foreignpolicy--2020-03-25--China Turns Inward in the Face of Pandemic

China Turns Inward in the Face of Pandemic Welcome to Foreign Policy ’ s weekly China Brief .
The highlights this week : Hostility against foreigners in China rises amid fears of imported coronavirus cases , China ’ s leaders are still worried about provincial outbreaks , and why Taiwan is shipping medical masks to the United States .
If you would like to receive China Brief in your inbox every Wednesday , please sign up here .
New coronavirus cases are officially nearing zero within China , except for imported infections—those among people traveling from abroad .
The rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the threat , and foreigners are increasingly facing discrimination , especially in Beijing .
Signs on some businesses in the capital forbid foreigners from entry , and many hotels are refusing to accept foreigners—including residents—unless they are mandated as quarantine sites for recent arrivals .
Security staff are even turning away foreigners from offices and apartment buildings .
As Chinese officials blame the outside world for the coronavirus , this treatment is likely to only get worse—and residing in the country is likely to become more difficult .
Proposed changes to China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for experts and high-income foreigners have sparked racist backlash online .
Meanwhile , visa renewal for foreigners will be challenging because of official barricades and because Chinese friends or companies that were once willing to sponsor visas might now fear the political consequences .
Unwelcome shift .
For many foreigners who have lived in China , it ’ s hard to reconcile this discrimination with the warm and welcoming public they are used to .
But it hasn ’ t come out of nowhere : For at least seven years , there has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a growing hostility toward the outside world .
Public opinion isn ’ t constant , and friendlier voices are now becoming suppressed or are afraid to speak up .
Conflicting messages .
Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Zhao Lijian , the most aggressive of China ’ s Twitter trolls , has drawn attention to an unfounded conspiracy theory that the virus originated in the United States .
But in an interview on Sunday , Chinese Ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai appeared to push back against the misinformation embraced by his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newspaper Global Times tried to spin this as an example of China ’ s democratic diversity . )
It ’ s unclear whether this is a genuine split or a strategy designed to obfuscate .
What ’ s going on in the provinces ?
There is good reason to be confident in the overall downward trend of China ’ s numbers , even if the overall death toll from Wuhan looks increasingly suspicious in light of the number of deaths elsewhere , such as the Lombardy region of Italy .
The confidence shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the lack of overrun hospitals does indicate successful containment .
Still , it ’ s clear that China ’ s leaders are worried about the chance of a new provincial outbreak being covered up .
On Tuesday , Premier Li Keqiang issued a warning ( link in Chinese ) to officials “ not to hide cases for the sake of reporting zero.
” The recent demarcation of Beijing ’ s suburbs as a separate area from the inner city with extra security checks also indicates concern about further infections , especially among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistaken advice early on from Western health experts , mask-wearing—already a cultural norm in East Asia—appears to be a strong factor in preventing the rampant spread of the virus .
Taiwan , which ramped up the production of medical masks early , is now donating 100,000 masks each week to the United States—angering Beijing , which called the move ( link in Chinese ) a “ rebellion against your ancestral land.
” Given the geopolitical shake-ups likely to come , Taiwan is keen to stay well within the umbrella of U.S. defense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ grapples with the coronavirus , routine repression rolls on in China , especially in Xinjiang .
The latest victim of state abuse is the Uighur singer Rashida Dawut , a popular folk performer in the 1990s who has reportedly been sentenced to 15 years detention for “ separatism.
” Prison sentences are still regularly deployed against prominent figures , including former government officials , as part of the ongoing campaign of cultural genocide .
Factory orders canceled .
Asian factories are getting hit hard by the global markets collapse , with mass cancellations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no exception , and Beijing knows that recovery can ’ t begin until Western consumers are spending properly again .
China ’ s development zones—special areas for foreign business that are some of the country ’ s most prosperous spaces—will be very badly hit .
Despite all the bitter recriminations between Beijing and Washington at the moment , the economy might eventually be a fruitful area of cooperation .
But expect Beijing to look toward the European Union more than the United States , especially as it positions itself as a benevolent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tightened .
In most Chinese cities , offices and factories have reopened , but many workers have reported slashed salaries or the loss of benefits .
To avoid catastrophic unemployment , the authorities have tightened already restrictive laws around layoffs , pushing the financial burden onto businesses .
There is aid in place for many hard-hit enterprises , but a lot of political competition around who gets it .
Chinese labor laws have always been excellent on paper : It ’ s hard to fire workers without cause or carry out mass layoffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforce in practice .
Ventilator gap .
China ’ s place in the medical supply chain proved critical for coping with its early outbreak .
Now , it gives Beijing unusual leverage , although the United States is rushing to try to repurpose its own factories .
China ’ s main ventilator company says global demand is now 10 times supply .
As China tries to recover , it ’ s likely more businesses will rush into the sector—but it will be a long time before that need is met .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcome your feedback at newsletters @ foreignpolicy.com .
You can find older editions of China Brief here .
For more from Foreign Policy , subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters .

Welcome to Foreign Policy’s weekly China Brief. The highlights this week: Hostility against foreigners in China rises amid fears of imported coronavirus cases, China’s leaders are still worried about provincial outbreaks , and why Taiwan is shipping medical masks to the United States.
Welcome to Foreign Policy’s weekly China Brief. The highlights this week: Hostility against foreigners in China rises amid fears of imported coronavirus cases, China’s leaders are still worried about provincial outbreaks, and why Taiwan is shipping medical masks to the United States.
If you would like to receive China Brief in your inbox every Wednesday, please sign up here.
Fears of Imported Coronavirus Cases Rise
New coronavirus cases are officially nearing zero within China, except for imported infections—those among people traveling from abroad. The rest of the world is now seen as the threat, and foreigners are increasingly facing discrimination, especially in Beijing. Signs on some businesses in the capital forbid foreigners from entry, and many hotels are refusing to accept foreigners—including residents—unless they are mandated as quarantine sites for recent arrivals. Security staff are even turning away foreigners from offices and apartment buildings.
As Chinese officials blame the outside world for the coronavirus, this treatment is likely to only get worse—and residing in the country is likely to become more difficult. Proposed changes to China’s immigration laws to allow permanent residence for experts and high-income foreigners have sparked racist backlash online. Meanwhile, visa renewal for foreigners will be challenging because of official barricades and because Chinese friends or companies that were once willing to sponsor visas might now fear the political consequences.
Unwelcome shift. For many foreigners who have lived in China, it’s hard to reconcile this discrimination with the warm and welcoming public they are used to. But it hasn’t come out of nowhere: For at least seven years, there has been an increase in Chinese anti-foreigner propaganda and a growing hostility toward the outside world. Public opinion isn’t constant, and friendlier voices are now becoming suppressed or are afraid to speak up.
Conflicting messages. Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Zhao Lijian, the most aggressive of China’s Twitter trolls, has drawn attention to an unfounded conspiracy theory that the virus originated in the United States. But in an interview on Sunday, Chinese Ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai appeared to push back against the misinformation embraced by his fellow diplomatic officials. (The government newspaper Global Times tried to spin this as an example of China’s democratic diversity.) It’s unclear whether this is a genuine split or a strategy designed to obfuscate.
What We’re Following
What’s going on in the provinces? There is good reason to be confident in the overall downward trend of China’s numbers, even if the overall death toll from Wuhan looks increasingly suspicious in light of the number of deaths elsewhere, such as the Lombardy region of Italy. The confidence shown in slowly opening the country back up and the lack of overrun hospitals does indicate successful containment. Still, it’s clear that China’s leaders are worried about the chance of a new provincial outbreak being covered up. On Tuesday, Premier Li Keqiang issued a warning (link in Chinese) to officials “not to hide cases for the sake of reporting zero.”
The recent demarcation of Beijing’s suburbs as a separate area from the inner city with extra security checks also indicates concern about further infections, especially among the leadership.
Mask up. Despite mistaken advice early on from Western health experts, mask-wearing—already a cultural norm in East Asia—appears to be a strong factor in preventing the rampant spread of the virus. Taiwan, which ramped up the production of medical masks early, is now donating 100,000 masks each week to the United States—angering Beijing, which called the move (link in Chinese) a “rebellion against your ancestral land.” Given the geopolitical shake-ups likely to come, Taiwan is keen to stay well within the umbrella of U.S. defense.
Uighur singer sentenced. As the world grapples with the coronavirus, routine repression rolls on in China, especially in Xinjiang. The latest victim of state abuse is the Uighur singer Rashida Dawut, a popular folk performer in the 1990s who has reportedly been sentenced to 15 years detention for “separatism.” Prison sentences are still regularly deployed against prominent figures, including former government officials, as part of the ongoing campaign of cultural genocide.
Tech and Business
Factory orders canceled. Asian factories are getting hit hard by the global markets collapse, with mass cancellations from retailers in the West. China is no exception, and Beijing knows that recovery can’t begin until Western consumers are spending properly again. China’s development zones—special areas for foreign business that are some of the country’s most prosperous spaces—will be very badly hit. Despite all the bitter recriminations between Beijing and Washington at the moment, the economy might eventually be a fruitful area of cooperation. But expect Beijing to look toward the European Union more than the United States, especially as it positions itself as a benevolent provider of public goods.
Labor laws tightened. In most Chinese cities, offices and factories have reopened, but many workers have reported slashed salaries or the loss of benefits. To avoid catastrophic unemployment, the authorities have tightened already restrictive laws around layoffs, pushing the financial burden onto businesses. There is aid in place for many hard-hit enterprises, but a lot of political competition around who gets it. Chinese labor laws have always been excellent on paper: It’s hard to fire workers without cause or carry out mass layoffs. But they are highly difficult to enforce in practice.
Ventilator gap. China’s place in the medical supply chain proved critical for coping with its early outbreak. Now, it gives Beijing unusual leverage, although the United States is rushing to try to repurpose its own factories. China’s main ventilator company says global demand is now 10 times supply. As China tries to recover, it’s likely more businesses will rush into the sector—but it will be a long time before that need is met.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
That’s it for this week.
We welcome your feedback at newsletters@foreignpolicy.com. You can find older editions of China Brief here. For more from Foreign Policy, subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-25--Can Europe and the U.S. Follow China’s Lead on Economic Recovery?

Can Europe and the U.S .
Follow China ’ s Lead on Economic Recovery ?
After two months of a near-total lockdown in many parts of the country , China seems to be getting back to business , with important indicators like electricity and steel demand and auto manufacturing returning to levels not far from normal .
That raises a big question for Europe and the United States , which are only now suffering the full brunt of the coronavirus pandemic : Can they just swallow a horrific second quarter and bank on a healthy economic recovery in the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are the world ’ s major economies still on track for what ’ s known as a V-shaped recovery , as most forecasters seem to expect despite their catastrophic projections for the second quarter ?
Or given the complete shutdown of entire industries—from airlines to restaurants—will big economies essentially flatline ?
It ’ s a critical question , especially in the United States , where President Donald Trump wants to get back to business as usual after only a few days of partial measures to reduce social interaction and the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he ’ d like to have the economy up and running again by Easter , in mid-April , because it ’ s “ a beautiful time.
” Looking at China , where the virus outbreak began—and where the attendant economic disruptions hit first and hardest—is like an imperfect peek at a time machine a few months into America ’ s future .
In many ways , after about two months of often near-total shutdowns , especially in the outbreak ’ s epicenter of Hubei province , China is resuming something close to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before now being seen , grimly , as a ray of hope .
Shanghai and Beijing have seen a return to rush-hour traffic jams , with road congestion in most major cities creeping back to within a few honks of last year ’ s average .
As Goldman Sachs has noted , air quality , briefly better during the shutdown , is turning nasty again as coal-fired power plants kick back into operation , while demand for heavy industrial items such as steel is already back to the levels of 2018-2019 .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopened their factories .
Housing sales , while still below the levels of recent years , are ticking upwards .
“ It looks like a fairly strong recovery ” from the data we are seeing , said Robin Brooks , the chief economist at the Institute of International Finance .
His team expects a sharp contraction in Chinese GDP in the first quarter , and then a solid rebound in the second— “ as much of a V as you could hope for.
” By the second half of the year , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resume .
“ The basic message is that this was a sharp interruption , but then GDP should bounce back to more or less where it was before , ” he said .
China ’ s apparent recovery is encouraging , but that doesn ’ t necessarily mean that Europe or the United States should expect to have their economies anywhere near mint condition in six weeks or so .
Places in Asia that were hailed as models for their handling of the initial virus outbreak , such as Hong Kong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention China , struggled with a second wave of ( usually imported ) infections soon after the earlier restrictions were lifted .
That is a cautionary tale for countries like the United States , but also Germany and the U.K. , that are trying to weigh the economic costs ( and political practicalities ) of a hard stop against the human cost of a partial resumption of normal activity .
“ The Chinese experience doesn ’ t translate well—in the West , there is more of an emphasis on individual liberties , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so tight .
That ’ s why there ’ s more of a debate over how much economic activity we should sacrifice , and you see that in Germany , in Britain , and the United States , ” Brooks said .
A quick return to work—as places like Hong Kong are learning—risks reigniting the spread of the virus , and a whole other round of widespread illness and economic dislocation .
But the bigger problem is that while parts of China , Inc. , are getting back to business , a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missing in action as consumers restrain spending , especially on big-ticket items .
And even while China is crawling out of the worst of the virus impact , its major export markets and trading partners in Europe and the United States are smack in the middle of an exponentially growing outbreak , threatening to kneecap any recovery China could begin .
“ There ’ s been a significant recovery since February .
My concern right now is the impact of the looming slowdown in Europe and the United States ” on consumer spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Paulson Institute .
In theory , the economic pain at the beginning of the year should have just meant consumers put off purchases until later—the textbook definition of “ pent-up demand ” that would unleash later in the year in a torrent of growth-boosting purchases .
Maybe not this year .
“ So far , demand is struggling to return to previous levels , ” Song said .
“ China ’ s experience actually casts doubt on this V-shaped recovery idea.
” Far from forecasting booming second-half growth in China , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horizon .
“ There will be a second dip—not as deep as the first one in January and February , but it will be significant , ” he said .
What ’ s confusing about China ’ s return is that while automakers are more or less back in business , auto dealers aren ’ t—consumers aren ’ t buying .
Factories may be reopening , but export markets are closing .
That makes the tentative rebound hard to gauge .
“ There ’ s an uneven pattern : On the production side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life .
Whereas the consumer side , that looks a lot softer , ” said Neil Shearing , the chief economist at Capital Economics in London .
“ I ’ m not so sure we will see a V-shaped recovery.
” China ’ s experience offers a glimpse at what ’ s to come .
Despite Trump ’ s eagerness to kickstart the U.S. economy by Easter and reverse the disastrous slide in stock markets , getting the economy back up to speed is not as simple as reopening factories and sending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are even more skewed toward consumption and services , like those of the United States and Europe , the potential damage to consumer confidence and lingering efforts at social distancing is especially important .
“ We see a very shallow recovery [ for the United States ] in the third and fourth quarter , ” said Brooks of the Institute of International Finance—on the order of 0.3 and 0.5 percent quarterly growth .
“ That isn ’ t a V. That is a lopsided V. ” Mitigating against those expectations of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the year are all the unanswered questions about a second outbreak , about how consumers will respond , about how effective the rescue package working its way through Congress really will be .
All those questions make it tough , for now , to make any firm predictions about the kind of recovery Trump desperately craves .
“ We don ’ t know anything about resurgence during the flattening of the curve .
Containment may last for longer .
We don ’ t know how much of a shock there will be to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the uncertain aftermath of the great financial crisis a decade ago , consumers in the United States and elsewhere put off purchases , paid down debt , and basically hunkered down—depressing the rebound in what amounts to two-thirds of any advanced economy .
“ In the great financial crisis , precautionary behavior went up .
The same could happen here , ” he said .

After two months of a near-total lockdown in many parts of the country, China seems to be getting back to business, with important indicators like electricity and steel demand and auto manufacturing returning to levels not far from normal.
After two months of a near-total lockdown in many parts of the country, China seems to be getting back to business, with important indicators like electricity and steel demand and auto manufacturing returning to levels not far from normal.
That raises a big question for Europe and the United States, which are only now suffering the full brunt of the coronavirus pandemic: Can they just swallow a horrific second quarter and bank on a healthy economic recovery in the rest of the year? In other words, are the world’s major economies still on track for what’s known as a V-shaped recovery, as most forecasters seem to expect despite their catastrophic projections for the second quarter? Or given the complete shutdown of entire industries—from airlines to restaurants—will big economies essentially flatline?
It’s a critical question, especially in the United States, where President Donald Trump wants to get back to business as usual after only a few days of partial measures to reduce social interaction and the spread of the coronavirus. On Tuesday, Trump said he’d like to have the economy up and running again by Easter, in mid-April, because it’s “a beautiful time.”
Looking at China, where the virus outbreak began—and where the attendant economic disruptions hit first and hardest—is like an imperfect peek at a time machine a few months into America’s future. In many ways, after about two months of often near-total shutdowns, especially in the outbreak’s epicenter of Hubei province, China is resuming something close to a normal level of activity—with things lamented before now being seen, grimly, as a ray of hope.
Shanghai and Beijing have seen a return to rush-hour traffic jams, with road congestion in most major cities creeping back to within a few honks of last year’s average. As Goldman Sachs has noted, air quality, briefly better during the shutdown, is turning nasty again as coal-fired power plants kick back into operation, while demand for heavy industrial items such as steel is already back to the levels of 2018-2019. Most of China’s big automakers have reopened their factories. Housing sales, while still below the levels of recent years, are ticking upwards.
“It looks like a fairly strong recovery” from the data we are seeing, said Robin Brooks, the chief economist at the Institute of International Finance. His team expects a sharp contraction in Chinese GDP in the first quarter, and then a solid rebound in the second—“as much of a V as you could hope for.” By the second half of the year, by many measures, Chinese growth looks set to resume.
“The basic message is that this was a sharp interruption, but then GDP should bounce back to more or less where it was before,” he said.
China’s apparent recovery is encouraging, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Europe or the United States should expect to have their economies anywhere near mint condition in six weeks or so. Places in Asia that were hailed as models for their handling of the initial virus outbreak, such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore, not to mention China, struggled with a second wave of (usually imported) infections soon after the earlier restrictions were lifted. That is a cautionary tale for countries like the United States, but also Germany and the U.K., that are trying to weigh the economic costs (and political practicalities) of a hard stop against the human cost of a partial resumption of normal activity.
“The Chinese experience doesn’t translate well—in the West, there is more of an emphasis on individual liberties, and the grip of the government is not so tight. That’s why there’s more of a debate over how much economic activity we should sacrifice, and you see that in Germany, in Britain, and the United States,” Brooks said. A quick return to work—as places like Hong Kong are learning—risks reigniting the spread of the virus, and a whole other round of widespread illness and economic dislocation.
But the bigger problem is that while parts of China, Inc., are getting back to business, a big chunk of the domestic economy is still missing in action as consumers restrain spending, especially on big-ticket items. And even while China is crawling out of the worst of the virus impact, its major export markets and trading partners in Europe and the United States are smack in the middle of an exponentially growing outbreak, threatening to kneecap any recovery China could begin.
“There’s been a significant recovery since February. My concern right now is the impact of the looming slowdown in Europe and the United States” on consumer spending, said Houze Song, a macroeconomist at the Paulson Institute. In theory, the economic pain at the beginning of the year should have just meant consumers put off purchases until later—the textbook definition of “pent-up demand” that would unleash later in the year in a torrent of growth-boosting purchases. Maybe not this year.
“So far, demand is struggling to return to previous levels,” Song said. “China’s experience actually casts doubt on this V-shaped recovery idea.” Far from forecasting booming second-half growth in China, he expects more bad news on the horizon.
“There will be a second dip—not as deep as the first one in January and February, but it will be significant,” he said.
What’s confusing about China’s return is that while automakers are more or less back in business, auto dealers aren’t—consumers aren’t buying. Factories may be reopening, but export markets are closing. That makes the tentative rebound hard to gauge.
“There’s an uneven pattern: On the production side of the economy, there are signs of life. Whereas the consumer side, that looks a lot softer,” said Neil Shearing, the chief economist at Capital Economics in London. “I’m not so sure we will see a V-shaped recovery.”
China’s experience offers a glimpse at what’s to come. Despite Trump’s eagerness to kickstart the U.S. economy by Easter and reverse the disastrous slide in stock markets, getting the economy back up to speed is not as simple as reopening factories and sending people back to work. For economies that are even more skewed toward consumption and services, like those of the United States and Europe, the potential damage to consumer confidence and lingering efforts at social distancing is especially important.
“We see a very shallow recovery [for the United States] in the third and fourth quarter,” said Brooks of the Institute of International Finance—on the order of 0.3 and 0.5 percent quarterly growth. “That isn’t a V. That is a lopsided V.”
Mitigating against those expectations of a big snapback in the second half of the year are all the unanswered questions about a second outbreak, about how consumers will respond, about how effective the rescue package working its way through Congress really will be. All those questions make it tough, for now, to make any firm predictions about the kind of recovery Trump desperately craves.
“We don’t know anything about resurgence during the flattening of the curve. Containment may last for longer. We don’t know how much of a shock there will be to individual behavior,” Brooks said. In the uncertain aftermath of the great financial crisis a decade ago, consumers in the United States and elsewhere put off purchases, paid down debt, and basically hunkered down—depressing the rebound in what amounts to two-thirds of any advanced economy.
“In the great financial crisis, precautionary behavior went up. The same could happen here,” he said.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-25--The Coronavirus Is the Worst Intelligence Failure in U.S. History

The Coronavirus Is the Worst Intelligence Failure in U.S. History Last September , I met the vice president for risk for a Fortune 100 company in Washington , D.C .
I asked the executive—who previously had a long career as an intelligence analyst—the question you would ask any risk officer : “ What are you most worried about ?
” Without pausing , this person replied , “ A highly contagious virus that begins somewhere in China and spreads rapidly.
” This vice president , whose company has offices throughout East Asia , explained the preventative mitigating steps the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat .
Since the novel coronavirus has swept the world , I have often thought about this person ’ s prescient risk calculus .
Most leaders lack the discipline to do routine risk-based horizon scanning , and fewer still develop the requisite contingency plans .
Even rarer is the leader who has the foresight to correctly identify the top threat far enough in advance to develop and implement those plans .
Suffice it to say , the Trump administration has cumulatively failed , both in taking seriously the specific , repeated intelligence community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vigorously pursuing the nationwide response initiatives commensurate with the predicted threat .
The federal government alone has the resources and authorities to lead the relevant public and private stakeholders to confront the foreseeable harms posed by the virus .
Unfortunately , Trump officials made a series of judgments ( minimizing the hazards of COVID-19 ) and decisions ( refusing to act with the urgency required ) that have needlessly made Americans far less safe .
In short , the Trump administration forced a catastrophic strategic surprise onto the American people .
But unlike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolution of 1979 , or especially 9/11—the current one was brought about by unprecedented indifference , even willful negligence .
Whereas , for example , the 9/11 Commission Report assigned blame for the al Qaeda attacks on the administrations of presidents Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush , the unfolding coronavirus crisis is overwhelmingly the sole responsibility of the current White House .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
Chapter 8 of the 9/11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ System Was Blinking Red.
” The quote came from former CIA Director George Tenet , who was characterizing the summer of 2001 , when the intelligence community ’ s multiple reporting streams indicated an imminent aviation terrorist attack inside the United States .
Despite the warnings and frenzied efforts of some counterterrorism officials , the 9/11 Commission determined “ We see little evidence that the progress of the plot was disturbed by any government action .
… Time ran out.
” Last week , the Washington Post reported on the steady drumbeat of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the White House in January and February .
These alerts made little impact upon senior administration officials , who were undoubtedly influenced by President Donald Trump ’ s constant derision of the virus , which he began on Jan. 22 : “ We have it totally under control .
It ’ s one person coming in from China , and we have it under control .
It ’ s going to be just fine.
” By now , there are three painfully obvious observations about Trump ’ s leadership style that explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face .
First , there is the fact that once he believes absolutely anything—no matter how poorly thought-out , ill-informed , or inaccurate—he remains completely anchored to that initial impression or judgment .
Leaders are unusually hubristic and overconfident ; for many , the fact that they have risen to elevated levels of power is evidence of their inherent wisdom .
But truly wise leaders authentically solicit feedback and criticism , are actively open thinkers , and are capable of changing their minds .
By all accounts , Trump lacks these enabling competencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are highly transmissible , infecting the thinking and behavior of nearly every official or advisor who comes in contact with the initial carrier .
Unsurprisingly , the president surrounds himself with people who look , think , and act like he does .
Yet , his inaccurate or disreputable comments also have the remarkable ability to become recycled by formerly honorable military , intelligence , and business leaders .
And if somebody does not consistently parrot the president ’ s proclamations with adequate intensity , they are fired , or it is leaked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any time—most notably the recent report of the president ’ s impatience with the indispensable Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
And , third , the poor judgments soon contaminate all the policymaking arms of the federal government with almost no resistance or even reasonable questioning .
Usually , federal agencies are led by those officials whom the White House believes are best able to implement policy .
These officials have usually enjoyed some degree of autonomy ; not under Trump .
Even historically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been filled by people who are ideologically aligned with the White House , rather than endowed with the experience or expertise needed to push back or account for the concerns raised by career nonpolitical employees .
Thus , an initial incorrect assumption or statement by Trump cascades into day-to-day policy implementation .
The same Post report featured the following stunning passage from an anonymous U.S. official : “ Donald Trump may not have been expecting this , but a lot of other people in the government were—they just couldn ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The system was blinking red.
” That latter passage is an obvious reference to that aforementioned central finding of the 9/11 Commission Report .
Given that Trump concluded early on that the coronavirus simply could not present a threat to the United States , perhaps there is nothing that the intelligence community , medical experts employing epidemiological models , or public health officials could have told the White House that would have made any difference .
Former National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger is reputed to have said after an intelligence community warning went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but you didn ’ t convince me.
” Yet , a presidential brain trust wholly closed off to contrarian , though accurate , viewpoints is incapable of being convinced .
The White House detachment and nonchalance during the early stages of the coronavirus outbreak will be among the most costly decisions of any modern presidency .
These officials were presented with a clear progression of warnings and crucial decision points far enough in advance that the country could have been far better prepared .
But the way that they squandered the gifts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nor should the reason they were squandered : Trump was initially wrong , so his inner circle promoted that wrongness rhetorically and with inadequate policies for far too long , and even today .
Americans will now pay the price for decades .

Last September, I met the vice president for risk for a Fortune 100 company in Washington, D.C. I asked the executive—who previously had a long career as an intelligence analyst—the question you would ask any risk officer: “What are you most worried about?” Without pausing, this person replied, “A highly contagious virus that begins somewhere in China and spreads rapidly.” This vice president, whose company has offices throughout East Asia, explained the preventative mitigating steps the company had subsequently adopted to counter this potential threat.
Last September, I met the vice president for risk for a Fortune 100 company in Washington, D.C. I asked the executive—who previously had a long career as an intelligence analyst—the question you would ask any risk officer: “What are you most worried about?” Without pausing, this person replied, “A highly contagious virus that begins somewhere in China and spreads rapidly.” This vice president, whose company has offices throughout East Asia, explained the preventative mitigating steps the company had subsequently adopted to counter this potential threat.
Since the novel coronavirus has swept the world, I have often thought about this person’s prescient risk calculus. Most leaders lack the discipline to do routine risk-based horizon scanning, and fewer still develop the requisite contingency plans. Even rarer is the leader who has the foresight to correctly identify the top threat far enough in advance to develop and implement those plans.
Suffice it to say, the Trump administration has cumulatively failed, both in taking seriously the specific, repeated intelligence community warnings about a coronavirus outbreak and in vigorously pursuing the nationwide response initiatives commensurate with the predicted threat. The federal government alone has the resources and authorities to lead the relevant public and private stakeholders to confront the foreseeable harms posed by the virus. Unfortunately, Trump officials made a series of judgments (minimizing the hazards of COVID-19) and decisions (refusing to act with the urgency required) that have needlessly made Americans far less safe.
In short, the Trump administration forced a catastrophic strategic surprise onto the American people. But unlike past strategic surprises—Pearl Harbor, the Iranian revolution of 1979, or especially 9/11—the current one was brought about by unprecedented indifference, even willful negligence. Whereas, for example, the 9/11 Commission Report assigned blame for the al Qaeda attacks on the administrations of presidents Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush, the unfolding coronavirus crisis is overwhelmingly the sole responsibility of the current White House.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Chapter 8 of the 9/11 Commission Report was titled, “The System Was Blinking Red.” The quote came from former CIA Director George Tenet, who was characterizing the summer of 2001, when the intelligence community’s multiple reporting streams indicated an imminent aviation terrorist attack inside the United States. Despite the warnings and frenzied efforts of some counterterrorism officials, the 9/11 Commission determined “We see little evidence that the progress of the plot was disturbed by any government action. … Time ran out.”
Last week, the Washington Post reported on the steady drumbeat of coronavirus warnings that the intelligence community presented to the White House in January and February. These alerts made little impact upon senior administration officials, who were undoubtedly influenced by President Donald Trump’s constant derision of the virus, which he began on Jan. 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
By now, there are three painfully obvious observations about Trump’s leadership style that explain the worsening coronavirus pandemic that Americans now face. First, there is the fact that once he believes absolutely anything—no matter how poorly thought-out, ill-informed, or inaccurate—he remains completely anchored to that initial impression or judgment. Leaders are unusually hubristic and overconfident; for many, the fact that they have risen to elevated levels of power is evidence of their inherent wisdom. But truly wise leaders authentically solicit feedback and criticism, are actively open thinkers, and are capable of changing their minds. By all accounts, Trump lacks these enabling competencies.
Second, Trump’s judgments are highly transmissible, infecting the thinking and behavior of nearly every official or advisor who comes in contact with the initial carrier. Unsurprisingly, the president surrounds himself with people who look, think, and act like he does. Yet, his inaccurate or disreputable comments also have the remarkable ability to become recycled by formerly honorable military, intelligence, and business leaders. And if somebody does not consistently parrot the president’s proclamations with adequate intensity, they are fired, or it is leaked that their firing could be imminent at any time—most notably the recent report of the president’s impatience with the indispensable Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
And, third, the poor judgments soon contaminate all the policymaking arms of the federal government with almost no resistance or even reasonable questioning. Usually, federal agencies are led by those officials whom the White House believes are best able to implement policy. These officials have usually enjoyed some degree of autonomy; not under Trump. Even historically nonpartisan national security or intelligence leadership positions have been filled by people who are ideologically aligned with the White House, rather than endowed with the experience or expertise needed to push back or account for the concerns raised by career nonpolitical employees.
Thus, an initial incorrect assumption or statement by Trump cascades into day-to-day policy implementation.
The same Post report featured the following stunning passage from an anonymous U.S. official: “Donald Trump may not have been expecting this, but a lot of other people in the government were—they just couldn’t get him to do anything about it. The system was blinking red.” That latter passage is an obvious reference to that aforementioned central finding of the 9/11 Commission Report.
Given that Trump concluded early on that the coronavirus simply could not present a threat to the United States, perhaps there is nothing that the intelligence community, medical experts employing epidemiological models, or public health officials could have told the White House that would have made any difference. Former National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger is reputed to have said after an intelligence community warning went unrecognized, “You warned me, but you didn’t convince me.” Yet, a presidential brain trust wholly closed off to contrarian, though accurate, viewpoints is incapable of being convinced.
The White House detachment and nonchalance during the early stages of the coronavirus outbreak will be among the most costly decisions of any modern presidency. These officials were presented with a clear progression of warnings and crucial decision points far enough in advance that the country could have been far better prepared. But the way that they squandered the gifts of foresight and time should never be forgotten, nor should the reason they were squandered: Trump was initially wrong, so his inner circle promoted that wrongness rhetorically and with inadequate policies for far too long, and even today. Americans will now pay the price for decades.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-25--As if Afghans Didn’t Have Enough Trouble, Now Comes the Pandemic

As if Afghans Didn ’ t Have Enough Trouble , Now Comes the Pandemic HERAT , Afghanistan—Abdul Qayum Rahimi has fought the Soviets and the Taliban , but he says the enemy he fears most is yet to come and is not armed with bombs or bullets .
Over the past weeks , hundreds of thousands of Afghans have crossed back into their home country from Iran , which is one of the countries worst afflicted with the novel coronavirus , with tens of thousands of cases documented so far .
So far at least 50 people have tested positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governs , Herat , more than half of the country ’ s 74 confirmed cases , but numbers are largely unreliable , as few have been tested and laboratory facilities have so far only been available in the capital Kabul .
Sitting under a shady tree in his garden , where spring flowers are budding and birds are chirping , Rahimi , a tall man wearing a traditional light-colored tunic and dark rimmed sunglasses , admitted that beyond the brick walls surrounding his peaceful residence lay the biggest battle he ’ s yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ Is the most stressful time of my life .
It ’ s our biggest enemy yet .
Afghanistan wasn ’ t ready for this kind of challenge.
” [ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
In some ways the new threat couldn ’ t come at a worse time , with peace talks between the Taliban and Afghan government stalemated and U.S. attention focused elsewhere—back home on its own dire coronavirus outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk .
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Kabul on Monday but left frustrated , threatening to cut off up to $ 2 billion in U.S. aid to Afghanistan unless President Ashraf Ghani and his chief political rival , Abdullah Abdullah , resolve their differences over the recent national election , which both claim to have won .
Pompeo said the U.S. “ deeply regrets ” that Ghani and Abdullah “ have been unable to agree on an inclusive government that can meet the challenges of governance , peace , and security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welfare of Afghan citizens.
” The combination of the coronavirus and political instability scares Rahimi , who said it was easier to fight the Taliban , because you see and know their weapons .
“ Our new enemy approaches invisibly , and that puts enormous pressure on us all .
It ’ s a mental burden .
This is a test for Afghans to stand together as a nation , not a time for politicians to fight , ” he said .
The debate extends to the capital of Kabul .
Alimi Sahib @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health laboratory in Kabul , has been pushing for weeks for more testing facilities .
“ We need to decentralize to regional level , especially since test results take between four to six hours , ” he said in a recent interview .
For now , Rahimi , who has about 400 staff members both in the city and the districts , has worked on ramping up health production .
He said Herat is due to receive its own coronavirus testing lab .
“ I ’ ve ordered our city ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and alcohol-based sanitizers .
We ’ re also building a new , 100-bed hospital to treat coronavirus patients , due to be up and running in less than two weeks , ” he said .
“ We are not going to stop working hard.
” A former mujahideen fighter-turned-businessman , the 47-year-old Rahimi worked as an aid worker under Taliban rule , later joining the government when Ghani took up the presidency in 2014 .
He ’ s been in Herat , a province bordering his birthplace of Farah province , for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he ’ s made it a point to battle Taliban militants , keeping his province largely safe and working on expanding its culture and tourism sector .
The ancient city of Herat is home to about 1 million people , according to the governor ’ s office .
Located in northwest Afghanistan , it is the country ’ s third-biggest city , surrounded by lush gardens where families picnic on weekends .
The country ’ s Ministry of Public Health has urged the government to put the city under lockdown , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given for this .
So far , life in Herat has largely continued as usual , with people going about their business and taking little precaution , but worries are growing .
Many wear masks and gloves , but people continue to interact with each other .
Many fear the coronavirus , but they also fear setting foot in Afghanistan ’ s hospitals , because health care is so bad—so the actual number of cases in the country is very likely much higher than the official number .
Last week , 38 patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive for the virus—fled a hospital in Herat .
The Ministry of Public Health spokesperson Wahidullah Mayar said that he wanted “ the same lockdown in Herat as in other cities in the world , ” adding that “ this is very important.
” The political future of the impoverished country has been in limbo , even with the United States and the Taliban signing a peace deal on Feb. 29 .
Election results that saw Ghani take office for a second time were disputed by his rival Abdullah , who also claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taliban and the Afghan government have been postponed , largely over arguments of the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners .
While the majority of Herat province—home to approximately 4 million people—is under government control , the province has several contested districts , and Rahimi said that so far he had seen little cooperation from the Taliban .
“ I told them that now is the time for a cease-fire , it ’ s time for all Afghans to stick together , ” he said , his voice frustrated .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come together as one nation.
” While not agreeing to put down their weapons , the Taliban have pledged safe passage for health care workers throughout Afghanistan .
Taliban spokesperson Suhail Shaheen said that the group “ assures all international health organizations and WHO of its readiness to cooperate and coordinate with them in combating the coronavirus.
” Before the coronavirus outbreak in Iran , about 500 to 600 Afghans were returning every day from the neighboring country , a number that has now increased to a daily average of 14,000 , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return by the Iranian government .
Returnees have complained that Afghans with coronavirus symptoms had been denied health services in Iran , which increasingly worried many and promoted a return .
Deportations from Afghanistan ’ s neighbor have likewise increased due to the outbreak .
“ Both returnees and internally displaced people will be the most vulnerable populations when it comes to contracting the virus .
Hygiene in many of the overcrowded settlements is low , and many can neither afford food nor health care , ” Rahimi said .
Rahimi grew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soviet invasion—but later moved to Pakistan to finish his studies and then returned to Afghanistan to take up the fight against the Russians .
Growing up away from his home wasn ’ t easy , he said .
The father of five—his two oldest girls currently live in Herat with him , while the rest of the family stays outside of Afghanistan—has found ways to relax and stick to a routine even in such difficult times .
He starts his day with a glass of juice and exercise , and he makes it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between his demanding job and his time away from the office .
“ I love working in the garden and tending to the flowers , ” he said .
“ It ’ s also an excellent spot to read or watch documentaries.
” Rahimi said that he didn ’ t want to choose between fighting the Taliban or fighting the coronavirus .
“ Whatever is harming my people I will fight ; I don ’ t have a choice , ” he said , adding that Herat was facing increasingly difficult times and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large events and gatherings .
Yet the pressure rests on his shoulders .
“ At the end of it , I hope we will come out of it stronger , ” he said .
“ It ’ s a tough battle , but I continue to see a bright future for Herat .
”

HERAT, Afghanistan—Abdul Qayum Rahimi has fought the Soviets and the Taliban, but he says the enemy he fears most is yet to come and is not armed with bombs or bullets.
HERAT, Afghanistan—Abdul Qayum Rahimi has fought the Soviets and the Taliban, but he says the enemy he fears most is yet to come and is not armed with bombs or bullets.
Over the past weeks, hundreds of thousands of Afghans have crossed back into their home country from Iran, which is one of the countries worst afflicted with the novel coronavirus, with tens of thousands of cases documented so far. So far at least 50 people have tested positive for the coronavirus in the province Rahimi governs, Herat, more than half of the country’s 74 confirmed cases, but numbers are largely unreliable, as few have been tested and laboratory facilities have so far only been available in the capital Kabul.
Sitting under a shady tree in his garden, where spring flowers are budding and birds are chirping, Rahimi, a tall man wearing a traditional light-colored tunic and dark rimmed sunglasses, admitted that beyond the brick walls surrounding his peaceful residence lay the biggest battle he’s yet faced.
“This,” he said, “Is the most stressful time of my life. It’s our biggest enemy yet. Afghanistan wasn’t ready for this kind of challenge.”
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
In some ways the new threat couldn’t come at a worse time, with peace talks between the Taliban and Afghan government stalemated and U.S. attention focused elsewhere—back home on its own dire coronavirus outbreak rather than forcing the two sides to talk. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Kabul on Monday but left frustrated, threatening to cut off up to $2 billion in U.S. aid to Afghanistan unless President Ashraf Ghani and his chief political rival, Abdullah Abdullah, resolve their differences over the recent national election, which both claim to have won. Pompeo said the U.S. “deeply regrets” that Ghani and Abdullah “have been unable to agree on an inclusive government that can meet the challenges of governance, peace, and security, and provide for the health and welfare of Afghan citizens.”
Herat's governor Abdul Qayum Rahimi visits Guzara district of Herat province, Afghanistan, in March 2019.
The combination of the coronavirus and political instability scares Rahimi, who said it was easier to fight the Taliban, because you see and know their weapons. “Our new enemy approaches invisibly, and that puts enormous pressure on us all. It’s a mental burden. This is a test for Afghans to stand together as a nation, not a time for politicians to fight,” he said.
The debate extends to the capital of Kabul. Alimi Sahib, a project manager at the central public health laboratory in Kabul, has been pushing for weeks for more testing facilities. “We need to decentralize to regional level, especially since test results take between four to six hours,” he said in a recent interview.
For now, Rahimi, who has about 400 staff members both in the city and the districts, has worked on ramping up health production. He said Herat is due to receive its own coronavirus testing lab.
“I’ve ordered our city’s factories to produce health kits, soap and alcohol-based sanitizers. We’re also building a new, 100-bed hospital to treat coronavirus patients, due to be up and running in less than two weeks,” he said. “We are not going to stop working hard.”
A former mujahideen fighter-turned-businessman, the 47-year-old Rahimi worked as an aid worker under Taliban rule, later joining the government when Ghani took up the presidency in 2014. He’s been in Herat, a province bordering his birthplace of Farah province, for the past 16 months. In that time, he’s made it a point to battle Taliban militants, keeping his province largely safe and working on expanding its culture and tourism sector.
People walk the streets of Herat City on June 16, 2019.
The ancient city of Herat is home to about 1 million people, according to the governor’s office. Located in northwest Afghanistan, it is the country’s third-biggest city, surrounded by lush gardens where families picnic on weekends. The country’s Ministry of Public Health has urged the government to put the city under lockdown, but no presidential order has so far been given for this.
So far, life in Herat has largely continued as usual, with people going about their business and taking little precaution, but worries are growing. Many wear masks and gloves, but people continue to interact with each other. Many fear the coronavirus, but they also fear setting foot in Afghanistan’s hospitals, because health care is so bad—so the actual number of cases in the country is very likely much higher than the official number.
Last week, 38 patients put in quarantine—including several who had tested positive for the virus—fled a hospital in Herat. The Ministry of Public Health spokesperson Wahidullah Mayar said that he wanted “the same lockdown in Herat as in other cities in the world,” adding that “this is very important.”
The political future of the impoverished country has been in limbo, even with the United States and the Taliban signing a peace deal on Feb. 29. Election results that saw Ghani take office for a second time were disputed by his rival Abdullah, who also claimed the presidency. Direct negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government have been postponed, largely over arguments of the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners.
While the majority of Herat province—home to approximately 4 million people—is under government control, the province has several contested districts, and Rahimi said that so far he had seen little cooperation from the Taliban. “I told them that now is the time for a cease-fire, it’s time for all Afghans to stick together,” he said, his voice frustrated. “It’s a test for all of us to come together as one nation.” While not agreeing to put down their weapons, the Taliban have pledged safe passage for health care workers throughout Afghanistan. Taliban spokesperson Suhail Shaheen said that the group “assures all international health organizations and WHO of its readiness to cooperate and coordinate with them in combating the coronavirus.”
Before the coronavirus outbreak in Iran, about 500 to 600 Afghans were returning every day from the neighboring country, a number that has now increased to a daily average of 14,000, many of them migrant workers who were forced to return by the Iranian government. Returnees have complained that Afghans with coronavirus symptoms had been denied health services in Iran, which increasingly worried many and promoted a return. Deportations from Afghanistan’s neighbor have likewise increased due to the outbreak.
A family in Herat City on June 19, 2019.
“Both returnees and internally displaced people will be the most vulnerable populations when it comes to contracting the virus. Hygiene in many of the overcrowded settlements is low, and many can neither afford food nor health care,” Rahimi said.
Rahimi grew up in Iran himself—his family fled the Soviet invasion—but later moved to Pakistan to finish his studies and then returned to Afghanistan to take up the fight against the Russians. Growing up away from his home wasn’t easy, he said.
The father of five—his two oldest girls currently live in Herat with him, while the rest of the family stays outside of Afghanistan—has found ways to relax and stick to a routine even in such difficult times. He starts his day with a glass of juice and exercise, and he makes it a point to find a healthy balance between his demanding job and his time away from the office.
“I love working in the garden and tending to the flowers,” he said. “It’s also an excellent spot to read or watch documentaries.”
Rahimi said that he didn’t want to choose between fighting the Taliban or fighting the coronavirus. “Whatever is harming my people I will fight; I don’t have a choice,” he said, adding that Herat was facing increasingly difficult times and measures had already been taken to cancel large events and gatherings. Yet the pressure rests on his shoulders. “At the end of it, I hope we will come out of it stronger,” he said. “It’s a tough battle, but I continue to see a bright future for Herat.”


foreignpolicy--2020-03-25--Yes, Blame China for the Virus

Yes, Blame China for the Virus

Yes , Blame China for the Virus U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to the “ Chinese virus ” when talking about the pandemic .
Many of his critics insist the term is racist , echoing official Chinese talking points .
Others , such as U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler , say that we should not politicize the crisis by assigning blame , but focus on pulling together in the common fight against a global disease that makes no distinction between people and recognizes no borders .
This is nonsense .
The crisis is inherently political because it was caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and corrupt politicians .
To ignore the political dimension of the coronavirus pandemic is an excellent way to ensure it happens again .
If we do not want another global pandemic , we have to hold accountable the politicians responsible for making it worse , chief among them Chinese President Xi Jinping .
He did not create the novel coronavirus , but his government ’ s missteps are directly responsible for its global transmission and uncontrolled spread , with all its terrible consequences to populations and economies around the world .
Xi Jinping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his government is directly responsible for its global spread , and its terrible consequences for people and economies around the world .
A global pandemic is not a blind force of nature independent of human agency .
It is a failure of governance .
An analogy with famines is useful .
Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has explained in his excellent book , Development as Freedom , that famines are not primarily an absence of food , but an absence of information about food , coupled with a problem of transportation .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the planet for everyone .
If you know where food is and where hungry people are , and you can get the one to the other , people do not starve .
That is why established free-market democracies , which allow the free flow of information and markets , have no famines .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
Similarly , a global pandemic does not happen every time a novel infectious pathogen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an absence of accurate information about the pathogen and a failure of basic public services—in this case , the failure to regulate food and marketplaces to prevent the transmission of pathogens , and the failure to shut down transportation and control movement once it spreads .
When authorities regulate public health , share information about a pathogen , and cooperate to control its movement , diseases are contained and pandemics are unlikely .
These are problems of governance , not science .
Governments have to act like they are responsible for public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willingly share information ( even about their failures and ignorance ) , and order their bureaucracies to cooperate with one another , with international health organizations , and with foreign governments .
Good governance responds to public demand , rewards the free flow of information , including bad news , and rewards cooperation in the public interest , even when it goes against parochial bureaucratic self-interest .
Bad governance does the opposite .
Unsurprisingly , authoritarian governments , such as China ’ s , do not like sharing news about their ignorance and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Danielle Pletka recently argued , Xi ’ s “ prime concern was not lives at risk , or containment of the virus , but rather the nation ’ s and his reputation , place in the global supply chain and his grip on power.
” By contrast , “ democratic leaders are not afraid of information , and as a result , can judge the efficacy of their efforts , can fine tune and adjust , and can respond to the flow of news in a way that optimizes life saving.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how Chinese leaders lied and tried to cover up the emergence of the coronavirus in December and January to save face .
But the problem goes deeper .
Because the Chinese government is not accountable to its people , it has never bothered to police the safety and cleanliness of food and food markets effectively , which the United States and other developed democracies started doing in response to public and media pressure a century ago .
Chinese policymakers never have to face the voters , which is why , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountability after a scandal in 2008 in which tens of thousands of Chinese infants fell ill and required hospitalization after drinking contaminated milk .
Simply put , the Chinese government does not give a damn about the Chinese peopleSimply put , the Chinese government does not give a damn about the Chinese people.
, which is why it ignores markets where the food is filthy and carries disease ( not , despite what U.S. Sen. John Cornyn believes , because of problems with Chinese culture ) .
Those markets have now killed thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be the greatest threat to the national security and economy of the United States and other countries in 2020 .
That the Chinese government , beginning in late 2019 , lied and directly contributed to the creation of a global pandemic , the deaths of thousands of people , and a global economic collapse , is evidently true , and they deserve blame and accountability for it .
But the Chinese government ’ s record in the recent crisis is only the tip of an iceberg .
The same government is responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violating international law in the South China Sea , wholesale intellectual property theft from and cyber-espionage against the United States and its allies , one of the worst records of environmental pollution in the world , the invention of a new type of technology-powered totalitarian surveillance state , and more .
The Chinese government , not the wet markets , is the most thoroughly diseased and decaying institution in the world .
It is the most powerful institution on the planet that daily opposes human freedom , human flourishing , and human dignity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its very nature , it would aid and abet a global crisis that will kill thousands , sicken millions , and impoverish billions ?
Regardless of what we call the virus ( I ’ m partial to naming it after the Chinese Communist Party and calling it the “ CCP virus ” ) , blaming China is not the thing that “ politicizes ” the COVID-19 pandemic , because the pandemic is already political .
The political dimension of this crisis means we must seek accountability to prevent its recurrence—and accountability begins with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While U.S. policymakers bungled their response and exacerbated the crisis as a result—particularly through Trump ’ s repeated false statements and lack of urgency— the Chinese government is most directly responsible for the governance failures that have now unleashed untold suffering and economic collapse on the world .
Its mendacity and incompetence should cause politicians , policymakers , and business leaders across the world to reconsider their willingness to engage and do business with China until it proves itself a responsible actor on the world stage .

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to the “Chinese virus” when talking about the pandemic. Many of his critics insist the term is racist, echoing official Chinese talking points. Others, such as U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler , say that we should not politicize the crisis by assigning blame, but focus on pulling together in the common fight against a global disease that makes no distinction between people and recognizes no borders.
U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to the “Chinese virus” when talking about the pandemic. Many of his critics insist the term is racist, echoing official Chinese talking points. Others, such as U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler, say that we should not politicize the crisis by assigning blame, but focus on pulling together in the common fight against a global disease that makes no distinction between people and recognizes no borders.
This is nonsense. The crisis is inherently political because it was caused in part by incompetent, malicious, and corrupt politicians. To ignore the political dimension of the coronavirus pandemic is an excellent way to ensure it happens again. If we do not want another global pandemic, we have to hold accountable the politicians responsible for making it worse, chief among them Chinese President Xi Jinping. He did not create the novel coronavirus, but his government’s missteps are directly responsible for its global transmission and uncontrolled spread, with all its terrible consequences to populations and economies around the world.
Xi Jinping did not create the virus, but his government is directly responsible for its global spread, and its terrible consequences for people and economies around the world.
A global pandemic is not a blind force of nature independent of human agency. It is a failure of governance. An analogy with famines is useful. Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has explained in his excellent book, Development as Freedom, that famines are not primarily an absence of food, but an absence of information about food, coupled with a problem of transportation. There is, physically speaking, enough food on the planet for everyone. If you know where food is and where hungry people are, and you can get the one to the other, people do not starve. That is why established free-market democracies, which allow the free flow of information and markets, have no famines.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Similarly, a global pandemic does not happen every time a novel infectious pathogen emerges. It happens when there is an absence of accurate information about the pathogen and a failure of basic public services—in this case, the failure to regulate food and marketplaces to prevent the transmission of pathogens, and the failure to shut down transportation and control movement once it spreads. When authorities regulate public health, share information about a pathogen, and cooperate to control its movement, diseases are contained and pandemics are unlikely.
These are problems of governance, not science. Governments have to act like they are responsible for public health. They have to welcome transparency, willingly share information (even about their failures and ignorance), and order their bureaucracies to cooperate with one another, with international health organizations, and with foreign governments. Good governance responds to public demand, rewards the free flow of information, including bad news, and rewards cooperation in the public interest, even when it goes against parochial bureaucratic self-interest. Bad governance does the opposite.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
Unsurprisingly, authoritarian governments, such as China’s, do not like sharing news about their ignorance and do not like cooperating with other governments. As Danielle Pletka recently argued, Xi’s “prime concern was not lives at risk, or containment of the virus, but rather the nation’s and his reputation, place in the global supply chain and his grip on power.” By contrast, “democratic leaders are not afraid of information, and as a result, can judge the efficacy of their efforts, can fine tune and adjust, and can respond to the flow of news in a way that optimizes life saving.” Pletka and others have accurately cataloged how Chinese leaders lied and tried to cover up the emergence of the coronavirus in December and January to save face.
But the problem goes deeper. Because the Chinese government is not accountable to its people, it has never bothered to police the safety and cleanliness of food and food markets effectively, which the United States and other developed democracies started doing in response to public and media pressure a century ago. Chinese policymakers never have to face the voters, which is why, for example, there was little lasting reform or meaningful accountability after a scandal in 2008 in which tens of thousands of Chinese infants fell ill and required hospitalization after drinking contaminated milk.
Simply put, the Chinese government does not give a damn about the Chinese peopleSimply put, the Chinese government does not give a damn about the Chinese people., which is why it ignores markets where the food is filthy and carries disease (not, despite what U.S. Sen. John Cornyn believes, because of problems with Chinese culture). Those markets have now killed thousands of Chinese citizens—and they also turn out to be the greatest threat to the national security and economy of the United States and other countries in 2020. That the Chinese government, beginning in late 2019, lied and directly contributed to the creation of a global pandemic, the deaths of thousands of people, and a global economic collapse, is evidently true, and they deserve blame and accountability for it.
But the Chinese government’s record in the recent crisis is only the tip of an iceberg. The same government is responsible for genocide against the Uighur people, violating international law in the South China Sea, wholesale intellectual property theft from and cyber-espionage against the United States and its allies, one of the worst records of environmental pollution in the world, the invention of a new type of technology-powered totalitarian surveillance state, and more.
The Chinese government, not the wet markets, is the most thoroughly diseased and decaying institution in the world. It is the most powerful institution on the planet that daily opposes human freedom, human flourishing, and human dignity. Was it surprising that, by its very nature, it would aid and abet a global crisis that will kill thousands, sicken millions, and impoverish billions?
Regardless of what we call the virus (I’m partial to naming it after the Chinese Communist Party and calling it the “CCP virus”), blaming China is not the thing that “politicizes” the COVID-19 pandemic, because the pandemic is already political. The political dimension of this crisis means we must seek accountability to prevent its recurrence—and accountability begins with casting blame where it is due.
While U.S. policymakers bungled their response and exacerbated the crisis as a result—particularly through Trump’s repeated false statements and lack of urgency— the Chinese government is most directly responsible for the governance failures that have now unleashed untold suffering and economic collapse on the world. Its mendacity and incompetence should cause politicians, policymakers, and business leaders across the world to reconsider their willingness to engage and do business with China until it proves itself a responsible actor on the world stage.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-25--Israel’s Double Curse: Politics and the Pandemic

TEL AVIV , Israel—Two formidable crises Israel is facing , a pandemic and a political standoff , have intersected in recent days to create one of the most challenging—and bewildering—moments in the country ’ s history .
The new coronavirus has infected nearly 2,000 Israelis and killed three of them , prompting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to impose a near-total lockdown across the country .
At the same time , Netanyahu seems poised to defy a Supreme Court decision that could potentially loosen his grip on power after three inconclusive elections in the past year and three corruption indictments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Israel and a difficult test for Netanyahu .
But the national emergency spawned by the pandemic could ultimately save the Israeli leader politically .
The court ruled Monday that Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein must hold a plenary vote by Wednesday on a new speaker .
Edelstein is a member of Netanyahu ’ s Likud party .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
Coming out of the latest election in early March , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies hold a slim 61-seat majority in parliament , versus 59 seats for Netanyahu and his religious and right-wing allies .
Blue and White is now intent on pressing forward with its advantage , including nominating one of its own to the speaker post and taking control of parliamentary procedure .
Edelstein had indicated he would not abide by the Supreme Court ’ s ruling , with other senior Netanyahu government ministers calling on him to directly flout the decision .
In the past week , Edelstein had raised concerns about conducting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Ministry guidelines on social distancing .
But critics say casting ballots remotely and using special quarantine rooms for infected parliamentarians would mitigate any concerns .
Supreme Court Chief Justice Esther Hayut was withering in her criticism , saying that Edelstein ’ s continued refusal to hold the speaker vote “ undermined the foundations of the democratic process and damaged the Knesset ’ s status as an independent authority.
” Israel ’ s attorney general and president have also weighed in , saying the government should allow the normal functioning of parliament .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision as undemocratic and accused judges of usurping powers from the legislative branch .
“ If Chief Justice Hayut wants to put herself above the Knesset , she ’ s invited to come … with the Supreme Court guard and open the plenary herself , ” wrote Tourism Minister Yariv Levin on Facebook .
Several right-wing politicians appeared to take a softer line against the court , which has become a major battleground between nationalists and liberals over contentious pieces of Knesset legislation , West Bank settlements , and illegal migrants .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ court , we haven ’ t got another [ justice ] system .
The decision must be respected .
But the very intervention is the problem , ” one Likud minister told Army Radio Tuesday morning .
Politicians and commentators on both the left and right warned of anarchy if a Supreme Court ruling is flouted .
The division over the ruling mirrors the broader discord in the country over Netanyahu himself—the longest-serving prime minister in Israel ’ s history .
“ We already have a two-state solution in Israel , ” Likud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , using a term usually associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .
“ It ’ s called Bibi and no Bibi , the right versus the liberal left .
It ’ s a fight over the identity of the country.
” This chasm only widened after three election campaigns and three indictments against Netanyahu for bribery , fraud , and breach of trust .
Neither Netanyahu nor his chief rival , Blue and White head Benny Gantz , has been able to form a government .
Netanyahu has continued on as caretaker prime minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure , the center-left , led by Blue and White , did win a slight majority , and Gantz last week was tasked by the president with forming a government .
Yet his path to a governing coalition appears slim at best .
The anti-Netanyahu forces in parliament are divided ideologically between Arab-Israeli political factions and secular ultra-nationalists , pro-peace leftists and right-wing security hawks .
Gantz ’ s only viable option coming out of the last election was the seating of a minority government with the external parliamentary support of the Arab-dominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedent in Israel for a minority government formed at the outset of a tenure .
Two Blue and White backbenchers , however , have already indicated they would oppose such a decision , deeming Arab-Israeli political support anathema ; a Gantz-led minority government is impossible without their votes .
Netanyahu , for his part , maintains that he holds a parliamentary majority since he believes the votes of Israel ’ s Arab citizens—20 percent of the country , who voted overwhelmingly for the Joint List—should not be counted .
A recent Likud video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Blue and White was “ trampling over democracy ” and conspiring with “ supporters of terror to topple a Zionist government.
” But Ahmad Tibi of the Joint List faction told Foreign Policy that Netanyahu was trying to delegitimize the Joint List because of its increasing strength : “ Bibi isn ’ t prime minister because of our votes—Arab doctors , teachers , construction workers , football players , and more who made the Joint List the third-largest party in the Knesset.
” With no clear path to a governing coalition for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spiraling coronavirus crisis , the two leaders have discussed forming a “ national emergency government ” together .
Netanyahu this past weekend laid out his version of the incipient deal , which would see him remain as prime minister for 18 months , followed by Gantz serving for 18 months .
This would be a huge comedown for Blue and White , a political party just over a year old that was created for the express purpose of toppling Netanyahu .
Yet , as Gantz put it in a recent interview : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are also circumstances , ” alluding to the growing economic toll of a national shutdown that has driven up unemployment to nearly 18 percent .
There remains , however , deep opposition even within Blue and White ’ s leadership to sitting with Netanyahu in government .
“ I can ’ t imagine anyone in the country believes Bibi will step down and hand the keys to Gantz in one and a half years , ” a senior source in Blue and White told Foreign Policy .
“ It ’ s possible that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be trusted to uphold political deals , ” the source added sardonically .
This all ties back to the constitutional crisis over the Knesset speaker .
Blue and White in recent weeks has embarked on a strategy to increase pressure on Netanyahu via parliament and thereby improve its negotiating position ( while also , party officials insist , providing essential oversight over an unelected government as it invokes emergency powers to deal with the pandemic ) .
First came the solidification of Gantz ’ s parliamentary majority that gave him first option to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gantz with the power to form Knesset committees—something Likud also opposed—and move to replace Edelstein as speaker .
Control over parliamentary procedure , finally , may provide Blue and White with the option—or threat—of passing laws disqualifying an indicted prime minister from running again in any future election .
“ It ’ s the best threat they have on Netanyahu , ” Tal Shalev , senior political correspondent for the Walla News outlet , told Foreign Policy .
“ Bibi is most afraid of this law.
” The kerfuffle over parliament , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blue and White upholding Israel ’ s democratic processes and as a leverage play against Netanyahu .
“ Gantz wants [ a ] unity [ government with Netanyahu ] , but he can ’ t do it via a complete surrender , ” Shalev explained .
“ He has to finish the Knesset moves first ” because of pressure from several of his senior political partners .
The real enigma remains Netanyahu .
He has threatened to end unity talks if Blue and White actually replaces his Knesset speaker .
Over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bloc of parties to simply boycott parliament .
An emergency government with Gantz holds the tantalizing possibility of breaking up Blue and White , as only parts of it may agree to violate the core election pledge of not serving under Netanyahu .
But it would also force Netanyahu to give up some power , possibly including control over the Justice Ministry , making it harder for him to mitigate the damage from his own legal trouble .
Netanyahu might also be considering another strategy for retaining power : moving for a fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of the country , it could be months or longer before Israelis can go to the polls once again .
In the meantime , Netanyahu would remain prime minister .
The government last week shuttered all the courts—save the Supreme Court—due to the coronavirus , just days before Netanyahu ’ s own trial was set to start .
A new date was set for late May .
“ It ’ s a confluence of too many things , ” Amir Fuchs , a legal expert at the Israel Democracy Institute , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries dealing with the corona crisis , but no country is doing it during multiple political crises .
”

TEL AVIV, Israel—Two formidable crises Israel is facing, a pandemic and a political standoff, have intersected in recent days to create one of the most challenging—and bewildering—moments in the country’s history.
TEL AVIV, Israel—Two formidable crises Israel is facing, a pandemic and a political standoff, have intersected in recent days to create one of the most challenging—and bewildering—moments in the country’s history.
The new coronavirus has infected nearly 2,000 Israelis and killed three of them, prompting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to impose a near-total lockdown across the country.
At the same time, Netanyahu seems poised to defy a Supreme Court decision that could potentially loosen his grip on power after three inconclusive elections in the past year and three corruption indictments.
The standoff amounts to a constitutional crisis for Israel and a difficult test for Netanyahu. But the national emergency spawned by the pandemic could ultimately save the Israeli leader politically.
The court ruled Monday that Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein must hold a plenary vote by Wednesday on a new speaker. Edelstein is a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Coming out of the latest election in early March, the opposition Blue and White party and its allies hold a slim 61-seat majority in parliament, versus 59 seats for Netanyahu and his religious and right-wing allies. Blue and White is now intent on pressing forward with its advantage, including nominating one of its own to the speaker post and taking control of parliamentary procedure.
Edelstein had indicated he would not abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling, with other senior Netanyahu government ministers calling on him to directly flout the decision. In the past week, Edelstein had raised concerns about conducting the full array of Knesset activities, citing Health Ministry guidelines on social distancing. But critics say casting ballots remotely and using special quarantine rooms for infected parliamentarians would mitigate any concerns.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Esther Hayut was withering in her criticism, saying that Edelstein’s continued refusal to hold the speaker vote “undermined the foundations of the democratic process and damaged the Knesset’s status as an independent authority.”
Israel’s attorney general and president have also weighed in, saying the government should allow the normal functioning of parliament.
But Netanyahu loyalists slammed the court’s decision as undemocratic and accused judges of usurping powers from the legislative branch. “If Chief Justice Hayut wants to put herself above the Knesset, she’s invited to come … with the Supreme Court guard and open the plenary herself,” wrote Tourism Minister Yariv Levin on Facebook.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
Several right-wing politicians appeared to take a softer line against the court, which has become a major battleground between nationalists and liberals over contentious pieces of Knesset legislation, West Bank settlements, and illegal migrants.
“We haven’t got another court, we haven’t got another [justice] system. The decision must be respected. But the very intervention is the problem,” one Likud minister told Army Radio Tuesday morning. Politicians and commentators on both the left and right warned of anarchy if a Supreme Court ruling is flouted.
The division over the ruling mirrors the broader discord in the country over Netanyahu himself—the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history.
“We already have a two-state solution in Israel,” Likud pollster Rafi Smith recently told Foreign Policy, using a term usually associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “It’s called Bibi and no Bibi, the right versus the liberal left. It’s a fight over the identity of the country.”
This chasm only widened after three election campaigns and three indictments against Netanyahu for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Neither Netanyahu nor his chief rival, Blue and White head Benny Gantz, has been able to form a government. Netanyahu has continued on as caretaker prime minister of a transition government.
To be sure, the center-left, led by Blue and White, did win a slight majority, and Gantz last week was tasked by the president with forming a government. Yet his path to a governing coalition appears slim at best.
The anti-Netanyahu forces in parliament are divided ideologically between Arab-Israeli political factions and secular ultra-nationalists, pro-peace leftists and right-wing security hawks. Gantz’s only viable option coming out of the last election was the seating of a minority government with the external parliamentary support of the Arab-dominated Joint List. There’s no precedent in Israel for a minority government formed at the outset of a tenure.
Two Blue and White backbenchers, however, have already indicated they would oppose such a decision, deeming Arab-Israeli political support anathema; a Gantz-led minority government is impossible without their votes.
Netanyahu, for his part, maintains that he holds a parliamentary majority since he believes the votes of Israel’s Arab citizens—20 percent of the country, who voted overwhelmingly for the Joint List—should not be counted. A recent Likud video shared by Netanyahu on social media alleged that Blue and White was “trampling over democracy” and conspiring with “supporters of terror to topple a Zionist government.”
But Ahmad Tibi of the Joint List faction told Foreign Policy that Netanyahu was trying to delegitimize the Joint List because of its increasing strength: “Bibi isn’t prime minister because of our votes—Arab doctors, teachers, construction workers, football players, and more who made the Joint List the third-largest party in the Knesset.”
With no clear path to a governing coalition for either Netanyahu or Gantz, and with the spiraling coronavirus crisis, the two leaders have discussed forming a “national emergency government” together.
Netanyahu this past weekend laid out his version of the incipient deal, which would see him remain as prime minister for 18 months, followed by Gantz serving for 18 months. This would be a huge comedown for Blue and White, a political party just over a year old that was created for the express purpose of toppling Netanyahu. Yet, as Gantz put it in a recent interview: “There are principles, but there are also circumstances,” alluding to the growing economic toll of a national shutdown that has driven up unemployment to nearly 18 percent.
There remains, however, deep opposition even within Blue and White’s leadership to sitting with Netanyahu in government. “I can’t imagine anyone in the country believes Bibi will step down and hand the keys to Gantz in one and a half years,” a senior source in Blue and White told Foreign Policy. “It’s possible that Netanyahu sometimes lies and can’t be trusted to uphold political deals,” the source added sardonically.
This all ties back to the constitutional crisis over the Knesset speaker.
Blue and White in recent weeks has embarked on a strategy to increase pressure on Netanyahu via parliament and thereby improve its negotiating position (while also, party officials insist, providing essential oversight over an unelected government as it invokes emergency powers to deal with the pandemic).
First came the solidification of Gantz’s parliamentary majority that gave him first option to form a government. This then provided Gantz with the power to form Knesset committees—something Likud also opposed—and move to replace Edelstein as speaker. Control over parliamentary procedure, finally, may provide Blue and White with the option—or threat—of passing laws disqualifying an indicted prime minister from running again in any future election.
“It’s the best threat they have on Netanyahu,” Tal Shalev, senior political correspondent for the Walla News outlet, told Foreign Policy. “Bibi is most afraid of this law.”
The kerfuffle over parliament, then, can best be understood as both Blue and White upholding Israel’s democratic processes and as a leverage play against Netanyahu.
“Gantz wants [a] unity [government with Netanyahu], but he can’t do it via a complete surrender,” Shalev explained. “He has to finish the Knesset moves first” because of pressure from several of his senior political partners.
The real enigma remains Netanyahu. He has threatened to end unity talks if Blue and White actually replaces his Knesset speaker. Over the past two days he directed the entire right-wing bloc of parties to simply boycott parliament. An emergency government with Gantz holds the tantalizing possibility of breaking up Blue and White, as only parts of it may agree to violate the core election pledge of not serving under Netanyahu. But it would also force Netanyahu to give up some power, possibly including control over the Justice Ministry, making it harder for him to mitigate the damage from his own legal trouble.
Netanyahu might also be considering another strategy for retaining power: moving for a fourth election. With the pandemic shutting down much of the country, it could be months or longer before Israelis can go to the polls once again. In the meantime, Netanyahu would remain prime minister. The government last week shuttered all the courts—save the Supreme Court—due to the coronavirus, just days before Netanyahu’s own trial was set to start. A new date was set for late May.
“It’s a confluence of too many things,” Amir Fuchs, a legal expert at the Israel Democracy Institute, told Foreign Policy. “There are many countries dealing with the corona crisis, but no country is doing it during multiple political crises.”