foreignpolicy--2020-07-29--Pope Francis’s Silence on Xinjiang Speaks Volumes

This month , the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote a most courageous letter to the Chinese ambassador in London .
In the letter , Marie van der Zyl took an extraordinary step for the leader of Britain ’ s main Jewish organization—she drew comparisons between the plight of the Uighurs in China today and the Holocaust .
Nobody could see the evidence and fail to note , she wrote , “ the similarities between what is alleged to be happening in the People ’ s Republic of China today and what happened in Nazi Germany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loaded on to trains ; beards of religious men being trimmed ; women being sterilised ; and the grim spectre of concentration camps.
” Van der Zyl is just one of many faith leaders to speak out against the atrocities being committed in Xinjiang .
But one voice has been strangely absent—that of Pope Francis , ordinarily a powerful advocate for the oppressed .
His silence speaks to the dangers of the deal made with China by the Vatican—and demands that others in the church speak out .
Before van der Zyl ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Jewish News to highlight the discovery of 13 metric tons of Uighur hair—with “ Nazi resonance ” —on the front page of the newspaper .
The letter was followed by a Twitter thread by the widely respected former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks , who wrote : “ As a Jew , knowing our history , the sight of people being shaven headed , lined up , boarded onto trains , and sent to concentration camps is particularly harrowing .
That people in the 21st century are being murdered , terrorised , victimised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of the way they worship God is a moral outrage , a political scandal and a desecration of faith itself.
” Around the same time , Maajid Nawaz , a prominent Muslim counterextremism activist , went on hunger strike for the Uighurs .
Nawaz , a former radical Islamist who now devotes his time to fighting intolerance of all kinds courageously and successfully , promoted a petition for a parliamentary debate on imposing Magnitsky-style sanctions on the Chinese regime for its treatment of the Uighurs .
And last Saturday , the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conferences , the outspoken Cardinal Charles Bo of Myanmar , released a statement mostly about Turkey ’ s Hagia Sophia mosque—but which included : “ In China , the Uyghur Muslims are facing what amounts to some of the contemporary world ’ s worst mass atrocities and I urge the international community to investigate.
” Yet so far , the world has heard nothing from the world ’ s major Muslim and Christian leaders .
Muslim-majority countries have , mostly , sided with China—shamefully and in pursuit of narrow and elusive economic interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Welby , has said nothing .
Neither has Francis .
It is Francis ’ s silence that shocks me most .
Almost every Sunday , as he prays the Angelus , he rightly references some injustice somewhere in the world .
He has spoken often in the past not only of the persecution of Christians around the world but of the plight of the Rohingyas in Myanmar ; the conflicts in Syria , Yemen , Ukraine , and Nigeria ; and religious freedom for all .
One country—and one country alone—is noticeable by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : China .
In China today , we see one of the 21st century ’ s worst crimes—perhaps a genocide—being perpetrated against the Uighurs .
But in addition , we see the most flagrant violation of an international agreement in China ’ s imposition of the new national security law on Hong Kong—a law that destroys Hong Kong ’ s freedoms and autonomy .
We also see the worst crackdown on Christians since the Cultural Revolution , while the repression in Tibet continues .
Yet in the face of all of these crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not uttered a public prayer ( I hope he has at least said a private one ) for the Uighurs , Hong Kongers , Christians , Falun Gong practitioners , Tibetans , and others who are increasingly feeling the pressure of the Chinese Communist Party ’ s boot—at all .
Two years ago , the Vatican made a deal with Beijing that bought the pope ’ s silence .
When I say “ bought , ” I am not suggesting impropriety .
I love this pope and his focus on mercy and forgiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write as a Catholic who converted seven years ago and came into the church in , of all places , Myanmar—I agree with Francis .
So I write not as a hard-line conservative hostile to Francis but rather as someone who loves him but is perplexed by how badly wrong he has gone on China .
One of the most troubling aspects of the Vatican-Beijing deal is that the text remains secret .
If it is such a good arrangement in the eyes of the Holy See , why can ’ t ordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says ?
What we do know is that it gives the Chinese Communist Party—an avowedly atheist regime—a direct role in the appointment of Catholic bishops and that it has already led to the forced retirement of several underground bishops loyal to the Vatican in favor of state-approved bishops until recently out of communion with the church .
And it has not led to any improvement in freedoms for Catholics .
If anything , the situation has worsened .
No clergy imprisoned before the deal have been released , and several have been arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal was agreed .
Far from bringing the desired unity or protection for the church , it has caused greater division and more repression .
But that deal had the effect of silencing Francis , for whatever reason , and it breaks my heart .
As the last British governor of Hong Kong , Chris Patten , wrote in the Tablet recently , it seems that the Vatican “ may be cosying up to a Chinese Communist Party at the worst conceivable moment , just as it is embarking on a loutish rampage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out early on , two years before the deal with Beijing was signed , in an open letter .
I tried to warn the Holy See again of the dangers it may be entering into .
And while never questioning the pope ’ s motivations—which are noble and are about protecting people in China and renewing his fellow Jesuit Matteo Ricci ’ s engagement with the country—I profoundly question the judgment of those around him .
Out of naivety , Francis ’ s Vatican has sold out to one of the world ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is the story so far .
But it need not be the end of the tale .
It is not inevitable that the wonderful Board of Deputies of British Jews , Britain ’ s former chief rabbi , Nawaz , a few of my friends , and I stand with the Uighurs in the face of one of the contemporary world ’ s worst atrocities and that Francis and Welby do not .
Welby ’ s silence is difficult to explain—other than , like Francis , a naive belief that China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can still engage and reason .
The reality is that the regime has moved from a pragmatic desire to exercise certain controls over religion to one driven by a repressive , ideological urge to tighten its grip .
That was clearly signaled by the abolition of the State Administration for Religious Affairs in 2018 , which had working relationships with most faiths .
Those relationships are now handled , much more crudely and brutally , by the United Front Work Department , which is directly responsible for ideological control of non-party groups .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ two key Christian leaders wake up , review their position , cross the Rubicon , and say enough is enough .
They need to signal clearly that they believe in the teachings of their faith—of human dignity , freedom , and justice—which matter more than any shady deals with brutal regimes .
They need to abandon naivety .
They need to say they won ’ t compromise when it comes to human life and dignity .
And they need to recognize that Dietrich Bonhoeffer , the Protestant pastor who stood up against Adolf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Silence in the face of evil is itself evil .
… Not to speak is to speak .
Not to act is to act.
” They need to respect the memory of Maximilian Kolbe , venerated as a saint for giving his life for another ’ s at the gas chambers of Auschwitz .
They need to say clearly : We are all Uighurs , Hong Kongers , Chinese Christians , Tibetans , and Falun Gong practitioners now .
Let Francis and Welby say so .

This month, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote a most courageous letter to the Chinese ambassador in London.
This month, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote a most courageous letter to the Chinese ambassador in London.
In the letter, Marie van der Zyl took an extraordinary step for the leader of Britain’s main Jewish organization—she drew comparisons between the plight of the Uighurs in China today and the Holocaust. Nobody could see the evidence and fail to note, she wrote, “the similarities between what is alleged to be happening in the People’s Republic of China today and what happened in Nazi Germany 75 years ago: People being forcibly loaded on to trains; beards of religious men being trimmed; women being sterilised; and the grim spectre of concentration camps.”
Van der Zyl is just one of many faith leaders to speak out against the atrocities being committed in Xinjiang. But one voice has been strangely absent—that of Pope Francis, ordinarily a powerful advocate for the oppressed. His silence speaks to the dangers of the deal made with China by the Vatican—and demands that others in the church speak out.
Before van der Zyl’s letter, there was the decision by Jewish News to highlight the discovery of 13 metric tons of Uighur hair—with “Nazi resonance”—on the front page of the newspaper.
The letter was followed by a Twitter thread by the widely respected former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who wrote: “As a Jew, knowing our history, the sight of people being shaven headed, lined up, boarded onto trains, and sent to concentration camps is particularly harrowing. That people in the 21st century are being murdered, terrorised, victimised, intimidated and robbed of their liberties because of the way they worship God is a moral outrage, a political scandal and a desecration of faith itself.”
Around the same time, Maajid Nawaz, a prominent Muslim counterextremism activist, went on hunger strike for the Uighurs. Nawaz, a former radical Islamist who now devotes his time to fighting intolerance of all kinds courageously and successfully, promoted a petition for a parliamentary debate on imposing Magnitsky-style sanctions on the Chinese regime for its treatment of the Uighurs.
And last Saturday, the president of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, the outspoken Cardinal Charles Bo of Myanmar, released a statement mostly about Turkey’s Hagia Sophia mosque—but which included: “In China, the Uyghur Muslims are facing what amounts to some of the contemporary world’s worst mass atrocities and I urge the international community to investigate.”
Yet so far, the world has heard nothing from the world’s major Muslim and Christian leaders. Muslim-majority countries have, mostly, sided with China—shamefully and in pursuit of narrow and elusive economic interests. The archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has said nothing. Neither has Francis.
It is Francis’s silence that shocks me most. Almost every Sunday, as he prays the Angelus, he rightly references some injustice somewhere in the world. He has spoken often in the past not only of the persecution of Christians around the world but of the plight of the Rohingyas in Myanmar; the conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, and Nigeria; and religious freedom for all.
One country—and one country alone—is noticeable by its absence in his prayers and statements: China.
In China today, we see one of the 21st century’s worst crimes—perhaps a genocide—being perpetrated against the Uighurs. But in addition, we see the most flagrant violation of an international agreement in China’s imposition of the new national security law on Hong Kong—a law that destroys Hong Kong’s freedoms and autonomy. We also see the worst crackdown on Christians since the Cultural Revolution, while the repression in Tibet continues.
Yet in the face of all of these crimes, Francis remains silent. He has not uttered a public prayer (I hope he has at least said a private one) for the Uighurs, Hong Kongers, Christians, Falun Gong practitioners, Tibetans, and others who are increasingly feeling the pressure of the Chinese Communist Party’s boot—at all.
Why?
Two years ago, the Vatican made a deal with Beijing that bought the pope’s silence. When I say “bought,” I am not suggesting impropriety. I love this pope and his focus on mercy and forgiveness. On almost every other matter—and I write as a Catholic who converted seven years ago and came into the church in, of all places, Myanmar—I agree with Francis. So I write not as a hard-line conservative hostile to Francis but rather as someone who loves him but is perplexed by how badly wrong he has gone on China.
One of the most troubling aspects of the Vatican-Beijing deal is that the text remains secret. If it is such a good arrangement in the eyes of the Holy See, why can’t ordinary Catholics—and the world at large—know what it says? What we do know is that it gives the Chinese Communist Party—an avowedly atheist regime—a direct role in the appointment of Catholic bishops and that it has already led to the forced retirement of several underground bishops loyal to the Vatican in favor of state-approved bishops until recently out of communion with the church.
And it has not led to any improvement in freedoms for Catholics. If anything, the situation has worsened. No clergy imprisoned before the deal have been released, and several have been arrested, detained, and disappeared since the deal was agreed. Far from bringing the desired unity or protection for the church, it has caused greater division and more repression.
But that deal had the effect of silencing Francis, for whatever reason, and it breaks my heart. As the last British governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, wrote in the Tablet recently, it seems that the Vatican “may be cosying up to a Chinese Communist Party at the worst conceivable moment, just as it is embarking on a loutish rampage in China and beyond.”
I spoke out early on, two years before the deal with Beijing was signed, in an open letter. I tried to warn the Holy See again of the dangers it may be entering into. And while never questioning the pope’s motivations—which are noble and are about protecting people in China and renewing his fellow Jesuit Matteo Ricci’s engagement with the country—I profoundly question the judgment of those around him. Out of naivety, Francis’s Vatican has sold out to one of the world’s most repressive and aggressive regimes.
That is the story so far. But it need not be the end of the tale.
It is not inevitable that the wonderful Board of Deputies of British Jews, Britain’s former chief rabbi, Nawaz, a few of my friends, and I stand with the Uighurs in the face of one of the contemporary world’s worst atrocities and that Francis and Welby do not. Welby’s silence is difficult to explain—other than, like Francis, a naive belief that China’s is a regime with which one can still engage and reason. The reality is that the regime has moved from a pragmatic desire to exercise certain controls over religion to one driven by a repressive, ideological urge to tighten its grip. That was clearly signaled by the abolition of the State Administration for Religious Affairs in 2018, which had working relationships with most faiths. Those relationships are now handled, much more crudely and brutally, by the United Front Work Department, which is directly responsible for ideological control of non-party groups.
So it is now time that these two key Christian leaders wake up, review their position, cross the Rubicon, and say enough is enough.
They need to signal clearly that they believe in the teachings of their faith—of human dignity, freedom, and justice—which matter more than any shady deals with brutal regimes.
They need to abandon naivety. They need to say they won’t compromise when it comes to human life and dignity.
And they need to recognize that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Protestant pastor who stood up against Adolf Hitler, was right when he said: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. … Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
They need to respect the memory of Maximilian Kolbe, venerated as a saint for giving his life for another’s at the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
They need to say clearly: We are all Uighurs, Hong Kongers, Chinese Christians, Tibetans, and Falun Gong practitioners now.
Let Francis and Welby say so.
Or forever lose their—and our—peace.


foreignpolicy--2020-07-29--Does Guyana Foretell an American Future?

A country has reached a constitutional crisis .
The validity of its national election is in dispute .
The party in power is almost entirely supported by native-born people with centuries-long heritage in the country .
Official results point to their defeat at the polls by an opposition party predominated by people of immigrant origin .
However , the chief executive refuses to concede .
Instead , he accuses the opposition of stuffing ballot boxes and fraudulent voting in several electoral districts .
He orders the election commission to re-count the votes and , when the initial result is confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer invalidates hundreds of thousands of ballots .
The incumbent declares his reelection .
You could be forgiven for projecting onto this scenario your worst fears about President Donald Trump and the U.S. elections in November .
Numerous pundits have played out this scenario already in the press .
But this is not the United States—at least not yet .
It is the small South American nation of Guyana .
After five years in government , President David Granger and his coalition that largely represents African-origin people is reluctant to return power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly losing the March 2020 election .
During this standoff , Guyana ’ s parliament has not met .
The government is effectively paralyzed .
Guyana ’ s government is effectively paralyzed.Guyana is one of the world ’ s very few so-called majority-minority states—a country in which the dominant ethnic group becomes outnumbered by one or more minority ethnic constituencies .
A British colony beginning in 1814 , it once featured an African-origin majority descended from its plantation slaves .
When slavery was abolished in parts of the British Empire in 1835 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and elsewhere as a new source of forced labor .
About 75 years later , these “ East Indians ” outnumbered the Afro-Guyanese and , by the time independence was achieved in 1966 , the country ’ s political parties were drawn on ethnic lines .
Today , Granger ’ s People ’ s National Congress remains predominantly backed by people of African descent , while the opposition People ’ s Progressive Party remains predominantly backed by people of Indian descent .
Over the years , the racialization of the country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existential because the party in government is expected to funnel government resources to its ethnic constituency rather than develop programs and initiatives that transcend racial lines .
This fight over resources will only intensify now that oil has been found off Guyana ’ s Atlantic coastline and state coffers are set to swell .
I have spent much of the last four years studying the politics of demographic change in multiple majority-minority societies that could represent alternative American futures .
While some subgroups have found a way to coexist , many endure severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracies I ’ ve studied , the racialization of political parties emerges as among the most ominous developments for social harmony and political stability .
In the United States today , political parties and their most ardent supporters feel a sense of urgency similar to those in Guyana .
The country ’ s polarization has paralleled its ethnic diversification .
As more people of Latin and Asian origins have integrated and voted in American elections , the Republican Party ’ s base has grown more xenophobic and nativist—driving people of ethnic minority backgrounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Democrats have responded with similar identity-based solidarity .
While Democrats remain diverse in their composition , politicians regularly appeal to specific ethnic , racial , and religious subgroups to frame policy matters and mobilize more tribal , partisan allegiance .
In the 2016 presidential campaign , Trump leveraged these partisan differences and the latent discomfort of many white moderates with the diversification of the United States to win , hinging the Republican Party ’ s future on identity politics .
His White House has governed with racist innuendo and justified new policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s well-being .
The risk of such identity politics is that , as in Guyana , the parties become proxies for race .
Already , non-white ethnicity is a strong predictor of Democratic support .
And white people , unless they have an advanced university degree and live in a city , are likely Republicans.The risk of identity politics is that parties become proxies for race .
As Guyana demonstrates , when partisanship is so racialized , it augurs trouble for democracy .
It allows personal identities to distort and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It undercuts people ’ s capacity to empathize with their fellow countrymen .
It devotes citizens to their tribe rather than to their country ’ s institutions , making them less willing to lose and more willing to break rules to win .
In Guyana , Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield has published a report claiming that hundreds of people who were dead or had emigrated were recorded as having voted and that some ballot boxes were stuffed with votes for the main opposition party .
However , last month the Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee each issued formal statements dismissing the report as nakedly biased and urging Granger to concede and peacefully transfer power .
This month , the U.S. imposed sanctions .
Leading a country of 780,000 people heavily subject to outsized neighbors and global trends , Granger is unlikely to withstand the international pressure .
However , the same can not be said of Trump and the United States .
How can the United States avoid following in the footsteps of Guyana ’ s 2020 election ?
Should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election rigging without clear evidence , Americans must come together to protect their institutions , not themselves .
They must alter their lenses to see their countrymen as their most important tribe .
Republicans in particular , because of their influence on Trump , must place the fate of their democracy over the fate of their political candidate .
This reorientation may take decades to develop .
In the short term , Republican ( and Democratic ) candidates down the ballot should each be asked to pledge that they have inspected their state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results , win or lose .
For their part , the bipartisan appointees and nonpartisan bureaucrats who manage these institutions should certify their transparency and integrity , take action to protect against anticipated disputes , and prepare procedures to resolve them swiftly .
These institutions should also remove the need for partisan election monitors by instilling faith in their process .
If all this is done , Republicans in safe seats will feel be pressured to certify the systems that will likely reelect them , and cast doubt on other Republicans who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s baseless accusations of fraud , intervention , and suppression .
It will isolate the president when the results are ultimately returned and undercut any retrospective allegations .
It is also important for Democrats to facilitate greater American unity in the face of division .
Republicans will be less motivated to dispute the election results if they know they will be treated fairly by a Democratic leadership who reassures that they will govern for all .
Democrats who vilify their opponents and their followers complicate future politics for short-term and slim electoral gain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House ’ s struggle to contain the COVID-19 pandemic , Trump has used Black Lives Matter protests to fan racial tensions in the United States yet again .
But whether one feels inspired to fight for racial justice or defend a perceived assault on American heritage , partisan polarization along the lines of ethnicity is ultimately a scourge for democracy .
Just as we are each individually more than our race , American political decisions must be the product of a holistic concern for all of the United States , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a unifying idea .
American political decisions must be the product of a holistic concern for all of the United States.When Al Gore conceded the disputed 2000 presidential election , he harked back to an earlier day in American history .
Invoking Sen. Stephen Douglas , who had just lost the 1860 election to Abraham Lincoln , he said , “ Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism .
I ’ m with you , Mr. President , and God bless you.
” Gore urged his voters to “ put aside ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagreement with the Supreme Court verdict , Gore said that he would accept its finality “ for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy.
” The politics of the last four years have turned Americans against each other .
An election deciding the next four years should be understood as one that continues the democratic traditions of the last 250 years , and those politics should bring its citizens together .

A country has reached a constitutional crisis. The validity of its national election is in dispute. The party in power is almost entirely supported by native-born people with centuries-long heritage in the country. Official results point to their defeat at the polls by an opposition party predominated by people of immigrant origin.
A country has reached a constitutional crisis. The validity of its national election is in dispute. The party in power is almost entirely supported by native-born people with centuries-long heritage in the country. Official results point to their defeat at the polls by an opposition party predominated by people of immigrant origin.
However, the chief executive refuses to concede. Instead, he accuses the opposition of stuffing ballot boxes and fraudulent voting in several electoral districts. He orders the election commission to re-count the votes and, when the initial result is confirmed, the government’s top elections officer invalidates hundreds of thousands of ballots. The incumbent declares his reelection.
You could be forgiven for projecting onto this scenario your worst fears about President Donald Trump and the U.S. elections in November. Numerous pundits have played out this scenario already in the press. But this is not the United States—at least not yet. It is the small South American nation of Guyana.
After five years in government, President David Granger and his coalition that largely represents African-origin people is reluctant to return power to the predominantly Indian-origin opposition party, despite clearly losing the March 2020 election. During this standoff, Guyana’s parliament has not met. The government is effectively paralyzed.
Guyana’s government is effectively paralyzed.Guyana is one of the world’s very few so-called majority-minority states—a country in which the dominant ethnic group becomes outnumbered by one or more minority ethnic constituencies. A British colony beginning in 1814, it once featured an African-origin majority descended from its plantation slaves. When slavery was abolished in parts of the British Empire in 1835, the British imported indentured servants from India and elsewhere as a new source of forced labor. About 75 years later, these “East Indians” outnumbered the Afro-Guyanese and, by the time independence was achieved in 1966, the country’s political parties were drawn on ethnic lines. Today, Granger’s People’s National Congress remains predominantly backed by people of African descent, while the opposition People’s Progressive Party remains predominantly backed by people of Indian descent.
Over the years, the racialization of the country’s parties has led each election to feel existential because the party in government is expected to funnel government resources to its ethnic constituency rather than develop programs and initiatives that transcend racial lines. This fight over resources will only intensify now that oil has been found off Guyana’s Atlantic coastline and state coffers are set to swell.
I have spent much of the last four years studying the politics of demographic change in multiple majority-minority societies that could represent alternative American futures. While some subgroups have found a way to coexist, many endure severe and irresolvable division. Among the multi-ethnic democracies I’ve studied, the racialization of political parties emerges as among the most ominous developments for social harmony and political stability.
In the United States today, political parties and their most ardent supporters feel a sense of urgency similar to those in Guyana. The country’s polarization has paralleled its ethnic diversification. As more people of Latin and Asian origins have integrated and voted in American elections, the Republican Party’s base has grown more xenophobic and nativist—driving people of ethnic minority backgrounds out of its membership rolls. Meanwhile, Democrats have responded with similar identity-based solidarity. While Democrats remain diverse in their composition, politicians regularly appeal to specific ethnic, racial, and religious subgroups to frame policy matters and mobilize more tribal, partisan allegiance.
In the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump leveraged these partisan differences and the latent discomfort of many white moderates with the diversification of the United States to win, hinging the Republican Party’s future on identity politics. His White House has governed with racist innuendo and justified new policies that further his reelection ambitions rather than the country’s well-being.
The risk of such identity politics is that, as in Guyana, the parties become proxies for race. Already, non-white ethnicity is a strong predictor of Democratic support. And white people, unless they have an advanced university degree and live in a city, are likely Republicans.The risk of identity politics is that parties become proxies for race.
As Guyana demonstrates, when partisanship is so racialized, it augurs trouble for democracy. It allows personal identities to distort and narrow a conception of “the people.” It undercuts people’s capacity to empathize with their fellow countrymen. It devotes citizens to their tribe rather than to their country’s institutions, making them less willing to lose and more willing to break rules to win.
In Guyana, Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield has published a report claiming that hundreds of people who were dead or had emigrated were recorded as having voted and that some ballot boxes were stuffed with votes for the main opposition party. However, last month the Organization of American States, the Caribbean Committee, and the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee each issued formal statements dismissing the report as nakedly biased and urging Granger to concede and peacefully transfer power. This month, the U.S. imposed sanctions.
Leading a country of 780,000 people heavily subject to outsized neighbors and global trends, Granger is unlikely to withstand the international pressure. However, the same cannot be said of Trump and the United States.
How can the United States avoid following in the footsteps of Guyana’s 2020 election?
Should Trump lose in November and point to election rigging without clear evidence, Americans must come together to protect their institutions, not themselves. They must alter their lenses to see their countrymen as their most important tribe. Republicans in particular, because of their influence on Trump, must place the fate of their democracy over the fate of their political candidate.
This reorientation may take decades to develop. In the short term, Republican (and Democratic) candidates down the ballot should each be asked to pledge that they have inspected their state’s electoral institutions and will respect the results, win or lose. For their part, the bipartisan appointees and nonpartisan bureaucrats who manage these institutions should certify their transparency and integrity, take action to protect against anticipated disputes, and prepare procedures to resolve them swiftly. These institutions should also remove the need for partisan election monitors by instilling faith in their process.
If all this is done, Republicans in safe seats will feel be pressured to certify the systems that will likely reelect them, and cast doubt on other Republicans who may be tempted to echo Trump’s baseless accusations of fraud, intervention, and suppression. It will isolate the president when the results are ultimately returned and undercut any retrospective allegations.
It is also important for Democrats to facilitate greater American unity in the face of division. Republicans will be less motivated to dispute the election results if they know they will be treated fairly by a Democratic leadership who reassures that they will govern for all. Democrats who vilify their opponents and their followers complicate future politics for short-term and slim electoral gain.
Attempting to shift attention away from the White House’s struggle to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump has used Black Lives Matter protests to fan racial tensions in the United States yet again. But whether one feels inspired to fight for racial justice or defend a perceived assault on American heritage, partisan polarization along the lines of ethnicity is ultimately a scourge for democracy. Just as we are each individually more than our race, American political decisions must be the product of a holistic concern for all of the United States, as a nation, as an institution, as a unifying idea.
American political decisions must be the product of a holistic concern for all of the United States.When Al Gore conceded the disputed 2000 presidential election, he harked back to an earlier day in American history. Invoking Sen. Stephen Douglas, who had just lost the 1860 election to Abraham Lincoln, he said, “Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.” Gore urged his voters to “put aside” the “partisan rancor.” Despite his vehement disagreement with the Supreme Court verdict, Gore said that he would accept its finality “for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy.”
The politics of the last four years have turned Americans against each other. An election deciding the next four years should be understood as one that continues the democratic traditions of the last 250 years, and those politics should bring its citizens together.


foreignpolicy--2020-07-29--Trump’s Flip-Flops on China Are a Danger to National Security

Trump ’ s Flip-Flops on China Are a Danger to National Security With deaths and infection rates from the pandemic surging and the U.S economy suffering , President Donald Trump and his administration seem to have come up with an alternative plan for the reelection campaign : a call to arms against China .
Only five months ago , Trump was praising his Chinese counterpart and “ very , very good friend ” , Xi Jinping , for his “ hard work ” and “ transparency ” on the coronavirus outbreak , hailing a supposedly “ momentous ” phase-one trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be “ the best it ’ s been in a long , long time.
” Now , instead of flattering China ’ s leadership , Trump has pivoted to a policy of trying to remove it .
The administration has begun to portray China as an implacable and determined “ totalitarian ” enemy whose goal is to destroy the American way of life and impose a Marxist-Leninist ideology on the world—a threat from which only a second Trump term can save us .
The administration rolled out its new strategy last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , culminating in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s July 23 address at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library .
Pompeo declared that 50 years of engaging China had failed , denounced Xi as a “ true believer in a bankrupt , totalitarian ideology , ” and warned Americans that “ Communist China is already within our borders.
” Ominously , Pompeo insisted that “ we must induce China to change ” —or else “ Communist China will surely change us.
” Whether heating up the rhetoric against China succeeds as an election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in light of the administration ’ s overwhelming record of internal divisions , inconsistency , and policy failure toward China over the past three and a half years .
But the threat is real , and leaders of both parties have sounded the alarm at the actions of an increasingly assertive China that tries to use its growing economic clout to bully weaker states , regularly breaks international rules to further its own agenda , and represses dissent at home .
Whatever the electoral consequences , however , what is certain is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dangerous to U.S. national security .
Pursuing regime change in China without realistic prospects for achieving it will do nothing to moderate China ’ s behavior at home or abroad—while worsening bilateral tensions , increasing the risk of outright conflict , and making already serious problems even harder to resolve .
Trump and his administration seem to have come up with an alternative plan for the reelection campaign : a call to arms against China .
Pompeo ’ s core premise is that past U.S. administrations pursued “ blind engagement ” with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country would liberalize and cooperate with the West .
It is true that abandoning Cold War confrontation in favor of a more constructive relationship in the early 1970s did not lead to domestic political reform as some optimists had hoped .
But as the China scholar Alistair Iain Johnston recently demonstrated , the presidents who engaged with China , including Nixon , Bill Clinton , George W. Bush , and Barack Obama , were not hopeless romantics .
They did not engage China primarily to promote human rights or to democratize the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests .
Nor did they hesitate to challenge China when U.S. interests were threatened—from the Clinton administration ’ s deployment of aircraft carriers off Taiwan to the Bush administration ’ s sanctions on Chinese banks for supporting North Korea ’ s nuclear missile program to Obama ’ s freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea .
It was a nuanced , bipartisan China strategy that paid off in many ways .
In the two decades prior to the opening with China , it fought against the United States in the Korean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and missile proliferation , supported “ liberation ” movements in the so-called Third World , and closed its markets to U.S. goods .
The establishment of diplomatic relations hardly made it an ally of the United States or erased the profound differences between the two counties , but the benefits of not having China as an enemy have now endured for so long that they are largely taken for granted .
If Pompeo ’ s rhetorical assault stokes the fire of Chinese nationalism and leads to unrestrained military and political competition , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engagement will once again become apparent .
Even in economic terms , Pompeo ’ s suggestion that the American people have nothing to show for 50 years of engagement with China is , like so many of the Trump administration ’ s claims , at odds with the facts .
It is certainly true that China has tried to exploit the benefits of open trade without always reciprocating , and U.S. leaders should have done more to push back and to help defend American companies and workers hurt by China ’ s actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China has been a one-way street overlooks the benefits that two generations of Americans have reaped from importing affordable consumer goods , low-cost inputs for high-end manufacturing exports , and growing U.S. export surpluses in services and agricultural products .
China has been among the fastest-growing destinations for U.S. exports anywhere in the world for more than two decades , sustaining hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs .
According to a study by Moody ’ s Analytics , Trump ’ s trade war with China has already cost the United States an estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 600 per household from higher prices ; the idea that U.S. consumers or exporters would benefit from cutting off trade with China even further is deeply misguided .
The response to problematic Chinese trade practices is to join forces with U.S. allies in Asia and Europe to address them , not to pursue a failed tariff war or the fantasy of “ decoupling ” the two economies in ways that would hurt American workers , farmers , and consumers .
Pompeo ’ s suggestion that the American people have nothing to show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , like so many of the administration ’ s claims , at odds with the facts .
The administration is on more solid ground when it emphasizes that the United States can ’ t face the China challenge alone and should work more closely with fellow democracies to counter China ’ s practices .
But that argument rings hollow from an administration that has spent the past three and a half years weakening U.S. alliances by extorting Japan and South Korea to pay more for U.S. troop deployments , unilaterally canceling military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies as “ worse than China , ” questioning NATO defense guarantees , and imposing tariffs on trade with allies and partners in Europe , Asia , and North America alike .
Pompeo ’ s statement that China has been “ alienating potential allies [ and ] breaking trust at home and abroad ” might have been more accurately leveled at the administration in which he serves .
Nor is the Trump administration well placed to make the case against the Chinese government ’ s serious human rights abuses in Xinjiang or Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downplayed human rights around the world and was willing to remain silent on Hong Kong in the hopes of getting a trade deal .
Trump will not easily rally the “ free world ” to stand up to China ’ s “ tyranny , ” to use Pompeo ’ s language , when he is simultaneously cozying up to dictators abroad and undermining democracy at home .
Engaging and honoring Chinese dissidents , as Pompeo has done , is admirable , but it is unlikely to win many Chinese hearts and minds if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students out of U.S. schools , preventing Chinese citizens from visiting the United States , terminating student exchange programs , and blaming China for the administration ’ s own manifest failures to take even the most elementary steps to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 , which Trump calls “ the China plague.
” In portraying China ’ s leadership as Leninist ideologues working against the interests and desires of the Chinese people , Pompeo no doubt sought to align the Trump administration with former President Ronald Reagan ’ s spirited challenge to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while the United States and the world would clearly be better off with a different kind of leadership in Beijing , the real question is how best to bring that about—and how best to pursue U.S. interests in the meantime .
The rising China of 2020 is not the declining Soviet Union of 1986 .
And notwithstanding their deep differences , the United States and China share common interests , including dealing with pandemic disease , climate change , and sustaining global economic growth .
There is no small irony in Pompeo criticizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could change China through openness and trade while suggesting somehow that change will be brought about by harsh rhetoric and isolation—an approach that has not exactly succeeded for Trump in Iran , Venezuela , or Cuba .
Trump and Pompeo may hope that bellicose assaults on China will distract from the administration ’ s woeful handling of the pandemic .
Americans need to be clear-eyed about the challenge from Beijing .
China is run by an authoritarian government that threatens its neighbors and does not respect widely accepted values of human rights and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand up for its values and call out Beijing for its indefensible human rights violations and trade practices .
But Americans should also have more confidence in their own ability to resist Chinese propaganda and outcompete Beijing .
Rebuilding the United States ’ domestic strength and unity—and leveraging rather than alienating democratic allies—would be a more effective approach than wishful thinking that rhetorical assaults from top U.S. officials will magically transform the Chinese regime .
Trump and Pompeo may hope that bellicose assaults on China will distract from the administration ’ s woeful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans to vote for an administration that promises to take on Beijing .
Whether that can swing the election in Trump ’ s favor is doubtful .
What ’ s certain is that Cold War-style confrontation risks exacerbating the very problem Trump and Pompeo claim to be so determined to solve .

With deaths and infection rates from the pandemic surging and the U.S economy suffering, President Donald Trump and his administration seem to have come up with an alternative plan for the reelection campaign: a call to arms against China. Only five months ago, Trump was praising his Chinese counterpart and “very, very good friend”, Xi Jinping, for his “hard work” and “transparency” on the coronavirus outbreak, hailing a supposedly “ momentous ” phase-one trade deal, and declaring the U.S.-Chinese relationship to be “ the best it’s been in a long, long time .”
With deaths and infection rates from the pandemic surging and the U.S economy suffering, President Donald Trump and his administration seem to have come up with an alternative plan for the reelection campaign: a call to arms against China. Only five months ago, Trump was praising his Chinese counterpart and “very, very good friend”, Xi Jinping, for his “hard work” and “transparency” on the coronavirus outbreak, hailing a supposedly “momentous” phase-one trade deal, and declaring the U.S.-Chinese relationship to be “the best it’s been in a long, long time.”
Now, instead of flattering China’s leadership, Trump has pivoted to a policy of trying to remove it. The administration has begun to portray China as an implacable and determined “totalitarian” enemy whose goal is to destroy the American way of life and impose a Marxist-Leninist ideology on the world—a threat from which only a second Trump term can save us. The administration rolled out its new strategy last week in a series of increasingly inflammatory speeches, culminating in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s July 23 address at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library. Pompeo declared that 50 years of engaging China had failed, denounced Xi as a “true believer in a bankrupt, totalitarian ideology,” and warned Americans that “Communist China is already within our borders.” Ominously, Pompeo insisted that “we must induce China to change”—or else “Communist China will surely change us.”
Whether heating up the rhetoric against China succeeds as an election strategy remains to be seen, especially in light of the administration’s overwhelming record of internal divisions, inconsistency, and policy failure toward China over the past three and a half years. But the threat is real, and leaders of both parties have sounded the alarm at the actions of an increasingly assertive China that tries to use its growing economic clout to bully weaker states, regularly breaks international rules to further its own agenda, and represses dissent at home. Whatever the electoral consequences, however, what is certain is that the new rhetoric and prescriptions are counterproductive and dangerous to U.S. national security. Pursuing regime change in China without realistic prospects for achieving it will do nothing to moderate China’s behavior at home or abroad—while worsening bilateral tensions, increasing the risk of outright conflict, and making already serious problems even harder to resolve.
Trump and his administration seem to have come up with an alternative plan for the reelection campaign: a call to arms against China.
Pompeo’s core premise is that past U.S. administrations pursued “blind engagement” with China in the naive hope that the country would liberalize and cooperate with the West. It is true that abandoning Cold War confrontation in favor of a more constructive relationship in the early 1970s did not lead to domestic political reform as some optimists had hoped. But as the China scholar Alistair Iain Johnston recently demonstrated, the presidents who engaged with China, including Nixon, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, were not hopeless romantics. They did not engage China primarily to promote human rights or to democratize the Chinese but to promote U.S. economic and security interests. Nor did they hesitate to challenge China when U.S. interests were threatened—from the Clinton administration’s deployment of aircraft carriers off Taiwan to the Bush administration’s sanctions on Chinese banks for supporting North Korea’s nuclear missile program to Obama’s freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea.
It was a nuanced, bipartisan China strategy that paid off in many ways. In the two decades prior to the opening with China, it fought against the United States in the Korean War and Vietnam War, abetted nuclear and missile proliferation, supported “liberation” movements in the so-called Third World, and closed its markets to U.S. goods. The establishment of diplomatic relations hardly made it an ally of the United States or erased the profound differences between the two counties, but the benefits of not having China as an enemy have now endured for so long that they are largely taken for granted. If Pompeo’s rhetorical assault stokes the fire of Chinese nationalism and leads to unrestrained military and political competition, as looks increasingly likely, the benefits of engagement will once again become apparent.
Even in economic terms, Pompeo’s suggestion that the American people have nothing to show for 50 years of engagement with China is, like so many of the Trump administration’s claims, at odds with the facts. It is certainly true that China has tried to exploit the benefits of open trade without always reciprocating, and U.S. leaders should have done more to push back and to help defend American companies and workers hurt by China’s actions. But the notion that trade with China has been a one-way street overlooks the benefits that two generations of Americans have reaped from importing affordable consumer goods, low-cost inputs for high-end manufacturing exports, and growing U.S. export surpluses in services and agricultural products. China has been among the fastest-growing destinations for U.S. exports anywhere in the world for more than two decades, sustaining hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. According to a study by Moody’s Analytics, Trump’s trade war with China has already cost the United States an estimated 300,000 jobs and an average of around $600 per household from higher prices; the idea that U.S. consumers or exporters would benefit from cutting off trade with China even further is deeply misguided. The response to problematic Chinese trade practices is to join forces with U.S. allies in Asia and Europe to address them, not to pursue a failed tariff war or the fantasy of “decoupling” the two economies in ways that would hurt American workers, farmers, and consumers.
Pompeo’s suggestion that the American people have nothing to show for 50 years of engagement with China is, like so many of the administration’s claims, at odds with the facts.
The administration is on more solid ground when it emphasizes that the United States can’t face the China challenge alone and should work more closely with fellow democracies to counter China’s practices. But that argument rings hollow from an administration that has spent the past three and a half years weakening U.S. alliances by extorting Japan and South Korea to pay more for U.S. troop deployments, unilaterally canceling military exercises with South Korea, berating European allies as “worse than China,” questioning NATO defense guarantees, and imposing tariffs on trade with allies and partners in Europe, Asia, and North America alike. Pompeo’s statement that China has been “alienating potential allies [and] breaking trust at home and abroad” might have been more accurately leveled at the administration in which he serves.
Nor is the Trump administration well placed to make the case against the Chinese government’s serious human rights abuses in Xinjiang or Hong Kong when Trump himself has so egregiously downplayed human rights around the world and was willing to remain silent on Hong Kong in the hopes of getting a trade deal. Trump will not easily rally the “free world” to stand up to China’s “tyranny,” to use Pompeo’s language, when he is simultaneously cozying up to dictators abroad and undermining democracy at home. Engaging and honoring Chinese dissidents, as Pompeo has done, is admirable, but it is unlikely to win many Chinese hearts and minds if the administration is simultaneously indiscriminately kicking Chinese students out of U.S. schools, preventing Chinese citizens from visiting the United States, terminating student exchange programs, and blaming China for the administration’s own manifest failures to take even the most elementary steps to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, which Trump calls “the China plague.”
In portraying China’s leadership as Leninist ideologues working against the interests and desires of the Chinese people, Pompeo no doubt sought to align the Trump administration with former President Ronald Reagan’s spirited challenge to the Soviet Union in the 1980s. But while the United States and the world would clearly be better off with a different kind of leadership in Beijing, the real question is how best to bring that about—and how best to pursue U.S. interests in the meantime. The rising China of 2020 is not the declining Soviet Union of 1986. And notwithstanding their deep differences, the United States and China share common interests, including dealing with pandemic disease, climate change, and sustaining global economic growth. There is no small irony in Pompeo criticizing past administrations for the fantasy that they could change China through openness and trade while suggesting somehow that change will be brought about by harsh rhetoric and isolation—an approach that has not exactly succeeded for Trump in Iran, Venezuela, or Cuba.
Trump and Pompeo may hope that bellicose assaults on China will distract from the administration’s woeful handling of the pandemic.
Americans need to be clear-eyed about the challenge from Beijing. China is run by an authoritarian government that threatens its neighbors and does not respect widely accepted values of human rights and self-determination. Washington should not hesitate to stand up for its values and call out Beijing for its indefensible human rights violations and trade practices. But Americans should also have more confidence in their own ability to resist Chinese propaganda and outcompete Beijing. Rebuilding the United States’ domestic strength and unity—and leveraging rather than alienating democratic allies—would be a more effective approach than wishful thinking that rhetorical assaults from top U.S. officials will magically transform the Chinese regime.
Trump and Pompeo may hope that bellicose assaults on China will distract from the administration’s woeful handling of the pandemic or inspire fearful Americans to vote for an administration that promises to take on Beijing. Whether that can swing the election in Trump’s favor is doubtful. What’s certain is that Cold War-style confrontation risks exacerbating the very problem Trump and Pompeo claim to be so determined to solve.


foreignpolicy--2020-07-30--When It Comes to China, Americans Think Like Trump

When It Comes to China , Americans Think Like Trump Large majorities of the U.S. public , both Democrats and Republicans , align with the Trump administration ’ s dismal view of China , giving the embattled president a potential appealing drum to bang in an increasingly uphill reelection campaign , according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center .
According to the survey , 73 percent of Americans hold an unfavorable view of China , up from 47 percent just two years ago .
The main complaints echo President Donald Trump ’ s : the nature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic .
Some 64 percent surveyed felt that China had done a bad job handling the pandemic , and 78 percent believe the Chinese government deserves at least some blame for the global spread of the virus .
While Republicans are more likely to hold a negative view of China on most issues than Democrats , U.S.-China economic ties particularly concern Democrats .
Meanwhile , more than two-thirds of respondents said U.S.-China economic relations were in bad shape .
While Republicans are more likely to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues than Democrats , U.S.-China economic ties particularly concern Democrats , with 73 percent saying relations are bad—10 percentage points more than Republicans—which could offer Trump a lifeline in must-win Rust Belt states hit hard by years of Chinese economic depredation and the ongoing trade war .
This poll comes as Trump and his administration have taken an increasingly hawkish stance on China .
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo capped a quartet of tough administration speeches last Thursday by slamming the Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) , accusing it of having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling on “ the freedom-loving nations of the world [ to ] induce China to change.
” While giving testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee , Pompeo called the CCP “ the central threat of our times.
” The two countries have also ramped up their diplomatic quarrel , with Pompeo slamming China ’ s maritime pretensions in the South China Sea and both states closing each other ’ s consulates .
The Trump administration has been of two minds about China from the start , with many hawks inside the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decoupling of the world ’ s biggest economic relationship .
Trump , meanwhile , coddled Chinese President Xi Jinping , held off criticizing Chinese actions in Hong Kong and Xinjiang , and touted his mini trade deal with China this year as an economic panacea .
( Spoiler : It wasn ’ t . )
But the new survey suggests that American public attitudes toward China have hardened for good , which indicates that the Trump administration ’ s aggressive approach could become the new norm , burying nearly 50 years of engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s famous visit to Beijing in 1972 .
( And the feeling is mutual : A poll released by the Eurasia Group Foundation in April found that only 39 percent of the Chinese public held a favorable view of the United States . )
Americans are still largely divided over the best way forward .
That could hem in any effort by a future Joe Biden administration to chart a more moderate course toward China—if there remains any desire by a Democratic president to return to a less confrontational stance .
One caveat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a slim , but shrinking , majority for building a stronger economic relationship , which could give the next administration leeway to back off the Trump administration ’ s harshest measures .
But Americans are still largely divided over the best way forward .
Fifty-one percent still believe it is more important to build a stronger relationship with China , but 46 percent feel that the get-tough approach will be more effective .
Despite that discrepancy , the number of those who favor a more aggressive stance has risen sharply since 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics of engagement is necessarily in the cards .
“ Trump is defining the 2020 electoral agenda in other ways .
He has ramped up his isolationist and Sinophobic rhetoric … and accused his rival of being soft on Beijing , ” Foreign Policy ’ s Michael Hirsh wrote this month .
“ As he is doing with the culture war , Trump is forcing Biden to respond to his lead , rather than merely reacting to his challenger ’ s attacks .
”

Large majorities of the U.S. public, both Democrats and Republicans, align with the Trump administration’s dismal view of China, giving the embattled president a potential appealing drum to bang in an increasingly uphill reelection campaign, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center.
Large majorities of the U.S. public, both Democrats and Republicans, align with the Trump administration’s dismal view of China, giving the embattled president a potential appealing drum to bang in an increasingly uphill reelection campaign, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center.
According to the survey, 73 percent of Americans hold an unfavorable view of China, up from 47 percent just two years ago. The main complaints echo President Donald Trump’s: the nature of the two countries’ economic relationship and China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
Some 64 percent surveyed felt that China had done a bad job handling the pandemic, and 78 percent believe the Chinese government deserves at least some blame for the global spread of the virus. While Republicans are more likely to hold a negative view of China on most issues than Democrats, U.S.-China economic ties particularly concern Democrats.
Meanwhile, more than two-thirds of respondents said U.S.-China economic relations were in bad shape. While Republicans are more likely to hold a negative view of China on most issues than Democrats, U.S.-China economic ties particularly concern Democrats, with 73 percent saying relations are bad—10 percentage points more than Republicans—which could offer Trump a lifeline in must-win Rust Belt states hit hard by years of Chinese economic depredation and the ongoing trade war.
This poll comes as Trump and his administration have taken an increasingly hawkish stance on China. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo capped a quartet of tough administration speeches last Thursday by slamming the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), accusing it of having designs on “global hegemony” and calling on “the freedom-loving nations of the world [to] induce China to change.” While giving testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Pompeo called the CCP “the central threat of our times.”
The two countries have also ramped up their diplomatic quarrel, with Pompeo slamming China’s maritime pretensions in the South China Sea and both states closing each other’s consulates.
The Trump administration has been of two minds about China from the start, with many hawks inside the administration seeking a confrontational approach and an outright decoupling of the world’s biggest economic relationship. Trump, meanwhile, coddled Chinese President Xi Jinping, held off criticizing Chinese actions in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, and touted his mini trade deal with China this year as an economic panacea. (Spoiler: It wasn’t.)
But the new survey suggests that American public attitudes toward China have hardened for good, which indicates that the Trump administration’s aggressive approach could become the new norm, burying nearly 50 years of engagement kicked off with President Richard Nixon’s famous visit to Beijing in 1972. (And the feeling is mutual: A poll released by the Eurasia Group Foundation in April found that only 39 percent of the Chinese public held a favorable view of the United States.)Americans are still largely divided over the best way forward.
That could hem in any effort by a future Joe Biden administration to chart a more moderate course toward China—if there remains any desire by a Democratic president to return to a less confrontational stance. One caveat: According to Pew, there is a slim, but shrinking, majority for building a stronger economic relationship, which could give the next administration leeway to back off the Trump administration’s harshest measures.
But Americans are still largely divided over the best way forward. Fifty-one percent still believe it is more important to build a stronger relationship with China, but 46 percent feel that the get-tough approach will be more effective. Despite that discrepancy, the number of those who favor a more aggressive stance has risen sharply since 2019.
Not that a return to the old politics of engagement is necessarily in the cards. “Trump is defining the 2020 electoral agenda in other ways. He has ramped up his isolationist and Sinophobic rhetoric … and accused his rival of being soft on Beijing,” Foreign Policy’s Michael Hirsh wrote this month. “As he is doing with the culture war, Trump is forcing Biden to respond to his lead, rather than merely reacting to his challenger’s attacks.”


foreignpolicy--2020-07-30--As Pandemic Rages, the United States Slashes an Economic Lifeline

As Pandemic Rages , the United States Slashes an Economic Lifeline U.S. GDP plummeted by 32.9 percent in the second quarter of this year , but disposable personal incomes were up by 42.1 percent .
That is thanks to an unprecedented level of government spending to keep the economy afloat .
Since the coronavirus pandemic triggered mass layoffs and furloughs and shuttered businesses in March , the U.S. federal government has provided an extra $ 600 per week in unemployment insurance benefits—money used to pay rent , buy food , and keep up consumer spending .
Four months later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the growing number of COVID-19 cases in the South and West forces businesses to close down .
Every country has faced grim economic side effects from lockdown , but the attempted solutions vary widely .
Some are relying on direct grants to citizens , some on compensating businesses , and some simply on muddling through the chaos .
Many have been more successful than the United States .
And as COVID-19 cases surge after weeks of phased reopenings around the country , the United States now appears to be on the cusp of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s failed response to the pandemic .
The U.S. Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program expires Friday , with many people already receiving their last weekly check .
Despite the increase in unemployment claims , in their new coronavirus relief package Senate Republicans proposed cutting the weekly federal benefits from $ 600 to $ 200 as states implement changes to their own unemployment benefits .
But the state implementation will take the states two months to complete , leaving millions of people without aid in that time .
Under the Republican proposal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only an extra $ 200 weekly until states put into place a new plan to replace 70 percent of lost income for unemployed people—or around $ 300 per week on aggregate , according to Gregory Daco , the chief U.S. economist for Oxford Economics .
“ But that ’ s a significant hit on the U.S. economy in the second half of the year … and for a lot of people , a loss of 30 percent of their current income streams , ” Daco said .
More than 31 million Americans would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s if the state-level compensation plan is implemented within two months .
Even in an emergency , the U.S. unemployment system depends on weak state-level capacity .
Many states have out-of-date or neglected unemployment systems , and the normal income replacement rate varies greatly by state .
Some state unemployment agencies already haven ’ t been able to keep up with claims : As a result , while the $ 600 benefits expire on July 31 , thousands of people haven ’ t even received the money they were due for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued retroactively .
“ We finally got this system working , ” said Mike Konczal , the director of progressive thought at the Roosevelt Institute in Washington .
“ The $ 600 is not an economic problem .
It ’ s not causing unemployment .
The pandemic is causing unemployment .
… The worst thing you can do is come up with a brand-new system [ so ] that the states have to start from scratch.
” From the beginning , European countries took a contrasting approach to the economic crisis fueled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economies including Denmark , Germany , Ireland , France , the Netherlands , and the United Kingdom subsidized companies to keep their workers on the payroll and in some cases provided more generous direct support to businesses .
These programs have received collective support from the European Union level , with a focus on providing for less wealthy states .
After days of negotiations , EU leaders last week agreed to an unprecedented $ 857 billion economic stimulus package , with much of the money raised by collective bond sales and given out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member countries that have suffered the most from the pandemic .
With the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic behind it , parts of Europe appear poised for a quicker economic recovery than the United States—at least for now .
In Germany , the preexisting Kurzarbeit program allowed companies to keep workers on at reduced hours , with around 60 to 70 percent of their wages subsidized by the state—a scheme that was adapted by other governments amid the pandemic , including France .
“ That is very different from the U.S. approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have access to unemployment benefits but are no longer considered as employees , ” Daco said .
Germany ’ s unemployment rate reached 6.2 percent in June , compared with 11.1 percent in the United States .
Data released this week showed that German business expectations had reached a 20-month high , with businesses seemingly confident that the EU fiscal plan would fuel an economic recovery later this year .
But the outlook varies across Europe .
The partial-work support programs in Germany and France are more likely to preserve jobs than those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictive frameworks for eligibility , according to an Oxford Economics report released in May .
Under the British government ’ s program , as many as 9.5 million jobs have been furloughed since March , with the state paying 80 percent of wages to avoid layoffs .
The furlough scheme is not comprehensive : It is tied to traditional employer-employee relationships , leaving out self-employed workers and contractors , prompting legal challenges .
And as the economy slowly recovers , the government plans to phase out subsidized furloughs by the end of October—a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week warned could lead to 1.2 million lost jobs by the end of the year .
“ There ’ s going to be a lot of debate over the next few years about which was the better option , ” Konczal said , adding that the percentage of people in the U.K. on payroll support was comparable to the percentage in the United States receiving unemployment compensation .
“ Both are receiving their paychecks through the government to not work.
” In China , where the coronavirus originated , the economic impact is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in large numbers still requires permission from the Chinese government .
From the first acknowledgement of the crisis in Wuhan just before the annual Spring Festival holiday , the central government made it mandatory to keep paying workers even if they couldn ’ t return to the workplace .
A $ 500 billion stimulus package aims to help businesses shoulder those costs , and , with the coronavirus now all but extinct inside China ’ s borders , to cope with the global economic downturn .
Welfare payments , a key source of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , were also increased , especially in Wuhan .
While the official unemployment figures barely budged , other indicators show a huge rise in joblessness , particularly for marginal workers without formal employment contracts .
Many families have been forced to exhaust their savings as a result , echoing problems in other countries , such as India , where the informal economy makes up a large share of the GDP .
Countries that , like the United States , have failed to control the coronavirus are facing tough choices .
Since April , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an additional $ 115 monthly to microbusinesses and those working in the informal sector , with single mothers receiving $ 230 .
A study published on Tuesday found that the level of Brazilians living in extreme poverty fell to 3.3 percent in June—the lowest level in decades .
But August marks the last scheduled payment as part of the scheme , which has cost the government more than $ 32 billion .
Brazil has recorded over 2.5 million COVID-19 cases—second only to the United States .
The ongoing health crisis in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the economy over the next few months .
Rather than cutting compensation , economists say , the new U.S. stimulus package should include new compensatory measures for those out of work to sustain the economy in the long term .
“ The unemployment insurance worked , ” Konczal said .
“ It showed us that our government has the capacity to ensure people ’ s economic security through deep depression and global health crisis in a way that should surprise us .
”

U.S. GDP plummeted by 32.9 percent in the second quarter of this year, but disposable personal incomes were up by 42.1 percent. That is thanks to an unprecedented level of government spending to keep the economy afloat. Since the coronavirus pandemic triggered mass layoffs and furloughs and shuttered businesses in March, the U.S. federal government has provided an extra $600 per week in unemployment insurance benefits—money used to pay rent, buy food, and keep up consumer spending. Four months later, new unemployment claims are rising again as the growing number of COVID-19 cases in the South and West forces businesses to close down.
U.S. GDP plummeted by 32.9 percent in the second quarter of this year, but disposable personal incomes were up by 42.1 percent. That is thanks to an unprecedented level of government spending to keep the economy afloat. Since the coronavirus pandemic triggered mass layoffs and furloughs and shuttered businesses in March, the U.S. federal government has provided an extra $600 per week in unemployment insurance benefits—money used to pay rent, buy food, and keep up consumer spending. Four months later, new unemployment claims are rising again as the growing number of COVID-19 cases in the South and West forces businesses to close down.
Every country has faced grim economic side effects from lockdown, but the attempted solutions vary widely. Some are relying on direct grants to citizens, some on compensating businesses, and some simply on muddling through the chaos. Many have been more successful than the United States. And as COVID-19 cases surge after weeks of phased reopenings around the country, the United States now appears to be on the cusp of another economic downturn caused by the government’s failed response to the pandemic.
The U.S. Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program expires Friday, with many people already receiving their last weekly check. Despite the increase in unemployment claims, in their new coronavirus relief package Senate Republicans proposed cutting the weekly federal benefits from $600 to $200 as states implement changes to their own unemployment benefits. But the state implementation will take the states two months to complete, leaving millions of people without aid in that time.
Under the Republican proposal, people who claimed unemployment benefits would receive only an extra $200 weekly until states put into place a new plan to replace 70 percent of lost income for unemployed people—or around $300 per week on aggregate, according to Gregory Daco, the chief U.S. economist for Oxford Economics. “But that’s a significant hit on the U.S. economy in the second half of the year … and for a lot of people, a loss of 30 percent of their current income streams,” Daco said. More than 31 million Americans would see their economic lifeline cut.
That’s if the state-level compensation plan is implemented within two months. Even in an emergency, the U.S. unemployment system depends on weak state-level capacity. Many states have out-of-date or neglected unemployment systems, and the normal income replacement rate varies greatly by state. Some state unemployment agencies already haven’t been able to keep up with claims: As a result, while the $600 benefits expire on July 31, thousands of people haven’t even received the money they were due for the previous months, though it will be issued retroactively.
“We finally got this system working,” said Mike Konczal, the director of progressive thought at the Roosevelt Institute in Washington. “The $600 is not an economic problem. It’s not causing unemployment. The pandemic is causing unemployment. … The worst thing you can do is come up with a brand-new system [so] that the states have to start from scratch.”
From the beginning, European countries took a contrasting approach to the economic crisis fueled by the coronavirus pandemic. Governments in developed economies including Denmark, Germany, Ireland, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom subsidized companies to keep their workers on the payroll and in some cases provided more generous direct support to businesses.
These programs have received collective support from the European Union level, with a focus on providing for less wealthy states. After days of negotiations, EU leaders last week agreed to an unprecedented $857 billion economic stimulus package, with much of the money raised by collective bond sales and given out as grants rather than loans to the member countries that have suffered the most from the pandemic.
With the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic behind it, parts of Europe appear poised for a quicker economic recovery than the United States—at least for now.
In Germany, the preexisting Kurzarbeit program allowed companies to keep workers on at reduced hours, with around 60 to 70 percent of their wages subsidized by the state—a scheme that was adapted by other governments amid the pandemic, including France. “That is very different from the U.S. approach, where employees that were laid off have access to unemployment benefits but are no longer considered as employees,” Daco said. Germany’s unemployment rate reached 6.2 percent in June, compared with 11.1 percent in the United States.
Data released this week showed that German business expectations had reached a 20-month high, with businesses seemingly confident that the EU fiscal plan would fuel an economic recovery later this year. But the outlook varies across Europe. The partial-work support programs in Germany and France are more likely to preserve jobs than those in Italy and Spain because of more restrictive frameworks for eligibility, according to an Oxford Economics report released in May.
Under the British government’s program, as many as 9.5 million jobs have been furloughed since March, with the state paying 80 percent of wages to avoid layoffs. The furlough scheme is not comprehensive: It is tied to traditional employer-employee relationships, leaving out self-employed workers and contractors, prompting legal challenges. And as the economy slowly recovers, the government plans to phase out subsidized furloughs by the end of October—a move that a U.K. think tank this week warned could lead to 1.2 million lost jobs by the end of the year.
“There’s going to be a lot of debate over the next few years about which was the better option,” Konczal said, adding that the percentage of people in the U.K. on payroll support was comparable to the percentage in the United States receiving unemployment compensation. “Both are receiving their paychecks through the government to not work.”
In China, where the coronavirus originated, the economic impact is hard to judge. Laying off workers in large numbers still requires permission from the Chinese government. From the first acknowledgement of the crisis in Wuhan just before the annual Spring Festival holiday, the central government made it mandatory to keep paying workers even if they couldn’t return to the workplace. A $500 billion stimulus package aims to help businesses shoulder those costs, and, with the coronavirus now all but extinct inside China’s borders, to cope with the global economic downturn.
Welfare payments, a key source of income for many rural and older people, were also increased, especially in Wuhan. While the official unemployment figures barely budged, other indicators show a huge rise in joblessness, particularly for marginal workers without formal employment contracts. Many families have been forced to exhaust their savings as a result, echoing problems in other countries, such as India, where the informal economy makes up a large share of the GDP.
Countries that, like the United States, have failed to control the coronavirus are facing tough choices. Since April, Brazil’s federal government has provided an additional $115 monthly to microbusinesses and those working in the informal sector, with single mothers receiving $230. A study published on Tuesday found that the level of Brazilians living in extreme poverty fell to 3.3 percent in June—the lowest level in decades. But August marks the last scheduled payment as part of the scheme, which has cost the government more than $32 billion. Brazil has recorded over 2.5 million COVID-19 cases—second only to the United States.
The ongoing health crisis in the United States is likely to cause long-term damage to the economy over the next few months. Rather than cutting compensation, economists say, the new U.S. stimulus package should include new compensatory measures for those out of work to sustain the economy in the long term.
“The unemployment insurance worked,” Konczal said. “It showed us that our government has the capacity to ensure people’s economic security through deep depression and global health crisis in a way that should surprise us.”


foreignpolicy--2020-07-30--As India Marks Anniversary, Kashmir Is Still in the Dark

As India Marks Anniversary , Kashmir Is Still in the Dark Welcome to Foreign Policy ’ s South Asia Brief .
This week : Aug. 5 marks the anniversary of Kashmir ’ s abrogation , a cease-fire in Afghanistan , Sri Lanka holds parliamentary elections , and deadly landslides hit Nepal .
If you would like to receive South Asia Brief in your inbox every Thursday , please sign up here .
Next Wednesday , Aug. 5 , marks exactly one year since New Delhi revoked Indian-administered Kashmir ’ s special status , splitting the state into two union territories—Jammu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , India ’ s surprise announcement turned into a global controversy .
Pakistan opposed it , with Prime Minister Imran Khan calling Kashmir ’ s abrogation “ brazen and egregious.
” But Islamabad ’ s attempts to internationalize the issue were largely rebuffed , with Washington and other world powers toeing New Delhi ’ s familiar line that Kashmir was an internal domestic issue .
One year on , where do things stand ?
While New Delhi ’ s move remains popular among an increasingly nationalistic Indian citizenry , a dispassionate assessment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its objectives have been achieved .
Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar , who argued last year that the old status quo “ denied economic opportunities and social gains for the masses , ” would struggle to make the case today that things have gotten better .
A promised summit to encourage investment in Kashmir still hasn ’ t taken place .
The coronavirus pandemic has made any reforms difficult to implement , but even before the nationwide shutdown in March , there had been little progress .
India ’ s government says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pointing to a 36 percent decline in terrorism-related incidents between January and July compared with the same period last year .
Once again , it ’ s unclear how much those improvements are connected to pandemic-related shutdowns .
In any case , information has been difficult to come by .
Local media are often harassed by the police , and international reporters have struggled to get inside .
Authorities barred internet access for several months after Aug. 5 .
While it returned in March , mostly at lowered speeds , the Jammu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-speed internet for the next few weeks , ostensibly to curb protests and reporting from the region .
A survey of Kashmiri college students found 90 percent were in favor of a complete withdrawal of Indian troops .
Kashmiri leaders who have expressed anger over the abrogation remain under house arrest , including former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti .
Another former chief minister , Omar Abdullah , was only released on March 24 .
In an interview this week with the Hindu , Abdullah said , “ The polity of the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referring to his and his father ’ s jailing .
“ It is shortsighted to believe that Kashmiris have quietly accepted what happened .
… If Kashmiris have accepted the decision , why is the government still banning 4G internet ?
” Abdullah has a point .
For Indian-administered Kashmir to realize any of the economic goals New Delhi has promised , it first needs to open up—with a free and fair media and consistent internet access—and build confidence among businesses and institutions .
But doing so would increase the likelihood of protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week .
India is planning what media outlets are calling “ mega functions ” to mark the anniversary , with a 15-day program of ceremonies starting on Aug. 5 .
Pakistan , meanwhile , is expected to ramp up its media outreach and will likely lean on Turkey and China to support its moves to draw attention to the plight of Muslims in Kashmir .
Stay tuned for more coverage from Foreign Policy .
Afghan cease-fire .
The Taliban has announced it will mark a three-day cease-fire starting on Friday to observe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In order that our compatriots may spend the days and nights of Eid-ul-Adha in even more security and joy , all Mujahideen are instructed to halt offensive operations , ” read a statement from the group .
“ However , if the opposition carries out an attack , they must be met with a strong response.
” The announcement came as the United Nations said on Monday that 1,282 Afghan civilians had been killed and 2,176 injured in violence between the Afghan government and the Taliban in the first six months of 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent drop from the same period last year , Afghanistan remains among the world ’ s deadliest conflict zones .
Nepal landslides .
At least nine people died in Nepal this week in landslides caused by heavy rains .
According to a government spokesperson , 160 people have died in floods and landslides in the country since May .
Many more have been injured or suffered damage to their homes and livelihoods .
As this newsletter has reported , mass flooding has also led to fatalities in neighboring Bangladesh and India , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sri Lanka elections .
The island nation of Sri Lanka will hold elections on Aug. 5 , a vote that was initially scheduled for April 25 but was delayed due to the pandemic .
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa ’ s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna ( SLPP ) party is widely expected to win this election .
The SLPP is currently a minority in parliament , but if it wins a two-thirds majority , experts predict Rajapaksa will try to reverse a constitutional amendment limiting the powers of the presidency—all in a bid to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
India-China app wars .
New Delhi announced on Monday that it would ban 47 Chinese apps on national security grounds—in addition to the 59 apps that it blocked last month .
The moves come in the wake of a deadly skirmish between Indian and Chinese troops along their shared border last month .
A Chinese spokesperson told CNN that India should “ create a fair , just , and nondiscriminatory environment for economic and trade cooperation between China and India.
” Indian media , meanwhile , reports that New Delhi is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as PlayerUnknown ’ s Battlegrounds ( PUBG ) , a popular mobile game .
India ’ s jet fighter purchase .
On Wednesday , India received five Rafale fighter jets , the first delivery in an order of 36 combat aircraft from France .
Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh says the deal “ marks the beginning of a new era in [ India ’ s ] military history.
” Dassault Aviation , which manufactures the Rafale aircraft , says the jets can fly on autopilot , including in rough weather conditions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , Singh alluded to the recent skirmish with China .
“ If it is anyone who should be worried about or critical about this new capability of the Indian Air Force , it should be those who want to threaten our territorial integrity , ” he tweeted .
As the world ’ s 1.8 billion Muslims mark their holy festival of Eid this weekend , I was thinking about where most of the world ’ s Muslims live .
According to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey , Indonesia is home to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ India ( 194.8 million ) , Pakistan ( 184 billion ) , and Bangladesh ( 144 million ) .
The same Pew report also projected the countries that would have the most Muslims in the year 2060 .
Which country comes out top ?
Scroll down for the answer .
Good genes .
Some rare good news : A 103-year-old Pakistani man has recovered from the coronavirus .
Aziz Abdul Alim tested positive for COVID-19 in July and was released last week from hospital after responding well to treatment .
Alim has outlived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; he divorced a fourth wife and is now on his fifth marriage .
Alim worked as a carpenter into his 70s and continues to live in the district of Chitral .
The Pew survey estimates that India would have 333 million Muslims in 2060 , followed by Pakistan ( 284 million ) , Nigeria ( 283 million ) , Indonesia ( 253 million ) , and Bangladesh ( 182 million ) .
However , it ’ s likely that Nigeria will overtake Pakistan later this century , given that it has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapidly .
That ’ s it for this week .
We welcome your feedback at newsletters @ foreignpolicy.com .
You can find older editions of South Asia Brief here .
For more from FP , subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters .

Welcome to Foreign Policy’s South Asia Brief. This week: Aug. 5 marks the anniversary of Kashmir’s abrogation , a cease-fire in Afghanistan , Sri Lanka holds parliamentary elections, and deadly landslides hit Nepal .
Welcome to Foreign Policy’s South Asia Brief. This week: Aug. 5 marks the anniversary of Kashmir’s abrogation, a cease-fire in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka holds parliamentary elections, and deadly landslides hit Nepal.
If you would like to receive South Asia Brief in your inbox every Thursday, please sign up here.
Kashmir, One Year On
Next Wednesday, Aug. 5, marks exactly one year since New Delhi revoked Indian-administered Kashmir’s special status, splitting the state into two union territories—Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. At the time, India’s surprise announcement turned into a global controversy. Pakistan opposed it, with Prime Minister Imran Khan calling Kashmir’s abrogation “brazen and egregious.” But Islamabad’s attempts to internationalize the issue were largely rebuffed, with Washington and other world powers toeing New Delhi’s familiar line that Kashmir was an internal domestic issue.
One year on, where do things stand?
While New Delhi’s move remains popular among an increasingly nationalistic Indian citizenry, a dispassionate assessment of the decision will show that few of its objectives have been achieved. Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, who argued last year that the old status quo “denied economic opportunities and social gains for the masses,” would struggle to make the case today that things have gotten better. A promised summit to encourage investment in Kashmir still hasn’t taken place. The coronavirus pandemic has made any reforms difficult to implement, but even before the nationwide shutdown in March, there had been little progress.
India’s government says the security situation in Kashmir has improved, pointing to a 36 percent decline in terrorism-related incidents between January and July compared with the same period last year. Once again, it’s unclear how much those improvements are connected to pandemic-related shutdowns.
In any case, information has been difficult to come by. Local media are often harassed by the police, and international reporters have struggled to get inside. Authorities barred internet access for several months after Aug. 5. While it returned in March, mostly at lowered speeds, the Jammu and Kashmir government has once again banned high-speed internet for the next few weeks, ostensibly to curb protests and reporting from the region. A survey of Kashmiri college students found 90 percent were in favor of a complete withdrawal of Indian troops.
Kashmiri leaders who have expressed anger over the abrogation remain under house arrest, including former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti. Another former chief minister, Omar Abdullah, was only released on March 24. In an interview this week with the Hindu, Abdullah said, “The polity of the rest of India effectively forgot about us,” referring to his and his father’s jailing. “It is shortsighted to believe that Kashmiris have quietly accepted what happened. … If Kashmiris have accepted the decision, why is the government still banning 4G internet?”
Abdullah has a point. For Indian-administered Kashmir to realize any of the economic goals New Delhi has promised, it first needs to open up—with a free and fair media and consistent internet access—and build confidence among businesses and institutions. But doing so would increase the likelihood of protests and potentially violence.
What to expect this week. India is planning what media outlets are calling “mega functions” to mark the anniversary, with a 15-day program of ceremonies starting on Aug. 5. Pakistan, meanwhile, is expected to ramp up its media outreach and will likely lean on Turkey and China to support its moves to draw attention to the plight of Muslims in Kashmir. Stay tuned for more coverage from Foreign Policy.
What We’re Following Pandemic update. Our weekly coronavirus chart shows few surprises. New cases of the virus continue to rise across the region, but especially in India, which has now recorded more cases in the last seven days than Brazil. Only the United States has recorded more cases since last week, but it has tested 15 times as many citizens per capita as India. Pakistan is rapidly closing in on the top 10 countries in the world with the most cases.
Afghan cease-fire. The Taliban has announced it will mark a three-day cease-fire starting on Friday to observe the Muslim festival of Eid. “In order that our compatriots may spend the days and nights of Eid-ul-Adha in even more security and joy, all Mujahideen are instructed to halt offensive operations,” read a statement from the group. “However, if the opposition carries out an attack, they must be met with a strong response.”
The announcement came as the United Nations said on Monday that 1,282 Afghan civilians had been killed and 2,176 injured in violence between the Afghan government and the Taliban in the first six months of 2020. While the casualties represent a 13 percent drop from the same period last year, Afghanistan remains among the world’s deadliest conflict zones.
Nepal landslides. At least nine people died in Nepal this week in landslides caused by heavy rains. According to a government spokesperson, 160 people have died in floods and landslides in the country since May. Many more have been injured or suffered damage to their homes and livelihoods. As this newsletter has reported, mass flooding has also led to fatalities in neighboring Bangladesh and India, in the eastern states of Bihar and Assam.
Sri Lanka elections. The island nation of Sri Lanka will hold elections on Aug. 5, a vote that was initially scheduled for April 25 but was delayed due to the pandemic. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party is widely expected to win this election. The SLPP is currently a minority in parliament, but if it wins a two-thirds majority, experts predict Rajapaksa will try to reverse a constitutional amendment limiting the powers of the presidency—all in a bid to expand his family’s hold on power.
India-China app wars. New Delhi announced on Monday that it would ban 47 Chinese apps on national security grounds—in addition to the 59 apps that it blocked last month. The moves come in the wake of a deadly skirmish between Indian and Chinese troops along their shared border last month. A Chinese spokesperson told CNN that India should “create a fair, just, and nondiscriminatory environment for economic and trade cooperation between China and India.”
Indian media, meanwhile, reports that New Delhi is considering the status of other Chinese apps such as PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds (PUBG), a popular mobile game.
India’s jet fighter purchase. On Wednesday, India received five Rafale fighter jets, the first delivery in an order of 36 combat aircraft from France. Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh says the deal “marks the beginning of a new era in [India’s] military history.” Dassault Aviation, which manufactures the Rafale aircraft, says the jets can fly on autopilot, including in rough weather conditions.
While New Delhi ordered the jets in 2016, Singh alluded to the recent skirmish with China. “If it is anyone who should be worried about or critical about this new capability of the Indian Air Force, it should be those who want to threaten our territorial integrity,” he tweeted.
Question of the Week
As the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims mark their holy festival of Eid this weekend, I was thinking about where most of the world’s Muslims live. According to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey, Indonesia is home to 220 million Muslims, closely followed by India (194.8 million), Pakistan (184 billion), and Bangladesh (144 million).
The same Pew report also projected the countries that would have the most Muslims in the year 2060. Which country comes out top?
A) India
B) Nigeria
C) Pakistan
D) Indonesia
Scroll down for the answer.
Odds and Ends
Good genes. Some rare good news: A 103-year-old Pakistani man has recovered from the coronavirus. Aziz Abdul Alim tested positive for COVID-19 in July and was released last week from hospital after responding well to treatment. Alim has outlived three wives and nine sons and daughters; he divorced a fourth wife and is now on his fifth marriage. Alim worked as a carpenter into his 70s and continues to live in the district of Chitral.
And the Answer Is…
A) India.
The Pew survey estimates that India would have 333 million Muslims in 2060, followed by Pakistan (284 million), Nigeria (283 million), Indonesia (253 million), and Bangladesh (182 million). However, it’s likely that Nigeria will overtake Pakistan later this century, given that it has a younger population that is expected to grow rapidly.
That’s it for this week.
We welcome your feedback at newsletters@foreignpolicy.com. You can find older editions of South Asia Brief here. For more from FP, subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters.