foreignpolicy--2020-03-23--China Is Trying to Rewrite The Present

China Is Trying to Rewrite The Present

China Is Trying to Rewrite The Present China ’ s Communist Party has long excelled at rewriting its own history , but with its latest propaganda blitz on the novel coronavirus , it ’ s rewriting the present .
And while the traditional revisionism has largely been aimed at a domestic audience , this time it has a global one in mind .
Beijing is attempting to gaslight the world as it escalates its propaganda push to obscure the source of the disease .
Yet the real significance of this campaign is that it represents Beijing ’ s first truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line in the global information war .
This is a struggle in which the tools of a free society—journalism and social media—are both the combat zone and the weapons of choice .
Beijing ’ s arsenal includes a massive state-sponsored disinformation campaign , prominent “ third-party spokespeople ” and the expulsion of some of the most experienced American journalists in China .
As its state-sponsored messages proliferate across newspaper columns and Facebook and Twitter feeds around the world , one key takeaway is that China ’ s decadelong attempt to build its so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One successful example of Beijing ’ s efforts to shift the narrative was its construction of two thousand-bed “ coronavirus hospitals ” in Wuhan in just 10 days .
The mesmerizing time lapses of a gargantuan behemoth rising from a muddy field flickered across websites and television screens around the world , in part because China ’ s state-run broadcaster has content-sharing agreements with hundreds of news outlets , sometimes providing them with free material .
The impressive speed and scale of the construction masked the fact that these were bare-bones prefab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These measures—combined with hard-line moves such as enforced lockdowns—undoubtedly slowed the spread of infection , allowing Beijing to reframe itself as having made great sacrifices to buy time for the rest of the world .
As other countries founder , China is pushing that further , casting itself as a responsible global leader dispensing humanitarian aid overseas .
This is in part an effort to distract attention from accusations that its initial cover-up is responsible for the rest of the world ’ s plight , in particular the looming economic catastrophe .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
But these efforts didn ’ t come out of nowhere .
Since 2009 , Beijing ’ s been quietly laying the groundwork by expanding its state-run media overseas , running look-and-learn tours—often for free—for thousands of non-Chinese journalists to China and striking content-sharing agreements with foreign news providers .
Chinese business leaders acting as state proxies have acquired and established news outlets to amplify Beijing ’ s voice .
All these tools are now being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even while its some of its domestic propaganda efforts are encountering unusually vocal resistance .
The composition of China ’ s coronavirus task force highlights its priorities : Two out of nine members are from the propaganda bureau .
They faced a challenging job in shifting the narrative when Beijing ’ s cover-up of the initial outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan late last year allowed the virus to spread unabated .
There was further dismal publicity after nine doctors who tried to raise the alarm were punished .
When one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from COVID-19 , the domestic groundswell of anger was so intense that a gratitude campaign thanking the state for its efforts had to be dropped .
That popular rage is still evident .
Touring a residential compound in Wuhan , Vice Premier Sun Chunlan was greeted by a chorus of shouts of “ Fake !
All this fake !
” resounding out of the safe anonymity provided by high-rise apartments .
A new storyline percolated online and through WeChat from late January , arguing that the virus might not have originated in China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemiologist Zhong Nanshan lent credibility to this theory , calling it a “ disease of humans , not of a country.
” By March , the foreign ministry had taken on this battle , with spokesman Zhao Lijian drawing attention to an unfounded conspiracy theory that the U.S. military had brought the disease to Wuhan .
This message was then amplified on Twitter—a platform banned at home—by dozens of other Chinese embassies around the world .
One instructive moment was the attempt to push back against this earlier this week by the Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ famous during the SARS epidemic .
In an article he co-wrote , he called such claims “ self-deceiving ” and nonsensical , and blamed the outbreak on the “ ugly habits of Chinese people ” including eating sometimes endangered wildlife .
The speed with which he and his co-author retracted the article was notable , as was the language they deployed .
In an interview that sounded more like a self-criticism , Yuen said , “ Maybe no one loves the country more than I do.
” This rhetoric of forced confessions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hong Kong .
But against the backdrop of U.S. President Trump ’ s descriptions of the coronavirus as the “ Chinese virus , ” the tussle for narrative control could become an issue of patriotism on the mainland .
A shift in emphasis emerged overnight after China ’ s ambassador to the United States , Cui Tiankai , described the conspiracy theory that the virus was brought to China by U.S. troops as “ crazy.
” This was followed by a more conciliatory tweet by Zhao underlining the need for global solidarity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This apparent about-face could represent an internal power struggle over messaging or simply a decision to change gears in the service of showcasing Beijing as a responsible and humanitarian global power .
Even more persuasive than words , though , may be China ’ s deeds .
China ’ s state-run news outlets now run wall-to-wall coverage of its face-mask diplomacy , as it donates millions of masks to countries including South Korea , Iran , the Philippines , and Spain .
When Italy ’ s European Union partners refused its requests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide respirators and 2 million masks—not for free , but still a huge PR win .
“ The only country that can help us is China , ” Serbia ’ s President Aleksandar Vucic pleaded last week after the EU imposed limits on the exports of medical equipment , “ As for the rest , thanks for nothing.
” Chinese business executives also play their part ; its richest man , Alibaba ’ s Jack Ma , shipped a million masks and half a million testing kits to the United States in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse the West does at fighting the coronavirus , the better Beijing ’ s hard-line measures and willingness to supply much-needed goods look .
Already its state media is crowing .
The China Daily newspaper wrote , “ The bitter truth is that the anti-China propaganda campaign has to some extent contributed to the West being negligent to the looming crisis and they are now facing a medical , human and economic disaster.
” This may seem like a war of words , but the stakes could not be higher ; this current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , but the bigger battle is over who will control global flows of information and the future of journalism itself .

China’s Communist Party has long excelled at rewriting its own history, but with its latest propaganda blitz on the novel coronavirus, it’s rewriting the present. And while the traditional revisionism has largely been aimed at a domestic audience, this time it has a global one in mind. Beijing is attempting to gaslight the world as it escalates its propaganda push to obscure the source of the disease. Yet the real significance of this campaign is that it represents Beijing’s first truly international propaganda offensive and a new front line in the global information war.
China’s Communist Party has long excelled at rewriting its own history, but with its latest propaganda blitz on the novel coronavirus, it’s rewriting the present. And while the traditional revisionism has largely been aimed at a domestic audience, this time it has a global one in mind. Beijing is attempting to gaslight the world as it escalates its propaganda push to obscure the source of the disease. Yet the real significance of this campaign is that it represents Beijing’s first truly international propaganda offensive and a new front line in the global information war.
This is a struggle in which the tools of a free society—journalism and social media—are both the combat zone and the weapons of choice. Beijing’s arsenal includes a massive state-sponsored disinformation campaign, prominent “third-party spokespeople” and the expulsion of some of the most experienced American journalists in China. As its state-sponsored messages proliferate across newspaper columns and Facebook and Twitter feeds around the world, one key takeaway is that China’s decadelong attempt to build its so-called discourse power overseas is finally bearing fruit.
One successful example of Beijing’s efforts to shift the narrative was its construction of two thousand-bed “coronavirus hospitals” in Wuhan in just 10 days. The mesmerizing time lapses of a gargantuan behemoth rising from a muddy field flickered across websites and television screens around the world, in part because China’s state-run broadcaster has content-sharing agreements with hundreds of news outlets, sometimes providing them with free material. The impressive speed and scale of the construction masked the fact that these were bare-bones prefab quarantine wards rather than fully equipped hospitals.
These measures—combined with hard-line moves such as enforced lockdowns—undoubtedly slowed the spread of infection, allowing Beijing to reframe itself as having made great sacrifices to buy time for the rest of the world. As other countries founder, China is pushing that further, casting itself as a responsible global leader dispensing humanitarian aid overseas. This is in part an effort to distract attention from accusations that its initial cover-up is responsible for the rest of the world’s plight, in particular the looming economic catastrophe.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
But these efforts didn’t come out of nowhere. Since 2009, Beijing’s been quietly laying the groundwork by expanding its state-run media overseas, running look-and-learn tours—often for free—for thousands of non-Chinese journalists to China and striking content-sharing agreements with foreign news providers. Chinese business leaders acting as state proxies have acquired and established news outlets to amplify Beijing’s voice. All these tools are now being used to reshape the global information landscape, even while its some of its domestic propaganda efforts are encountering unusually vocal resistance.
The composition of China’s coronavirus task force highlights its priorities: Two out of nine members are from the propaganda bureau. They faced a challenging job in shifting the narrative when Beijing’s cover-up of the initial outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan late last year allowed the virus to spread unabated. There was further dismal publicity after nine doctors who tried to raise the alarm were punished. When one of them, Li Wenliang, died from COVID-19, the domestic groundswell of anger was so intense that a gratitude campaign thanking the state for its efforts had to be dropped. That popular rage is still evident. Touring a residential compound in Wuhan, Vice Premier Sun Chunlan was greeted by a chorus of shouts of “Fake! All this fake!” resounding out of the safe anonymity provided by high-rise apartments.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
A new storyline percolated online and through WeChat from late January, arguing that the virus might not have originated in China. In late February, the famous epidemiologist Zhong Nanshan lent credibility to this theory, calling it a “disease of humans, not of a country.” By March, the foreign ministry had taken on this battle, with spokesman Zhao Lijian drawing attention to an unfounded conspiracy theory that the U.S. military had brought the disease to Wuhan. This message was then amplified on Twitter—a platform banned at home—by dozens of other Chinese embassies around the world.
One instructive moment was the attempt to push back against this earlier this week by the Hong Kong microbiologist Yuen Kwok-yung, who became famous during the SARS epidemic. In an article he co-wrote, he called such claims “self-deceiving” and nonsensical, and blamed the outbreak on the “ugly habits of Chinese people” including eating sometimes endangered wildlife. The speed with which he and his co-author retracted the article was notable, as was the language they deployed. In an interview that sounded more like a self-criticism, Yuen said, “Maybe no one loves the country more than I do.” This rhetoric of forced confessions and loyalty pledges was previously unheard of in Hong Kong. But against the backdrop of U.S. President Trump’s descriptions of the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus,” the tussle for narrative control could become an issue of patriotism on the mainland.
A shift in emphasis emerged overnight after China’s ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, described the conspiracy theory that the virus was brought to China by U.S. troops as “crazy.” This was followed by a more conciliatory tweet by Zhao underlining the need for global solidarity, featuring peaceful photos of cherry blossom trees. This apparent about-face could represent an internal power struggle over messaging or simply a decision to change gears in the service of showcasing Beijing as a responsible and humanitarian global power.
Even more persuasive than words, though, may be China’s deeds. China’s state-run news outlets now run wall-to-wall coverage of its face-mask diplomacy, as it donates millions of masks to countries including South Korea, Iran, the Philippines, and Spain. When Italy’s European Union partners refused its requests for medical aid, China stepped in to provide respirators and 2 million masks—not for free, but still a huge PR win. “The only country that can help us is China,” Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic pleaded last week after the EU imposed limits on the exports of medical equipment, “As for the rest, thanks for nothing.” Chinese business executives also play their part; its richest man, Alibaba’s Jack Ma, shipped a million masks and half a million testing kits to the United States in a show of geopolitical largesse.
The worse the West does at fighting the coronavirus, the better Beijing’s hard-line measures and willingness to supply much-needed goods look. Already its state media is crowing. The China Daily newspaper wrote, “The bitter truth is that the anti-China propaganda campaign has to some extent contributed to the West being negligent to the looming crisis and they are now facing a medical, human and economic disaster.” This may seem like a war of words, but the stakes could not be higher; this current skirmish is over narrative control of the coronavirus, but the bigger battle is over who will control global flows of information and the future of journalism itself.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-23--A War of Words With China Helps Nobody

A War of Words With China Helps Nobody

A War of Words With China Helps Nobody Republican hawks in the United States seem determined to be in conflict with everyone all the time .
Sanctions on North Korea , Russia , Cuba , Venezuela , and North Korea .
Military intervention against the Syrian government .
Strikes on Iran .
The long-standing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq .
Military threats against almost everyone .
None of these has worked out well .
Nor will the diplomatic and rhetorical attacks on China for causing the coronavirus crisis .
As the administration of President Donald Trump struggles to respond coherently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has prioritized a verbal assault on China , pushing the term “ Chinese virus ” and highlighting China ’ s role in the initial outbreak .
The latter is particularly stupid after the U.S. government botched its own response to the spreading epidemic and is suffering shortages of medical equipment .
The advantages of bilateral cooperation against a putative pandemic that Beijing appears to have surmounted , at least for the moment , should be obvious .
Indeed , Washington is unlikely to find much international support for its attacks .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran and Russia , have joined China in spreading conspiracies .
Even Washington ’ s closest friends , the Europeans , are turning to Beijing .
China has won favor for sending medical materiel and manpower to Italy , Spain , and other European countries , regardless of whether it sent them to win political advantage .
Rome had called on its neighbors for assistance , to no effect .
Serbia ’ s president recently criticized the European Union and requested Chinese help .
To be sure , there is much to criticize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Xi Jinping is shifting from loose authoritarianism to brutal authoritarianism .
In almost every area—online censorship , academic freedom , religious liberty , liberal criticism , Uighurs ’ status , dissenting space—the regime is moving rapidly and often dramatically backward .
The demand for obeisance by Beijing is evident in its treatment of Hong Kong and Taiwan .
Of even greater concern to China ’ s neighbors and Washington is the Xi government ’ s increased aggressiveness in pursuing sometimes dubious territorial claims .
And in this case , the United States has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The latter covered up the initial epidemic , allowed the disease to spread , and failed to inform foreign nations .
And Beijing officials should be called out for their shameless attempt to suggest that the virus might be an American bioweapon gone awry—even though , ironically , Wuhan hosts China ’ s only microbiology lab dealing with such diseases , the Wuhan Institute of Virology .
That caused the bellicose Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas , among others , to suggest the virus was a Chinese bioweapon gone awry .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , viewing it as an essential aspect to foreign policy .
The question is how to confront China effectively .
Fulminations and sanctions might offer emotional release , but rarely change behavior , especially when China has the ability to retaliate , substitute , or ignore them .
That ’ s why moves such as calling COVID-19 the “ Chinese virus ” or “ Wuhan virus , ” while geographically accurate , achieve nothing .
No one believes that the president , Republican hawks , and right-leaning commentators are using China or Wuhan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate descriptive phrases available .
The rhetoric is not inherently racist or xenophobic .
But it is political , adapted to advance a campaign already well underway .
Even before the coronavirus exploded globally , critics were bemoaning U.S. trade with and investment in China .
There were proposals to take advantage of Beijing ’ s moment of weakness as its economy slowed and the trade war affected it .
The viral outbreak increased talk about the possibility of “ decoupling ” from with one of the United States ’ largest economic partners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gleeful in suggesting that the epidemic could “ accelerate the return of jobs to North America.
” Chinese policy blunders matter and should not be repeated .
However , there is no evidence that Xi ’ s government planned to unleash viral hell .
The virus is natural , not artificial .
Nor is a naming spat likely to advance Washington ’ s overall campaign against China .
Especially since the entire world is focused on something else : containing what many fear will become a truly global pandemic .
Frantic European officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration in this feud .
Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio has said , “ We will remember those who were close to us in this difficult period.
” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen thanked Chinese Premier Li Keqiang for offering 50,000 test kits , 200,000 respiratory masks , and 2 million face masks : “ We need each other ’ s support in times of need , ” she said .
It would be better for U.S. officials to suggest that Washington and Beijing set aside their political spat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks of the outbreak the United States offered assistance , which China accepted without fanfare .
At the very least the delivery of a few Chinese face masks would be useful .
And perhaps much more .
Washington could propose some sort of international coordinating body , highlighting the experience , knowledge , strategy , and materiel of those countries which now seem to be exiting the crisis .
Such an effort might help alleviate the crisis .
The Chinese people went through a horrendous trial—one that isn ’ t over , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infection lurks .
The West should do what it can to take advantage of that experience .
And that process would be aided by fostering a civil relationship with Xi ’ s government .
This is precisely the worst possible moment to drive the relationship into the ground .
Concern over deteriorating U.S.-China ties reaches beyond today and the coronavirus .
Perhaps the most important difference between the United States ’ relationship with the Soviet Union and with China has been the broad connection among the Chinese and American peoples , especially students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the countries ’ institutions , such as businesses and universities .
Such links likely would not be enough to prevent conflict if other factors overwhelmed .
World War I occurred at a time of rising globalization and prosperity ; Europeans had significant contact with one another prior to World War II .
Nevertheless , broader and deeper connections create at least an imperfect firebreak , one largely absent during the Cold War .
It is easier to battle the unknown and misunderstood “ other.
” Moreover , links , both social and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The potential disruption and destruction of relationships would be most unsettling and even threatening .
Washington should be particularly concerned about maintaining ties that the more closed Xi regime might be willing to sever , such as the presence of U.S. journalists in China .
The Trump administration is correct that the Chinese state media in the United States is a tool of Beijing , the reason it gave for recently slashing its numbers .
However , China ’ s retaliation , tossing out at least 13 American journalists—who seem also to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely predictable .
Peking University ’ s Zha Daojiong , a professor of international political economy , worried : “ All we have left is the political grievance , or diplomatic grievance impulse to score points.
” The great loser is the United States .
With planes everywhere grounded and semesters canceled or forced online , the ordinary ties made by students , tourists , and other visitors are already being severed .
When the situation allows , the United States should work to rebuild ties with China across the board—while maintaining legitimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and liberal eye .
Most important is the economic relationship .
Support for ensuring greater diversity and especially domestic production of important life-saving or security-protecting technologies is reasonable , but the number of such goods is small .
The cost of broadly replicating supply chains and forgoing the efficiencies of foreign production would be high and ongoing .
China ’ s inclusion into the supply chain has provided the United States with more for less , an important part of our prosperity , and it has created another important link with China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sacrifice that for political reasons , but the cost to the Chinese public and ultimately the government might force the regime to think twice .
Republican hawks should stop , at least for the moment , creating more enemies .
Beijing ’ s bad behavior can be left aside for another day .
Now the United States and Europe , along with the rest of the world , should focus on containing the virus .
And that means working with the Chinese government , which has much to offer in helping to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Republican hawks in the United States seem determined to be in conflict with everyone all the time. Sanctions on North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. Military intervention against the Syrian government. Strikes on Iran. The long-standing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Military threats against almost everyone.
Republican hawks in the United States seem determined to be in conflict with everyone all the time. Sanctions on North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. Military intervention against the Syrian government. Strikes on Iran. The long-standing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Military threats against almost everyone.
None of these has worked out well. Nor will the diplomatic and rhetorical attacks on China for causing the coronavirus crisis.
As the administration of President Donald Trump struggles to respond coherently to the spread of the virus, it has prioritized a verbal assault on China, pushing the term “Chinese virus” and highlighting China’s role in the initial outbreak. The latter is particularly stupid after the U.S. government botched its own response to the spreading epidemic and is suffering shortages of medical equipment. The advantages of bilateral cooperation against a putative pandemic that Beijing appears to have surmounted, at least for the moment, should be obvious.
Indeed, Washington is unlikely to find much international support for its attacks. The United States’ adversaries, such as Iran and Russia, have joined China in spreading conspiracies. Even Washington’s closest friends, the Europeans, are turning to Beijing. China has won favor for sending medical materiel and manpower to Italy, Spain, and other European countries, regardless of whether it sent them to win political advantage. Rome had called on its neighbors for assistance, to no effect. Serbia’s president recently criticized the European Union and requested Chinese help.
To be sure, there is much to criticize China on. The government of President Xi Jinping is shifting from loose authoritarianism to brutal authoritarianism. In almost every area—online censorship, academic freedom, religious liberty, liberal criticism, Uighurs’ status, dissenting space—the regime is moving rapidly and often dramatically backward. The demand for obeisance by Beijing is evident in its treatment of Hong Kong and Taiwan. Of even greater concern to China’s neighbors and Washington is the Xi government’s increased aggressiveness in pursuing sometimes dubious territorial claims.
And in this case, the United States has a valid complaint against the Chinese government: The latter covered up the initial epidemic, allowed the disease to spread, and failed to inform foreign nations. And Beijing officials should be called out for their shameless attempt to suggest that the virus might be an American bioweapon gone awry—even though, ironically, Wuhan hosts China’s only microbiology lab dealing with such diseases, the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That caused the bellicose Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, among others, to suggest the virus was a Chinese bioweapon gone awry.
However, past U.S. conservatives valued prudence, viewing it as an essential aspect to foreign policy. The question is how to confront China effectively. Fulminations and sanctions might offer emotional release, but rarely change behavior, especially when China has the ability to retaliate, substitute, or ignore them.
That’s why moves such as calling COVID-19 the “Chinese virus” or “Wuhan virus,” while geographically accurate, achieve nothing. No one believes that the president, Republican hawks, and right-leaning commentators are using China or Wuhan after an objective examination of the most accurate descriptive phrases available. The rhetoric is not inherently racist or xenophobic. But it is political, adapted to advance a campaign already well underway.
Even before the coronavirus exploded globally, critics were bemoaning U.S. trade with and investment in China. There were proposals to take advantage of Beijing’s moment of weakness as its economy slowed and the trade war affected it. The viral outbreak increased talk about the possibility of “decoupling” from with one of the United States’ largest economic partners. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was almost gleeful in suggesting that the epidemic could “accelerate the return of jobs to North America.”
Chinese policy blunders matter and should not be repeated. However, there is no evidence that Xi’s government planned to unleash viral hell. The virus is natural, not artificial. Nor is a naming spat likely to advance Washington’s overall campaign against China. Especially since the entire world is focused on something else: containing what many fear will become a truly global pandemic.
Frantic European officials certainly are not interested in joining the Trump administration in this feud. Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio has said, “We will remember those who were close to us in this difficult period.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen thanked Chinese Premier Li Keqiang for offering 50,000 test kits, 200,000 respiratory masks, and 2 million face masks: “We need each other’s support in times of need,” she said.
It would be better for U.S. officials to suggest that Washington and Beijing set aside their political spat and cooperate. During the first few weeks of the outbreak the United States offered assistance, which China accepted without fanfare. At the very least the delivery of a few Chinese face masks would be useful. And perhaps much more. Washington could propose some sort of international coordinating body, highlighting the experience, knowledge, strategy, and materiel of those countries which now seem to be exiting the crisis.
Such an effort might help alleviate the crisis. The Chinese people went through a horrendous trial—one that isn’t over, as the prospect of a second wave of infection lurks. The West should do what it can to take advantage of that experience. And that process would be aided by fostering a civil relationship with Xi’s government. This is precisely the worst possible moment to drive the relationship into the ground.
Concern over deteriorating U.S.-China ties reaches beyond today and the coronavirus. Perhaps the most important difference between the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union and with China has been the broad connection among the Chinese and American peoples, especially students, journalists, and investors, and between the countries’ institutions, such as businesses and universities. Such links likely would not be enough to prevent conflict if other factors overwhelmed. World War I occurred at a time of rising globalization and prosperity; Europeans had significant contact with one another prior to World War II.
Nevertheless, broader and deeper connections create at least an imperfect firebreak, one largely absent during the Cold War. It is easier to battle the unknown and misunderstood “other.” Moreover, links, both social and economic, raise the price for conflict. The potential disruption and destruction of relationships would be most unsettling and even threatening.
Washington should be particularly concerned about maintaining ties that the more closed Xi regime might be willing to sever, such as the presence of U.S. journalists in China. The Trump administration is correct that the Chinese state media in the United States is a tool of Beijing, the reason it gave for recently slashing its numbers. However, China’s retaliation, tossing out at least 13 American journalists—who seem also to be banned from supposedly autonomous Hong Kong—was entirely predictable. Peking University’s Zha Daojiong, a professor of international political economy, worried: “All we have left is the political grievance, or diplomatic grievance impulse to score points.” The great loser is the United States. With planes everywhere grounded and semesters canceled or forced online, the ordinary ties made by students, tourists, and other visitors are already being severed. When the situation allows, the United States should work to rebuild ties with China across the board—while maintaining legitimate security concerns, but with a generous and liberal eye.
Most important is the economic relationship. Support for ensuring greater diversity and especially domestic production of important life-saving or security-protecting technologies is reasonable, but the number of such goods is small. The cost of broadly replicating supply chains and forgoing the efficiencies of foreign production would be high and ongoing. China’s inclusion into the supply chain has provided the United States with more for less, an important part of our prosperity, and it has created another important link with China. The Chinese Communist Party might be willing to sacrifice that for political reasons, but the cost to the Chinese public and ultimately the government might force the regime to think twice.
Republican hawks should stop, at least for the moment, creating more enemies. Beijing’s bad behavior can be left aside for another day. Now the United States and Europe, along with the rest of the world, should focus on containing the virus. And that means working with the Chinese government, which has much to offer in helping to clean up the mess it helped create.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-23--U.S. Appeals to Aid Recipients for Help in Fighting Coronavirus

U.S. Appeals to Aid Recipients for Help in Fighting Coronavirus The U.S. State Department is instructing its top diplomats to press governments and businesses in Eastern Europe and Eurasia to ramp up exports and production of life-saving medical equipment and protective gear for the United States , part of a desperate diplomatic campaign to fill major shortcomings in the U.S. medical system amid a rising death toll from the new coronavirus .
The appeal comes as European governments are themselves struggling to cope with one of the worst pandemics to spread around the globe since the 1918 Spanish flu .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States , which has traditionally taken the lead in trying to help other less-developed countries contend with major humanitarian disasters and epidemics .
The request could also undercut claims by U.S. President Donald Trump , who has repeatedly insisted that the United States can handle demands for tests and medical equipment on its own , declining to fully implement the Defense Production Act to mandate that U.S. companies produce these products .
“ We have so many companies making so many products—every product that you mentioned , plus ventilators and everything else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use the act .
If I don ’ t have to use—specifically , we have the act to use , in case we need it .
But we have so many things being made right now by so many—they ’ ve just stepped up , ” Trump said at a press conference on March 21 .
China , meanwhile , is pushing to refurbish its image by sending its doctors and tens of thousands of medical kits abroad to the countries hit the hardest by the coronavirus , after botching the initial response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its spread across the globe .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
Trump ’ s third-ranking diplomat , David Hale , has asked all bureaus to report on what foreign countries would be able to sell “ critical medical supplies and equipment ” to the United States , according to an internal State Department email sent to officials at embassies across Europe and Eurasia on March 22 .
The email was obtained by Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the United States could seek to purchase many of these items in the hundreds of millions with purchases of higher end equipment such as ventilators in the hundreds of thousands , ” the email reads .
The email stresses that the request applies to host countries “ minus Moscow , ” indicating the United States will not call on Russia for support .
The email underscores the severity of the ballooning coronavirus health crisis for the United States , as U.S. officials brace for a worst-case scenario based on how the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries like China and Italy .
It sheds light on the State Department ’ s behind-the-scenes role in responding to the crisis even as it scrambles to evacuate U.S. citizens stranded amid a new wave of international travel restrictions .
Several diplomatic sources familiar with the matter say this new directive reflects a sharp reversal in traditional U.S. foreign-policy posture , as the State Department is now calling for help from countries including those the United States has delivered vital foreign assistance to for years .
The email comes from an official at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Eurasia , and Central Asia—an office that under normal circumstances coordinates delivering U.S. aid and assistance to countries in Europe and Eurasia , not the other way around .
The White House has sought to deflect criticism of its own sluggish response to the pandemic by highlighting the virus ’ s apparent origins in the Chinese city of Wuhan .
Trump and other top officials have taken to referring to the COVID-19 virus as the “ China virus ” or the “ Wuhan virus , ” dismissing criticism from the World Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after a specific country will stigmatize its inhabitants .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has emerged as a top critic of Beijing ’ s mishandling of the crisis , further inflaming tensions between the United States and China .
“ Early on we offered to have America ’ s finest experts travel there to assist them , to assist the World Health Organization .
We weren ’ t permitted in .
These are the kind of things that the Chinese Communist Party has done that have put the world and the world ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in an interview with Fox News earlier this month .
China , which appears to have tamed the virus domestically , has begun to send shipments of medical supplies and protective gear to countries hit by the pandemic , including Italy and Iran .
In the latest example , Beijing has sent planeloads of millions of masks and other medical supplies to the Czech Republic , according to ABC News .
Czech Interior Minister Jan Hamacek said China is “ the only country capable of supplying Europe with such amounts.
” Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eurasia appear focused on scrounging up sorely needed supplies for the United States wherever they can , as the email indicates .
“ The fact that many countries are managing a COVID 19 outbreak should not/not necessarily dissuade posts from approaching host country officials and , as appropriate , the private sector , on this matter as there have been instances where such countries have signaled a readiness to sell the U.S. surplus equipment and supplies , ” according to the email , sent to deputy chiefs of mission , political counselors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Eurasia .
The email encourages diplomats to weigh the requests against those countries ’ own local needs and their requests for support from the United States and other foreign countries .
It also encourages diplomats to obtain exceptions to U.S. export bans to expedite the delivery of medical supplies where possible .
“ Please also note any relevant restrictions or export bans , and if it is possible to obtain a potential exception or exemption , ” the email reads .
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States faces the prospect of a severe economic recession—with the Trump administration facing a grim trade-off between lifting health restrictions to help the economy and risking more lives or maintaining health restrictions and risking U.S. jobs .
The United Nations , meanwhile , is making an urgent appeal to governments around the world for its own donations to address the next wave of coronavirus infections that could spread across the developing world , including some of the world ’ s worst humanitarian crises and conflict zones .
Top U.S. health officials have warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States , hospitals and first responders are already facing a critical shortage of personal protective equipment needed to safely manage the pandemic .
The internal State Department email lists out the following series of supplies and medical equipment , indicating what diplomats should ask foreign countries if they can supply and shedding light on the specific shortages the United States could be facing : biohazard bags , N-95 masks , shrouds , gloves , gowns , elastomeric respirators , powered air-purifying respirators and visors , surgical-level masks , Tyvek clothing , ventilators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , protective eyewear , face shields , shoe covers , surgical caps , hand sanitizer , specimen transport bags , and sharps containers .

The U.S. State Department is instructing its top diplomats to press governments and businesses in Eastern Europe and Eurasia to ramp up exports and production of life-saving medical equipment and protective gear for the United States, part of a desperate diplomatic campaign to fill major shortcomings in the U.S. medical system amid a rising death toll from the new coronavirus.
The U.S. State Department is instructing its top diplomats to press governments and businesses in Eastern Europe and Eurasia to ramp up exports and production of life-saving medical equipment and protective gear for the United States, part of a desperate diplomatic campaign to fill major shortcomings in the U.S. medical system amid a rising death toll from the new coronavirus.
The appeal comes as European governments are themselves struggling to cope with one of the worst pandemics to spread around the globe since the 1918 Spanish flu. It represents a stark turnaround for the United States, which has traditionally taken the lead in trying to help other less-developed countries contend with major humanitarian disasters and epidemics.
The request could also undercut claims by U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly insisted that the United States can handle demands for tests and medical equipment on its own, declining to fully implement the Defense Production Act to mandate that U.S. companies produce these products. “We have so many companies making so many products—every product that you mentioned, plus ventilators and everything else. We have car companies—without having to use the act. If I don’t have to use—specifically, we have the act to use, in case we need it. But we have so many things being made right now by so many—they’ve just stepped up,” Trump said at a press conference on March 21.
China, meanwhile, is pushing to refurbish its image by sending its doctors and tens of thousands of medical kits abroad to the countries hit the hardest by the coronavirus, after botching the initial response to the virus, helping lead to its spread across the globe.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Trump’s third-ranking diplomat, David Hale, has asked all bureaus to report on what foreign countries would be able to sell “critical medical supplies and equipment” to the United States, according to an internal State Department email sent to officials at embassies across Europe and Eurasia on March 22. The email was obtained by Foreign Policy.
“Depending on critical needs, the United States could seek to purchase many of these items in the hundreds of millions with purchases of higher end equipment such as ventilators in the hundreds of thousands,” the email reads. The email stresses that the request applies to host countries “minus Moscow,” indicating the United States will not call on Russia for support.
The email underscores the severity of the ballooning coronavirus health crisis for the United States, as U.S. officials brace for a worst-case scenario based on how the pandemic has ravaged overburdened health care systems in countries like China and Italy. It sheds light on the State Department’s behind-the-scenes role in responding to the crisis even as it scrambles to evacuate U.S. citizens stranded amid a new wave of international travel restrictions.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
Several diplomatic sources familiar with the matter say this new directive reflects a sharp reversal in traditional U.S. foreign-policy posture, as the State Department is now calling for help from countries including those the United States has delivered vital foreign assistance to for years. The email comes from an official at the Office of U.S. Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia—an office that under normal circumstances coordinates delivering U.S. aid and assistance to countries in Europe and Eurasia, not the other way around.
The White House has sought to deflect criticism of its own sluggish response to the pandemic by highlighting the virus’s apparent origins in the Chinese city of Wuhan. Trump and other top officials have taken to referring to the COVID-19 virus as the “China virus” or the “Wuhan virus,” dismissing criticism from the World Health Organization and others that naming the virus after a specific country will stigmatize its inhabitants.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has emerged as a top critic of Beijing’s mishandling of the crisis, further inflaming tensions between the United States and China. “Early on we offered to have America’s finest experts travel there to assist them, to assist the World Health Organization. We weren’t permitted in. These are the kind of things that the Chinese Communist Party has done that have put the world and the world’s people at risk,” he said in an interview with Fox News earlier this month.
China, which appears to have tamed the virus domestically, has begun to send shipments of medical supplies and protective gear to countries hit by the pandemic, including Italy and Iran. In the latest example, Beijing has sent planeloads of millions of masks and other medical supplies to the Czech Republic, according to ABC News. Czech Interior Minister Jan Hamacek said China is “the only country capable of supplying Europe with such amounts.”
Meanwhile, diplomats at embassies in Europe and Eurasia appear focused on scrounging up sorely needed supplies for the United States wherever they can, as the email indicates.
“The fact that many countries are managing a COVID 19 outbreak should not/not necessarily dissuade posts from approaching host country officials and, as appropriate, the private sector, on this matter as there have been instances where such countries have signaled a readiness to sell the U.S. surplus equipment and supplies,” according to the email, sent to deputy chiefs of mission, political counselors, and economic counselors at embassies in Europe and Eurasia. The email encourages diplomats to weigh the requests against those countries’ own local needs and their requests for support from the United States and other foreign countries.
It also encourages diplomats to obtain exceptions to U.S. export bans to expedite the delivery of medical supplies where possible. “Please also note any relevant restrictions or export bans, and if it is possible to obtain a potential exception or exemption,” the email reads.
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.
The directive comes as the United States faces the prospect of a severe economic recession—with the Trump administration facing a grim trade-off between lifting health restrictions to help the economy and risking more lives or maintaining health restrictions and risking U.S. jobs.
The United Nations, meanwhile, is making an urgent appeal to governments around the world for its own donations to address the next wave of coronavirus infections that could spread across the developing world, including some of the world’s worst humanitarian crises and conflict zones.
Top U.S. health officials have warned that as the coronavirus spreads across the United States, hospitals and first responders are already facing a critical shortage of personal protective equipment needed to safely manage the pandemic.
The internal State Department email lists out the following series of supplies and medical equipment, indicating what diplomats should ask foreign countries if they can supply and shedding light on the specific shortages the United States could be facing: biohazard bags, N-95 masks, shrouds, gloves, gowns, elastomeric respirators, powered air-purifying respirators and visors, surgical-level masks, Tyvek clothing, ventilators, metered dose inhalers, swab kits, protective eyewear, face shields, shoe covers, surgical caps, hand sanitizer, specimen transport bags, and sharps containers.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-23--The Death of American Competence

The Death of American Competence

No matter how the federal government responded , the United States was never going to escape COVID-19 entirely .
Even Singapore , whose response to the virus seems to be the gold standard thus far , has several hundred confirmed cases .
Nonetheless , U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s administration ’ s belated , self-centered , haphazard , and tone-deaf response will end up costing Americans trillions of dollars and thousands of otherwise preventable deaths .
Even if the view that the dangers may have been exaggerated due to a lack of accurate data turns out to be correct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governing and the administration ’ s erratic response squandered public confidence and made a more measured reaction untenable .
Despite his denials , he is still responsible for where the country is today .
But that ’ s not the only damage the United States will suffer .
Far from making “ America great again , ” this epic policy failure will further tarnish the United States ’ reputation as a country that knows how to do things effectively .
For over a century , the United States ’ outsized influence around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first was the its awesome combination of economic and military strength .
The United States had the world ’ s largest and most sophisticated economy , the world ’ s best universities and research centers , and a territory blessed with bountiful natural resources .
These features eventually enabled the United States to create and maintain military forces that none of its rivals could match .
Taken together , these combined assets gave the United States the loudest voice on the planet .
The second pillar was support from an array of allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington wanted to do , and some states opposed almost everything the United States sought or stood for , but many countries understood that they benefited from U.S. leadership and were usually willing to go along with it .
Although the United States was almost always acting in its own self-interest , the fact that others had similar interests made it easier to persuade them to go along .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is broad confidence in U.S. competence .
When other countries recognize the United States ’ strength , support its aims and believe U.S. officials know what they are doing , they are more likely to follow the United States ’ lead .
If they doubt its power , its wisdom , or its ability to act effectively , U.S. global influence inevitably erodes .
This reaction is entirely understandable : If the United States ’ leaders reveal themselves to be incompetent bunglers , why should foreign powers listen to their advice ?
Having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can be a critical force multiplier .
The glowing reputation that Americans used to enjoy was built up over many decades .
It was partly a reflection of the United States ’ industrial might and world-class infrastructure : the network of highways , roads , railways , bridges , skyscrapers , dams , harbors , and airports that used to dazzle foreign visitors upon their arrival .
Victory in World War II , the creation of the Bretton Woods economic institutions , innovative acts such as the Marshall Plan , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States as a place where people knew how to set ambitious goals and bring them successfully to fruition .
Even blunders such as the Vietnam War did not fully tarnish the aura of competence that surrounded the United States .
Indeed , the peaceful and victorious end of the Cold War and the smashing U.S. victory in the 1990-1991 Gulf War exorcized the ghosts of Vietnam and made the United States ’ model of liberal democratic capitalism seem like the obvious model for others to emulate .
Add to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ computer , the smartphone , and all those fancy weapons—and one can understand why people around the world still looked upon the United States as a meritocratic , accomplished , and above all , competent country .
Small wonder pundits such as Tom Friedman began to portray the United States as the only viable model for an increasingly globalized world , telling aspiring countries that if they wanted to succeed , they had to don the “ Golden Straitjacket ” and become more like the United States .
Over the past 25 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done a remarkable job of squandering that invaluable reputation for responsible leadership and basic competence .
The list of transgressions is long : there is former President Bill Clinton ’ s irresponsible dalliance with a White House intern , former President George W. Bush ’ s administration ’ s failure to heed warnings of a terrorist attack before 9/11 , the Enron and Madoff scandals , the bungled responses to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Maria in 2017 , the inability to either win or end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yemen , Syria , and elsewhere , the Wall Street meltdown of 2008 , the Boeing 737 Max debacle , the Republican-led gridlock in Washington , and so on .
Nor should we forget the long-concealed criminal misdeeds of Harvey Weinstein ( and many others ) and the sordid tale of the very well-connected Jeffrey Epstein , whose conveniently timed demise in a New York jail may prevent us from ever knowing the full extent of his—and others ’ —misconduct .
And all the while the United States told itself it was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ablest officials , the best-run businesses , the most sophisticated financial firms , and the most virtuous leaders .
Instead , former Soviet Premier Nikolai Ryzhkov ’ s description of life in the Soviet Union may be a more accurate description of American life than Americans would like to admit : “ [ We ] stole from ourselves , took and gave bribes , lied in the reports , in newspapers , from high podiums , wallowed in our lies , hung medals on one another .
And all of this—from top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Then came COVID-19 .
Trump ’ s handling of the crisis has been an embarrassing debacle from the start—despite repeated warnings—but it was also utterly predictable .
His long business career has shown that he was more of a showman than a leader , better at conning people out of money and evading responsibility than at managing complex business operations .
His tawdry personal life offered equally clear warnings .
Since taking office , Trump has perfected the art of the lie , while gradually purging his administration of people with genuine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sycophants , and his unqualified son-in-law .
When suddenly faced with a complicated problem requiring grown-up leadership , it was inevitable that Trump would mishandle it and then deny responsibility .
It is a failure of character unparalleled in U.S. history , and it could not have come at a worse time .
The amazing thing is that anyone is even remotely surprised .
How did the United States get here ?
How did it squander its reputation for knowing what it is doing , and for being able to get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than anyone else ?
I ’ m not sure , but let me venture a few guesses .
Part of the problem is the hubris that comes from the United States ’ remarkably favorable history .
It has been by far the luckiest country in the modern world , and Americans started to assume that success was their birthright instead of something that needed to be earned , nurtured , and protected .
And with that complacency came a willingness to gamble on utterly untried leadership , despite all of the warning signs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m inclined to think , has been a broader relaxing of standards and a refusal to hold people accountable .
One can see this at many universities , where grade inflation is well entrenched , faculty have few incentives to judge poor work harshly , and more attention is paid to sports teams than to genuine academic achievement .
The recent college recruiting scandal exposed the lengths to which well-heeled parents would go to get their kids into colleges for which they weren ’ t qualified , but universities have acted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children ( “ legacies ” ) or for the offspring of major donors .
I ’ ve focused on higher education because that ’ s the business I know best , but this problem is hardly confined there .
In the contemporary United States , CEOs mismanage a company such as Boeing and then depart with multimillion-dollar golden parachutes .
Top officials in the George W. Bush administration and a chorus of outside cheerleaders deceive themselves and the country into a foolish war in the Middle East , yet hardly any of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street firms can crater the economy through a combination of greed , indifference , and fraud , and no one gets investigated , let alone prosecuted .
Highly decorated generals favor “ staying the course ” in distant battles , fail to achieve victory , and then retire to corporate boards and influential positions as respected pundits .
Meanwhile , whistleblowers and dedicated public servants strive to fulfill their oaths of office , only to be vilified , fired , or worse .
When integrity and dedication go unrewarded and failure carries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffer .
To speculate further , I suspect a broader cultural current of selfishness is at work here as well .
Former President John Kennedy was no saint , but he did devote his adult life to public service and told Americans to “ ask not what your country can do for you , ask what you can do for your country.
” By the time Ronald Reagan became president , however , Americans were being told that government was the enemy and ( to quote the film Wall Street ) that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything , public service was devalued , and taxes were for suckers .
Having spent decades hollowing out many of their public institutions , Americans suddenly find themselves unprepared for a real public .
The apotheosis of this trend is Trump himself : How could a serious country possibly choose as its leader a narcissistic , manifestly unqualified self-promoter with a long track record of failure and deceit ?
Am I overstating the case ?
Perhaps .
There are plenty of American firms that still do terrific and innovative work ; there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who remain more committed to searching for truth than to making a fast buck , and there are politicians and public servants at the local , state , and federal levels who are more interested in doing good than in getting reelected or feathering their own nests .
There are dedicated teachers and hard-working students at every level of the U.S. educational system .
But the rot is still widespread .
Absent a reversal of this trend , the United States ’ global influence will continue to recede .
Not because the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliberately chosen to disengage , but because people around the world will not take its ideas or advice as seriously as they once did .
They ’ ll listen , perhaps , and they may agree with it from time to time , but the deference U.S. leaders used to be able to count on will fade .
Once COVID-19 is over , Americans are likely to discover to their chagrin that other voices ( Beijing , anyone ? )
are receiving more respectful attention .
That ’ s not an omen of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different world than the one Americans have been accustomed to inhabiting .
At the margin , the broad contours of world politics and some important aspects of the world economy will no longer slant so heavily in the United States ’ favor .
Can this situation be fixed ?
I don ’ t know .
Cultural rot can not be fixed by legislation , executive orders , or even jeremiads like this one .
One may hope that the present crisis will remind enough Americans that having competent and reliable people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that holding people more accountable for corruption , cronyism , or sheer incompetence is essential to effective public policies .
Whether you favor a big welfare state or a small libertarian one , you should above all want it to be competently led and staffed with knowledgeable and dedicated experts .
Whoever the next president is , he needs to staff his administration with people who have demonstrated qualifications for the jobs they are assigned , instead of being chosen for their personal loyalty or their talents as sycophants .
Americans will need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rewards those who are most adept at selling themselves to the highest bidder .
And there has to be something seriously wrong with a political system that has devoted many months and spent billions of dollars preparing for the 2020 election and ends up giving the country a choice between three old white guys .
For that matter , Americans ought to rethink whether spending a full year electing someone to a four year term makes any sense at all .
No other advanced democracy does it this way .
And while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s scrap the absurd Electoral College , an indefensible relic that systematically disempowers voters in most of the country .
Looking forward , the possibility of fundamental political change is the only silver lining I can see right now .
America hasn ’ t faced a crisis like this since the 1930s and 1940s , and it was in a better position to meet those challenges then than it is today .
But a previous generation of Americans eventually rose to the occasion , and showed themselves and the world what their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans now to remember that experience , put the past few decades of hubris , division , and indulgence aside , and prove that their country is still competent enough to figure out what it needs to do .
And then they need to do it .

No matter how the federal government responded, the United States was never going to escape COVID-19 entirely. Even Singapore, whose response to the virus seems to be the gold standard thus far, has several hundred confirmed cases . Nonetheless, U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration’s belated, self-centered, haphazard, and tone-deaf response will end up costing Americans trillions of dollars and thousands of otherwise preventable deaths. Even if the view that the dangers may have been exaggerated due to a lack of accurate data turns out to be correct, Trump’s entire approach to governing and the administration’s erratic response squandered public confidence and made a more measured reaction untenable. Despite his denials, he is still responsible for where the country is today.
No matter how the federal government responded, the United States was never going to escape COVID-19 entirely. Even Singapore, whose response to the virus seems to be the gold standard thus far, has several hundred confirmed cases. Nonetheless, U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration’s belated, self-centered, haphazard, and tone-deaf response will end up costing Americans trillions of dollars and thousands of otherwise preventable deaths. Even if the view that the dangers may have been exaggerated due to a lack of accurate data turns out to be correct, Trump’s entire approach to governing and the administration’s erratic response squandered public confidence and made a more measured reaction untenable. Despite his denials, he is still responsible for where the country is today.
But that’s not the only damage the United States will suffer. Far from making “America great again,” this epic policy failure will further tarnish the United States’ reputation as a country that knows how to do things effectively.
For over a century, the United States’ outsized influence around the world rested on three pillars. The first was the its awesome combination of economic and military strength. The United States had the world’s largest and most sophisticated economy, the world’s best universities and research centers, and a territory blessed with bountiful natural resources. These features eventually enabled the United States to create and maintain military forces that none of its rivals could match. Taken together, these combined assets gave the United States the loudest voice on the planet.
The second pillar was support from an array of allies. No country every agreed with everything Washington wanted to do, and some states opposed almost everything the United States sought or stood for, but many countries understood that they benefited from U.S. leadership and were usually willing to go along with it. Although the United States was almost always acting in its own self-interest, the fact that others had similar interests made it easier to persuade them to go along.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
A third pillar, however, is broad confidence in U.S. competence. When other countries recognize the United States’ strength, support its aims and believe U.S. officials know what they are doing, they are more likely to follow the United States’ lead. If they doubt its power, its wisdom, or its ability to act effectively, U.S. global influence inevitably erodes. This reaction is entirely understandable: If the United States’ leaders reveal themselves to be incompetent bunglers, why should foreign powers listen to their advice? Having a reputation for competence, in short, can be a critical force multiplier.
The glowing reputation that Americans used to enjoy was built up over many decades. It was partly a reflection of the United States’ industrial might and world-class infrastructure: the network of highways, roads, railways, bridges, skyscrapers, dams, harbors, and airports that used to dazzle foreign visitors upon their arrival. Victory in World War II, the creation of the Bretton Woods economic institutions, innovative acts such as the Marshall Plan, and the successful moon landing all reinforced an image of the United States as a place where people knew how to set ambitious goals and bring them successfully to fruition.
Even blunders such as the Vietnam War did not fully tarnish the aura of competence that surrounded the United States. Indeed, the peaceful and victorious end of the Cold War and the smashing U.S. victory in the 1990-1991 Gulf War exorcized the ghosts of Vietnam and made the United States’ model of liberal democratic capitalism seem like the obvious model for others to emulate. Add to that a continued stream of technological innovations—the personal computer, the smartphone, and all those fancy weapons—and one can understand why people around the world still looked upon the United States as a meritocratic, accomplished, and above all, competent country. Small wonder pundits such as Tom Friedman began to portray the United States as the only viable model for an increasingly globalized world, telling aspiring countries that if they wanted to succeed, they had to don the “Golden Straitjacket” and become more like the United States.
Over the past 25 years, however, the United States has done a remarkable job of squandering that invaluable reputation for responsible leadership and basic competence. The list of transgressions is long: there is former President Bill Clinton’s irresponsible dalliance with a White House intern, former President George W. Bush’s administration’s failure to heed warnings of a terrorist attack before 9/11, the Enron and Madoff scandals, the bungled responses to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Maria in 2017, the inability to either win or end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the ill-advised interventions in Libya, Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere, the Wall Street meltdown of 2008, the Boeing 737 Max debacle, the Republican-led gridlock in Washington, and so on. Nor should we forget the long-concealed criminal misdeeds of Harvey Weinstein (and many others) and the sordid tale of the very well-connected Jeffrey Epstein, whose conveniently timed demise in a New York jail may prevent us from ever knowing the full extent of his—and others’—misconduct.
And all the while the United States told itself it was the greatest country in the world, with the ablest officials, the best-run businesses, the most sophisticated financial firms, and the most virtuous leaders. Instead, former Soviet Premier Nikolai Ryzhkov’s description of life in the Soviet Union may be a more accurate description of American life than Americans would like to admit: “[We] stole from ourselves, took and gave bribes, lied in the reports, in newspapers, from high podiums, wallowed in our lies, hung medals on one another. And all of this—from top to bottom and from bottom to top.”
Then came COVID-19. Trump’s handling of the crisis has been an embarrassing debacle from the start—despite repeated warnings—but it was also utterly predictable. His long business career has shown that he was more of a showman than a leader, better at conning people out of money and evading responsibility than at managing complex business operations. His tawdry personal life offered equally clear warnings. Since taking office, Trump has perfected the art of the lie, while gradually purging his administration of people with genuine expertise and relying instead on B-list hacks, sycophants, and his unqualified son-in-law. When suddenly faced with a complicated problem requiring grown-up leadership, it was inevitable that Trump would mishandle it and then deny responsibility. It is a failure of character unparalleled in U.S. history, and it could not have come at a worse time. The amazing thing is that anyone is even remotely surprised.
How did the United States get here? How did it squander its reputation for knowing what it is doing, and for being able to get the right things done as well or better than anyone else? I’m not sure, but let me venture a few guesses.
Part of the problem is the hubris that comes from the United States’ remarkably favorable history. It has been by far the luckiest country in the modern world, and Americans started to assume that success was their birthright instead of something that needed to be earned, nurtured, and protected. And with that complacency came a willingness to gamble on utterly untried leadership, despite all of the warning signs described above.
A related problem, I’m inclined to think, has been a broader relaxing of standards and a refusal to hold people accountable. One can see this at many universities, where grade inflation is well entrenched, faculty have few incentives to judge poor work harshly, and more attention is paid to sports teams than to genuine academic achievement. The recent college recruiting scandal exposed the lengths to which well-heeled parents would go to get their kids into colleges for which they weren’t qualified, but universities have acted similarly when they reserved slots of alumni children (“legacies”) or for the offspring of major donors.
I’ve focused on higher education because that’s the business I know best, but this problem is hardly confined there. In the contemporary United States, CEOs mismanage a company such as Boeing and then depart with multimillion-dollar golden parachutes. Top officials in the George W. Bush administration and a chorus of outside cheerleaders deceive themselves and the country into a foolish war in the Middle East, yet hardly any of them suffer adverse professional or personal consequences. Wall Street firms can crater the economy through a combination of greed, indifference, and fraud, and no one gets investigated, let alone prosecuted. Highly decorated generals favor “staying the course” in distant battles, fail to achieve victory, and then retire to corporate boards and influential positions as respected pundits. Meanwhile, whistleblowers and dedicated public servants strive to fulfill their oaths of office, only to be vilified, fired, or worse. When integrity and dedication go unrewarded and failure carries no penalty, competence is bound to suffer.
To speculate further, I suspect a broader cultural current of selfishness is at work here as well. Former President John Kennedy was no saint, but he did devote his adult life to public service and told Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” By the time Ronald Reagan became president, however, Americans were being told that government was the enemy and (to quote the film Wall Street) that “greed is good.” The market was everything, public service was devalued, and taxes were for suckers. Having spent decades hollowing out many of their public institutions, Americans suddenly find themselves unprepared for a real public crisis. The apotheosis of this trend is Trump himself: How could a serious country possibly choose as its leader a narcissistic, manifestly unqualified self-promoter with a long track record of failure and deceit?
Am I overstating the case? Perhaps. There are plenty of American firms that still do terrific and innovative work; there are tens of thousands of scientists and scholars who remain more committed to searching for truth than to making a fast buck, and there are politicians and public servants at the local, state, and federal levels who are more interested in doing good than in getting reelected or feathering their own nests. There are dedicated teachers and hard-working students at every level of the U.S. educational system. But the rot is still widespread.
Absent a reversal of this trend, the United States’ global influence will continue to recede. Not because the country has embraced “America First” and deliberately chosen to disengage, but because people around the world will not take its ideas or advice as seriously as they once did. They’ll listen, perhaps, and they may agree with it from time to time, but the deference U.S. leaders used to be able to count on will fade. Once COVID-19 is over, Americans are likely to discover to their chagrin that other voices (Beijing, anyone?) are receiving more respectful attention. That’s not an omen of imminent disaster, but it will be a different world than the one Americans have been accustomed to inhabiting. At the margin, the broad contours of world politics and some important aspects of the world economy will no longer slant so heavily in the United States’ favor.
Can this situation be fixed? I don’t know. Cultural rot cannot be fixed by legislation, executive orders, or even jeremiads like this one. One may hope that the present crisis will remind enough Americans that having competent and reliable people in key leadership positions really matters, and that holding people more accountable for corruption, cronyism, or sheer incompetence is essential to effective public policies. Whether you favor a big welfare state or a small libertarian one, you should above all want it to be competently led and staffed with knowledgeable and dedicated experts. Whoever the next president is, he needs to staff his administration with people who have demonstrated qualifications for the jobs they are assigned, instead of being chosen for their personal loyalty or their talents as sycophants.
Americans will need to rethink a political system that recruits and rewards those who are most adept at selling themselves to the highest bidder. And there has to be something seriously wrong with a political system that has devoted many months and spent billions of dollars preparing for the 2020 election and ends up giving the country a choice between three old white guys. For that matter, Americans ought to rethink whether spending a full year electing someone to a four year term makes any sense at all. No other advanced democracy does it this way. And while we’re at it, let’s scrap the absurd Electoral College, an indefensible relic that systematically disempowers voters in most of the country.
Looking forward, the possibility of fundamental political change is the only silver lining I can see right now. America hasn’t faced a crisis like this since the 1930s and 1940s, and it was in a better position to meet those challenges then than it is today. But a previous generation of Americans eventually rose to the occasion, and showed themselves and the world what their country could do. It is upon Americans now to remember that experience, put the past few decades of hubris, division, and indulgence aside, and prove that their country is still competent enough to figure out what it needs to do. And then they need to do it.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-23--Fed Fails to Stem Market Bloodbath as Congress Stumbles on Aid Package

Fed Fails to Stem Market Bloodbath as Congress Stumbles on Aid Package A series of dramatic measures by the U.S. Federal Reserve failed to prevent another sharp downturn in the financial markets on Monday as traders reckoned with an abrupt stoppage in economic activity from the fast-spreading coronavirus that has no precedent in U.S. history , not even during the Great Depression .
“ The descent from what was basically prosperity in 1929 to the depths of 1933 took four years to play out , ” said Lawrence White , an economist at New York University .
“ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including some Fed officials , are estimating that quarantine and health effects from the novel coronavirus are already dramatically shrinking the U.S. economy , which could contract by as much as 50 percent in the second quarter .
That figure comes from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard , who also said the U.S. unemployment rate could reach 30 percent in the same quarter , Bloomberg reported Sunday .
Most unnerving of all to the markets , perhaps , was that the rest of the federal government continued to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular , failed again to agree Monday afternoon on the contours of a $ 2 trillion rescue package , with Democrats saying the current bill would amount to a corporate bailout with too little accountability and not enough money for the jobless and health care workers .
Both sides engaged in shouting matches on the floor of the Senate , with Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declaring , to no avail , “ The country is out of time.
” [ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries around the world . ]
Uncertainty reigned on the health front as well , with new indications that the United States is suffering one of the fastest increases in coronavirus cases worldwide while critical medical equipment is badly lacking .
U.S. President Donald Trump , meanwhile , declined to take federal control of the production of more tests , masks , and other necessary items after invoking , but not fully implementing , the Defense Production Act last week .
Fears also arose that Trump , who has watched the stock market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he took office , is preparing to part ways with his health experts and try to reopen parts of the U.S. economy once the initial two-week quarantine period is ended , but before the virus is fully suppressed .
In a tweet on Sunday night , the president wrote in capital letters : “ WE CAN NOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF .
AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD , WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO !
” That idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Larry Kudlow , who told CNBC on Monday : “ At some point you have to ask yourself whether the shutdown is doing more harm than good.
” Earlier Monday , the U.S. Federal Reserve announced an open-ended plan to keep buying government debt and a first-ever plan to buy corporate debt to prevent large numbers of businesses from imploding .
The Fed ’ s latest steps are a recognition that the traditional tools it used to avert catastrophe during the last big downturn are not sufficient to deal with the unprecedented shutdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at once .
“ It says this is a real crisis , and the Fed is going to do whatever it takes , ” said Brad Setser , an expert on international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations .
But even the Fed ’ s latest moves , such as an effort to prop up the dangerously bloated corporate bond market , will do little to stem the broader damage as companies lay off workers by the hundreds of thousands ; some forecasters expect to see a tenfold jump in monthly jobless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In addition to expanding its traditional use of monetary stimulus , by pledging to keep buying U.S. Treasury bonds “ in the amounts needed , ” the Fed announced two new programs : a $ 300 billion financing plan and purchases of new and existing corporate bonds .
Previously , the Federal Reserve had steered clear of corporate debt—but the magnitude of the threat from the overextended corporate sector , plus the immediate economic pain from the pandemic-related shutdown , makes intervention necessary .
“ The significance of these programs is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under existing authorities , ” like the so-called 13 ( 3 ) provision , which allows it to have an impact on the broader economy by leveraging U.S. government cash to extend credit to businesses , Setser said .
“ You need a mechanism for businesses to survive a three- or six-month slowdown , ” he said , adding that he expects the initial $ 300 billion in new credit announced Monday and backstopped by the Treasury Department will be amped up in upcoming congressional legislation , which would offer more short-term relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is especially urgent because corporate debt is at an all-time high , fueled by years of very low interest rates , which encouraged companies to pile on ever more obligations .
The collapse of economic activity due first to the supply-side disruptions from the pandemic and later from the demand side as entire cities have gone into lockdown mode threatens to cut off cash flow for all kinds of businesses that need steady revenues to make their debt payments .
Many forecasters , such as Fitch Ratings , already flagged corporate debt as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , warning that any big economic shock could lead to a wave of downgrades , defaults , and cascading damage to the broader economy .
Since the scope of the pandemic has become clear this month , corporate bonds have nosedived .
Indices like the Standard & Poor ’ s Dow Jones bond indices showed a 12 percent decline in bonds of big companies , even nonfinancial firms , and especially in the energy sector , which has gone down by nearly one-quarter since the beginning of the month .
Many U.S. energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas business , are triply vulnerable right now .
Most of them gorged on debt to fund operations and push U.S. oil production to record levels , despite poor returns , and many have poor ratings ; they are suffering a historic decline in demand for oil as the global economy slams on the brakes ; and they are the collateral damage of an oil-price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia that has driven down the price of crude more than 50 percent in a matter of weeks .
While the energy sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate debt market , it reflects two important trends that have created such a dangerous situation—and that show why the Fed ’ s measures may be of only limited impact .
First , corporate borrowing since the 2008 financial crisis has been at record-setting levels .
Globally , nonfinancial corporate debt exploded from about $ 48 trillion in 2009 to $ 75 trillion at the end of last year .
In the United States , companies also binged on cheap money , accumulating a record $ 10 trillion corporate debt .
Much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacities , but for share buybacks to boost shareholder and executive compensation .
Second , the quality of that mountain of corporate debt is getting worse : About half of the “ investment-grade ” corporate debt in the United States and Europe is actually the lowest-possible rating in “ investment grade.
” That means a huge chunk of supposedly safe corporate debt is one downgrade away from essentially being junk—which many big institutional investors can not hold in their portfolios , which means they ’ ll be forced to unload .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon turn into one giant junk bond bazaar .
The Federal Reserve ’ s actions Monday include support for “ highly rated ” corporate bonds—but not all of them .
The companies most at risk of seeing cash flows seize up , defaulting on debt , and laying off workers are precisely those that weren ’ t highly rated or that resorted to high-interest leveraged loans .
That will likely limit the practical impact of the Fed ’ s measures in the corporate bond market .

A series of dramatic measures by the U.S. Federal Reserve failed to prevent another sharp downturn in the financial markets on Monday as traders reckoned with an abrupt stoppage in economic activity from the fast-spreading coronavirus that has no precedent in U.S. history, not even during the Great Depression.
A series of dramatic measures by the U.S. Federal Reserve failed to prevent another sharp downturn in the financial markets on Monday as traders reckoned with an abrupt stoppage in economic activity from the fast-spreading coronavirus that has no precedent in U.S. history, not even during the Great Depression.
“The descent from what was basically prosperity in 1929 to the depths of 1933 took four years to play out,” said Lawrence White, an economist at New York University. “This is a couple of weeks.”
Many economists, including some Fed officials, are estimating that quarantine and health effects from the novel coronavirus are already dramatically shrinking the U.S. economy, which could contract by as much as 50 percent in the second quarter. That figure comes from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard, who also said the U.S. unemployment rate could reach 30 percent in the same quarter, Bloomberg reported Sunday.
Most unnerving of all to the markets, perhaps, was that the rest of the federal government continued to squabble over an adequate response—Congress, in particular, failed again to agree Monday afternoon on the contours of a $2 trillion rescue package, with Democrats saying the current bill would amount to a corporate bailout with too little accountability and not enough money for the jobless and health care workers. Both sides engaged in shouting matches on the floor of the Senate, with Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declaring, to no avail, “The country is out of time.”
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Uncertainty reigned on the health front as well, with new indications that the United States is suffering one of the fastest increases in coronavirus cases worldwide while critical medical equipment is badly lacking. U.S. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, declined to take federal control of the production of more tests, masks, and other necessary items after invoking, but not fully implementing, the Defense Production Act last week.
Fears also arose that Trump, who has watched the stock market suddenly evaporate to levels lower than when he took office, is preparing to part ways with his health experts and try to reopen parts of the U.S. economy once the initial two-week quarantine period is ended, but before the virus is fully suppressed.
In a tweet on Sunday night, the president wrote in capital letters: “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!” That idea was echoed by National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, who told CNBC on Monday: “At some point you have to ask yourself whether the shutdown is doing more harm than good.”
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
Earlier Monday, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced an open-ended plan to keep buying government debt and a first-ever plan to buy corporate debt to prevent large numbers of businesses from imploding. The Fed’s latest steps are a recognition that the traditional tools it used to avert catastrophe during the last big downturn are not sufficient to deal with the unprecedented shutdown of huge swaths of the economy all at once.
“It says this is a real crisis, and the Fed is going to do whatever it takes,” said Brad Setser, an expert on international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.
But even the Fed’s latest moves, such as an effort to prop up the dangerously bloated corporate bond market, will do little to stem the broader damage as companies lay off workers by the hundreds of thousands; some forecasters expect to see a tenfold jump in monthly jobless claims, to more than 2 million.
In addition to expanding its traditional use of monetary stimulus, by pledging to keep buying U.S. Treasury bonds “in the amounts needed,” the Fed announced two new programs: a $300 billion financing plan and purchases of new and existing corporate bonds. Previously, the Federal Reserve had steered clear of corporate debt—but the magnitude of the threat from the overextended corporate sector, plus the immediate economic pain from the pandemic-related shutdown, makes intervention necessary.
“The significance of these programs is that it shows what the Fed can do under existing authorities,” like the so-called 13(3) provision, which allows it to have an impact on the broader economy by leveraging U.S. government cash to extend credit to businesses, Setser said.
“You need a mechanism for businesses to survive a three- or six-month slowdown,” he said, adding that he expects the initial $300 billion in new credit announced Monday and backstopped by the Treasury Department will be amped up in upcoming congressional legislation, which would offer more short-term relief to cash-strapped firms.
The cash crunch is especially urgent because corporate debt is at an all-time high, fueled by years of very low interest rates, which encouraged companies to pile on ever more obligations. The collapse of economic activity due first to the supply-side disruptions from the pandemic and later from the demand side as entire cities have gone into lockdown mode threatens to cut off cash flow for all kinds of businesses that need steady revenues to make their debt payments. Many forecasters, such as Fitch Ratings, already flagged corporate debt as a ticking time bomb late last year, warning that any big economic shock could lead to a wave of downgrades, defaults, and cascading damage to the broader economy.
Since the scope of the pandemic has become clear this month, corporate bonds have nosedived. Indices like the Standard & Poor’s Dow Jones bond indices showed a 12 percent decline in bonds of big companies, even nonfinancial firms, and especially in the energy sector, which has gone down by nearly one-quarter since the beginning of the month. Many U.S. energy firms, especially in the oil and gas business, are triply vulnerable right now. Most of them gorged on debt to fund operations and push U.S. oil production to record levels, despite poor returns, and many have poor ratings; they are suffering a historic decline in demand for oil as the global economy slams on the brakes; and they are the collateral damage of an oil-price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia that has driven down the price of crude more than 50 percent in a matter of weeks.
While the energy sector makes up a tiny slice of the corporate debt market, it reflects two important trends that have created such a dangerous situation—and that show why the Fed’s measures may be of only limited impact. First, corporate borrowing since the 2008 financial crisis has been at record-setting levels. Globally, nonfinancial corporate debt exploded from about $48 trillion in 2009 to $75 trillion at the end of last year. In the United States, companies also binged on cheap money, accumulating a record $10 trillion corporate debt. Much of that was used not to expand productive capacities, but for share buybacks to boost shareholder and executive compensation.
Second, the quality of that mountain of corporate debt is getting worse: About half of the “investment-grade” corporate debt in the United States and Europe is actually the lowest-possible rating in “investment grade.” That means a huge chunk of supposedly safe corporate debt is one downgrade away from essentially being junk—which many big institutional investors cannot hold in their portfolios, which means they’ll be forced to unload. In other words, the corporate debt market could soon turn into one giant junk bond bazaar.
The Federal Reserve’s actions Monday include support for “highly rated” corporate bonds—but not all of them. The companies most at risk of seeing cash flows seize up, defaulting on debt, and laying off workers are precisely those that weren’t highly rated or that resorted to high-interest leveraged loans. That will likely limit the practical impact of the Fed’s measures in the corporate bond market.