing funneled sorely needed medical supplies to Italy , one of the European countries hit hardest by the pandemic , Chinese state-run media outlets began falsely suggesting the virus originated in Italy , not China .
U.S. President Donald Trump , as usual , is leading the charge in a strikingly different tone than other Western leaders , lurching between slamming Beijing for spreading what he called the “ Chinese virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tackling the pandemic .
“ America is under attack—not just by an invisible virus , but by the Chinese , ” read one Trump election campaign notice blasted to his supporters last month .
But as the pandemic drags on , more Western leaders are piling on in their own , more diplomatic way .
“ Let ’ s not be so naive as to say it ’ s been much better at handling this , ” French President Emmanuel Macron said of China in an interview with the Financial Times .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are clearly things that have happened that we don ’ t know about.
” The NATO chief was cautious to avoid speaking about China ’ s initial handling of the coronavirus outbreak , saying his top focus was ensuring the trans-Atlantic alliance ’ s military capabilities were on hand to help governments respond to the virus .
“ There will be a time for lessons learned and to look into how the world ended at where we are now .
I would be a bit careful about assessing the health aspects of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
For weeks the Trump administration hammered China for botching the initial response to the virus , leading to behind-the-scenes rows with foreign governments at the United Nations and G-7 meetings .
Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pressed their foreign partners to label the coronavirus the “ Wuhan virus ” or “ Chinese virus.
” Some European governments feared that such a move could needlessly provoke Beijing , and public health experts feared it would stoke xenophobic backlash against Chinese citizens and people of Chinese descent .
U.S. officials have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they continue to call on China for a full accounting of how the virus spread , believing Beijing is still hiding valuable information on the coronavirus that could help the international response .
Trump has also called for cutting U.S. funding to the World Health Organization , the global U.N. body leading the pandemic response , after accusing it of being too pro-China .
The rapid spread of the coronavirus brought the global economy to a standstill and jolted NATO and European Union countries .
Their militaries were quickly called up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military exercises aimed at shoring up deterrence against Russia .
Some security experts worry that the knock-on economic impacts of the coronavirus will impact the alliance ’ s long-standing push for its members to increase defense spending to up to 2 percent of GDP by 2024—a key priority and source of tension between the Trump administration and its NATO allies .
Defense spending in Europe atrophied in the decades after the Cold War but began turning around after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 .
Stoltenberg said allies can ’ t afford to skirt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downturn .
“ The challenge is that the threats we saw before the COVID-19 crisis , the potential terrorist threats , a more resurgent Russia , cyberthreats , but also the shifting global balance of power with the likes of China—all these challenges are still there , ” he said .
“ They don ’ t go away because of the COVID crisis.
” “ We don ’ t have the luxury to say that we either address the health crisis or security challenges .
We need to be able to do both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added .
This week , defense ministers from the 30-member NATO alliance met by secure video conference to discuss how to coordinate a response to the pandemic , including coordinating the delivery of medical supplies across the alliance .
NATO members ’ military cargo planes were enlisted to ferry sorely needed supplies to and from European countries being hit by the outbreak ( including a shipment of over 100 tons of medical supplies and equipment from Shenzhen , China , to the Czech Republic earlier this month ) .
They also discussed how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy theories pouring out of state-run news outlets and social media accounts linked to Russia and China , which reached a fever pitch in recent weeks .
In response to the pandemic , NATO has pared down previously scheduled military exercises , including a series of exercises called Defender Europe 2020 , billed as the alliance ’ s largest since the end of the Cold War .
Stoltenberg insists the cancellation of war games has not affected the NATO militaries ’ operational readiness .
“ We are able to maintain operational readiness even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercises , ” he said .
“ Of course , if we were to cancel every exercise for many , many years it will in the long run undermine our operational readiness .
But we have well-trained , well-equipped , well-prepared , high-readiness forces today .
”

The top leader of NATO criticized China and other government actors for sowing disinformation in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, warning that disinformation campaigns could exacerbate the global health crisis.
The top leader of NATO criticized China and other government actors for sowing disinformation in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, warning that disinformation campaigns could exacerbate the global health crisis.
“The disinformation campaigns we have seen—they are also supported by government actors, including China—try to divide us and try to undermine our resolve,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview with Foreign Policy. “It can make the health crisis more serious, because it can mislead people into what works and doesn’t work in dealing with the health crisis.”
Stoltenberg joins a chorus of other Western leaders who have criticized Chinese and Russian-backed disinformation campaigns since the outbreak of the pandemic that has infected over 2 million people and killed over 150 worldwide.
It’s one aspect of the growing tensions between the United States and China that has put its allies and partners in Europe in a tight spot, grappling with competing security and economic ties even before the pandemic hit. Italy, for example, has faced scrutiny over cozying up to Beijing by signing onto its massive Belt and Road economic project last year, and the Trump administration criticized the United Kingdom for partnering with the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei to build its 5G infrastructure. Even as Beijing funneled sorely needed medical supplies to Italy, one of the European countries hit hardest by the pandemic, Chinese state-run media outlets began falsely suggesting the virus originated in Italy, not China.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic.]
U.S. President Donald Trump, as usual, is leading the charge in a strikingly different tone than other Western leaders, lurching between slamming Beijing for spreading what he called the “Chinese virus” and later praising bilateral cooperation on tackling the pandemic. “America is under attack—not just by an invisible virus, but by the Chinese,” read one Trump election campaign notice blasted to his supporters last month.
But as the pandemic drags on, more Western leaders are piling on in their own, more diplomatic way. “Let’s not be so naive as to say it’s been much better at handling this,” French President Emmanuel Macron said of China in an interview with the Financial Times. “We don’t know. There are clearly things that have happened that we don’t know about.”
The NATO chief was cautious to avoid speaking about China’s initial handling of the coronavirus outbreak, saying his top focus was ensuring the trans-Atlantic alliance’s military capabilities were on hand to help governments respond to the virus. “There will be a time for lessons learned and to look into how the world ended at where we are now. I would be a bit careful about assessing the health aspects of this crisis at this stage,” he said.
For weeks the Trump administration hammered China for botching the initial response to the virus, leading to behind-the-scenes rows with foreign governments at the United Nations and G-7 meetings. Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pressed their foreign partners to label the coronavirus the “Wuhan virus” or “Chinese virus.” Some European governments feared that such a move could needlessly provoke Beijing, and public health experts feared it would stoke xenophobic backlash against Chinese citizens and people of Chinese descent.
U.S. officials have since backed down from that fight, but they continue to call on China for a full accounting of how the virus spread, believing Beijing is still hiding valuable information on the coronavirus that could help the international response. Trump has also called for cutting U.S. funding to the World Health Organization, the global U.N. body leading the pandemic response, after accusing it of being too pro-China.
The rapid spread of the coronavirus brought the global economy to a standstill and jolted NATO and European Union countries. Their militaries were quickly called up to respond, even as they canceled big-ticket military exercises aimed at shoring up deterrence against Russia.
Some security experts worry that the knock-on economic impacts of the coronavirus will impact the alliance’s long-standing push for its members to increase defense spending to up to 2 percent of GDP by 2024—a key priority and source of tension between the Trump administration and its NATO allies. Defense spending in Europe atrophied in the decades after the Cold War but began turning around after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
Stoltenberg said allies can’t afford to skirt defense spending commitments during the coming economic downturn. “The challenge is that the threats we saw before the COVID-19 crisis, the potential terrorist threats, a more resurgent Russia, cyberthreats, but also the shifting global balance of power with the likes of China—all these challenges are still there,” he said. “They don’t go away because of the COVID crisis.”
“We don’t have the luxury to say that we either address the health crisis or security challenges. We need to be able to do both at the same time,” he added.
This week, defense ministers from the 30-member NATO alliance met by secure video conference to discuss how to coordinate a response to the pandemic, including coordinating the delivery of medical supplies across the alliance. NATO members’ military cargo planes were enlisted to ferry sorely needed supplies to and from European countries being hit by the outbreak (including a shipment of over 100 tons of medical supplies and equipment from Shenzhen, China, to the Czech Republic earlier this month).
They also discussed how to counter the influx of propaganda and conspiracy theories pouring out of state-run news outlets and social media accounts linked to Russia and China, which reached a fever pitch in recent weeks.
In response to the pandemic, NATO has pared down previously scheduled military exercises, including a series of exercises called Defender Europe 2020, billed as the alliance’s largest since the end of the Cold War.
Stoltenberg insists the cancellation of war games has not affected the NATO militaries’ operational readiness. “We are able to maintain operational readiness even though we have adapted and canceled some exercises,” he said. “Of course, if we were to cancel every exercise for many, many years it will in the long run undermine our operational readiness. But we have well-trained, well-equipped, well-prepared, high-readiness forces today.”


foreignpolicy--2020-04-17--Globalization Will Look Very Different After the Coronavirus Pandemic

Globalization Will Look Very Different After the Coronavirus Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic has spawned new barriers at breathtaking speed .
Closed borders , travel bans , paralyzed supply chains , and export restrictions have prompted many to ask whether globalization itself might fall victim to the coronavirus .
In fact , globalization was already in decline well before the outbreak , having reached its peak before the 2008 global financial crisis and having never recovered since then .
The pandemic will certainly highlight the risks inherent in overdependence on global supply chains , prompt a renationalization of production , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interdependence .
The likely result is an acceleration of changes that have long been in motion toward a new , different , and more limited form of globalization .
The contours of a different , more limited version of globalization are barely perceptible , but visible nonetheless .
The worldwide interconnectedness of goods , services , capital , people , data , and ideas has produced undeniable benefits .
But during this pandemic , the risks of dependency have fully entered the public consciousness .
For U.S. consumers , the first visible sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delays in Apple ’ s delivery of iPhones , and continued as other firms reported interruptions .
When the pandemic spread in the United States , Americans learned that 72 percent of the facilities producing pharmaceutical ingredients for U.S. consumption are located abroad—mostly in the European Union , India and China .
The share is reported to be as high as 97 percent for antibiotics .
Then liberal , globally engaged countries such as France and Germany not only closed their borders to travelers but barred the export of face masks , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since lifted the bans , but the shock remains . )
When every country suddenly fights for itself , the idea of international interdependence appears worth rethinking , to say the least .
And it will be rethought .
Even in its early days , the pandemic has demonstrated the fragility of supply chains , prompted national responses rather than cooperative international ones , and reinforced nationalist arguments for reshoring manufacturing and more limited migration .
It has also illustrated that national governments remain the primary actors—the responders of last resort to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not be the end of globalization .
Rather , the world is likely to see a different , more limited version of global integration than the one we have known over the past three decades .
Its contours are barely perceptible , but visible nonetheless .
The trends that will now be accelerated have been well underway .
It ’ s been a long time since the public debate has been about a world that is flat , capital flows that are frictionless , and trade that is free .
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walls , decoupling from China , trade wars , Brexit , populist nationalism , and the assertion of national sovereignty against all-knowing U.S. and Chinese tech corporations .
Key indicators bear out the change .
Before the pandemic , global goods trade was still rising , but relative to the total output of the global economy , the share of trade is lower today than it was before the financial crisis .
Cross-border financial flows hit their peak in 2007 , and progress on further global trade liberalization stalled well before that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned to its highs more than a decade ago .
The U.S. and other governments are placing greater controls on the export of critical technologies , and the internet has become increasingly splintered along national lines .
But globalization is complex , and not every indicator points in the same direction .
The intensity of trade in goods is down , but in services it ’ s up .
The flow of data across borders has risen dramatically , even as countries like China and Iran seek to restrict it .
International travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the coronavirus pandemic , and migration was so vast that many called it a crisis .
Overall , the net fall from globalization ’ s peak has therefore been more modest , but nonetheless real .
That ’ s clear from the political preferences expressed by many populations across the world .
Even the most globally oriented politicians today avoid touting the benefits of open borders , trade and money flows , and international engagement.Even the most globally oriented politicians avoid touting the benefits of open borders , trade , and international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won by emphasizing the harms of what has come to be derided as “ globalism , ” and promising protection from the effects of exposure .
For the globally oriented , those protections include job retraining , transfer payments , and better safety nets .
The nationalists prefer strong borders , tariffs , and restrictions on immigration .
Where once the promises of globalization dominated political discourse , the threats have emerged front and center .
It ’ s not difficult to see why .
Globalization is often blamed for financial crises—not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also the 1997 Asian crisis and others in Russia , Turkey , Ecuador , Cyprus and elsewhere .
Many believe that globalization has ushered in cutthroat , worldwide competition and expanded inequality both among nations and within them .
Fragmented supply chains that require goods to be transported across borders multiple times consume more energy and produce higher greenhouse-gas emissions .
Even the risk of diseases quickly spreading across continents is not new ; since 2003 , the world has seen successive outbreaks of SARS , swine flu , MERS , Ebola , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most explosive charge against globalization is that it promotes the interests of a global elite at the expense of majority populations .
On a global scale , this is not even close to being true—international economic connectedness has dramatically raised gross domestic product , reduced poverty , raised living standards , improved health , and made information vastly more available than before .
Yet many of those benefits are diffuse and taken for granted , while the costs—lost manufacturing jobs , for instance—remain concentrated .
And those on the losing end of globalization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populist parties promising sovereignty , nationalism , and local solutions , as well as a weakening of elite-led , seemingly unaccountable international institutions .
To the idealists among us , a worldwide pandemic would seem precisely the kind of common threat that could usher in a new era of international cooperation .
In reality , governments have so far made decisions largely on their own and with little consultation .
The G-20 convened an emergency summit of global leaders ( by teleconference , of course ) that produced a bland statement of abstract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Chinese government bought up the country ’ s production of face masks rather than see them sold , key European governments temporarily barred their export , and reports circulated of U.S. attempts to purchase a German vaccine manufacturer for exclusive use of its technology .
The coronavirus crisis may be global , but the responses have so far been national .
Many see COVID-19 not as a cause around which the world ’ s governments should rally , but rather as the most dramatic example of an already broken globalized system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency , the U.S. is alone , ” said Peter Navarro , U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s economic advisor , to the Financial Times .
This is “ precisely why it is important for the Trump administration to bring home its manufacturing capabilities and supply chains for essential medicines and thereby simultaneously reduce America ’ s foreign dependencies , ” he said .
Given widespread sentiments such as these , it is easy to imagine governments around the world broadly rethinking international travel , migration , supply-chain risk , export controls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key components of globalization itself .
The new watchword is likely to be risk reduction rather than cost reduction .
Many of the key drivers of globalization—shipping , data , and capital flows , our understanding of comparative advantage , and economies of scale—will not go away .
But driven by a combination of changes in popular sentiment , government policy , and corporate practices , globalization will change.Driven by a combination of changes in popular sentiment , government policy , and corporate practices , globalization will change .
The coronavirus pandemic will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but its transformation .
First , economies may become less dependent on single points of failure—and less dependent on China .
Fragile supply chains are not an indictment of globalization per se , but of the way companies have become dependent on single sources of supply .
It is easy to imagine companies , both on their own and at the behest of their governments , diversifying the supply of key inputs and shifting to domestic or regional production .
Advances in automation and other labor-saving manufacturing technologies would make this easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force it along .
Second , economic integration will still take place , but it will continue to shift from the global to the regional and bilateral level .
Global multilateral trade talks have gone nowhere since the Uruguay Round in 1993 .
Instead , the European Union concluded separate trade agreements with South Korea and Japan , African countries are talking about a continent-wide trade zone , and a pact similar to the planned Trans-Pacific Partnership has taken effect after Washington withdrew .
Even China ’ s Belt and Road Initiative is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global ones .
Third , political debates in the United States and many other Western countries are likely to remain focused on globalization ’ s losers and the ways to protect workers from economic damage .
The problem is that the preferred remedy—protectionism—makes many problems worse , not better .
How to protect workers without undermining globalization ’ s economic benefits , including a higher standard of living , remains an unsolved question .
The coronavirus pandemic may mark the endpoint of the post-Cold War era .
The enchantment with ever-greater international integration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folly to replace globalization with the same kind of isolationism and protectionism that has impoverished nations before .
The nature of globalization ’ s next phase—and the precise contours of a more selective pattern of cross-border engagement and interdependence after the pandemic—will be the larger question against which many of the most important political debates of the coming years will play out .

The COVID-19 pandemic has spawned new barriers at breathtaking speed. Closed borders, travel bans, paralyzed supply chains, and export restrictions have prompted many to ask whether globalization itself might fall victim to the coronavirus. In fact, globalization was already in decline well before the outbreak, having reached its peak before the 2008 global financial crisis and having never recovered since then. The pandemic will certainly highlight the risks inherent in overdependence on global supply chains, prompt a renationalization of production, and put stress on the notion of international interdependence. The likely result is an acceleration of changes that have long been in motion toward a new, different, and more limited form of globalization.
The COVID-19 pandemic has spawned new barriers at breathtaking speed. Closed borders, travel bans, paralyzed supply chains, and export restrictions have prompted many to ask whether globalization itself might fall victim to the coronavirus. In fact, globalization was already in decline well before the outbreak, having reached its peak before the 2008 global financial crisis and having never recovered since then. The pandemic will certainly highlight the risks inherent in overdependence on global supply chains, prompt a renationalization of production, and put stress on the notion of international interdependence. The likely result is an acceleration of changes that have long been in motion toward a new, different, and more limited form of globalization.
The worldwide interconnectedness of goods, services, capital, people, data, and ideas has produced undeniable benefits. But during this pandemic, the risks of dependency have fully entered the public consciousness. For U.S. consumers, the first visible sign came when virus-shuttered factories in China prompted delays in Apple’s delivery of iPhones, and continued as other firms reported interruptions. When the pandemic spread in the United States, Americans learned that 72 percent of the facilities producing pharmaceutical ingredients for U.S. consumption are located abroad—mostly in the European Union, India and China. The share is reported to be as high as 97 percent for antibiotics. Then liberal, globally engaged countries such as France and Germany not only closed their borders to travelers but barred the export of face masks, even to friendly nations. (They have since lifted the bans, but the shock remains.) When every country suddenly fights for itself, the idea of international interdependence appears worth rethinking, to say the least.
And it will be rethought. Even in its early days, the pandemic has demonstrated the fragility of supply chains, prompted national responses rather than cooperative international ones, and reinforced nationalist arguments for reshoring manufacturing and more limited migration. It has also illustrated that national governments remain the primary actors—the responders of last resort to a pandemic and its economic consequences.
This will not be the end of globalization. Rather, the world is likely to see a different, more limited version of global integration than the one we have known over the past three decades. Its contours are barely perceptible, but visible nonetheless.
The trends that will now be accelerated have been well underway. It’s been a long time since the public debate has been about a world that is flat, capital flows that are frictionless, and trade that is free. Instead, recent political debates have been over border walls, decoupling from China, trade wars, Brexit, populist nationalism, and the assertion of national sovereignty against all-knowing U.S. and Chinese tech corporations.
Key indicators bear out the change. Before the pandemic, global goods trade was still rising, but relative to the total output of the global economy, the share of trade is lower today than it was before the financial crisis. Cross-border financial flows hit their peak in 2007, and progress on further global trade liberalization stalled well before that. Total global foreign direct investment has not returned to its highs more than a decade ago. The U.S. and other governments are placing greater controls on the export of critical technologies, and the internet has become increasingly splintered along national lines.
But globalization is complex, and not every indicator points in the same direction. The intensity of trade in goods is down, but in services it’s up. The flow of data across borders has risen dramatically, even as countries like China and Iran seek to restrict it. International travel and study abroad were at all-time highs before the coronavirus pandemic, and migration was so vast that many called it a crisis. Overall, the net fall from globalization’s peak has therefore been more modest, but nonetheless real.
That’s clear from the political preferences expressed by many populations across the world. Even the most globally oriented politicians today avoid touting the benefits of open borders, trade and money flows, and international engagement.Even the most globally oriented politicians avoid touting the benefits of open borders, trade, and international engagement. Many recent elections have been won by emphasizing the harms of what has come to be derided as “globalism,” and promising protection from the effects of exposure. For the globally oriented, those protections include job retraining, transfer payments, and better safety nets. The nationalists prefer strong borders, tariffs, and restrictions on immigration. Where once the promises of globalization dominated political discourse, the threats have emerged front and center.
It’s not difficult to see why. Globalization is often blamed for financial crises—not only the global one of 2008, but also the 1997 Asian crisis and others in Russia, Turkey, Ecuador, Cyprus and elsewhere. Many believe that globalization has ushered in cutthroat, worldwide competition and expanded inequality both among nations and within them. Fragmented supply chains that require goods to be transported across borders multiple times consume more energy and produce higher greenhouse-gas emissions. Even the risk of diseases quickly spreading across continents is not new; since 2003, the world has seen successive outbreaks of SARS, swine flu, MERS, Ebola, and the Zika virus.
Perhaps the most explosive charge against globalization is that it promotes the interests of a global elite at the expense of majority populations. On a global scale, this is not even close to being true—international economic connectedness has dramatically raised gross domestic product, reduced poverty, raised living standards, improved health, and made information vastly more available than before. Yet many of those benefits are diffuse and taken for granted, while the costs—lost manufacturing jobs, for instance—remain concentrated. And those on the losing end of globalization now have a new political voice: populist parties promising sovereignty, nationalism, and local solutions, as well as a weakening of elite-led, seemingly unaccountable international institutions.
To the idealists among us, a worldwide pandemic would seem precisely the kind of common threat that could usher in a new era of international cooperation. In reality, governments have so far made decisions largely on their own and with little consultation. The G-20 convened an emergency summit of global leaders (by teleconference, of course) that produced a bland statement of abstract pledges but bereft of any specific commitments. The Chinese government bought up the country’s production of face masks rather than see them sold, key European governments temporarily barred their export, and reports circulated of U.S. attempts to purchase a German vaccine manufacturer for exclusive use of its technology. The coronavirus crisis may be global, but the responses have so far been national.
Many see COVID-19 not as a cause around which the world’s governments should rally, but rather as the most dramatic example of an already broken globalized system. “In a global public health emergency, the U.S. is alone,” said Peter Navarro, U.S. President Donald Trump’s economic advisor, to the Financial Times. This is “precisely why it is important for the Trump administration to bring home its manufacturing capabilities and supply chains for essential medicines and thereby simultaneously reduce America’s foreign dependencies,” he said.
Given widespread sentiments such as these, it is easy to imagine governments around the world broadly rethinking international travel, migration, supply-chain risk, export controls, information sharing, and more—in short, key components of globalization itself. The new watchword is likely to be risk reduction rather than cost reduction.
Many of the key drivers of globalization—shipping, data, and capital flows, our understanding of comparative advantage, and economies of scale—will not go away. But driven by a combination of changes in popular sentiment, government policy, and corporate practices, globalization will change.Driven by a combination of changes in popular sentiment, government policy, and corporate practices, globalization will change. The coronavirus pandemic will mark not the end of an era, but its transformation.
First, economies may become less dependent on single points of failure—and less dependent on China. Fragile supply chains are not an indictment of globalization per se, but of the way companies have become dependent on single sources of supply. It is easy to imagine companies, both on their own and at the behest of their governments, diversifying the supply of key inputs and shifting to domestic or regional production. Advances in automation and other labor-saving manufacturing technologies would make this easier; continued trade war with China would force it along.
Second, economic integration will still take place, but it will continue to shift from the global to the regional and bilateral level. Global multilateral trade talks have gone nowhere since the Uruguay Round in 1993. Instead, the European Union concluded separate trade agreements with South Korea and Japan, African countries are talking about a continent-wide trade zone, and a pact similar to the planned Trans-Pacific Partnership has taken effect after Washington withdrew. Even China’s Belt and Road Initiative is creating regional and bilateral connections, not global ones.
Third, political debates in the United States and many other Western countries are likely to remain focused on globalization’s losers and the ways to protect workers from economic damage. The problem is that the preferred remedy—protectionism—makes many problems worse, not better. How to protect workers without undermining globalization’s economic benefits, including a higher standard of living, remains an unsolved question.
The coronavirus pandemic may mark the endpoint of the post-Cold War era. The enchantment with ever-greater international integration is gone. But it would be folly to replace globalization with the same kind of isolationism and protectionism that has impoverished nations before. The nature of globalization’s next phase—and the precise contours of a more selective pattern of cross-border engagement and interdependence after the pandemic—will be the larger question against which many of the most important political debates of the coming years will play out.


Safer Abroad

BEIRUT—When the U.S. Embassy in Beirut made a follow-up call to 64-year-old Cecilia Blewer and urged her to board a repatriation flight from Lebanon to the United States , she said her decision was already made .
“ I told them , ‘ No way , ’ ” Blewer said .
While some desperate Americans are trying to get home , many others abroad are saying there are safer places as the United States becomes one of the worst-hit countries by COVID-19 .
“ I ’ m from New York City , and the health system was already overloaded as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Blewer , who arrived in Lebanon in January to study Arabic and volunteer with a church group .
“ I think it ’ s unhealthy to be in the U.S. right now.
” New York City has become an epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States .
The U.S. State Department issued an advisory on March 19 to “ avoid all international travel due to the global impact of COVID-19.
” On March 31 , it upgraded that advisory to a level-four warning—the highest issued by the department— @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government has organized repatriation flights from far-flung destinations where Americans have found themselves without standard commercial options .
But some are snubbing those flights , pointing to the soaring numbers of cases and deaths in the United States and stories of refrigeration trucks holding bodies parked on residential blocks and makeshift morgues in public spaces .
Others say they would arrive home to a pandemic without health insurance in one of the world ’ s most expensive health care systems .
All the Americans staying abroad who were interviewed for this story criticized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 .
Madelynn Azar-Cavanagh happened to be in Lebanon visiting her brother when borders and airports started shutting in March .
Azar-Cavanagh had a flight back to Boston on March 15 but decided to stay in Lebanon instead .
She ’ s an occupational consultant who has previously worked with New York ’ s Mount Sinai hospital network—and other organizations—to prepare them to protect staff in situations much like this one .
Azar-Cavanagh , who had been living near Boston , had a similar reaction to Blewer at the offer of a repatriation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few American cities via Qatar— “ You are going to take me from Beirut and put me in Miami ?
” Lebanon has recorded just 21 deaths and 668 cases of the virus so far .
Azar-Cavanagh also wasn ’ t keen to board what she called “ a petri dish in the sky.
” She said that while the number of cases in the United States were doubling every two days , in Lebanon the curve was much flatter , doubling every seven to 10 days .
And a trip to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she said .
“ When I go to the supermarket here , they take my temperature .
Everyone is wearing masks and gloves .
They are spraying everything down , ” Azar-Cavanagh said .
“ In the U.S. , they weren ’ t doing anything like that.
” Lebanon has been in a state of medical emergency for a month .
The airport and borders have been closed , as well as bars and restaurants , with the exception of delivery .
People were told to stay home unless absolutely necessary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enforce it , though not tightly .
While other countries went into lockdown , the United States was slow to react , Azar-Cavanagh said , pointing to the disbanding of the Global Health Security and Biodefense unit in 2018 , which was responsible for pandemic preparedness .
She also said it ’ s one of the reasons she personally chose to stay in Beirut .
Two Americans—one six months pregnant—in Mozambique said they believed it was hands down safer than returning to the United States .
Mozambique has recorded only 34 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still , the low numbers may be deceptive : Both Lebanon and Mozambique have much lower testing rates than the United States ; the latter has carried out only 898 tests for a population of around 30 million .
Experts have also cautioned that countries with low numbers now may be hit hard by an outbreak later .
And health systems , particularly those in developing nations , could crumble under the sorts of numbers the United States is now seeing .
Other Americans point to the high cost of repatriation flights—some over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have health insurance in the United States .
“ In the United States , I was conditioned to only go to the doctor ‘ if the bleeding doesn ’ t stop , ’ ” said Niall Bailey , 38 , an Illinois native now living in Seoul .
Bailey pays about $ 150 per month for national health care in South Korea , which he said is as good as , or better than , in the United States .
Despite a pledge this month by U.S. President Donald Trump that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covered through payments to hospitals , there has been skepticism from groups within the United States , and uninsured Americans abroad say they aren ’ t willing to risk it .
“ If anyone wants to risk a $ 30,000 hospital bill on the word of a press release from this administration , good luck to them , ” said Patrick McGrann , an American who works as a researcher at the University of London .
“ I have zero faith that the feds will pick up the tab on COVID treatments.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he was happy to be in United Kingdom , where he has access to the country ’ s public National Health Service .
He said his symptoms were moderate , so he isolated at home and didn ’ t require treatment , but he “ wasn ’ t stressed as there was a hospital just down the street.
” Jessica Olney was in the United States for a conference and was supposed to return to Bangladesh , where she works , on April 1 .
Instead , she said , she got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She is waiting it out in rural California , which has some of the country ’ s lowest numbers .
She feels safe but said : “ I don ’ t have health insurance here , which makes me quite nervous as I ’ ve seen articles about COVID patients receiving $ 35,000+ hospital bills.
” Several Americans who are choosing to ride out the pandemic abroad told Foreign Policy that they didn ’ t trust that the government would cover medical costs in the end , despite Trump ’ s pledges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the novel coronavirus spiked in South Korea , making it then the second-worst affected country after China , but even then Bailey said he never considered going home .
“ I trust South Korea to get stuff done , ” Bailey said , “ but not America to do it.
” He said none of the Americans he knew decided to leave South Korea , despite pressure from their families to return and a warning from the State Department in February .
Bailey said his mother , however , who is a nurse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him in Seoul , didn ’ t even try to get him to come home .
“ My parents have been here .
They kind of know I ’ m safer here than there , ” said Bailey , who added that Illinois is handling the outbreak better than other states .
The South Korean government said it would cover all medical costs associated with COVID-19 for both Koreans and foreigners in the country .
People who did get the virus were given paid leave , and even unemployed nationals were given stipends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This created a sense of financial certainty and an environment where no one had a reason to hide if they became infected , ” according to a report from the Brookings Institution titled “ Combating COVID-19 : Lessons From South Korea.
” In South Korea , hospitals were prepared to avoid in-facility contagion , and medical staff had the proper protective gear .
Bailey said people have been wearing masks for months as the government ramped up production .
The Brookings report pointed to strong contact tracing and tracking of the movements of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by many Americans .
Brookings also emphasized the role of strong leadership in South Korea flattening its curve .
“ The trust is broken in the U.S. , ” Bailey said .
“ The U.S. presidency is considered kind of a joke.
” He said the English-language teaching center where he works never closed ; it just took strict precautions from the beginning .
“ I wear a mask all day at work .
It ’ s annoying , but I do it , ” Bailey said .
“ Americans are unwilling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do .
They seem unwilling to do their bit.
” But that may be what Azar-Cavanagh called the “ mixed messaging ” around COVID-19 from the Trump administration whereby the president repeatedly contradicts the advice of both the World Health Organization ( WHO ) and Anthony Fauci , the top infectious disease official in the United States .
Trump has halted funding to WHO , he said over its handling of the pandemic , and even retweeted a call to fire Fauci .
To many Americans watching the news from abroad , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and medical disaster .
Another American , living in Erbil , Iraq , who asked not to use her name as she works for the United Nations and is not allowed to speak to the media without approval , said that while her insurance does cover her in the United States , Iraq seems safer than her native Utah .
Northern Iraq was on military-imposed lockdown , while Utah had not implemented statewide stay-home measures at that point .
“ To return home would be to return to a place less safe than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It seems like a wise decision to wait it out here .
”

BEIRUT—When the U.S. Embassy in Beirut made a follow-up call to 64-year-old Cecilia Blewer and urged her to board a repatriation flight from Lebanon to the United States, she said her decision was already made. “I told them, ‘No way,’” Blewer said.
BEIRUT—When the U.S. Embassy in Beirut made a follow-up call to 64-year-old Cecilia Blewer and urged her to board a repatriation flight from Lebanon to the United States, she said her decision was already made. “I told them, ‘No way,’” Blewer said.
While some desperate Americans are trying to get home, many others abroad are saying there are safer places as the United States becomes one of the worst-hit countries by COVID-19.
“I’m from New York City, and the health system was already overloaded as the politicians had closed so many hospitals,” said Blewer, who arrived in Lebanon in January to study Arabic and volunteer with a church group. “I think it’s unhealthy to be in the U.S. right now.” New York City has become an epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States.
The U.S. State Department issued an advisory on March 19 to “avoid all international travel due to the global impact of COVID-19.” On March 31, it upgraded that advisory to a level-four warning—the highest issued by the department—“Do not travel.” The U.S. government has organized repatriation flights from far-flung destinations where Americans have found themselves without standard commercial options.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic.]
But some are snubbing those flights, pointing to the soaring numbers of cases and deaths in the United States and stories of refrigeration trucks holding bodies parked on residential blocks and makeshift morgues in public spaces. Others say they would arrive home to a pandemic without health insurance in one of the world’s most expensive health care systems. All the Americans staying abroad who were interviewed for this story criticized the Trump administration’s response to COVID-19.
Madelynn Azar-Cavanagh happened to be in Lebanon visiting her brother when borders and airports started shutting in March. Azar-Cavanagh had a flight back to Boston on March 15 but decided to stay in Lebanon instead. She’s an occupational consultant who has previously worked with New York’s Mount Sinai hospital network—and other organizations—to prepare them to protect staff in situations much like this one.
Azar-Cavanagh, who had been living near Boston, had a similar reaction to Blewer at the offer of a repatriation flight, which was allowed to just a few American cities via Qatar—“You are going to take me from Beirut and put me in Miami?”
Lebanon has recorded just 21 deaths and 668 cases of the virus so far.
Azar-Cavanagh also wasn’t keen to board what she called “a petri dish in the sky.” She said that while the number of cases in the United States were doubling every two days, in Lebanon the curve was much flatter, doubling every seven to 10 days. And a trip to the grocery store makes it obvious why, she said.
“When I go to the supermarket here, they take my temperature. Everyone is wearing masks and gloves. They are spraying everything down,” Azar-Cavanagh said. “In the U.S., they weren’t doing anything like that.”
Lebanon has been in a state of medical emergency for a month. The airport and borders have been closed, as well as bars and restaurants, with the exception of delivery. People were told to stay home unless absolutely necessary, and security forces are on the streets to enforce it, though not tightly.
While other countries went into lockdown, the United States was slow to react, Azar-Cavanagh said, pointing to the disbanding of the Global Health Security and Biodefense unit in 2018, which was responsible for pandemic preparedness. She also said it’s one of the reasons she personally chose to stay in Beirut.
Two Americans—one six months pregnant—in Mozambique said they believed it was hands down safer than returning to the United States. Mozambique has recorded only 34 cases and no deaths from the virus. Still, the low numbers may be deceptive: Both Lebanon and Mozambique have much lower testing rates than the United States; the latter has carried out only 898 tests for a population of around 30 million.
Experts have also cautioned that countries with low numbers now may be hit hard by an outbreak later. And health systems, particularly those in developing nations, could crumble under the sorts of numbers the United States is now seeing.
Other Americans point to the high cost of repatriation flights—some over $4,000—and the fact that they would not have health insurance in the United States.
“In the United States, I was conditioned to only go to the doctor ‘if the bleeding doesn’t stop,’” said Niall Bailey, 38, an Illinois native now living in Seoul. Bailey pays about $150 per month for national health care in South Korea, which he said is as good as, or better than, in the United States.
Despite a pledge this month by U.S. President Donald Trump that the uninsured would have treatment costs for COVID-19 covered through payments to hospitals, there has been skepticism from groups within the United States, and uninsured Americans abroad say they aren’t willing to risk it.
“If anyone wants to risk a $30,000 hospital bill on the word of a press release from this administration, good luck to them,” said Patrick McGrann, an American who works as a researcher at the University of London. “I have zero faith that the feds will pick up the tab on COVID treatments.”
McGrann actually caught COVID-19 in March and said he was happy to be in United Kingdom, where he has access to the country’s public National Health Service. He said his symptoms were moderate, so he isolated at home and didn’t require treatment, but he “wasn’t stressed as there was a hospital just down the street.”
Jessica Olney was in the United States for a conference and was supposed to return to Bangladesh, where she works, on April 1. Instead, she said, she got “stuck” in the United States. She is waiting it out in rural California, which has some of the country’s lowest numbers. She feels safe but said: “I don’t have health insurance here, which makes me quite nervous as I’ve seen articles about COVID patients receiving $35,000+ hospital bills.”
Several Americans who are choosing to ride out the pandemic abroad told Foreign Policy that they didn’t trust that the government would cover medical costs in the end, despite Trump’s pledges.
In late February, cases of the novel coronavirus spiked in South Korea, making it then the second-worst affected country after China, but even then Bailey said he never considered going home. “I trust South Korea to get stuff done,” Bailey said, “but not America to do it.”
He said none of the Americans he knew decided to leave South Korea, despite pressure from their families to return and a warning from the State Department in February. Bailey said his mother, however, who is a nurse in the United States and had visited him in Seoul, didn’t even try to get him to come home. “My parents have been here. They kind of know I’m safer here than there,” said Bailey, who added that Illinois is handling the outbreak better than other states.
The South Korean government said it would cover all medical costs associated with COVID-19 for both Koreans and foreigners in the country. People who did get the virus were given paid leave, and even unemployed nationals were given stipends to cover basic living costs. “This created a sense of financial certainty and an environment where no one had a reason to hide if they became infected,” according to a report from the Brookings Institution titled “Combating COVID-19: Lessons From South Korea.”
In South Korea, hospitals were prepared to avoid in-facility contagion, and medical staff had the proper protective gear. Bailey said people have been wearing masks for months as the government ramped up production. The Brookings report pointed to strong contact tracing and tracking of the movements of infected nationals—something that could be considered unacceptable by many Americans. Brookings also emphasized the role of strong leadership in South Korea flattening its curve.
“The trust is broken in the U.S.,” Bailey said. “The U.S. presidency is considered kind of a joke.” He said the English-language teaching center where he works never closed; it just took strict precautions from the beginning.
“I wear a mask all day at work. It’s annoying, but I do it,” Bailey said. “Americans are unwilling to do what they’re told to do. They seem unwilling to do their bit.”
But that may be what Azar-Cavanagh called the “mixed messaging” around COVID-19 from the Trump administration whereby the president repeatedly contradicts the advice of both the World Health Organization (WHO) and Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease official in the United States. Trump has halted funding to WHO, he said over its handling of the pandemic, and even retweeted a call to fire Fauci.
To many Americans watching the news from abroad, it looks like a political, economic, and medical disaster. Another American, living in Erbil, Iraq, who asked not to use her name as she is not allowed to speak to the media without approval from her employer, said that while her insurance does cover her in the United States, Iraq seems safer than her native Utah. Northern Iraq was on military-imposed lockdown, while Utah had not implemented statewide stay-home measures at that point.
“To return home would be to return to a place less safe than where I am,” she said. “It seems like a wise decision to wait it out here.”


foreignpolicy--2020-04-17--How Trump and Putin Weakened U.N. Bid for a Global Cease-Fire

How Trump and Putin Weakened U.N. Bid for a Global Cease-Fire For several weeks , the United States and Russia have quietly opposed efforts by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and key Western allies to promote a sweeping global cease-fire aimed at urging all countries and armed groups in conflict to “ silence the guns ” and devote their attention to battling the coronavirus pandemic , according to interviews with several diplomatic sources .
Both Washington and Moscow have assured their counterparts that they favor cease-fires in a range of conflict zones , from Libya to Syria and Yemen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cease-fire proposed by the U.N. chief could potentially constrain their own efforts to mount what they consider legitimate counterterrorism operations overseas .
The United States is also concerned that a blanket cease-fire could inhibit Israel ’ s ability to engage in military operations throughout the Middle East .
French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday announced progress in negotiations with the leaders of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council on its first resolution addressing the coronavirus pandemic .
The resolution is expected to promote limited cease-fires in conflict zones being monitored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not endorse the U.N. chief ’ s appeal for a universal global cease-fire .
It will include an exemption for states to continue to carry out military operations against individuals and armed groups designated as terrorists by the U.N. Security Council .
Macron said he is still trying to secure support for the resolution from Putin .
“ President Xi Jinping confirmed to me he agrees .
President Trump confirmed to me he agrees .
Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed to me he agrees , ” Macron said in an interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Putin will agree too.
” Macron is hoping to announce an agreement on the measures in a virtual summit among the leaders of the U.N. Security Council ’ s five veto-wielding members , Britain , China , France , Russia and the United States .
The U.S. pushback against a globally encompassing cease-fire may come from the Trump administration ’ s increasingly heavy dependence on elite counterterrorism operations and covert strikes to kill Islamic State and Iranian-linked military operatives over the past six months .
“ I don ’ t think we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct military action against them and sign a global peace agreement , ” a former senior Trump administration official told Foreign Policy , referring to the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force , a legal mandate that allows U.S. strikes against al Qaeda , the Islamic State , and other affiliated groups .
“ It may actually challenge the AUMF , ” the former official added when asked about potential Pentagon opposition to the U.N. ’ s push .
But the working initiative may limit the Trump administration ’ s ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts say , after a U.S. drone strike in January killed Quds Force leader Qassem Suleimani at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq ’ s capital .
“ You have the added difficulty that the U.S. engaging in most of its counterterrorism operations is very opportunistic , ” said Scott Anderson , a former State Department attorney during the Obama administration now with the Brookings Institution .
“ There ’ s often a narrow window that they have to act in .
There may be hesitance to say we ’ re categorically not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could still justify strikes against Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq on self-defense grounds , Anderson added .
With the U.N. Security Council unable to act , Guterres delivered a March 23 appeal “ to warring parties ” across the globe : “ pull back from hostilities .
… Silence the guns ; stop the artillery ; end the airstrikes .
This is crucial to help create corridors for life-saving aid , to open precious windows for diplomacy , to bring hope to places among the most vulnerable to COVID-19.
” “ The fury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war , ” he said .
“ That is why today , I am calling for an immediate global cease-fire in all corners of the world .
It is time to put armed conflict on lockdown and focus together on the true fight of our lives.
” The initiative has proved popular , gaining endorsements from scores of governments , key regional organizations , and political and religious leaders , including Pope Francis , and even prompting some warring parties to enter into a series of imperfect cease-fire arrangements .
On April 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charities , religious organizations , and human rights groups endorsed the U.N. chief ’ s appeal for a global cease-fire and urged him to use his influence to persuade the Security Council to follow suit .
“ [ W ] e are concerned that the UN Security Council has yet to take action , ” according to the joint letter .
“ We believe that you are best-placed to drive for unity in the Council and help Council members overcome disagreements on language , including attempts to attribute blame , and to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The council ’ s five veto-wielding powers have been more ambivalent .
For instance , Beijing has supported the council ’ s push for a more limited cease-fire .
But it also distributed a diplomatic note to colleagues welcoming Guterres ’ s initiative .
“ China firmly supports the leadership of the Secretary-General in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and attaches great importance to his Appeal for Global Ceasefire , ” according to a Chinese “ non-paper ” distributed to U.N. ambassadors on Thursday by China ’ s U.N .
Ambassador Zhang Jun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support and act on this initiative to buy time for prevention and containment , open up space for cooperation and create conditions for political solutions.
” Kelly Knight Craft , the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations , spoke warmly of Guterres ’ s call for a “ global cease-fire ” in a Thursday morning interview with NPR , citing it as evidence that the United Nations has been active for months in trying to respond to the crisis .
She said she hoped that negotiations over the French-drafted resolution—which she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finished by the end of the week , or early next week .
“ The United States supports the Secretary General ’ s call for a global ceasefire , but have noted that we will continue to fulfill our legitimate counterterrorism mission , ” a State Department spokesman told Foreign Policy .
Behind the scenes , U.S. negotiators have contributed to delaying agreement on the French pandemic and cease-fire resolution .
The United States initially insisted the text make clear that the coronavirus originated in China and that it should be described in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” —a stance that was all but certain to trigger a Chinese veto .
The French have since persuaded the Americans to drop that demand .
But the United States has refused to back an explicit endorsement of the U.N. chief ’ s global cease-fire initiative , forcing Paris to come up with a more limited cease-fire proposal .
The United States also declined to join a list of more than 70 countries , including close allies such as Britain , France , and Germany , that co-signed a letter welcoming the secretary-general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earlier this week , the United States raised new objections to a provision in the French resolution that expressed support for the work the World Health Organization is doing to suppress the spread of the pandemic .
The new U.S. position followed an announcement by Trump to hold U.S. funding to the health agency , pending a review of alleged-pro Chinese bias at the WHO .
China and Russia , meanwhile , have argued for strengthening language supporting the WHO ’ s role in fighting the pandemic .
As of Friday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Macron has portrayed Russia as the lone standout .
Russia has also opposed a sweeping cease-fire , arguing that it needs to have the freedom to conduct counterterrorism operations in places like Syria .
“ We support the respective statement by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres of March 23 , ” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement .
The ministry urged “ all parties to regional armed conflicts to immediately stop hostilities , secure a ceasefire , and introduce a humanitarian pause , ” but added : “ We are highly concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorist groups , who could not care less about people ’ s wellbeing .
These zones might potentially become most prone to the spread of the infection .
We are confident that counter-terrorist measures must be carried on.
” Staff writers Jack Detsch and Robbie Gramer contributed to this report .

For several weeks, the United States and Russia have quietly opposed efforts by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and key Western allies to promote a sweeping global cease-fire aimed at urging all countries and armed groups in conflict to “silence the guns” and devote their attention to battling the coronavirus pandemic, according to interviews with several diplomatic sources.
For several weeks, the United States and Russia have quietly opposed efforts by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and key Western allies to promote a sweeping global cease-fire aimed at urging all countries and armed groups in conflict to “silence the guns” and devote their attention to battling the coronavirus pandemic, according to interviews with several diplomatic sources.
Both Washington and Moscow have assured their counterparts that they favor cease-fires in a range of conflict zones, from Libya to Syria and Yemen. But both governments fear that a universal cease-fire proposed by the U.N. chief could potentially constrain their own efforts to mount what they consider legitimate counterterrorism operations overseas. The United States is also concerned that a blanket cease-fire could inhibit Israel’s ability to engage in military operations throughout the Middle East.
French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday announced progress in negotiations with the leaders of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council on its first resolution addressing the coronavirus pandemic.
The resolution is expected to promote limited cease-fires in conflict zones being monitored by the 15-nation council. But it will not endorse the U.N. chief’s appeal for a universal global cease-fire. It will include an exemption for states to continue to carry out military operations against individuals and armed groups designated as terrorists by the U.N. Security Council.
Macron said he is still trying to secure support for the resolution from Putin. “President Xi Jinping confirmed to me he agrees. President Trump confirmed to me he agrees. Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed to me he agrees,” Macron said in an interview with Radio France International. “I think President Putin will agree too.” Macron is hoping to announce an agreement on the measures in a virtual summit among the leaders of the U.N. Security Council’s five veto-wielding members, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.
The U.S. pushback against a globally encompassing cease-fire may come from the Trump administration’s increasingly heavy dependence on elite counterterrorism operations and covert strikes to kill Islamic State and Iranian-linked military operatives over the past six months.
“I don’t think we can both have an AUMF to take direct military action against them and sign a global peace agreement,” a former senior Trump administration official told Foreign Policy, referring to the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, a legal mandate that allows U.S. strikes against al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and other affiliated groups. “It may actually challenge the AUMF,” the former official added when asked about potential Pentagon opposition to the U.N.’s push.
But the working initiative may limit the Trump administration’s ability to go after senior Iranian military figures, experts say, after a U.S. drone strike in January killed Quds Force leader Qassem Suleimani at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq’s capital. “You have the added difficulty that the U.S. engaging in most of its counterterrorism operations is very opportunistic,” said Scott Anderson, a former State Department attorney during the Obama administration now with the Brookings Institution. “There’s often a narrow window that they have to act in. There may be hesitance to say we’re categorically not going to pursue these.” The United States could still justify strikes against Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq on self-defense grounds, Anderson added.
With the U.N. Security Council unable to act, Guterres delivered a March 23 appeal “to warring parties” across the globe: “pull back from hostilities. … Silence the guns; stop the artillery; end the airstrikes. This is crucial to help create corridors for life-saving aid, to open precious windows for diplomacy, to bring hope to places among the most vulnerable to COVID-19.”
“The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war,” he said. “That is why today, I am calling for an immediate global cease-fire in all corners of the world. It is time to put armed conflict on lockdown and focus together on the true fight of our lives.”
The initiative has proved popular, gaining endorsements from scores of governments, key regional organizations, and political and religious leaders, including Pope Francis, and even prompting some warring parties to enter into a series of imperfect cease-fire arrangements.
On April 2, a coalition of 193 international private charities, religious organizations, and human rights groups endorsed the U.N. chief’s appeal for a global cease-fire and urged him to use his influence to persuade the Security Council to follow suit.
“[W]e are concerned that the UN Security Council has yet to take action,” according to the joint letter. “We believe that you are best-placed to drive for unity in the Council and help Council members overcome disagreements on language, including attempts to attribute blame, and to use counter-terrorism narratives to exempt member state compliance.”
The council’s five veto-wielding powers have been more ambivalent.
For instance, Beijing has supported the council’s push for a more limited cease-fire. But it also distributed a diplomatic note to colleagues welcoming Guterres’s initiative.
“China firmly supports the leadership of the Secretary-General in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and attaches great importance to his Appeal for Global Ceasefire,” according to a Chinese “non-paper” distributed to U.N. ambassadors on Thursday by China’s U.N. Ambassador Zhang Jun. “China calls on the parties to support and act on this initiative to buy time for prevention and containment, open up space for cooperation and create conditions for political solutions.”
Kelly Knight Craft, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, spoke warmly of Guterres’s call for a “global cease-fire” in a Thursday morning interview with NPR, citing it as evidence that the United Nations has been active for months in trying to respond to the crisis. She said she hoped that negotiations over the French-drafted resolution—which she said would support a pause in fighting—could be finished by the end of the week, or early next week.
“The United States supports the Secretary General’s call for a global ceasefire, but have noted that we will continue to fulfill our legitimate counterterrorism mission,” a State Department spokesman told Foreign Policy.
Behind the scenes, U.S. negotiators have contributed to delaying agreement on the French pandemic and cease-fire resolution. The United States initially insisted the text make clear that the coronavirus originated in China and that it should be described in the resolution as the “Wuhan virus”—a stance that was all but certain to trigger a Chinese veto.
The French have since persuaded the Americans to drop that demand. But the United States has refused to back an explicit endorsement of the U.N. chief’s global cease-fire initiative, forcing Paris to come up with a more limited cease-fire proposal. The United States also declined to join a list of more than 70 countries, including close allies such as Britain, France, and Germany, that co-signed a letter welcoming the secretary-general’s call for a cease-fire.
Earlier this week, the United States raised new objections to a provision in the French resolution that expressed support for the work the World Health Organization is doing to suppress the spread of the pandemic. The new U.S. position followed an announcement by Trump to hold U.S. funding to the health agency, pending a review of alleged-pro Chinese bias at the WHO. China and Russia, meanwhile, have argued for strengthening language supporting the WHO’s role in fighting the pandemic. As of Friday, the issue had not been resolved.
But Macron has portrayed Russia as the lone standout. Russia has also opposed a sweeping cease-fire, arguing that it needs to have the freedom to conduct counterterrorism operations in places like Syria.
“We support the respective statement by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres of March 23,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. The ministry urged “all parties to regional armed conflicts to immediately stop hostilities, secure a ceasefire, and introduce a humanitarian pause,” but added: “We are highly concerned over the situation on territories controlled by terrorist groups, who could not care less about people’s wellbeing. These zones might potentially become most prone to the spread of the infection. We are confident that counter-terrorist measures must be carried on.”
Staff writers Jack Detsch and Robbie Gramer contributed to this report.