foreignpolicy--2020-07-06--When It Comes to America’s Race Issues, Russia Is a Bogeyman

When It Comes to America ’ s Race Issues , Russia Is a Bogeyman As Black Lives Matter protests against police killings of Black people began spreading across the United States in late May , it did not take long for Russia to wade in .
Russian media outlets jumped on the # BlackLivesMatter hashtag , highlighting America ’ s grave racial injustices .
Russian bots helped spread disinformation about the protests .
In the United States , members of the House and Senate intelligence committees warned against Russian incursion and urged that the government take action to prevent Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inventing racial tensions but seeking to exploit them .
But such calls also play into a century-old narrative in which the U.S. government ’ s recurring anxiety around foreign-led radicalization of African Americans recycles old tropes about Black people being politically gullible and vulnerable to foreign meddling .
If a repeat of this aspect of the 2016 U.S. presidential election is to be avoided , the government must not use a bogeyman of Russian interference to dismiss Black activism once again .
In 2019 , the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee determined that Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and its military intelligence directorate , known as GRU , led a sweeping campaign to disrupt the 2016 election .
According to the committee findings , the IRA and GRU directed nearly two-thirds of their activities at African Americans .
Using social media platforms , Russian government agencies had more than 11 million engagements with Facebook users and mobilized people to sign petitions against racism .
Russian online actors also reproduced videos of police brutality and amplified the societal fallout from the football quarterback Colin Kaepernick ’ s kneeling protests , aiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election or to encourage them to support a third-party candidate .
Ultimately , the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the IRA and GRU sought to “ stoke anger , provoke outrage and protest , push Americans further away from one another , and foment distrust in government institutions.
” In blaming the Russian bogeyman , the American political establishment failed to explore the root cause of African American marginality and disillusionment with the American political system : the United States ’ explicit and implicit embrace of white supremacy .
While the findings are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Russia was largely culpable for disenfranchising African Americans and causing anti-U.S. government sentiments are not only problematic but unfounded .
In blaming the Russian bogeyman , the American political establishment failed to explore the root cause of African American marginality and disillusionment with the American political system : the United States ’ explicit and implicit embrace of white supremacy .
Furthermore , the Senate committee ’ s conclusions are underpinned by misinformed assumptions about Black people ’ s agency and a disregard for the actual conditions of inequality .
Such assumptions have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European colonial logics , and its enemies have long sought to exploit them .
In its Soviet incarnation , Moscow attempted to use America ’ s embrace of white supremacy and anti-Black laws and norms to weaken and destroy the United States from within .
From its inception in 1917 , the Soviet leadership actively explored how to mobilize and encourage Black people to join the communist movement and inspire a communist revolution .
Under the purview of the Communist International ( Comintern ) , a global but Soviet-led organization that sought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a global revolution , a “ Negro Commission ” was established .
After a few years of contentious deliberations , factionalism , and fratricide in the 1920s , the Comintern largely outlined the Black or Native Republic thesis for South Africa and a “ Black Belt thesis ” for the United States in the Sixth Congress in 1928 , which called for a separate , independent Black republic in South Africa and America .
( Notably , these proposals mimicked the Jamaican activist Marcus Garvey ’ s “ Africa for the Africans ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had previously denounced and rejected . )
The Native Republic and Black Belt ideas were constructed on the premise that white supremacist institutions and societies in South Africa and the United States would never grant Black people equal treatment .
Consequently , the Comintern called on Black populations to secede from their respective countries to escape their historical and present systemic marginalization .
The proposals faced intense criticism for suggesting that Black people essentially expel themselves from the West rather than fight for equality within it .
Many quit the party , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these policies .
Yet , with these efforts , the Soviet Union had waded into South Africa ’ s and America ’ s domestic affairs .
It had sought to employ America ’ s and the European powers ’ embrace of white supremacy to cause their destructions .
The impact of such efforts on Black communities was considerable .
In response to the Soviet push , Western governments spent the next 30 years conflating African and Black liberation movements with Soviet or communist propaganda .
British colonial reports are littered with fears that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ provocateurs , ” “ Communists , ” or “ Russians ” were fomenting racial agitation .
Western officials worried that these figures were implanting anti-American , anti-colonial , anti-imperial , and anti-Western thoughts into the minds of their Black and colonized subjects .
Such language pointed to a deeper belief among Western officials that the subjugated mind was incapable of comprehending its oppression and the causes for it .
To monitor this situation and ease their concerns , Western governments dispatched spies to infiltrate Black and African Marxists and anti-colonial circles .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , their every movement tracked and recorded .
Western governments opened , read , copied , and circulated their communications .
In the British colony of the Gold Coast , suspected communists were banned from holding government positions .
The British government banned communist literature from its colonies .
In the United States , the government blacklisted communists and , in some cases , stripped their American citizenship .
By framing the quest for Black independence and equality as the workings of Soviet , Russian , or external agents , Western officials failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed agitators , provocateurs , or communists to inform them about their sufferings .
Black leaders refuted the idea that they were being manipulated .
The anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela pondered why people could not fathom that it was actually Black liberationists who were using the Communists and not the other way around .
In the 1950s , George Padmore , a key Black Marxist anti-colonial figure , reminded the world that “ Negroes are keenly aware that they are the most racially oppressed and economically exploited people in the world.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are very much alive to the fact , demonstrated by the opportunistic and cynical behavior of the Communists , that the latter ’ s interest in them is dictated by the ever changing tactics of Soviet foreign policy rather than by altruistic motives.
” Padmore ’ s words remain relevant today .
Black people remain one of the most racially oppressed and economically exploited groups in the world .
They are keenly aware that Vladimir Putin ’ s Russia is not seriously concerned with their predicament but is exploiting their suffering to advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In response to concerns that Russian operatives were manipulating the Black Lives Matter movement before and after the 2016 election , the Black Lives Matter Global Network responded forcefully .
While acknowledging concerns that the IRA and GRU were trying to hijack its message , the group noted that it would “ not be deterred by those attempting to exploit us and the millions of Black folks in America.
” It maintained that it would continue “ to work tirelessly to challenge white supremacy , injustice , and oppression throughout the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Liberation across the globe.
” African Americans did and do not need Russian bots to educate them about police brutality and systemic racism in the United States .
It is their daily reality .
Merely stopping Russian and foreign bots and actors replicating and reproducing Black Lives Matter hashtags and concerns will not destroy the fertile ground that aided Russia ’ s foreign-policy objectives .
The 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian influence failed to substantially address police brutality and systemic racism against African Americans that gave rise to the conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whereas the Senate report criticized private firms like Google , Twitter , and Facebook for not countering Russia ’ s efforts , Republicans and their appointees remain as guilty , if not more so , for depressing African American voter turnout .
Throughout the country , elected Republican officials have removed and closed polling stations in high-density predominately African American population areas .
The conservative-majority Supreme Court has gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act .
Elected Republican officials have simultaneously purged hundreds of thousands of people from the voter rolls while seeking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting—these measures predominately negatively impact African Americans .
In fact , many elected Republican officials and appointees do not even acknowledge that systemic racism exists in America .
But the debilitated state of affairs in Democratic-led African American communities does not inspire confidence either .
Indeed , in 1961 , W.E.B .
Du Bois , one of the greatest American sociologists , noted that while he had critiqued socialists and communists “ for trying to segregate Southern Negro members ” with Black Belt policies , he had also recoiled at the reality that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over African Americans while the other sought to disenfranchise them .
Du Bois ’ s words still resonate with Black political activists today , some of whom have rejected the two-party system and formed or joined splinter political parties .
Across both Republican- and Democrat-led Black-majority jurisdictions , there is a persistent lack of access to decent health care , mental health , and social services ; excellent public schools ; and healthy foods .
Moreover , racial segregation akin to what the United States experienced in the 1960s is alive and well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degradation adversely impact African American neighborhoods .
For African Americans , it is a sobering reality that Black lives appear expendable across the political establishment .
The United States is not divided .
It is a country , as the Rev .
Al Sharpton eulogized at George Floyd ’ s funeral , where one racial group has viciously put its knee on the neck and back of another .
Suggesting that America is divided is to imply that both sides are culpable for this state of affairs .
They are not .
Four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American political and private establishment has failed to remove the root causes of African Americans ’ despondence and skepticism .
Systemic racism exists in all facets of Black peoples ’ lives , and extrajudicial killings of Black people remain persistent .
The Trump administration has established policies , performed stunts , and uttered statements that support white supremacy and denigrate Black lives .
In 2017 , Vice President Mike Pence used American taxpayer dollars to make a statement against the football player Kaepernick ’ s stance against police brutality—flying to Indianapolis to watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back and walk out when the players knelt .
It is no wonder that , just as they did four years ago , African Americans are today marching under the Black Lives Matter banner .
Nothing has changed apart from the names : Breonna Taylor , George Floyd , and Rayshard Brooks have replaced Tamir Rice , Philando Castile , and Eric Garner .
If the United States is going to emerge stronger as a nation , it must not conflate African Americans ’ real and historical issues with Russia ’ s foreign-policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supremacy across the United States is a national security concern , and it must be approached as such .
As long as America creates and upholds racist policies , it does not even need foreign actors to exploit its original and ongoing sin to implode the country from within .

As Black Lives Matter protests against police killings of Black people began spreading across the United States in late May, it did not take long for Russia to wade in. Russian media outlets jumped on the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, highlighting America’s grave racial injustices. Russian bots helped spread disinformation about the protests. In the United States, members of the House and Senate intelligence committees warned against Russian incursion and urged that the government take action to prevent Russian involvement while noting that Russia was not inventing racial tensions but seeking to exploit them. But such calls also play into a century-old narrative in which the U.S. government’s recurring anxiety around foreign-led radicalization of African Americans recycles old tropes about Black people being politically gullible and vulnerable to foreign meddling. If a repeat of this aspect of the 2016 U.S. presidential election is to be avoided, the government must not use a bogeyman of Russian interference to dismiss Black activism once again.
As Black Lives Matter protests against police killings of Black people began spreading across the United States in late May, it did not take long for Russia to wade in. Russian media outlets jumped on the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, highlighting America’s grave racial injustices. Russian bots helped spread disinformation about the protests. In the United States, members of the House and Senate intelligence committees warned against Russian incursion and urged that the government take action to prevent Russian involvement while noting that Russia was not inventing racial tensions but seeking to exploit them. But such calls also play into a century-old narrative in which the U.S. government’s recurring anxiety around foreign-led radicalization of African Americans recycles old tropes about Black people being politically gullible and vulnerable to foreign meddling. If a repeat of this aspect of the 2016 U.S. presidential election is to be avoided, the government must not use a bogeyman of Russian interference to dismiss Black activism once again.
In 2019, the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee determined that Russia’s Internet Research Agency (IRA) and its military intelligence directorate, known as GRU, led a sweeping campaign to disrupt the 2016 election. According to the committee findings, the IRA and GRU directed nearly two-thirds of their activities at African Americans. Using social media platforms, Russian government agencies had more than 11 million engagements with Facebook users and mobilized people to sign petitions against racism. Russian online actors also reproduced videos of police brutality and amplified the societal fallout from the football quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling protests, aiming to push Black voters to boycott the election or to encourage them to support a third-party candidate. Ultimately, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the IRA and GRU sought to “stoke anger, provoke outrage and protest, push Americans further away from one another, and foment distrust in government institutions.”
In blaming the Russian bogeyman, the American political establishment failed to explore the root cause of African American marginality and disillusionment with the American political system: the United States’ explicit and implicit embrace of white supremacy. While the findings are convincing, the committee’s conclusions that Russia was largely culpable for disenfranchising African Americans and causing anti-U.S. government sentiments are not only problematic but unfounded. In blaming the Russian bogeyman, the American political establishment failed to explore the root cause of African American marginality and disillusionment with the American political system: the United States’ explicit and implicit embrace of white supremacy. Furthermore, the Senate committee’s conclusions are underpinned by misinformed assumptions about Black people’s agency and a disregard for the actual conditions of inequality.
Such assumptions have a deep history in 20th-century Western and European colonial logics, and its enemies have long sought to exploit them. In its Soviet incarnation, Moscow attempted to use America’s embrace of white supremacy and anti-Black laws and norms to weaken and destroy the United States from within. From its inception in 1917, the Soviet leadership actively explored how to mobilize and encourage Black people to join the communist movement and inspire a communist revolution. Under the purview of the Communist International (Comintern), a global but Soviet-led organization that sought to forge an international communist movement to instigate a global revolution, a “Negro Commission” was established. After a few years of contentious deliberations, factionalism, and fratricide in the 1920s, the Comintern largely outlined the Black or Native Republic thesis for South Africa and a “Black Belt thesis” for the United States in the Sixth Congress in 1928, which called for a separate, independent Black republic in South Africa and America. (Notably, these proposals mimicked the Jamaican activist Marcus Garvey’s “Africa for the Africans” policy in 1921, which the Communists had previously denounced and rejected.)
The Native Republic and Black Belt ideas were constructed on the premise that white supremacist institutions and societies in South Africa and the United States would never grant Black people equal treatment. Consequently, the Comintern called on Black populations to secede from their respective countries to escape their historical and present systemic marginalization. The proposals faced intense criticism for suggesting that Black people essentially expel themselves from the West rather than fight for equality within it. Many quit the party, and others were ousted for failing to push these policies. Yet, with these efforts, the Soviet Union had waded into South Africa’s and America’s domestic affairs. It had sought to employ America’s and the European powers’ embrace of white supremacy to cause their destructions.
The impact of such efforts on Black communities was considerable. In response to the Soviet push, Western governments spent the next 30 years conflating African and Black liberation movements with Soviet or communist propaganda. British colonial reports are littered with fears that foreign outsiders, “agitators,” “provocateurs,” “Communists,” or “Russians” were fomenting racial agitation. Western officials worried that these figures were implanting anti-American, anti-colonial, anti-imperial, and anti-Western thoughts into the minds of their Black and colonized subjects.
Such language pointed to a deeper belief among Western officials that the subjugated mind was incapable of comprehending its oppression and the causes for it. To monitor this situation and ease their concerns, Western governments dispatched spies to infiltrate Black and African Marxists and anti-colonial circles. Members of these groups were observed religiously, their every movement tracked and recorded. Western governments opened, read, copied, and circulated their communications. In the British colony of the Gold Coast, suspected communists were banned from holding government positions. The British government banned communist literature from its colonies. In the United States, the government blacklisted communists and, in some cases, stripped their American citizenship.
By framing the quest for Black independence and equality as the workings of Soviet, Russian, or external agents, Western officials failed to recognize that their subjugated subjects hardly needed agitators, provocateurs, or communists to inform them about their sufferings. Black leaders refuted the idea that they were being manipulated. The anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela pondered why people could not fathom that it was actually Black liberationists who were using the Communists and not the other way around.
In the 1950s, George Padmore, a key Black Marxist anti-colonial figure, reminded the world that “Negroes are keenly aware that they are the most racially oppressed and economically exploited people in the world.” He also noted that Black people “also are very much alive to the fact, demonstrated by the opportunistic and cynical behavior of the Communists, that the latter’s interest in them is dictated by the ever changing tactics of Soviet foreign policy rather than by altruistic motives.” Padmore’s words remain relevant today. Black people remain one of the most racially oppressed and economically exploited groups in the world. They are keenly aware that Vladimir Putin’s Russia is not seriously concerned with their predicament but is exploiting their suffering to advance Russia’s own foreign policy objectives.
In response to concerns that Russian operatives were manipulating the Black Lives Matter movement before and after the 2016 election, the Black Lives Matter Global Network responded forcefully. While acknowledging concerns that the IRA and GRU were trying to hijack its message, the group noted that it would “not be deterred by those attempting to exploit us and the millions of Black folks in America.” It maintained that it would continue “to work tirelessly to challenge white supremacy, injustice, and oppression throughout the world” and “continue to fight for Black Liberation across the globe.” African Americans did and do not need Russian bots to educate them about police brutality and systemic racism in the United States. It is their daily reality.
Merely stopping Russian and foreign bots and actors replicating and reproducing Black Lives Matter hashtags and concerns will not destroy the fertile ground that aided Russia’s foreign-policy objectives. The 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian influence failed to substantially address police brutality and systemic racism against African Americans that gave rise to the conditions that facilitated Russia’s efforts. Whereas the Senate report criticized private firms like Google, Twitter, and Facebook for not countering Russia’s efforts, Republicans and their appointees remain as guilty, if not more so, for depressing African American voter turnout. Throughout the country, elected Republican officials have removed and closed polling stations in high-density predominately African American population areas. The conservative-majority Supreme Court has gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Elected Republican officials have simultaneously purged hundreds of thousands of people from the voter rolls while seeking to limit or stop mail-in and absentee ballot voting—these measures predominately negatively impact African Americans. In fact, many elected Republican officials and appointees do not even acknowledge that systemic racism exists in America.
But the debilitated state of affairs in Democratic-led African American communities does not inspire confidence either. Indeed, in 1961, W.E.B. Du Bois, one of the greatest American sociologists, noted that while he had critiqued socialists and communists “for trying to segregate Southern Negro members” with Black Belt policies, he had also recoiled at the reality that one major political party had a monopoly over African Americans while the other sought to disenfranchise them. Du Bois’s words still resonate with Black political activists today, some of whom have rejected the two-party system and formed or joined splinter political parties.
Across both Republican- and Democrat-led Black-majority jurisdictions, there is a persistent lack of access to decent health care, mental health, and social services; excellent public schools; and healthy foods. Moreover, racial segregation akin to what the United States experienced in the 1960s is alive and well, and overpolicing and environmental pollution and degradation adversely impact African American neighborhoods.
For African Americans, it is a sobering reality that Black lives appear expendable across the political establishment. The United States is not divided. It is a country, as the Rev. Al Sharpton eulogized at George Floyd’s funeral, where one racial group has viciously put its knee on the neck and back of another. Suggesting that America is divided is to imply that both sides are culpable for this state of affairs. They are not.
Four years from the 2016 election, the American political and private establishment has failed to remove the root causes of African Americans’ despondence and skepticism. Systemic racism exists in all facets of Black peoples’ lives, and extrajudicial killings of Black people remain persistent. The Trump administration has established policies, performed stunts, and uttered statements that support white supremacy and denigrate Black lives. In 2017, Vice President Mike Pence used American taxpayer dollars to make a statement against the football player Kaepernick’s stance against police brutality—flying to Indianapolis to watch a game, only to turn his back and walk out when the players knelt.
It is no wonder that, just as they did four years ago, African Americans are today marching under the Black Lives Matter banner. Nothing has changed apart from the names: Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and Rayshard Brooks have replaced Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, and Eric Garner.
If the United States is going to emerge stronger as a nation, it must not conflate African Americans’ real and historical issues with Russia’s foreign-policy aims. Addressing systemic racism and white supremacy across the United States is a national security concern, and it must be approached as such. As long as America creates and upholds racist policies, it does not even need foreign actors to exploit its original and ongoing sin to implode the country from within.


foreignpolicy--2020-07-06--Annexation Will Probably Go Smoothly. The Problems Will Come Later.

Annexation Will Probably Go Smoothly .
The Problems Will Come Later .
The timing and scope of the plan is still uncertain , but when Israel announces its expected decision to annex parts of the occupied West Bank , the world ’ s attention will turn to the immediate impact .
People who care about the region will be watching closely to see if Palestinians rise up in protest , if the Palestinian Authority will collapse or be disbanded , if Arab countries cut off budding ties with Israel , or if European countries impose sanctions on Israel or recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warnings that annexation will trigger a disaster , all eyes will be on how the various parties respond .
The good news for proponents of annexation is that while such dramatic developments are possible , none are likely .
The bad news for them , however , is what annexation means in the longer term .
Israel ’ s formal incorporation of parts of the West Bank will not only violate international law and deny Palestinians basic rights , but it will set off a process that will further erode Israeli democracy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bipartisan U.S. support that has been so central to its success .
By destroying any remaining prospects of keeping the two-state solution alive , annexation will inevitably lead current and future generations of Palestinians to demand equal rights in a single political entity , and Israel ’ s denial of those rights will weaken its support around the world .
Israel may get more territory in the short term but come to regret it , while Palestinians forced to swallow annexation may ultimately embrace it as having advanced their fight for equal rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the two-state solution .
Predictions of catastrophe have often accompanied Israeli or U.S. decisions that are hostile to Palestinians , and they have just as often proven wrong .
The latest example was the United States ’ recognition of Jerusalem as Israel ’ s capital , which , for all its heavy symbolism , elicited an underwhelming response .
U.S. President Donald Trump and his advisors have been quick to point to that precedent in arguing that annexation likewise would pass without a tremor .
As Trump put it in October 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come to an end , right ?
Nothing happened.
” Promising a “ big announcement ” on annexation when speaking to the press on June 25 , White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said “ There ’ s always this scare tactic … of all the bad that ’ s going to happen , and then it doesn ’ t happen.
” Annexation could play out in similar ways , at least in the short run .
Especially if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu eschews the most ambitious version of annexation—30 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Valley—and opts instead for a narrower plan under which Israel annexes those settlement blocs already assigned to Israel in most existing peace maps , the immediate consequences may be limited .
Israel exercises virtually complete security control over the West Bank , and Palestinians seem unlikely to want to risk the harsh repression , suffering , and chaos that would follow any uprising .
The Palestinian leadership has warned it will sever all ties to Israel and dismantle the Palestinian Authority ( PA ) , which would compel Israel to assume the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A decision to fully take down the PA is not inconceivable .
But since doing so would jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of PA employees , paralyze crucial public services , and negate the privileges the PA ’ s leaders still enjoy , it is the kind of threat far more useful as a deterrent than when actually carried out.Predictions of catastrophe have often accompanied Israeli or U.S. decisions that are hostile to Palestinians , and they have just as often proven wrong .
Arab countries likewise have warned of dire implications .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ massive conflict ” with Israel , and the United Arab Emirates has asserted that Israel could have either annexation or normalization but not both .
Here too , skepticism is in order .
Jordan has an enduring interest in sustaining its peace treaty with Israel , particularly at a time of serious economic distress , and will want to avoid triggering greater instability .
And the United Arab Emirates , along with other Gulf Arab states , has developed quiet , behind-the-scenes ties to Israel for reasons that will endure regardless of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The new generation of Gulf Arab leaders do not have the same passion for the Palestinian cause as their predecessors did and are unlikely to subordinate their main priority—cooperation with Israel against Iran—to it .
They will no doubt oppose any form of annexation in public , if only to protect themselves against accusations of betrayal from Iran , Turkey , and their own populations .
But the kind of normalization that matters—cooperation between security services and other covert ties—will almost certainly continue .
Europeans will protest , too , and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister Boris Johnson—have been forceful in cautioning Israel .
They may consider more forward-leaning ideas , such as a ban on goods imported from annexed areas , suspending the EU-Israel trade agreement , or recognizing a Palestinian state on undetermined borders .
In practice , however , it is hard to see many Europeans taking steps that would truly punish Israel given their own internal divisions , domestic politics , and broader interests in relations with the Jewish state .
That leaves the United States .
Trump ’ s position is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Israeli government ’ s own coalition agreement , will occur only with Washington ’ s blessing .
If elected U.S. president in November , former Vice President Joe Biden would likely denounce the unilateral Israeli move , which he has strongly opposed , but at the same time he has made clear that his broader support for Israel is unreserved and has categorically ruled out conditioning military aid .
Most Democrats in Congress , almost all of whom have expressed clear opposition to annexation , will take a similar stance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism of Israel , paired with blame for the Palestinian leadership for its refusal to negotiate .
Under a limited annexation scenario , some will even give Netanyahu credit for listening to critics and supposedly salvaging the possibility of a two-state solution .
Annexation will proceed , the new map will be presented as the basis for future territorial negotiations , and many Israelis will once again feel that they have advanced their interests without paying a price.Annexation will proceed , the new map will be presented as the basis for future territorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again feel that they have advanced their interests without paying a price .
The longer term , however , is a different story .
Even if annexation changes nothing on the ground on day one , it would represent a fundamental turning point .
Annexation may be the final nail in the coffin of a genuine two-state solution—as opposed to the Palestinian pseudostate Netanyahu has said he accepts and the Trump plan contemplates .
That plan will never work—not only because it is virtually impossible to construct a viable , sovereign , contiguous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ territory that would remain , but also for political and psychological reasons .
What Palestinian leader could agree to sit down with a party that has formally taken the land over which they are supposed to negotiate ?
Already , much of the Palestinian public has lost faith in the Palestinian Authority , in talks with Israel , and in U.S. mediation .
It would not take much for them to turn in another direction entirely .
The signs of what is to come are already there .
Among young Palestinians in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the diaspora , the two-state solution is viewed as worse than unrealistic—it is unappealing .
It has become an unattractive compromise that would restrict the lives of those living in the West Bank and Gaza to a narrow , disjointed entity , deny them a true capital in Jerusalem , entrench inequality for Palestinian citizens of Israel , give Israelis security control over their country , and prevent even a symbolic number of refugees from returning to their former homes .
For the current Palestinian leadership , annexation will make the already difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost impossible one .
With demographics on their side , the next generation of Palestinians will likely take this to the next logical step : away from the dreary and improbable two-state solution toward the more inspiring ( if equally implausible ) struggle for a single , democratic state with equal political rights for all .
Rather than looking to the United States or United Nations to help them negotiate with Israel , they will be more inclined to appeal to the International Criminal Court to bring charges against the occupation forces and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could have similar effects on U.S. politics .
Already , it is causing fissures in what was once wall-to-wall bipartisan support for Israel , with even staunchly pro-Israel Democrats in Congress appealing to Netanyahu not to act .
Down the road , the picture could change dramatically .
The Democratic Party is becoming younger , more diverse , and more attuned to broad movements for equal rights such as Black Lives Matter .
Opinion polls show declining support for Israel among women , minorities , millennials , and liberals , who increasingly support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , human rights abuses , or the use of military force in Gaza .
These groups will be more likely to equate annexationist Israel with apartheid South Africa , espouse the ideals of equal rights and democratic representation , and increasingly challenge their leadership ’ s traditionally close ties to Israel .
This evolution could continue to be gradual or , as was the surge of support for Black Lives Matter , abrupt .
According to a recent poll , 48 percent of Americans identifying as Democrats support the Boycott , Divestment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose it .
Meanwhile , 81 percent of Democrats favor Israel ’ s democracy more than its Jewishness and support Arab and Jewish equality if a two-state solution is ruled out , “ even if that means Israel would no longer be a politically Jewish state.
” And only 13 percent of Democrats favor Israel ’ s Jewishness more than its democracy , “ even if it means that Palestinians will not have citizenship and full rights.
” Those are numbers that should make Israel and its supporters think twice .
For now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to harshly criticize Israel ’ s human rights record and condition U.S. military support have only limited support .
But trends within the party are clear , and combined with a scenario in which Israel continues to deny millions of Palestinians their rights could lead to dramatic changes over time .
There is no reason to expect an earthquake in the wake of an Israeli annexation decision .
But it would be a mistake to confuse calm with insignificance .
Annexation would accelerate a profound shift , already underway , in the ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its eventual resolution .
The days that follow Israeli annexation may not look a lot different from the days that precede it .
But no one should be surprised if , a few years down the road , Israelis find themselves yearning for the two-state solution they will have helped to bury , and Palestinians embrace the idea of a one-state solution that Israel ’ s actions helped produce .

The timing and scope of the plan is still uncertain , but when Israel announces its expected decision to annex parts of the occupied West Bank, the world’s attention will turn to the immediate impact. People who care about the region will be watching closely to see if Palestinians rise up in protest, if the Palestinian Authority will collapse or be disbanded, if Arab countries cut off budding ties with Israel, or if European countries impose sanctions on Israel or recognize a Palestinian state. After all the warnings that annexation will trigger a disaster, all eyes will be on how the various parties respond.
The timing and scope of the plan is still uncertain, but when Israel announces its expected decision to annex parts of the occupied West Bank, the world’s attention will turn to the immediate impact. People who care about the region will be watching closely to see if Palestinians rise up in protest, if the Palestinian Authority will collapse or be disbanded, if Arab countries cut off budding ties with Israel, or if European countries impose sanctions on Israel or recognize a Palestinian state. After all the warnings that annexation will trigger a disaster, all eyes will be on how the various parties respond.
The good news for proponents of annexation is that while such dramatic developments are possible, none are likely. The bad news for them, however, is what annexation means in the longer term. Israel’s formal incorporation of parts of the West Bank will not only violate international law and deny Palestinians basic rights, but it will set off a process that will further erode Israeli democracy, isolate Israel internationally, and undermine the bipartisan U.S. support that has been so central to its success.
By destroying any remaining prospects of keeping the two-state solution alive, annexation will inevitably lead current and future generations of Palestinians to demand equal rights in a single political entity, and Israel’s denial of those rights will weaken its support around the world. Israel may get more territory in the short term but come to regret it, while Palestinians forced to swallow annexation may ultimately embrace it as having advanced their fight for equal rights by destroying the ever more elusive fantasy of the two-state solution.
Predictions of catastrophe have often accompanied Israeli or U.S. decisions that are hostile to Palestinians, and they have just as often proven wrong. The latest example was the United States’ recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which, for all its heavy symbolism, elicited an underwhelming response. U.S. President Donald Trump and his advisors have been quick to point to that precedent in arguing that annexation likewise would pass without a tremor. As Trump put it in October 2019, “Remember the world was going to come to an end, right? Nothing happened.” Promising a “big announcement” on annexation when speaking to the press on June 25, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said , “There’s always this scare tactic … of all the bad that’s going to happen, and then it doesn’t happen.”
Annexation could play out in similar ways, at least in the short run. Especially if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu eschews the most ambitious version of annexation—30 percent of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley—and opts instead for a narrower plan under which Israel annexes those settlement blocs already assigned to Israel in most existing peace maps, the immediate consequences may be limited. Israel exercises virtually complete security control over the West Bank, and Palestinians seem unlikely to want to risk the harsh repression, suffering, and chaos that would follow any uprising. The Palestinian leadership has warned it will sever all ties to Israel and dismantle the Palestinian Authority (PA), which would compel Israel to assume the full costs and risks of its occupation. A decision to fully take down the PA is not inconceivable. But since doing so would jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of PA employees, paralyze crucial public services, and negate the privileges the PA’s leaders still enjoy, it is the kind of threat far more useful as a deterrent than when actually carried out.Predictions of catastrophe have often accompanied Israeli or U.S. decisions that are hostile to Palestinians, and they have just as often proven wrong.
Arab countries likewise have warned of dire implications. Jordan has raised the specter of a “massive conflict” with Israel, and the United Arab Emirates has asserted that Israel could have either annexation or normalization but not both. Here too, skepticism is in order. Jordan has an enduring interest in sustaining its peace treaty with Israel, particularly at a time of serious economic distress, and will want to avoid triggering greater instability. And the United Arab Emirates, along with other Gulf Arab states, has developed quiet, behind-the-scenes ties to Israel for reasons that will endure regardless of what Israel does on the West Bank. The new generation of Gulf Arab leaders do not have the same passion for the Palestinian cause as their predecessors did and are unlikely to subordinate their main priority—cooperation with Israel against Iran—to it. They will no doubt oppose any form of annexation in public, if only to protect themselves against accusations of betrayal from Iran, Turkey, and their own populations. But the kind of normalization that matters—cooperation between security services and other covert ties—will almost certainly continue.
Europeans will protest, too, and their leaders—including French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson—have been forceful in cautioning Israel. They may consider more forward-leaning ideas, such as a ban on goods imported from annexed areas, suspending the EU-Israel trade agreement, or recognizing a Palestinian state on undetermined borders. In practice, however, it is hard to see many Europeans taking steps that would truly punish Israel given their own internal divisions, domestic politics, and broader interests in relations with the Jewish state.
That leaves the United States. Trump’s position is not at issue, since annexation, according to the Israeli government’s own coalition agreement, will occur only with Washington’s blessing. If elected U.S. president in November, former Vice President Joe Biden would likely denounce the unilateral Israeli move, which he has strongly opposed, but at the same time he has made clear that his broader support for Israel is unreserved and has categorically ruled out conditioning military aid. Most Democrats in Congress, almost all of whom have expressed clear opposition to annexation, will take a similar stance. The predictable end result will be strong criticism of Israel, paired with blame for the Palestinian leadership for its refusal to negotiate. Under a limited annexation scenario, some will even give Netanyahu credit for listening to critics and supposedly salvaging the possibility of a two-state solution. Annexation will proceed, the new map will be presented as the basis for future territorial negotiations, and many Israelis will once again feel that they have advanced their interests without paying a price.Annexation will proceed, the new map will be presented as the basis for future territorial negotiations, and many Israelis will once again feel that they have advanced their interests without paying a price.
The longer term, however, is a different story. Even if annexation changes nothing on the ground on day one, it would represent a fundamental turning point. Annexation may be the final nail in the coffin of a genuine two-state solution—as opposed to the Palestinian pseudostate Netanyahu has said he accepts and the Trump plan contemplates. That plan will never work—not only because it is virtually impossible to construct a viable, sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state on the disjointed parcels of territory that would remain, but also for political and psychological reasons. What Palestinian leader could agree to sit down with a party that has formally taken the land over which they are supposed to negotiate? Already, much of the Palestinian public has lost faith in the Palestinian Authority, in talks with Israel, and in U.S. mediation. It would not take much for them to turn in another direction entirely.
The signs of what is to come are already there. Among young Palestinians in the territories, in Israel, and in the diaspora, the two-state solution is viewed as worse than unrealistic—it is unappealing. It has become an unattractive compromise that would restrict the lives of those living in the West Bank and Gaza to a narrow, disjointed entity, deny them a true capital in Jerusalem, entrench inequality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, give Israelis security control over their country, and prevent even a symbolic number of refugees from returning to their former homes. For the current Palestinian leadership, annexation will make the already difficult task of defending the two-state solution an almost impossible one. With demographics on their side, the next generation of Palestinians will likely take this to the next logical step: away from the dreary and improbable two-state solution toward the more inspiring (if equally implausible) struggle for a single, democratic state with equal political rights for all. Rather than looking to the United States or United Nations to help them negotiate with Israel, they will be more inclined to appeal to the International Criminal Court to bring charges against the occupation forces and their leaders.
Over time, annexation could have similar effects on U.S. politics. Already, it is causing fissures in what was once wall-to-wall bipartisan support for Israel, with even staunchly pro-Israel Democrats in Congress appealing to Netanyahu not to act. Down the road, the picture could change dramatically. The Democratic Party is becoming younger, more diverse, and more attuned to broad movements for equal rights such as Black Lives Matter. Opinion polls show declining support for Israel among women, minorities, millennials, and liberals, who increasingly support sanctions to penalize Israel over settlement expansion, human rights abuses, or the use of military force in Gaza. These groups will be more likely to equate annexationist Israel with apartheid South Africa, espouse the ideals of equal rights and democratic representation, and increasingly challenge their leadership’s traditionally close ties to Israel.
This evolution could continue to be gradual or, as was the surge of support for Black Lives Matter, abrupt. According to a recent poll, 48 percent of Americans identifying as Democrats support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, and only 15 percent oppose it. Meanwhile, 81 percent of Democrats favor Israel’s democracy more than its Jewishness and support Arab and Jewish equality if a two-state solution is ruled out, “even if that means Israel would no longer be a politically Jewish state.” And only 13 percent of Democrats favor Israel’s Jewishness more than its democracy, “even if it means that Palestinians will not have citizenship and full rights.” Those are numbers that should make Israel and its supporters think twice. For now, calls by progressive members of Congress to harshly criticize Israel’s human rights record and condition U.S. military support have only limited support. But trends within the party are clear, and combined with a scenario in which Israel continues to deny millions of Palestinians their rights could lead to dramatic changes over time.
There is no reason to expect an earthquake in the wake of an Israeli annexation decision. But it would be a mistake to confuse calm with insignificance. Annexation would accelerate a profound shift, already underway, in the ways in which various parties view the conflict and its eventual resolution. The days that follow Israeli annexation may not look a lot different from the days that precede it. But no one should be surprised if, a few years down the road, Israelis find themselves yearning for the two-state solution they will have helped to bury, and Palestinians embrace the idea of a one-state solution that Israel’s actions helped produce.


foreignpolicy--2020-07-07--Has Jair Bolsonaro’s Luck Run Out?

Has Jair Bolsonaro’s Luck Run Out?

Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro awaits his latest coronavirus test results , the United States announces new guidelines threatening foreign university students , and the United Kingdom unveils new sanctions on Russian and Saudi nationals .
We welcome your feedback at morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro will learn today whether his latest coronavirus test—his fourth of the pandemic—will come back positive after he admitted to showing symptoms of the virus , including a low fever and cough .
Bolsonaro has dismissed the virus since the beginning of the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic activity .
Today , Brazil has the second highest number of coronavirus cases in the world with over 1.5 million and over 65,000 deaths .
The president now appears to be taking the risk of his own infection seriously : he has cleared his Tuesday schedule and made arrangements for the rest of the week ’ s meetings to be conducted over video conference .
In an appearance outside the presidential palace on Monday , Bolsonaro urged supporters to keep their distance .
If Bolsonaro does test positive , the U.S. ambassador @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause for concern .
The two were photographed together , without masks , at a Fourth of July celebration at the ambassador ’ s residence on Saturday .
Mask on , mask off .
On Friday , the president exercised a veto on certain aspects of a new law mandating mask wearing in public spaces .
Bolsonaro vetoed articles in the law requiring masks in shops and places of worship as well as articles that would have made public authorities responsible for distributing masks to “ economically vulnerable people.
” Brazil ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s those economically vulnerable people who are bearing the brunt of the virus .
In June , Ana Ionova reported for Foreign Policy from Rio de Janeiro , where she saw a public health system unable to cope with rising cases , and favela residents being turned away from hospitals .
ICE threatens deportation of foreign students .
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) agency announced that foreign students studying at U.S. colleges and universities will face deportation if their institution moves to online classes and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives students less than two months to either transfer to a university offering in-person tuition or leave the country entirely .
Peter McPherson , the president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities ( APLU ) whose members include the University of California system along with roughly 200 other universities , called the policy “ incredibly unfair , harmful , and unworkable.
” Sen. Elizabeth Warren , whose state of Massachusetts is home to some of the country ’ s top universities , has called on ICE and its parent agency the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy , calling it “ senseless , cruel , and xenophobic.
” U.K. unveils new sanctions .
The United Kingdom imposed sanctions on 25 Russians linked to the death of Sergei Magnitsky , along with 20 Saudis connected to the death of Jamal Khashoggi in the first use of new sanctioning powers .
British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said the new laws send a blunt message .
“ If you ’ re a kleptocrat or an organized criminal , you will not be able to launder your blood money in this country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in London called the inclusion of some legal and judicial leaders on the list as “ outrageous ” and said its government has the right to respond .
Record fine in Siberian fuel spill .
Norilsk Nickel , the company behind a massive fuel spill in Siberia , has been fined a record $ 2.1 billion by the Russian government .
“ The scale of the damage to Arctic waterways is unprecedented .
The fine is proportional to it , ” Russia ’ s Ecology Minister Dmitry Kobylkin , said , adding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levied in the wake of environmental disasters such as the Exxon Valdez spill .
Norilsk is more than capable of affording the fine , according to the Financial Times , the fine is about one third of its 2019 net profit , and it has almost $ 5 billion in cash on hand .
Japan warns of more rain to come .
Japanese authorities warned of continuing heavy rains and flooding risks on the southwestern island of Kyushu—which includes the prefectures of Nagasaki , Saga , and Fukuoka—as the death toll from floods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 50 .
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the rains are expected to last in the region until July 9 .
Woman makes major presidential ticket in Ghana .
Jane Naana Opoku-Agyeman has been named as former president John Mahama ’ s running mate in Ghana ’ s upcoming presidential election , the first time a woman has been on a presidential ticket of a major party in the country .
Opoku-Agyeman is a former education minister and university professor .
Ghana ’ s December 7 election pits Mahama against President Nana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 presidential contest .
Tech firms hit “ pause ” over Hong Kong laws .
Facebook , along with messaging apps Telegram and Whatsapp ( which is owned by Facebook ) have all temporarily stopped processing government requests for data on Hong Kong users following the implementation of China ’ s new national security law in the city .
Whatsapp , the first service to announce such a move , said it would pause the handling of government requests “ pending further assessment of the impact of the national security law , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with human rights experts.
” Hong Kongers have traditionally enjoyed an open internet and have been able to access websites otherwise blocked on the Chinese mainland .
Russian authorities have dug a trench around the remote Siberian village of Shuluta , following an outbreak of coronavirus among the residents .
Local officials believe the virus was spread during a traditional shaman ritual , despite public gatherings being banned under the region ’ s coronavirus guidelines .
The trench is meant to deter tourists from stumbling upon the village on the way to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents skeptical of the virus from venturing out .
Russian national guards are now standing sentry at the one road leading to the village not disrupted by the trench , and only ambulances and food deliveries are allowed in .
For more from FP , visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe here , or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or corrections to morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .

Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro awaits his latest coronavirus test results, the United States announces new guidelines threatening foreign university students, and the United Kingdom unveils new sanctions on Russian and Saudi nationals.
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro awaits his latest coronavirus test results, the United States announces new guidelines threatening foreign university students, and the United Kingdom unveils new sanctions on Russian and Saudi nationals.
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday, please sign up here.
Brazil’s President Awaits Another Coronavirus Test
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro will learn today whether his latest coronavirus test—his fourth of the pandemic—will come back positive after he admitted to showing symptoms of the virus, including a low fever and cough.
Bolsonaro has dismissed the virus since the beginning of the pandemic, shrugging off its severity and prioritizing economic activity. Today, Brazil has the second highest number of coronavirus cases in the world with over 1.5 million, and more than 65,000 deaths.
The president now appears to be taking the risk of his own infection seriously: He has cleared his Tuesday schedule and made arrangements for the rest of the week’s meetings to be conducted over video conference. In an appearance outside the presidential palace on Monday, Bolsonaro urged supporters to keep their distance.
If Bolsonaro does test positive, the U.S. ambassador to Brazil, Todd Chapman, has cause for concern. The two were photographed together, without masks, at a Fourth of July celebration at the ambassador’s residence on Saturday.
Mask on, mask off. On Friday, the president exercised a veto on certain aspects of a new law mandating mask wearing in public spaces. Bolsonaro vetoed articles in the law requiring masks in shops and places of worship as well as articles that would have made public authorities responsible for distributing masks to “economically vulnerable people.”
Brazil’s poor vs. the pandemic. In Brazil, it’s those economically vulnerable people who are bearing the brunt of the virus. In June, Ana Ionova reported for Foreign Policy from Rio de Janeiro, where she saw a public health system unable to cope with rising cases, and favela residents being turned away from hospitals.
What We’re Following Today
ICE threatens deportation of foreign students. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency announced that foreign students studying at U.S. colleges and universities will face deportation if their institution moves to online classes and they remain in the country. The decision gives students less than two months to either transfer to a university offering in-person tuition or leave the country entirely.
Peter McPherson, the president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) whose members include the University of California system along with roughly 200 other universities, called the policy “incredibly unfair, harmful, and unworkable.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose state of Massachusetts is home to some of the country’s top universities, has called on ICE and its parent agency the Department of Homeland Security to drop the policy, calling it “senseless, cruel, and xenophobic.”
U.K. unveils new sanctions. The United Kingdom imposed sanctions on 25 Russians linked to the death of Sergei Magnitsky, along with 20 Saudis connected to the death of Jamal Khashoggi in the first use of new sanctioning powers. British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said the new laws send a blunt message. “If you’re a kleptocrat or an organized criminal, you will not be able to launder your blood money in this country,” Raab said. The Russian embassy in London called the inclusion of some legal and judicial leaders on the list as “outrageous” and said its government has the right to respond.
Record fine in Siberian fuel spill. Norilsk Nickel, the company behind a massive fuel spill in Siberia, has been fined a record $2.1 billion by the Russian government. “The scale of the damage to Arctic waterways is unprecedented. The fine is proportional to it,” Russia’s Ecology Minister Dmitry Kobylkin, said, adding that it was in line with similar fines levied in the wake of environmental disasters such as the Exxon Valdez spill. Norilsk is more than capable of affording the fine, according to the Financial Times, the fine is about one third of its 2019 net profit, and it has almost $5 billion in cash on hand.
Japan warns of more rain to come. Japanese authorities warned of continuing heavy rains and flooding risks on the southwestern island of Kyushu—which includes the prefectures of Nagasaki, Saga, and Fukuoka—as the death toll from floods in the area has risen to at least 50. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the rains are expected to last in the region until July 9.
Keep an Eye On
Woman makes major presidential ticket in Ghana. Jane Naana Opoku-Agyeman has been named as former president John Mahama’s running mate in Ghana’s upcoming presidential election, the first time a woman has been on a presidential ticket of a major party in the country. Opoku-Agyeman is a former education minister and university professor. Ghana’s December 7 election pits Mahama against President Nana Akufo-Addo, who beat Mahama in the 2016 presidential contest.
Tech firms hit “pause” over Hong Kong laws. Facebook, along with messaging apps Telegram and Whatsapp (which is owned by Facebook) have all temporarily stopped processing government requests for data on Hong Kong users following the implementation of China’s new national security law in the city. Whatsapp, the first service to announce such a move, said it would pause the handling of government requests “pending further assessment of the impact of the national security law, including formal human rights due diligence and consultations with human rights experts.” Hong Kongers have traditionally enjoyed an open internet and have been able to access websites otherwise blocked on the Chinese mainland.
Odds and Ends
Russian authorities have dug a trench around the remote Siberian village of Shuluta, following an outbreak of coronavirus among the residents. Local officials believe the virus was spread during a traditional shaman ritual, despite public gatherings being banned under the region’s coronavirus guidelines. The trench is meant to deter tourists from stumbling upon the village on the way to a nearby national park, while also discouraging residents skeptical of the virus from venturing out. Russian national guards are now standing sentry at the one road leading to the village not disrupted by the trench, and only ambulances and food deliveries are allowed in.
That’s it for today.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.


foreignpolicy--2020-07-07--Lawmakers Demand to See the Side Deals in Trump’s Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

Lawmakers Demand to See the Side Deals in Trump ’ s Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia Several Democratic lawmakers are demanding that the Trump administration disclose the details of side deals connected with U.S. arms exports to Saudi Arabia , Foreign Policy has learned , maintaining that the so-called offsets undercut the financial benefits of weapons sales touted by the White House .
The push by six House Democrats led by Rep. Katie Porter of California is just the latest tussle between Capitol Hill and the commander in chief over the cozy relationship between the White House and Persian Gulf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to release information on the deals , negotiated between Saudi officials and U.S. defense contractors , that allow Riyadh to onshore some manufacturing and technology as part of an effort to grow its defense industry .
Last month , Foreign Policy reported that the Trump administration is in discussions to end a decades-long practice of informally notifying Congress about U.S. arms sales .
The administration is contemplating another major arms deal with Saudi Arabia—this one for precision-guided munitions—that includes significant offsets , a congressional aide said .
But lawmakers said the practice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referred to as “ sweeteners , ” largely discredit Trump ’ s claims that deals inked under his administration could lead to “ over a million ” new American jobs .
An analysis by the Center for International Policy put the total number of jobs created by Trump ’ s arms sales to Saudi Arabia at between 20,000 to 40,000 .
“ We write to you because we believe that the Trump administration has grossly exaggerated the economic benefits of arms exports , particularly to Saudi Arabia , ” the lawmakers wrote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commerce for industry and security .
“ Further , we believe that the extraordinary transfer of military technology to Saudi Arabia as part of recent arms sales may undermine the American defense industrial capacity and fuel violence in the Middle East.
” Democratic lawmakers have sought to further scrutinize arms sales to the Middle East since the Trump administration declared a May 2019 national security emergency to override congressional opposition and force through 22 arms sales to Saudi Arabia , the United Arab Emirates , and Jordan—drawing a stinging congressional rebuke .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has touted arms sales as a means of deepening diplomatic relations with a host of foreign partners .
Two months later , Defense Secretary Mark Esper faced strong pushback from Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren over his refusal to extend his recusal from decisions involving Raytheon , which makes precision-guided bombs sold to Saudi Arabia .
Esper is a former top lobbyist for Raytheon .
Porter and fellow California Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier , who is also a signatory on the letter sent Tuesday , have also pushed back on Pentagon requests that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior officials , allowing them to advocate on behalf of defense contractors one year after leaving positions at the companies , instead of two years after .
Meanwhile , on Capitol Hill , the seeming divergence between U.S. and Saudi foreign-policy interests has been thrown into sharp contrast as Congress pushed back heavily against the Defense Department ’ s refueling mission in Yemen and , more recently , the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia last year .
“ Giving this kind of military technology to the Gulf states is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foreign Policy in an emailed statement .
“ Congress must investigate , not only because these sales undermined human rights and regional security but also because they may have undermined our own defense industrial capacity.
” President Donald Trump ’ s push to tout U.S. defense exports as a major driver for jobs growth has run up against the desires of both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates , both led by kings-in-waiting who see beefing up their national weapons industries as part of a push toward economic modernization .
Still , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gear however they can , experts said , given the uptick in tensions in the region since the United States exited the 2015 Iran nuclear deal two years ago .
“ They ’ re more concerned with getting the latest and the greatest , ” said Dave Des Roches , a former Defense Department and White House official now with the National Defense University .
“ They want to be peers with the United States .
They want to be fully compatible.
” Under the $ 8.1 billion in sales approved under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , Saudi Arabia received U.S. advisory services to the Ministry of Defense and a deal to co-produce Paveway guided munitions , according to State Department documents seen by Foreign Policy .
The UAE received similar smart bombs and Javelin anti-tank missiles , among other weapons .
Trump touted the value of increased defense cooperation—hinting at co-production and offset agreements—during his first trip abroad as president , to Saudi Arabia , in May 2017 .
But since then , the U.S. administration has made less of a point of touting the cooperation agreements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy often amount to 50 or 60 percent of the total sale value for sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE .
“ I think most people who work on that in the administration don ’ t see that as a positive for trying to maintain the transfers , ” the aide said .
“ Trump hasn ’ t really repeated that since the first visit.
” Yet behind the scenes , Peter Navarro , a top Trump ally in the White House who serves as the president ’ s director of manufacturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly intense advocate for arms sales to the Gulf , according to New York Times reporting , pushing lawmakers directly to approve sales of Raytheon-made precision-guided weapons to the Gulf that had stalled amid the brutal Saudi-led air war in Yemen .
But some advocates think the signal that ’ s being sent to Saudi Arabia with the offset deals is a sign that the Trump administration is allowing Riyadh to take advantage of its cozy relationship with the White House , gaining a bigger foothold in U.S. foreign policy than it deserves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationship and they ’ ve overlooked egregious violations and norms of the relationship and hyper-inflated arms sales over other norms you ’ d expect from a partner , ” said Seth Binder , the advocacy officer at the Project on Middle East Democracy , a Washington think tank .
“ It ’ s certainly out of whack .
And the return on investment doesn ’ t seem to match .
”

Several Democratic lawmakers are demanding that the Trump administration disclose the details of side deals connected with U.S. arms exports to Saudi Arabia, Foreign Policy has learned, maintaining that the so-called offsets undercut the financial benefits of weapons sales touted by the White House.
Several Democratic lawmakers are demanding that the Trump administration disclose the details of side deals connected with U.S. arms exports to Saudi Arabia, Foreign Policy has learned, maintaining that the so-called offsets undercut the financial benefits of weapons sales touted by the White House.
The push by six House Democrats led by Rep. Katie Porter of California is just the latest tussle between Capitol Hill and the commander in chief over the cozy relationship between the White House and Persian Gulf nations.
The lawmakers want the administration to release information on the deals, negotiated between Saudi officials and U.S. defense contractors, that allow Riyadh to onshore some manufacturing and technology as part of an effort to grow its defense industry. Last month, Foreign Policy reported that the Trump administration is in discussions to end a decades-long practice of informally notifying Congress about U.S. arms sales. The administration is contemplating another major arms deal with Saudi Arabia—this one for precision-guided munitions—that includes significant offsets, a congressional aide said.
But lawmakers said the practice of brokering the side deals, which they referred to as “sweeteners,” largely discredit Trump’s claims that deals inked under his administration could lead to “over a million” new American jobs. An analysis by the Center for International Policy put the total number of jobs created by Trump’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia at between 20,000 to 40,000.
“We write to you because we believe that the Trump administration has grossly exaggerated the economic benefits of arms exports, particularly to Saudi Arabia,” the lawmakers wrote to Cordell Hull, the acting undersecretary of commerce for industry and security. “Further, we believe that the extraordinary transfer of military technology to Saudi Arabia as part of recent arms sales may undermine the American defense industrial capacity and fuel violence in the Middle East.”
Democratic lawmakers have sought to further scrutinize arms sales to the Middle East since the Trump administration declared a May 2019 national security emergency to override congressional opposition and force through 22 arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan—drawing a stinging congressional rebuke. The Trump administration, for its part, has touted arms sales as a means of deepening diplomatic relations with a host of foreign partners. Two months later, Defense Secretary Mark Esper faced strong pushback from Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren over his refusal to extend his recusal from decisions involving Raytheon, which makes precision-guided bombs sold to Saudi Arabia. Esper is a former top lobbyist for Raytheon.
Porter and fellow California Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier, who is also a signatory on the letter sent Tuesday, have also pushed back on Pentagon requests that would narrow lobbying restrictions for former generals and senior officials, allowing them to advocate on behalf of defense contractors one year after leaving positions at the companies, instead of two years after.
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the seeming divergence between U.S. and Saudi foreign-policy interests has been thrown into sharp contrast as Congress pushed back heavily against the Defense Department’s refueling mission in Yemen and, more recently, the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia last year.
“Giving this kind of military technology to the Gulf states is cause for concern,” Porter told Foreign Policy in an emailed statement. “Congress must investigate, not only because these sales undermined human rights and regional security but also because they may have undermined our own defense industrial capacity.”
President Donald Trump’s push to tout U.S. defense exports as a major driver for jobs growth has run up against the desires of both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both led by kings-in-waiting who see beefing up their national weapons industries as part of a push toward economic modernization. Still, both countries are eager to get American gear however they can, experts said, given the uptick in tensions in the region since the United States exited the 2015 Iran nuclear deal two years ago.
“They’re more concerned with getting the latest and the greatest,” said Dave Des Roches, a former Defense Department and White House official now with the National Defense University. “They want to be peers with the United States. They want to be fully compatible.”
Under the $8.1 billion in sales approved under the Trump administration’s emergency declaration last year, Saudi Arabia received U.S. advisory services to the Ministry of Defense and a deal to co-produce Paveway guided munitions, according to State Department documents seen by Foreign Policy. The UAE received similar smart bombs and Javelin anti-tank missiles, among other weapons.
Trump touted the value of increased defense cooperation—hinting at co-production and offset agreements—during his first trip abroad as president, to Saudi Arabia, in May 2017. But since then, the U.S. administration has made less of a point of touting the cooperation agreements, which a congressional aide told Foreign Policy often amount to 50 or 60 percent of the total sale value for sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
“I think most people who work on that in the administration don’t see that as a positive for trying to maintain the transfers,” the aide said. “Trump hasn’t really repeated that since the first visit.”
Yet behind the scenes, Peter Navarro, a top Trump ally in the White House who serves as the president’s director of manufacturing and trade policy, has become an increasingly intense advocate for arms sales to the Gulf, according to New York Times reporting, pushing lawmakers directly to approve sales of Raytheon-made precision-guided weapons to the Gulf that had stalled amid the brutal Saudi-led air war in Yemen.
But some advocates think the signal that’s being sent to Saudi Arabia with the offset deals is a sign that the Trump administration is allowing Riyadh to take advantage of its cozy relationship with the White House, gaining a bigger foothold in U.S. foreign policy than it deserves.
“They’ve overvalued the relationship and they’ve overlooked egregious violations and norms of the relationship and hyper-inflated arms sales over other norms you’d expect from a partner,” said Seth Binder, the advocacy officer at the Project on Middle East Democracy, a Washington think tank. “It’s certainly out of whack. And the return on investment doesn’t seem to match.”


foreignpolicy--2020-07-07--China’s Second Wave of Coronavirus Censorship Is Here

China ’ s Second Wave of Coronavirus Censorship Is Here My Weibo account was blocked on May 19 .
I had been using this account on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter for more than nine years , published thousands of posts , and accumulated around 90,000 followers .
On the same day , five of my friends who are writers and influencers also lost their Weibo accounts .
We were all familiar with China ’ s growing censorship and had avoided using words and phrases that the Chinese government didn ’ t like—but we fell victim to an expanding system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone .
A wave of new censorship has grown during the coronavirus pandemic , most of it focused on covering up the stories around COVID-19 itself .
Since January , I have worked as an independent reporter in the United States writing coronavirus-related articles , and I also organized a volunteer group in Austin , Texas , to ship donations of medical gear to hospitals in Wuhan , China .
While I helped dozens of doctors , nurses , and patients in recent months , I also tried to use my limited power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut down by the authorities .
After the lockdown on Jan. 23 , the situation in Wuhan was chaotic and horrific .
I was told by Li , a doctor at Wuhan No .
4 Hospital , that “ there ’ s insufficient manpower , limited treatment , and scarce [ personal protective equipment ] .
” In a Weibo group named “ COVID-19 patients pleading for help , ” there were more than 150,000 people—mostly patients and their families—asking for assistance .
( I am providing only pseudonymous surnames in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these patients were untested and untreated due to a shortage of medical resources .
My friend Qian was sent by a Shanghai-based Chinese digital media outlet to report from the epidemic center in Wuhan .
She saw patients collapsing while waiting outside hospitals and their families kneeling at doctors ’ feet begging for help .
We decided to do something together .
I would contact people in the Weibo group , gather their information , and pass that on to Qian .
She would push local government to find hospital beds for these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interviewed government officials .
We weren ’ t sure how effective this would be , but we were pleased to hear that a lot of the people we contacted were approached by community officers and were eventually diagnosed and hospitalized .
On Jan. 31 , Qian received a phone call from the Wuhan Propaganda Department—one of the thousands of such bodies run by the Chinese Communist Party .
The local government was annoyed by her behavior and worried about the brief spike in media power .
Qian was threatened , but she kept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to remain silent , ” she said , though she was aware that what she did might destroy her career .
Luckily , the leader of her media outlet was supportive , and she was able to keep being a journalist .
There were many journalists thinking like Qian .
Through brave reporting , independent media outlets like Caixin published articles highlighting whistleblowers and government malfeasance .
They talked about the Chinese Red Cross ’ s inefficiency in handling donations of protective equipment , a serious shortage of test kits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the front line of the pandemic without proper protection .
According to research done by SupChina , for a short period of time , the media environment was relatively free .
That had positive results .
When these articles were shared again and again , the government was forced to act more effectively and efficiently .
The clampdowns came fast .
According to Wong , an editor for the Paper ( one of China ’ s leading digital media outlets ) , on Feb. 2 , media outlets were told to not publish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of influential articles were deleted .
Every night , around 2 a.m. , thousands of posts from the “ COVID-19 patients pleading for help ” Weibo group disappeared .
The government sent dozens of journalists to Wuhan to shape the narrative around the virus .
But there was still an eagerness to publish the truth .
In March , Renwu magazine published an interview with Ai Fen , a doctor who heads the emergency department at Wuhan Central Hospital .
She told the magazine that the outbreak began unfolding in December and doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus were told to stop .
The story was deleted within hours of being published , yet Chinese internet users rapidly came up with various ways to preserve and share the article in a show of defiance against the censors .
Some wrote the story backward , some used emoji instead of words , and some translated the story into other languages .
While the various versions of the story were also deleted , this was a brief demonstration of the feeling of an empowered public .
Yet this empowerment didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the United States worsened , the online conversation began to be dominated by nationalism .
China ’ s media started to be filled with articles glorifying the government ’ s response to the epidemic .
There started to be a backlash about award-winning author Fang Fang ’ s Wuhan Diary , a personal account of the early days of the pandemic .
Although most of her writing complimented the hard work done by medical workers and volunteers , she also criticized local government for trying to cover up the COVID-19 outbreak in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Beyond Fang Fang , many voices from Wuhan have been silenced .
As life in China gradually goes back to normal , it has become more and more difficult to interview medical workers , patients , and their families .
The government wants to portray itself as a responsible regime that has successfully contained the virus and is leading the world .
More and more people are getting into trouble , whether ordinary members of the public or journalists .
After Southern Weekend , a popular and historically liberal paper , published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wuhan Central Hospital , it was criticized by the propaganda department and was told not to publish any more coronavirus-related articles other than official Xinhua copy .
According to their journalists , a few coronavirus-related in-depth investigative articles never get the chance to be published .
People who lost their loved ones to COVID-19 are demanding answers and accountability from local officials , especially those who lost family to infections picked up in hospitals when they were there to be treated for another condition .
Zhang Hai ’ s father , Zhang Lifa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberation Army General Hospital ( Central District ) in Wuhan for a leg surgery on Jan. 17 .
He and his father were living in Shenzhen until his father broke his leg on Jan. 15 .
Zhang Hai was on a tight budget , and Zhang Lifa , who had served in the army and worked on nuclear bomb development and testing in the 1960s , could receive free medical treatment in Wuhan , so he decided to drive his dad to Wuhan .
Zhang explained to me that his dad was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment only in Wuhan .
Neither Zhang had heard of any outbreak .
His father tested positive for the coronavirus on Jan. 23 and died on Feb. 1 .
Zhang Hai and others who lost family gathered in a WeChat group—and promptly found themselves closely monitored by the security services .
Zhang Hai received various phone calls from the police , and he was forced to visit the police station twice .
He later wrote on Weibo that he found a policeman standing outside his apartment—and most of his Weibo posts themselves were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The last time he spoke to me , he told me that he was hiding .
He also informed me that he filed a lawsuit seeking compensation and an apology from the Wuhan government , but security authorities told him to drop the case .
When I was working on a BBC documentary , Yang , another doctor whose warnings about the coronavirus were silenced in December , agreed to be interviewed .
He had reported his mistreatment to a whistleblower line set up by the State Council , and he was willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had sent to the council .
The interview was scheduled for 6 p.m. on a Saturday .
However , around 5 p.m. , the hospital ’ s leaders visited his apartment and gave him a warning for contacting foreign media .
The interview was canceled .
Medical staff were particularly targeted as part of the post-virus crackdown .
I obtained an official document issued by Fangshan No.1 Hospital in Shiyan ( a city less than 300 miles away from Wuhan , in the same province ) , dated February 14 , that warns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus situation in their hospital could result in firing , loss of their status as civil servants , or expulsion from the Chinese Communist Party .
Through my conversations with medical workers from various hospitals , they reassured me that this was a common practice and said many similar efforts happened across the country .
Beyond government propaganda efforts , there are also a fair number of genuinely nationalist people posting online .
In order to learn more about them , I joined a fan group started by a pro-government social media influencer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted positive stories and called for attacks on medical workers and patients who posted “ negative content.
” They also attempted to report teachers and students who violated the political line .
This generation of young people grew up in a very censored environment with limited access to foreign media , and they say they care more about China ’ s economic growth than freedom and democracy .
One day , people in the group were discussing whether China had freedom of speech .
The discussion drew the attention of censors , and @ @ @ @ @

My Weibo account was blocked on May 19. I had been using this account on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter for more than nine years, published thousands of posts, and accumulated around 90,000 followers. On the same day, five of my friends who are writers and influencers also lost their Weibo accounts. We were all familiar with China’s growing censorship and had avoided using words and phrases that the Chinese government didn’t like—but we fell victim to an expanding system anyway.
My Weibo account was blocked on May 19. I had been using this account on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter for more than nine years, published thousands of posts, and accumulated around 90,000 followers. On the same day, five of my friends who are writers and influencers also lost their Weibo accounts. We were all familiar with China’s growing censorship and had avoided using words and phrases that the Chinese government didn’t like—but we fell victim to an expanding system anyway.
We certainly weren’t alone. A wave of new censorship has grown during the coronavirus pandemic, most of it focused on covering up the stories around COVID-19 itself. Since January, I have worked as an independent reporter in the United States writing coronavirus-related articles, and I also organized a volunteer group in Austin, Texas, to ship donations of medical gear to hospitals in Wuhan, China. While I helped dozens of doctors, nurses, and patients in recent months, I also tried to use my limited power to reveal the truth—and found myself repeatedly shut down by the authorities.
After the lockdown on Jan. 23, the situation in Wuhan was chaotic and horrific. I was told by Li, a doctor at Wuhan No. 4 Hospital, that “there’s insufficient manpower, limited treatment, and scarce [personal protective equipment].” In a Weibo group named “COVID-19 patients pleading for help,” there were more than 150,000 people—mostly patients and their families—asking for assistance. (I am providing only pseudonymous surnames in order to protect sources.] A lot of these patients were untested and untreated due to a shortage of medical resources.
My friend Qian was sent by a Shanghai-based Chinese digital media outlet to report from the epidemic center in Wuhan. She saw patients collapsing while waiting outside hospitals and their families kneeling at doctors’ feet begging for help. We decided to do something together. I would contact people in the Weibo group, gather their information, and pass that on to Qian. She would push local government to find hospital beds for these people when she attended press conferences or interviewed government officials. We weren’t sure how effective this would be, but we were pleased to hear that a lot of the people we contacted were approached by community officers and were eventually diagnosed and hospitalized.
On Jan. 31, Qian received a phone call from the Wuhan Propaganda Department—one of the thousands of such bodies run by the Chinese Communist Party. The local government was annoyed by her behavior and worried about the brief spike in media power. Qian was threatened, but she kept speaking out. “I don’t want to remain silent,” she said, though she was aware that what she did might destroy her career. Luckily, the leader of her media outlet was supportive, and she was able to keep being a journalist.
There were many journalists thinking like Qian. Through brave reporting, independent media outlets like Caixin published articles highlighting whistleblowers and government malfeasance. They talked about the Chinese Red Cross’s inefficiency in handling donations of protective equipment, a serious shortage of test kits, and how doctors had to charge toward the front line of the pandemic without proper protection. According to research done by SupChina, for a short period of time, the media environment was relatively free. That had positive results. When these articles were shared again and again, the government was forced to act more effectively and efficiently.
The clampdowns came fast. According to Wong, an editor for the Paper (one of China’s leading digital media outlets), on Feb. 2, media outlets were told to not publish negative coronavirus-related articles. A good number of influential articles were deleted. Every night, around 2 a.m., thousands of posts from the “COVID-19 patients pleading for help” Weibo group disappeared. The government sent dozens of journalists to Wuhan to shape the narrative around the virus.
But there was still an eagerness to publish the truth. In March, Renwu magazine published an interview with Ai Fen, a doctor who heads the emergency department at Wuhan Central Hospital. She told the magazine that the outbreak began unfolding in December and doctors who tried to share information about the virus were told to stop. The story was deleted within hours of being published, yet Chinese internet users rapidly came up with various ways to preserve and share the article in a show of defiance against the censors. Some wrote the story backward, some used emoji instead of words, and some translated the story into other languages. While the various versions of the story were also deleted, this was a brief demonstration of the feeling of an empowered public.
Yet this empowerment didn’t last long. As outbreaks in Europe and the United States worsened, the online conversation began to be dominated by nationalism. China’s media started to be filled with articles glorifying the government’s response to the epidemic. There started to be a backlash about award-winning author Fang Fang’s Wuhan Diary, a personal account of the early days of the pandemic. Although most of her writing complimented the hard work done by medical workers and volunteers, she also criticized local government for trying to cover up the COVID-19 outbreak in early January, prompting attacks against her.
Beyond Fang Fang, many voices from Wuhan have been silenced. As life in China gradually goes back to normal, it has become more and more difficult to interview medical workers, patients, and their families. The government wants to portray itself as a responsible regime that has successfully contained the virus and is leading the world. More and more people are getting into trouble, whether ordinary members of the public or journalists. After Southern Weekend, a popular and historically liberal paper, published an article about the extensive corruption at Wuhan Central Hospital, it was criticized by the propaganda department and was told not to publish any more coronavirus-related articles other than official Xinhua copy. According to their journalists, a few coronavirus-related in-depth investigative articles never get the chance to be published.
People who lost their loved ones to COVID-19 are demanding answers and accountability from local officials, especially those who lost family to infections picked up in hospitals when they were there to be treated for another condition.
Zhang Hai’s father, Zhang Lifa, was hospitalized in People’s Liberation Army General Hospital (Central District) in Wuhan for a leg surgery on Jan. 17. He and his father were living in Shenzhen until his father broke his leg on Jan. 15. Zhang Hai was on a tight budget, and Zhang Lifa, who had served in the army and worked on nuclear bomb development and testing in the 1960s, could receive free medical treatment in Wuhan, so he decided to drive his dad to Wuhan. Zhang explained to me that his dad was a Wuhan local resident and could receive free treatment only in Wuhan. Neither Zhang had heard of any outbreak. His father tested positive for the coronavirus on Jan. 23 and died on Feb. 1.
Zhang Hai and others who lost family gathered in a WeChat group—and promptly found themselves closely monitored by the security services. Zhang Hai received various phone calls from the police, and he was forced to visit the police station twice. He later wrote on Weibo that he found a policeman standing outside his apartment—and most of his Weibo posts themselves were deleted within hours of being posted. The last time he spoke to me, he told me that he was hiding. He also informed me that he filed a lawsuit seeking compensation and an apology from the Wuhan government, but security authorities told him to drop the case.
When I was working on a BBC documentary, Yang, another doctor whose warnings about the coronavirus were silenced in December, agreed to be interviewed. He had reported his mistreatment to a whistleblower line set up by the State Council, and he was willing to share with us the documents he had sent to the council. The interview was scheduled for 6 p.m. on a Saturday. However, around 5 p.m., the hospital’s leaders visited his apartment and gave him a warning for contacting foreign media. The interview was canceled.
Medical staff were particularly targeted as part of the post-virus crackdown. I obtained an official document issued by Fangshan No.1 Hospital in Shiyan (a city less than 300 miles away from Wuhan, in the same province), dated February 14, that warns hospital employees that sharing information about the coronavirus situation in their hospital could result in firing, loss of their status as civil servants, or expulsion from the Chinese Communist Party. Through my conversations with medical workers from various hospitals, they reassured me that this was a common practice and said many similar efforts happened across the country.
Beyond government propaganda efforts, there are also a fair number of genuinely nationalist people posting online. In order to learn more about them, I joined a fan group started by a pro-government social media influencer, where people in their early 20s posted positive stories and called for attacks on medical workers and patients who posted “negative content.” They also attempted to report teachers and students who violated the political line. This generation of young people grew up in a very censored environment with limited access to foreign media, and they say they care more about China’s economic growth than freedom and democracy.
One day, people in the group were discussing whether China had freedom of speech. The discussion drew the attention of censors, and the group was deleted.