foreignpolicy--2020-03-30--The U.S. Government Must Prepare Now for the Next Pandemic

The U.S. Government Must Prepare Now for the Next Pandemic With a crisis of this size , scope and peril , it isn ’ t wise to try to anticipate the next threat before you ’ ve defeated the current one .
The U.S. government ’ s priority—right now and in the near future—must be to take decisive action to halt the spread of the coronavirus , both in the United States and around the world , and to rescue the U.S. economy from potential catastrophe .
But as government officials , we do not have the luxury of waiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learning from what went wrong .
Pandemics don ’ t work on schedules .
They don ’ t take years off .
The next one could just be right around the corner .
So if U.S. policymakers don ’ t exert some energy right now figuring out why the world got knocked to its knees by COVID-19 , and why the United States , the world ’ s preeminent superpower , was virtually impotent when it came to stopping the virus from reaching our shores , then we risk having to go through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went wrong ?
The United States spends close to $ 1 trillion every year on national defense .
The U.S. international defense footprint dwarfs that of every other nation .
What ’ s the point of this largesse if a single virus can spread from a provincial city in China to the United States in a matter of weeks , taking down the entire economy in the process ?
Why did the coronavirus so quickly pierce our national defenses ?
How did we fail , and how do we do better next time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The entire world lost a month in shoring up their epidemiological defenses as Beijing spent the better part of December and January hiding the true extent of the outbreak , refusing to fully share data , and stonewalling international health experts .
This behavior is unacceptable , and the United States must lead an effort to make sure that the next pandemic is not hidden from view by whatever country is its point of origin.Pandemics don ’ t work on schedules .
They don ’ t take years off .
The next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corner .
The International Health Regulations , a set of rules agreed to by 194 countries worldwide , have not been updated since 2005 .
The United States should lead the member states of the World Health Organization ( WHO ) in updating these rules and ensure that in the future all countries comply by providing accurate , transparent , and comprehensive data to the international medical community .
Only a full data set can help health professionals understand pandemics sooner and enable them to develop strategies for containment , testing , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States can not rely on other nations to detect and develop early protocols for early stage pandemics alone .
No country ’ s public health expertise matches that of the United States , and to stop diseases and viruses in their tracks , in the early days of spread , we need to have a much more active presence than we do today in nations with weak public health infrastructure .
First , the United States needs to restart and expand the U.S. Agency for International Development ’ s Predict program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an egregious act of self-destruction , ordered shut down in October 2019 .
This program tracked early stage viruses and diseases all over the world , so scientists in the United States would have a head start in understanding pathogens that could eventually reach U.S. shores .
Had Predict ’ s field teams been active and detected the new coronavirus early , American scientists could have begun work on tests , treatments , and cures much earlier .
When it was in operation , Predict collected more than 100,000 samples and found nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ebola virus .
Second , Washington needs to create a Global Health Security Challenge Fund to build up long-term health infrastructure in fragile countries .
The United States ’ ability to defend itself from a pandemic is only as strong as the world ’ s weakest public health system .
And so Americans shouldn ’ t see support for international public health infrastructure as altruistic or a waste of taxpayer dollars .
Building the capacity of other nations ’ health response systems is also about defending Americans .
This has worked well in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress to address the Ebola epidemic enabled these partnerships , setting up successful public health infrastructure in countries like Cameroon and Uganda to counter the spread of infectious diseases in just 24 hours instead of the eight weeks it took previously .
Congress should establish this program permanently and require developing nations to put up their own resources alongside U.S. funding in order to become a recipient of aid.The United States ’ ability to defend itself from a pandemic is only as strong as the world ’ s weakest public health system .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ supersize its global public health corps .
The chaos and death caused by the coronavirus is not from a bomb or missile or invading army .
It ’ s from a simple pathogen .
Clearly we are not adequately protecting our nation when the military budget is nearly $ 740 billion and the global public health budget is only $ 11 billion .
The Obama administration set up anti-pandemic programs in nearly 50 key nations , which were on the chopping block by the Trump administration until Congress intervened to continue funding in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have health officials in vulnerable areas around the world , working to identify viruses and diseases early , creating relationships with local public health personnel , and helping to build up local preventative capacity in developing countries .
If the United States had established a larger public health office in Beijing , having worked for years to create integrated relationships with Chinese health officials , there is a chance that U.S. scientists would have known what was happening with the coronavirus in those crucial early days .
Just as important as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reinvestment in international public health organizations and a recommitment to global diplomacy .
U.S. President Donald Trump has never referred to the anti-coronavirus fight as a multilateral one .
It ’ s hard to even imagine his administration working hand in hand with South Korea or the European Union to create a consistent , coordinated global response .
This is tragic , and it will ultimately be fatal for many Americans .
The WHO is in need of U.S. investment and reform .
It wasn ’ t nimble enough to lead the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the coronavirus arrived , nations were wary of deferring too much authority to the WHO .
In some cases , that turned out to be a massive mistake .
Rather than follow the WHO ’ s protocol on coronavirus tests for Americans to use , Trump instead relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop and distribute its own test .
That delay turned into a disaster , and today , instead of having millions of tests being performed daily across the nation , the United States is lagging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per-capita testing : As of last week , one in 142 South Koreans had been tested for coronavirus , but just one in every 786 Americans had .
The world needs a WHO it can rely on , and the United States should build a coalition of nations willing to increase contributions to the organization in exchange for the implementation of reform .
Vaccination research is also much more efficient when carried out on a multilateral basis .
Pharmaceutical companies notoriously shy away from investing in vaccine research and development , so the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vehicle already exists for this cooperative venture .
The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation ( CEPI ) is a multilateral fund specifically devoted to the funding of new vaccines that grew out of lessons learned after the Ebola outbreak .
The only problem is that the United States doesn ’ t contribute to it .
This is unacceptable ; America should be a leader within CEPI , not a phantom.The Trump administration has completely botched the response to COVID-19 so far .
Lastly , leadership and personnel matter when building a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration ’ s decision to dismantle the Global Health Directorate at the National Security Council in May 2018 was an unconscionable mistake that must be reversed .
The new directorate must be better resourced and more empowered than the previous version .
Furthermore , having so many key diplomatic posts unfilled , or filled by unqualified individuals , means that even a good anti-pandemic plan could be rendered useless .
For example , at the State Department there is no nominee for an assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs as this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Germany .
Recruiting more top-level public health professionals into government service , and in particular the U.S. foreign service , is crucial .
After the terrorist attacks of 2001 killed thousands of innocent Americans and created a global financial panic , the U.S. government restructured itself , established enduring international coalitions , and massively scaled up its international footprint to prevent the next terrorist attack .
Many Americans , including me , would take issue with some of the policy choices made in the aftermath of 9/11 , but there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time understood the gravity of the moment and moved mountains to impose systemic change .
That same level of focus and commitment is what Americans need now .
Unfortunately , the Trump administration has completely botched the response to COVID-19 so far .
The president denied the risk of the disease for weeks , failed to ramp up testing measures , and has dangerously suggested relaxing social distancing measures—and Americans are paying the price for it .
At the moment , all our resources should be devoted to the immediate crisis , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learning lessons and beginning the conversation about how to rebuild the country ’ s pandemic defense system .
The next virus is not going to wait for the U.S. government to get its act together .

With a crisis of this size, scope and peril, it isn’t wise to try to anticipate the next threat before you’ve defeated the current one. The U.S. government’s priority—right now and in the near future—must be to take decisive action to halt the spread of the coronavirus, both in the United States and around the world, and to rescue the U.S. economy from potential catastrophe.
With a crisis of this size, scope and peril, it isn’t wise to try to anticipate the next threat before you’ve defeated the current one. The U.S. government’s priority—right now and in the near future—must be to take decisive action to halt the spread of the coronavirus, both in the United States and around the world, and to rescue the U.S. economy from potential catastrophe.
But as government officials, we do not have the luxury of waiting long before we start the process of learning from what went wrong. Pandemics don’t work on schedules. They don’t take years off. The next one could just be right around the corner. So if U.S. policymakers don’t exert some energy right now figuring out why the world got knocked to its knees by COVID-19, and why the United States, the world’s preeminent superpower, was virtually impotent when it came to stopping the virus from reaching our shores, then we risk having to go through this nightmare all over again.
What went wrong? The United States spends close to $1 trillion every year on national defense. The U.S. international defense footprint dwarfs that of every other nation. What’s the point of this largesse if a single virus can spread from a provincial city in China to the United States in a matter of weeks, taking down the entire economy in the process? Why did the coronavirus so quickly pierce our national defenses? How did we fail, and how do we do better next time?
China bears some of the blame. The entire world lost a month in shoring up their epidemiological defenses as Beijing spent the better part of December and January hiding the true extent of the outbreak, refusing to fully share data, and stonewalling international health experts. This behavior is unacceptable, and the United States must lead an effort to make sure that the next pandemic is not hidden from view by whatever country is its point of origin.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Pandemics don’t work on schedules. They don’t take years off. The next one could just be right around the corner.
The International Health Regulations, a set of rules agreed to by 194 countries worldwide, have not been updated since 2005. The United States should lead the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) in updating these rules and ensure that in the future all countries comply by providing accurate, transparent, and comprehensive data to the international medical community. Only a full data set can help health professionals understand pandemics sooner and enable them to develop strategies for containment, testing, and vaccines as quickly as possible.
But the United States cannot rely on other nations to detect and develop early protocols for early stage pandemics alone. No country’s public health expertise matches that of the United States, and to stop diseases and viruses in their tracks, in the early days of spread, we need to have a much more active presence than we do today in nations with weak public health infrastructure.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
First, the United States needs to restart and expand the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Predict program, which the Trump administration, in an egregious act of self-destruction, ordered shut down in October 2019. This program tracked early stage viruses and diseases all over the world, so scientists in the United States would have a head start in understanding pathogens that could eventually reach U.S. shores. Had Predict’s field teams been active and detected the new coronavirus early, American scientists could have begun work on tests, treatments, and cures much earlier. When it was in operation, Predict collected more than 100,000 samples and found nearly 1,000 new viruses, including a new Ebola virus.
Second, Washington needs to create a Global Health Security Challenge Fund to build up long-term health infrastructure in fragile countries. The United States’ ability to defend itself from a pandemic is only as strong as the world’s weakest public health system. And so Americans shouldn’t see support for international public health infrastructure as altruistic or a waste of taxpayer dollars. Building the capacity of other nations’ health response systems is also about defending Americans.
This has worked well in the past. The funding passed by Congress to address the Ebola epidemic enabled these partnerships, setting up successful public health infrastructure in countries like Cameroon and Uganda to counter the spread of infectious diseases in just 24 hours instead of the eight weeks it took previously. Congress should establish this program permanently and require developing nations to put up their own resources alongside U.S. funding in order to become a recipient of aid.
The United States’ ability to defend itself from a pandemic is only as strong as the world’s weakest public health system.
Third, the United States needs to supersize its global public health corps. The chaos and death caused by the coronavirus is not from a bomb or missile or invading army. It’s from a simple pathogen. Clearly we are not adequately protecting our nation when the military budget is nearly $740 billion and the global public health budget is only $11 billion. The Obama administration set up anti-pandemic programs in nearly 50 key nations, which were on the chopping block by the Trump administration until Congress intervened to continue funding in March 2018.
The United States needs to have health officials in vulnerable areas around the world, working to identify viruses and diseases early, creating relationships with local public health personnel, and helping to build up local preventative capacity in developing countries. If the United States had established a larger public health office in Beijing, having worked for years to create integrated relationships with Chinese health officials, there is a chance that U.S. scientists would have known what was happening with the coronavirus in those crucial early days.
Just as important as the deployment of more U.S. capacity abroad is a reinvestment in international public health organizations and a recommitment to global diplomacy. U.S. President Donald Trump has never referred to the anti-coronavirus fight as a multilateral one. It’s hard to even imagine his administration working hand in hand with South Korea or the European Union to create a consistent, coordinated global response. This is tragic, and it will ultimately be fatal for many Americans.
The WHO is in need of U.S. investment and reform. It wasn’t nimble enough to lead the global response to Ebola, and so when the coronavirus arrived, nations were wary of deferring too much authority to the WHO. In some cases, that turned out to be a massive mistake.
Rather than follow the WHO’s protocol on coronavirus tests for Americans to use, Trump instead relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop and distribute its own test. That delay turned into a disaster, and today, instead of having millions of tests being performed daily across the nation, the United States is lagging behind the rest of the world on per-capita testing: As of last week, one in 142 South Koreans had been tested for coronavirus, but just one in every 786 Americans had. The world needs a WHO it can rely on, and the United States should build a coalition of nations willing to increase contributions to the organization in exchange for the implementation of reform.
Vaccination research is also much more efficient when carried out on a multilateral basis. Pharmaceutical companies notoriously shy away from investing in vaccine research and development, so the public sector must lead. Luckily, a vehicle already exists for this cooperative venture. The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI) is a multilateral fund specifically devoted to the funding of new vaccines that grew out of lessons learned after the Ebola outbreak. The only problem is that the United States doesn’t contribute to it. This is unacceptable; America should be a leader within CEPI, not a phantom.
The Trump administration has completely botched the response to COVID-19 so far.
Lastly, leadership and personnel matter when building a new and more effective anti-pandemic infrastructure. The Trump administration’s decision to dismantle the Global Health Directorate at the National Security Council in May 2018 was an unconscionable mistake that must be reversed.
The new directorate must be better resourced and more empowered than the previous version. Furthermore, having so many key diplomatic posts unfilled, or filled by unqualified individuals, means that even a good anti-pandemic plan could be rendered useless. For example, at the State Department there is no nominee for an assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs as this virus spreads rapidly across Italy, Spain, and Germany. Recruiting more top-level public health professionals into government service, and in particular the U.S. foreign service, is crucial.
After the terrorist attacks of 2001 killed thousands of innocent Americans and created a global financial panic, the U.S. government restructured itself, established enduring international coalitions, and massively scaled up its international footprint to prevent the next terrorist attack. Many Americans, including me, would take issue with some of the policy choices made in the aftermath of 9/11, but there is no question that U.S. leaders at the time understood the gravity of the moment and moved mountains to impose systemic change. That same level of focus and commitment is what Americans need now.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration has completely botched the response to COVID-19 so far. The president denied the risk of the disease for weeks, failed to ramp up testing measures, and has dangerously suggested relaxing social distancing measures—and Americans are paying the price for it. At the moment, all our resources should be devoted to the immediate crisis, but we can’t waste time in learning lessons and beginning the conversation about how to rebuild the country’s pandemic defense system. The next virus is not going to wait for the U.S. government to get its act together.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-30--Beware of Bad Samaritans

Beware of Bad Samaritans

Humanitarian disasters ordinarily provide brief respites of global cooperation .
Human lives take on a rare starring role , and sometimes even geopolitical adversaries assist one another .
After devastating earthquakes hit Iran in 2003 and 2012 , even the United States pitched in to help .
But during the coronavirus pandemic , the two most energetic Samaritans—Russia and China—are using their ostensible assistance for geopolitical gains .
Following a recent phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte , the Russian government sent Italy nine aircraft and more than 100 experts , along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help from fellow European Union member states , in desperation Italy—the fourth-largest contributor to the EU budget—had turned to Russia .
( Germany , France , and Austria have since sent millions of face masks to Italy ; the Czech Republic has sent a few thousand protective suits .
Germany has flown several dozen Italian and French patients to German hospitals .
Poland has sent twelve doctors . )
When the much-anticipated Russian delivery arrived , however , the Italians discovered that the vast majority of the supplies were useless for coronavirus treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Occupied , the hit Norwegian television series about a mysterious takeover of Norway .
“ Of those Russian supplies , 80 percent were completely useless or of little use to Italy .
In other words , the delivery was more like a pretext , ” an Italian government official told the leading newspaper La Stampa .
According to the official , the Russian delivery contained , for example , equipment for bacteriological disinfection and a field laboratory for chemical-biological sterilization—not the ventilators and personal protective equipment so desperately needed by the Italians.The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their ostensible assistance for geopolitical gains .
The Kremlin ’ s aid is indeed rather unusual .
The medical experts were dispatched by the Russian defense ministry , not the health ministry , La Stampa reported .
What ’ s more , many are senior biological , chemical , and nuclear officers in the medical branch of the Russian armed forces—hardly the front-line medics ordinarily dispatched to help fight a humanitarian crisis .
As of this writing , the Russian officers are based in the Bergamo area of Italy .
According to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in La Stampa , the Russian experts will initially sanitize overcrowded assisted living facilities there .
Bergamo , the Italian city worst hit by the coronavirus , is located less than two hours from Vicenza , the site of a major U.S. military base .
The officers are traveling “ along NATO roads , ” a Russian TV anchor noted .
In his letter , the ambassador—who confirmed the officers ’ biological , chemical , and nuclear expertise—pointed out that the Russians are risking their lives .
He ’ s right : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Bergamo front line .
To date , COVID-19 , the disease caused by the coronavirus , has claimed the lives of 51 Italian doctors .
The presence of Russian military personnel in a NATO country , however , especially near a U.S. air base , raises fears that the Russians will use their stay to gather intelligence .
What makes the mission even more mind-boggling is the fact that Italy is one of the top troop contributors to current NATO out-of-area operations and has 166 soldiers stationed in Latvia as part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an effort to deter Russia .
Around the same time as the Russian officers arrived in Italy , NATO jets intercepted a Russian military aircraft near NATO airspace .
Italy , a founding member of NATO , is thus combating its worst post-World War II crisis with the aid of NATO ’ s main adversary .
That raises further questions about the purpose of the Russians ’ visit and whether it will influence Italian attitudes toward NATO .
Referring to the Russian supplies , Conte has insisted it won ’ t : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geopolitical arrangement would be conditioned by this equipment , ” he told the Italian Senate on March 26 .
Meanwhile , China has dispatched medical supplies and a few medical staff , too .
Chinese authorities made a big deal out a March 12 flight that carried—as announced by Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio—31 tons of equipment , including 40 ventilators .
Since the initial flight , the Chinese have sent a few more supplies , including 30 ventilators on March 25 .
But for Italy , where nearly 100,000 people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 10,000 have been killed by it , that ’ s a drop in the bucket .
Were the Chinese true friends of Italy , they would have sent tens of thousands of ventilators .
What ’ s more , the Chinese supplies weren ’ t exactly a charitable gift .
While some came from the Chinese Red Cross , the Italians had to buy others .
To add insult to injury , around the same time that the first flight arrived , Chinese state media outlets began circulating a rumor that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
China has sent supplies to other countries , too .
The deliveries are , however , paltry for a government with massive manufacturing at its disposal and whose bungling of the initial outbreak led to the virus going global .
A million face masks here , a few hundred thousand there , and a few doctors are not much for a country that accounted for 50 percent of global face mask production in 2019 and whose daily face mask production skyrocketed to an astounding 110 million in February .
By contrast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 3 million inhabitants , has sent the Italians 30 doctors and nurses.For China , the amount of aid needed doesn ’ t seem to matter : Beijing is using the deliveries as a public relations opportunity .
China ’ s assistance is also distinctly modest compared with the assistance Germany ( which has more than 60,000 coronavirus infections itself ) and other European countries are belatedly providing their worst-hit neighbors .
But for China , the amount of aid needed doesn ’ t seem to matter : Beijing is using the deliveries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great fanfare , face masks have been dispatched to Spain , France , Serbia , and the EU in a very public show of Chinese soft power .
On March 20 , the Czech Republic received Beijing ’ s deliveries on a Chinese military plane , an event widely covered by regime-friendly media .
One day later , Chinese state television CGTN posted a YouTube video showing the loading of a train that will carry further medical equipment there .
Unsurprisingly , Sweden has received no assistance from China .
Instead , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to secure philanthropic funding to buy Chinese medical gear .
Sweden happens to be China ’ s European bête noire , the result of its support for the imprisoned Hong Kong bookseller Gui Minhai , who became a Swedish citizen in the 1990s .
But the Netherlands , Spain , and Italy have received face masks from Huawei , the telecommunications giant eager for more 5G contracts in Europe .
Though an airplane would reach the desperate Spaniards ( some 85,000 coronavirus infections , more than 7,000 deaths ) much faster , Beijing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heading for Spain would travel by train along the Belt and Road route , a journey that takes 17 days .
The donated supplies are worth about $ 49,325 , CGTN proudly reported .
There was no such fanfare about Madrid ’ s decision to purchase some $ 473 million worth of medical supplies from Beijing , including coronavirus tests that turned out to be faulty , or the 1.3 million face masks the Dutch bought from China , half of which likewise turned out to be defective .
Spain and Italy are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU .
On the other hand , Serbia , though its infection rate is currently quite low , is a longtime candidate for EU membership whose allegiance China wants to secure .
As for the donations to the Czech Republic , which is hardly a coronavirus hotbed , the country has become a recent target of Chinese influence-peddling efforts .
Compare Moscow ’ s and Beijing ’ s behavior with the assistance countries ordinarily provide during humanitarian disasters .
When Japan was struck by an earthquake nine years ago , 50 countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China , which sent $ 4.5 million worth of aid .
Indeed , during humanitarian disasters geopolitics is normally suspended and good Samaritanism takes over .
During Iran ’ s 2012 earthquake , the U.S. government lifted sanctions , allowing American organizations to send supplies .
When Argentina ’ s San Juan submarine disappeared three years ago , the Royal Navy—the pillar of the British war effort against Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982—joined the search and rescue mission .
The Royal Navy has also helped search for missing Russian subs including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ lives 20 years ago .
And when the coronavirus broke out in China , the EU and the U.S. government swiftly donated many tons of medical supplies .
While China wants to both sell goods and pry countries away from EU and NATO solidarity , Russia ’ s efforts are of a murkier nature .
Whatever the true nature of the Russian presence in Bergamo , Russia ’ s sending military officers in response to a health care emergency is clearly not an unselfish act ; it ’ s a move that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ In the moment of need , the person who helps you is a friend , ” Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Manlio di Stefano told Italian radio on March 27 , calling fears of the Russian and Chinese aid “ idiocy.
” The biblical good Samaritan gives to strangers in need while expecting nothing in return .
China and Russia have introduced a new category in humanitarian aid : the bad Samaritan .
The Chinese and Russians may be offering a helping hand , but unlike in the Scriptures , they expect something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prove to the needy—and to the world—that they still exist .
NATO has begun using its Strategic Airlift Capability program to transport coronavirus supplies to member states .
But that ’ s not enough to counter the bad Samaritans ’ advance .
If a NATO member state lost even a few citizens in a military attack , the alliance would immediately respond with all its might .
It would dispatch equipment , troops , and commanders from all its member states to the front lines .
The coronavirus pandemic is clearly not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counter , but it is Italy ’ s most devastating crisis since NATO was founded .
What ’ s needed is a Mission Good Samaritan—a massive NATO effort sending medical supplies and medics to the deadly front line in Bergamo and beyond .
That would put the bad Samaritans in their place .

Humanitarian disasters ordinarily provide brief respites of global cooperation. Human lives take on a rare starring role, and sometimes even geopolitical adversaries assist one another. After devastating earthquakes hit Iran in 2003 and 2012, even the United States pitched in to help. But during the coronavirus pandemic, the two most energetic Samaritans—Russia and China—are using their ostensible assistance for geopolitical gains.
Humanitarian disasters ordinarily provide brief respites of global cooperation. Human lives take on a rare starring role, and sometimes even geopolitical adversaries assist one another. After devastating earthquakes hit Iran in 2003 and 2012, even the United States pitched in to help. But during the coronavirus pandemic, the two most energetic Samaritans—Russia and China—are using their ostensible assistance for geopolitical gains.
Following a recent phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, the Russian government sent Italy nine aircraft and more than 100 experts, along with medical supplies. Having initially received no help from fellow European Union member states, in desperation Italy—the fourth-largest contributor to the EU budget—had turned to Russia. (Germany, France, and Austria have since sent millions of face masks to Italy; the Czech Republic has sent a few thousand protective suits. Germany has flown several dozen Italian and French patients to German hospitals. Poland has sent twelve doctors.)
When the much-anticipated Russian delivery arrived, however, the Italians discovered that the vast majority of the supplies were useless for coronavirus treatment. It was like a plot out of Occupied, the hit Norwegian television series about a mysterious takeover of Norway.
“Of those Russian supplies, 80 percent were completely useless or of little use to Italy. In other words, the delivery was more like a pretext,” an Italian government official told the leading newspaper La Stampa. According to the official, the Russian delivery contained, for example, equipment for bacteriological disinfection and a field laboratory for chemical-biological sterilization—not the ventilators and personal protective equipment so desperately needed by the Italians.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
The two most energetic Samaritans—Russia and China—are using their ostensible assistance for geopolitical gains.
The Kremlin’s aid is indeed rather unusual. The medical experts were dispatched by the Russian defense ministry, not the health ministry, La Stampa reported. What’s more, many are senior biological, chemical, and nuclear officers in the medical branch of the Russian armed forces—hardly the front-line medics ordinarily dispatched to help fight a humanitarian crisis.
As of this writing, the Russian officers are based in the Bergamo area of Italy. According to a letter by Russia’s ambassador published in La Stampa, the Russian experts will initially sanitize overcrowded assisted living facilities there. Bergamo, the Italian city worst hit by the coronavirus, is located less than two hours from Vicenza, the site of a major U.S. military base. The officers are traveling “along NATO roads,” a Russian TV anchor noted. In his letter, the ambassador—who confirmed the officers’ biological, chemical, and nuclear expertise—pointed out that the Russians are risking their lives. He’s right: The Russian experts could succumb to the coronavirus on the Bergamo front line. To date, COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, has claimed the lives of 51 Italian doctors. The presence of Russian military personnel in a NATO country, however, especially near a U.S. air base, raises fears that the Russians will use their stay to gather intelligence.
What makes the mission even more mind-boggling is the fact that Italy is one of the top troop contributors to current NATO out-of-area operations and has 166 soldiers stationed in Latvia as part of NATO’s enhanced forward presence, an effort to deter Russia. Around the same time as the Russian officers arrived in Italy, NATO jets intercepted a Russian military aircraft near NATO airspace. Italy, a founding member of NATO, is thus combating its worst post-World War II crisis with the aid of NATO’s main adversary. That raises further questions about the purpose of the Russians’ visit and whether it will influence Italian attitudes toward NATO. Referring to the Russian supplies, Conte has insisted it won’t: “It’s inconceivable that our geopolitical arrangement would be conditioned by this equipment,” he told the Italian Senate on March 26.
Meanwhile, China has dispatched medical supplies and a few medical staff, too. Chinese authorities made a big deal out a March 12 flight that carried—as announced by Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio—31 tons of equipment, including 40 ventilators. Since the initial flight, the Chinese have sent a few more supplies, including 30 ventilators on March 25. But for Italy, where nearly 100,000 people have been infected with the coronavirus and more than 10,000 have been killed by it, that’s a drop in the bucket.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
Were the Chinese true friends of Italy, they would have sent tens of thousands of ventilators. What’s more, the Chinese supplies weren’t exactly a charitable gift. While some came from the Chinese Red Cross, the Italians had to buy others. To add insult to injury, around the same time that the first flight arrived, Chinese state media outlets began circulating a rumor that the COVID-19 outbreak had actually originated in Italy.
China has sent supplies to other countries, too. The deliveries are, however, paltry for a government with massive manufacturing at its disposal and whose bungling of the initial outbreak led to the virus going global. A million face masks here, a few hundred thousand there, and a few doctors are not much for a country that accounted for 50 percent of global face mask production in 2019 and whose daily face mask production skyrocketed to an astounding 110 million in February. By contrast, Albania, a poor country with fewer than 3 million inhabitants, has sent the Italians 30 doctors and nurses.For China, the amount of aid needed doesn’t seem to matter: Beijing is using the deliveries as a public relations opportunity.
China’s assistance is also distinctly modest compared with the assistance Germany (which has more than 60,000 coronavirus infections itself) and other European countries are belatedly providing their worst-hit neighbors. But for China, the amount of aid needed doesn’t seem to matter: Beijing is using the deliveries as a public relations opportunity.
With great fanfare, face masks have been dispatched to Spain, France, Serbia, and the EU in a very public show of Chinese soft power. On March 20, the Czech Republic received Beijing’s deliveries on a Chinese military plane, an event widely covered by regime-friendly media. One day later, Chinese state television CGTN posted a YouTube video showing the loading of a train that will carry further medical equipment there.
Unsurprisingly, Sweden has received no assistance from China. Instead, one of the country’s hospitals had to secure philanthropic funding to buy Chinese medical gear. Sweden happens to be China’s European bête noire, the result of its support for the imprisoned Hong Kong bookseller Gui Minhai, who became a Swedish citizen in the 1990s. But the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy have received face masks from Huawei, the telecommunications giant eager for more 5G contracts in Europe.
Though an airplane would reach the desperate Spaniards (some 85,000 coronavirus infections, more than 7,000 deaths) much faster, Beijing made sure that the Chinese supplies currently heading for Spain would travel by train along the Belt and Road route, a journey that takes 17 days.
The donated supplies are worth about $49,325, CGTN proudly reported. There was no such fanfare about Madrid’s decision to purchase some $473 million worth of medical supplies from Beijing, including coronavirus tests that turned out to be faulty, or the 1.3 million face masks the Dutch bought from China, half of which likewise turned out to be defective.
Spain and Italy are considered soft targets for Chinese influence within the EU. On the other hand, Serbia, though its infection rate is currently quite low, is a longtime candidate for EU membership whose allegiance China wants to secure. As for the donations to the Czech Republic, which is hardly a coronavirus hotbed, the country has become a recent target of Chinese influence-peddling efforts.
Compare Moscow’s and Beijing’s behavior with the assistance countries ordinarily provide during humanitarian disasters. When Japan was struck by an earthquake nine years ago, 50 countries immediately offered assistance. They included archrival China, which sent $4.5 million worth of aid. Indeed, during humanitarian disasters geopolitics is normally suspended and good Samaritanism takes over.
During Iran’s 2012 earthquake, the U.S. government lifted sanctions, allowing American organizations to send supplies. When Argentina’s San Juan submarine disappeared three years ago, the Royal Navy—the pillar of the British war effort against Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982—joined the search and rescue mission. The Royal Navy has also helped search for missing Russian subs including the Kursk, which claimed 118 submariners’ lives 20 years ago. And when the coronavirus broke out in China, the EU and the U.S. government swiftly donated many tons of medical supplies.
While China wants to both sell goods and pry countries away from EU and NATO solidarity, Russia’s efforts are of a murkier nature. Whatever the true nature of the Russian presence in Bergamo, Russia’s sending military officers in response to a health care emergency is clearly not an unselfish act; it’s a move that will damage NATO in the long run.
“In the moment of need, the person who helps you is a friend,” Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Manlio di Stefano told Italian radio on March 27, calling fears of the Russian and Chinese aid “idiocy.”
The biblical good Samaritan gives to strangers in need while expecting nothing in return. China and Russia have introduced a new category in humanitarian aid: the bad Samaritan. The Chinese and Russians may be offering a helping hand, but unlike in the Scriptures, they expect something in return.
True good Samaritans must prove to the needy—and to the world—that they still exist. NATO has begun using its Strategic Airlift Capability program to transport coronavirus supplies to member states. But that’s not enough to counter the bad Samaritans’ advance.
If a NATO member state lost even a few citizens in a military attack, the alliance would immediately respond with all its might. It would dispatch equipment, troops, and commanders from all its member states to the front lines. The coronavirus pandemic is clearly not the conventional attack NATO was set up to counter, but it is Italy’s most devastating crisis since NATO was founded. What’s needed is a Mission Good Samaritan—a massive NATO effort sending medical supplies and medics to the deadly front line in Bergamo and beyond. That would put the bad Samaritans in their place.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-30--Fighting Pandemic, Europe Divides Again Along North and South Lines

Fighting Pandemic , Europe Divides Again Along North and South Lines A nasty North-South divide is tearing Europe apart over the question of how to respond to the economic wreckage of the coronavirus pandemic , conjuring up the worst days of the 2008 financial crisis and the European Union ’ s subsequent near-death experience .
At issue is how countries can respond to the unprecedented economic toll wrought by the pandemic and the near-total national lockdowns needed to contain the spread of the virus .
Over the weekend , Spain put its entire economy , already wheezing , into hibernation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and France is running at two-thirds capacity .
Governments need to find hundreds of billions , if not trillions , of euros to pay idled workers , maintain overworked health care systems , and kindle what they hope will be a recovery in the second half of the year .
Countries in Southern Europe , led by France , Spain , and Italy , have called for a common European response to the challenge—such as a massive “ eurobond ” underwritten by richer and less rich countries alike to better share the pain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the European Central Bank ( ECB ) , has called for Europe to step up and do what it ’ s never done before .
But countries in the North , led by Germany and the Netherlands , have balked at the idea of a eurobond , which they say is a nonstarter because it would mean their own taxpayers would be on the hook for countries they say have long lived beyond their means .
The stakes are huge .
In the short term , many heavily indebted countries in Southern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collapse on a scale never before seen , with nearly all businesses shuttered by government order , while borrowing costs are higher than in richer countries like Germany , which limits those governments ’ ability to respond to the crisis .
In the longer term , what Southern Europeans see as a lack of solidarity from Germans and Dutch threatens to torpedo the entire notion of the European Union , which has been tottering since at least the last financial crisis .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affecting countries around the world . ]
The debate is in some ways a retread of the Greek crisis of 2011-2012 and the subsequent fallout , when similarly existential issues arose over the different economic habits of Northern and Southern European countries .
But this time , thousands of lives are at stake .
“ I was never a fan of the doomsayers who always predicted the end of the eurozone , but this is the first time that I am starting to feel myself that there is a real danger , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europe at Oxford Economics .
“ If the debate becomes ‘ Europe isn ’ t helping while people are dying in droves , ’ I really fear that is going to cause permanent damage to the European project.
” There are still almost two weeks for European finance ministers to gin up a solution , and a common response isn ’ t impossible , even if politically unpalatable for many countries .
For years , many Europeans have yearned to make the euro-cemented monetary union a compact by creating a true fiscal union—as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as disparate as New York and Mississippi share a common currency , and where wealthier parts of the bloc underwrite the prosperity of those left behind .
That ’ s the fight that ’ s currently brewing in Europe .
What France and other countries are calling for is the issue of “ coronabonds ” or something similar : a jointly issued bond that would raise a huge , perhaps trillion-euro common fund of money for all European countries using the impeccable credit rating of the best .
It ’ s a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with sterling credit to co-sign a loan—not to buy a car but rather to fight the plague .
Still , some question whether it ’ s really necessary .
The ECB rolled out its own heavy artillery recently , offering a 750 billion euro program to underwrite debt from European countries in a deliberate bid to keep borrowing costs for beleaguered countries like Italy and Spain as low as possible .
And it has worked—the spread on Italy ’ s long-term bonds compared with Germany ’ s gold-plated debt is still low and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the worst of the last financial crisis .
“ I think the whole eurobond discussion is a bit of a distraction—it ’ s not needed , and you already have all the tools you could wish for .
You could do national stimulus , ” said Claus Vistesen , the chief eurozone economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics .
Still , given the politics of the crisis , he said such a move would make sense , even if national governments seemingly have room now to borrow on their own .
Even a handful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joint response .
“ Deficit rules are gone , the ECB is buying bonds to protect spreads—all sorts of sacred cows have been slaughtered , so why not think about mutual bonds ?
” Vistesen said .
Instead , Dutch and German leaders suggest that other existing tools could do the job just as well or better than going down what they see as a slippery slope of fiscal union by issuing a common bond .
The European Stability Mechanism ( ESM ) , a kind of joint insurance policy for the whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ euros on hand to help out countries in crisis .
The Dutch are leery of even breaking that glass , seeing it as a last resort for an emergency , while Southern Europe fears the emergency claxons sounded two weeks ago .
But even the full ESM would provide just a tiny injection—something on the order of loans of 2 percent of any country ’ s GDP , while this crisis requires wartime responses that are tenfold larger .
The United States , for example , just passed a rescue package north of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of its economy .
What ’ s more , tapping the ESM comes with strings attached and the stigma of having pulled the fire alarm for what amounts to little aid .
“ Italy wouldn ’ t accept it .
That would come to a total of about $ 35 billion , with a reduction in the interest rate that is absolutely useless , ” said Grégory Claeys of Bruegel , a Brussels-based think tank .
“ The argument is the same as last time—that those countries are fiscally profligate , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is an exogenous shock , ” stemming from the unforeseen virus , not an overly generous welfare state , he said .
Joint European action may be a lost cause at any rate .
While France , Spain , and Italy are clamoring for support , the Germans and Dutch are digging in .
German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said Sunday that eurobonds are not the answer , while Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said : “ I can not foresee any circumstances in which the Netherlands will accept Eurobonds.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries will pay to undo for the short-term damage .
The larger question is what happens to Europe , which was already strained to the breaking point during the aftermath of the financial crisis , with lingering resentment from countries like Greece and Italy toward countries like Germany .
The coronavirus and its aftermath threaten a hammer blow on those existing fissures .
On the one hand , this crisis is different from 2012—major economies , not just Greece , are going cap in hand to Brussels and Berlin .
“ Last time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This time , some of the biggest economies are clamoring for this , ” said Claeys of Bruegel .
Also , he said , unlike last time , European institutions are offering help , in the form of ECB intervention , and looser budget rules .
If Northern European countries maintain their current reluctance to use measures that could help the rest of the EU , that could further embolden populists , like former Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini in Italy , who has long warred with Brussels .
Spain , which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big surge of right-wing extremist votes in the last election .
On the other hand , if the crisis forces the hand of countries like Germany and the Netherlands and ends up launching a jointly financed temporary relief program , that could lay the groundwork for a revolutionary fiscal union within Europe .
The firehouse could become the foundation for a new Europe—if it doesn ’ t burn down first .
“ The problem is , it ’ s extremely binary , and it ’ s hard to say which is more @ @ @ @ @ @

A nasty North-South divide is tearing Europe apart over the question of how to respond to the economic wreckage of the coronavirus pandemic, conjuring up the worst days of the 2008 financial crisis and the European Union’s subsequent near-death experience.
A nasty North-South divide is tearing Europe apart over the question of how to respond to the economic wreckage of the coronavirus pandemic, conjuring up the worst days of the 2008 financial crisis and the European Union’s subsequent near-death experience.
At issue is how countries can respond to the unprecedented economic toll wrought by the pandemic and the near-total national lockdowns needed to contain the spread of the virus. Over the weekend, Spain put its entire economy, already wheezing, into hibernation, while Italy has extended its lockdown and France is running at two-thirds capacity. Governments need to find hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of euros to pay idled workers, maintain overworked health care systems, and kindle what they hope will be a recovery in the second half of the year.
Countries in Southern Europe, led by France, Spain, and Italy, have called for a common European response to the challenge—such as a massive “eurobond” underwritten by richer and less rich countries alike to better share the pain. Even Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank (ECB), has called for Europe to step up and do what it’s never done before. But countries in the North, led by Germany and the Netherlands, have balked at the idea of a eurobond, which they say is a nonstarter because it would mean their own taxpayers would be on the hook for countries they say have long lived beyond their means.
The stakes are huge. In the short term, many heavily indebted countries in Southern Europe have to deal with an economic collapse on a scale never before seen, with nearly all businesses shuttered by government order, while borrowing costs are higher than in richer countries like Germany, which limits those governments’ ability to respond to the crisis. In the longer term, what Southern Europeans see as a lack of solidarity from Germans and Dutch threatens to torpedo the entire notion of the European Union, which has been tottering since at least the last financial crisis.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
The debate is in some ways a retread of the Greek crisis of 2011-2012 and the subsequent fallout, when similarly existential issues arose over the different economic habits of Northern and Southern European countries. But this time, thousands of lives are at stake.
“I was never a fan of the doomsayers who always predicted the end of the eurozone, but this is the first time that I am starting to feel myself that there is a real danger,” said Ángel Talavera, the head of Europe at Oxford Economics. “If the debate becomes ‘Europe isn’t helping while people are dying in droves,’ I really fear that is going to cause permanent damage to the European project.”
There are still almost two weeks for European finance ministers to gin up a solution, and a common response isn’t impossible, even if politically unpalatable for many countries. For years, many Europeans have yearned to make the euro-cemented monetary union a compact by creating a true fiscal union—as in the United States, where places as disparate as New York and Mississippi share a common currency, and where wealthier parts of the bloc underwrite the prosperity of those left behind. That’s the fight that’s currently brewing in Europe.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
What France and other countries are calling for is the issue of “coronabonds” or something similar: a jointly issued bond that would raise a huge, perhaps trillion-euro common fund of money for all European countries using the impeccable credit rating of the best. It’s a little like a cash-strapped youth asking a parent with sterling credit to co-sign a loan—not to buy a car but rather to fight the plague.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said on Apr. 4, while announcing a two-week extension to the nationwide state of alarm, that Spain would continue to insist on some sort of pan-European response to the fiscal crisis, above and beyond more limited measures like joint unemployment insurance or the stability mechanism.
“If the European Union exists for anything, it is for crises like these,” he said. “Spain will never renounce eurobonds.”
Still, some question whether it’s really necessary. The ECB rolled out its own heavy artillery recently, offering a 750 billion euro program to underwrite debt from European countries in a deliberate bid to keep borrowing costs for beleaguered countries like Italy and Spain as low as possible. And it has worked—the spread on Italy’s long-term bonds compared with Germany’s gold-plated debt is still low and just a fraction of what it was during the worst of the last financial crisis.
“I think the whole eurobond discussion is a bit of a distraction—it’s not needed, and you already have all the tools you could wish for. You could do national stimulus,” said Claus Vistesen, the chief eurozone economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.
Still, given the politics of the crisis, he said such a move would make sense, even if national governments seemingly have room now to borrow on their own. Even a handful of German economists have called for a joint response.
“Deficit rules are gone, the ECB is buying bonds to protect spreads—all sorts of sacred cows have been slaughtered, so why not think about mutual bonds?” Vistesen said.
Instead, Dutch and German leaders suggest that other existing tools could do the job just as well or better than going down what they see as a slippery slope of fiscal union by issuing a common bond. The European Stability Mechanism (ESM), a kind of joint insurance policy for the whole eurozone, has more than 400 billion euros on hand to help out countries in crisis. The Dutch are leery of even breaking that glass, seeing it as a last resort for an emergency, while Southern Europe fears the emergency claxons sounded two weeks ago.
But even the full ESM would provide just a tiny injection—something on the order of loans of 2 percent of any country’s GDP, while this crisis requires wartime responses that are tenfold larger. The United States, for example, just passed a rescue package north of $2 trillion, or about 10 percent of its economy. What’s more, tapping the ESM comes with strings attached and the stigma of having pulled the fire alarm for what amounts to little aid.
“Italy wouldn’t accept it. That would come to a total of about $35 billion, with a reduction in the interest rate that is absolutely useless,” said Grégory Claeys of Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank. “The argument is the same as last time—that those countries are fiscally profligate, though I thought it was clear to everyone that this is an exogenous shock,” stemming from the unforeseen virus, not an overly generous welfare state, he said.
Joint European action may be a lost cause at any rate. While France, Spain, and Italy are clamoring for support, the Germans and Dutch are digging in. German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said Sunday that eurobonds are not the answer, while Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said: “I cannot foresee any circumstances in which the Netherlands will accept Eurobonds.”
The danger isn’t just how countries will pay to undo for the short-term damage. The larger question is what happens to Europe, which was already strained to the breaking point during the aftermath of the financial crisis, with lingering resentment from countries like Greece and Italy toward countries like Germany. The coronavirus and its aftermath threaten a hammer blow on those existing fissures.
On the one hand, this crisis is different from 2012—major economies, not just Greece, are going cap in hand to Brussels and Berlin.
“Last time, it was Greece against Germany. This time, some of the biggest economies are clamoring for this,” said Claeys of Bruegel. Also, he said, unlike last time, European institutions are offering help, in the form of ECB intervention, and looser budget rules.
If Northern European countries maintain their current reluctance to use measures that could help the rest of the EU, that could further embolden populists, like former Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini in Italy, who has long warred with Brussels. Spain, which has a pro-European government, barely fended off a big surge of right-wing extremist votes in the last election.
On the other hand, if the crisis forces the hand of countries like Germany and the Netherlands and ends up launching a jointly financed temporary relief program, that could lay the groundwork for a revolutionary fiscal union within Europe. The firehouse could become the foundation for a new Europe—if it doesn’t burn down first.
“The problem is, it’s extremely binary, and it’s hard to say which is more likely,” Talavera said.
Apr. 4: This article was updated to reflect the latest Spanish statements.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-30--A Desperate Scramble to Prevent the Pandemic at a U.S.-Mexico Border Camp

MATAMOROS , Mexico—At the unofficial refugee encampment in Matamoros , Mexico , hundreds of tents and tarp shelters stretch along the banks of the Rio Grande .
The scent of burning wood wafts into the air .
Here , about 2,500 asylum-seekers live cheek by jowl below the shadow of the border wall .
An American flag waves above a slinky of razor wire behind the border fence.. A tantalizingly short swim away lies Brownsville , Texas .
A few hundred yards south of the border crossing is a memorial to Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his 23-month-old daughter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross the river in 2019 .
Those living along the border are no stranger to death : Several asylum-seekers have died trying to cross the river , and hundreds of migrants have died in the desert trying to reach the United States .
But they have never experienced a pandemic .
Refugees living along the U.S.-Mexico border are struggling to prepare for the imminent and inevitable arrival of the coronavirus .
In the tightly packed Matamoros camp , social distancing is impossible , and high-level health care is inaccessible .
The Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) require asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their claims are processed , placing them in an especially vulnerable situation .
Should they become sick , they can not cross the border into the United States , and Mexico does not have enough hospital beds .
In Matamoros , only 10 ventilators and 40 intensive care unit beds are available .
The camp currently does not have any confirmed cases , according to Global Response Management ( GRM ) , a medical aid group that is providing relief in the makeshift camp .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to prevent the virus from entering in the first place .
Hand-washing and hand-sanitizing stations have been set up throughout the camp , as well as signs , painted by volunteers , explaining how the virus travels .
Dairon Elisondo Rojas , a doctor , runs a lecture circuit through the camp explaining what the virus is and how to prevent its spread .
Elisondo is himself an asylum-seeker from Cuba and works with GRM in its clinic .
His specialty is in critical care , and he worries that if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re finished .
… If it reaches , the camp will deteriorate quickly , and it will be fatal.
” The camp is broken down into sections based on nationalities .
During one of the lectures , Elisondo asked everyone to sleep head-to-toe in their tents to avoid breathing on one another and to keep their tents open to allow a cross breeze .
Surrounded by the refugee community and standing on a slight embankment , Elisondo spoke to the crowd frankly about the dangers of the virus .
He asked that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a runner to the clinic to limit exposure to the rest of the camp ; if multiple people are ill or coughing , they should be moved together .
Most already live in groups of two or more in a tent .
There are criteria that need to be met before GRM would isolate a patient : a fever , cough , and a negative flu test .
If a patient meets the criteria , they are isolated—as much as is possible in the camp .
There are plans to stand up a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encampment , but as of this writing , the hospital has not been built .
Medical staff at GRM do not have access to coronavirus tests .
For asylum-seekers trapped in Mexico under MPP , the coronavirus is just another in a series of challenges .
Some said they were less worried about getting sick than the likely impact the pandemic will have on their asylum cases .
David , a migrant from Honduras , said the biggest problem isn ’ t the coronavirus but the response to it .
“ What I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they stop the program , I think the border is going to close .
I heard that they are going to shut down the programs.
” On March 21 , U.S. President Donald Trump partially closed the border to nonessential travel .
Asylum-seekers here have yet to learn whether their hearings will be considered “ essential.
” However , the border appeared to remain open along the crossing .
When asked about any new directives , Customs and Border Protection officers responsible for checking identification on the bridge said they still had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , despite it being days after the order went into effect .
According to an immigration attorney who works on asylum cases but is not authorized to speak to the media , “ it sounds like at least some judges are issuing blanket orders and rescheduling some MPP hearings.
” Several asylum-seekers Foreign Policy spoke with reported that their cases had been delayed .
On March 23 , the Department of Homeland Security released a statement saying that all hearings scheduled through April 22 will be rescheduled for a later date .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
“ If they shut the border , people will be stuck here and they can ’ t have their cases processed , ” Elisondo said .
“ The conditions here are not good , even if you ’ re healthy .
”

MATAMOROS, Mexico—At the unofficial refugee encampment in Matamoros, Mexico, hundreds of tents and tarp shelters stretch along the banks of the Rio Grande. The scent of burning wood wafts into the air. Here, about 2,500 asylum-seekers live cheek by jowl below the shadow of the border wall. An American flag waves above a slinky of razor wire behind the border fence. A tantalizingly short swim away lies Brownsville, Texas.
MATAMOROS, Mexico—At the unofficial refugee encampment in Matamoros, Mexico, hundreds of tents and tarp shelters stretch along the banks of the Rio Grande. The scent of burning wood wafts into the air. Here, about 2,500 asylum-seekers live cheek by jowl below the shadow of the border wall. An American flag waves above a slinky of razor wire behind the border fence. A tantalizingly short swim away lies Brownsville, Texas.
A few hundred yards south of the border crossing is a memorial to Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his 23-month-old daughter, Angie Valeria, who drowned attempting to cross the river in 2019. Those living along the border are no stranger to death: Several asylum-seekers have died trying to cross the river, and hundreds of migrants have died in the desert trying to reach the United States. But they have never experienced a pandemic.
A girl runs past a series of signs explaining how the coronavirus spreads at the Matamoros refugee camp March 19.
Migrants wait in line for food distribution at the Matamoros camp March 19. Food was previously given out in a centralized tent but is now distributed at separate locations in the camp to prevent large gatherings.
Refugees living along the U.S.-Mexico border are struggling to prepare for the imminent and inevitable arrival of the coronavirus. In the tightly packed Matamoros camp, social distancing is impossible, and high-level health care is inaccessible. The Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) require asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their claims are processed, placing them in an especially vulnerable situation. Should they become sick, they cannot cross the border into the United States, and Mexico does not have enough hospital beds. In Matamoros, only 10 ventilators and 40 intensive care unit beds are available.
The camp currently does not have any confirmed cases, according to Global Response Management (GRM), a medical aid group that is providing relief in the makeshift camp. But that fact hasn’t dampened efforts to prevent the virus from entering in the first place.
Hand-washing and hand-sanitizing stations have been set up throughout the camp, as well as signs, painted by volunteers, explaining how the virus travels. Dairon Elisondo Rojas, a doctor, runs a lecture circuit through the camp explaining what the virus is and how to prevent its spread. Elisondo is himself an asylum-seeker from Cuba and works with GRM in its clinic. His specialty is in critical care, and he worries that if the virus “gets in here, we’re finished. … If it reaches, the camp will deteriorate quickly, and it will be fatal.”
The camp is broken down into sections based on nationalities. During one of the lectures, Elisondo asked everyone to sleep head-to-toe in their tents to avoid breathing on one another and to keep their tents open to allow a cross breeze. Surrounded by the refugee community and standing on a slight embankment, Elisondo spoke to the crowd frankly about the dangers of the virus. He asked that if anyone gets ill, they send a runner to the clinic to limit exposure to the rest of the camp; if multiple people are ill or coughing, they should be moved together. Most already live in groups of two or more in a tent.
There are criteria that need to be met before GRM would isolate a patient: a fever, cough, and a negative flu test. If a patient meets the criteria, they are isolated—as much as is possible in the camp. There are plans to stand up a 40-bed field hospital south of the main encampment, but as of this writing, the hospital has not been built. Medical staff at GRM do not have access to coronavirus tests.
A child runs up an embankment in the refugee camp in Matamoros on March 18. A sign over the road that leads to the nearby U.S. border crossing wishes people a good trip.
Children pile on to a toy truck as they push one another around the U.S.-Mexico border camp March 18.
For asylum-seekers trapped in Mexico under MPP, the coronavirus is just another in a series of challenges. Some said they were less worried about getting sick than the likely impact the pandemic will have on their asylum cases. David, a migrant from Honduras, said the biggest problem isn’t the coronavirus but the response to it. “What I’m worried about the most is if they stop the program, I think the border is going to close. I heard that they are going to shut down the programs.”
On March 21, U.S. President Donald Trump partially closed the border to nonessential travel. Asylum-seekers here have yet to learn whether their hearings will be considered “essential.” However, the border appeared to remain open along the crossing. When asked about any new directives, Customs and Border Protection officers responsible for checking identification on the bridge said they still had not received a directive regarding the closures, despite it being days after the order went into effect.
A mother looks out to her children as they swim in the Rio Grande, near Matamoros, while she does laundry March 18.
According to an immigration attorney who works on asylum cases but is not authorized to speak to the media, “it sounds like at least some judges are issuing blanket orders and rescheduling some MPP hearings.” Several asylum-seekers Foreign Policy spoke with reported that their cases had been delayed. On March 23, the Department of Homeland Security released a statement saying that all hearings scheduled through April 22 will be rescheduled for a later date. This information seems to be changing day to day.
“If they shut the border, people will be stuck here and they can’t have their cases processed,” Elisondo said. “The conditions here are not good, even if you’re healthy.”


foreignpolicy--2020-03-30--Narendra Modi’s Sisyphean Quest for Global Coronavirus Cooperation

On March 13 , Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted an intriguing offer .
“ I would like to propose that the leadership of SAARC nations chalk out a strong strategy to fight Coronavirus , ” he said , using the acronym for the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation .
“ We could discuss , via video conferencing , ways to keep our citizens healthy .
Together , we can set an example to the world , and contribute to a healthier planet.
” It was a striking proposal .
Most national leaders haven ’ t made pitches for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic , mainly because they ’ re too preoccupied with the complex emergency it poses at home .
Yet here was Modi doing just that—even as his country confronts a coronavirus challenge that medical experts there warn could produce a “ national disaster ” in a matter of weeks .
The Indian leader is trying to do two heavy lifts at once : positioning India as a leader in crafting global responses to the coronavirus even while attempting to combat it at home .
Modi convened the SAARC videoconference on March 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ India ’ s bitter rival Pakistan .
Modi called for the formation of a rapid response team of medical personnel , and he announced an initial $ 10 million Indian contribution for a new coronavirus emergency fund .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
Then , on March 17 , Modi spoke by phone with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman , the current G-20 chair , to broach the possibility of replicating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the G-20 leadership .
( Modi had earlier pitched the idea to Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia , another G-20 member . )
The online G-20 session took place on March 26 .
But this will be a difficult balancing act to pull off , especially with the number of new coronavirus cases rising rapidly in India .
Modi has the right idea to be pushing for more global coordination , but the obstacles he faces underscore the limit of multilateralism today—even amid a rapidly spreading pandemic that badly requires a global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach makes a certain sense .
New Delhi is keen to assert its importance and place in the world .
India is often criticized for punching below its weight—with the implication that it doesn ’ t do enough operationally to demonstrate that it should be taken seriously as a rising power .
By projecting India as a leader in crafting global responses to the coronavirus when others are not stepping up to the plate , Modi can demonstrate that his country is not a global actor to be taken lightly .
More broadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that India is a responsible and collaborative global player with the capacity to spearhead global cooperation to address shared threats .
China , meanwhile , looms large .
New Delhi frequently competes with Beijing , its top strategic rival .
Since getting the virus under control at home , Beijing has been one of the few governments leading the charge to combat the pandemic abroad .
It has provided tens of thousands of supplies to European states and sent medical teams to Iran .
It has combined this assistance with robust diplomacy that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Rush Doshi in a recent Foreign Affairs essay , “ to convene dozens of countries and hundreds of officials , generally by videoconference , to share information about the pandemic and lessons from China ’ s own experience battling the disease.
” India ’ s global outreach is decidedly more modest than China ’ s , but it ’ s more credible—given that it ’ s bereft of the propagandistic tone , amplified in China ’ s state-run media , of Beijing ’ s we-beat-the-virus-and-here ’ s-how-you-can-too approach .
And of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the virus and enable its spread overseas .
India is quietly trying to make a case for having the capacity to galvanize a global response in the same way as China—as a convener but also a goods provider .
Last month , India sent 15 tons of medical supplies to—ironically—China when Beijing was still getting hit hard .
This month , it dispatched doctors to the Maldives and more recently Nepal .
On the heels of the SAARC videoconference , it is also sending supplies to Afghanistan , Bangladesh , Bhutan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign affairs ministry says it is considering aid requests from Iran and Italy , two of the world ’ s hardest-hit countries .
And Israeli media report that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu requested Indian masks and other supplies during a call with Modi in mid-March .
Modi ’ s efforts to spark international responses to the coronavirus may also be rooted in a desire to alter the way his government is perceived abroad .
New Delhi has suffered blow after blow to its global image in recent months following a series of controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the autonomy of India-administered Kashmir ; the passage of a new citizenship law that critics believe discriminates against Muslims ; and the government ’ s silence in the face of India ’ s most deadly communal violence in several decades .
This has garnered negative international media coverage and criticism from political leaders around the world who fear New Delhi is taking the world ’ s largest democracy in an authoritarian direction .
Accordingly , the Indian government ’ s efforts to facilitate global collaboration can be read as a desire to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has squandered .
This is nothing to sneeze at for an Indian prime minister who rehabilitated his global image in a big way during his first term as prime minister after many years of being perceived as a pariah because of his alleged involvement in deadly riots in the state of Gujarat , where he was chief minister , in 2002 .
But Modi ’ s efforts are likely to fall short .
While his regional initiative has enjoyed some forward movement , thanks to several SAARC states having pledged modest contributions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s deployment of assistance to South Asian states , it will inevitably be hobbled by the India-Pakistan spat .
During the videoconference , Pakistani Health Minister Zafar Mirza called on India to change its policies in Kashmir in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus there—a comment that didn ’ t sit well with New Delhi .
( The sour look on Modi ’ s face as Mirza spoke was telling . )
Meanwhile , Modi ’ s push for the G-20 videoconference could end up benefiting Beijing—a G-20 member with more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ India—by giving it a high-powered forum to amplify its messaging .
Furthermore , Modi ’ s efforts to this point haven ’ t gone beyond SAARC and the G-20 .
More broadly , Modi will struggle to get traction for his global appeals because most countries are understandably too focused on the coronavirus at home to focus on coordinated responses abroad .
In fact , India ’ s own worsening coronavirus situation could prompt Modi to abandon his global outreach and focus exclusively on the homefront .
New Delhi has taken robust measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from abroad , including suspending most foreign visas and halting incoming international flights .
However , India ’ s fast-rising increase in new cases in recent days suggests that community transmission has begun .
India presents the perfect storm for the spread of the coronavirus : It suffers from poor public health infrastructure and is densely populated , which makes social distancing difficult to enforce .
On March 22 , Modi announced that 75 districts in India—comprising some of its most densely populated and hard-hit areas—would be placed under lockdown .
On March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air travel would be grounded .
And then , on March 24 , Modi declared a three-week , nationwide lockdown—a bold move meant to stem the spread of the virus but also a move that will prove immensely difficult to enforce in a nation of 1.3 billion people .
Against this backdrop of deep coronavirus vulnerability at home , Modi incurs significant risks—in terms of potential economic , public health , and political costs—if he accords too much policy space to global responses .
He could end up being Nero fiddling abroad while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critics of Modi claim his let ’ s-work-together pitch to the world is merely a public relations stunt to place the prime minister in the global spotlight .
Even though Modi ’ s efforts may fall short , they ’ re significant because they underscore his government ’ s support for pursuing multilateralism in a world where it is sorely lacking .
On Feb. 20 , India ’ s foreign minister , Subrahmanyam Jaishankar , spoke to his German counterpart , Heiko Maas , and commended him for the Alliance for Multilateralism—a German-led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozen countries but conspicuously silent throughout the coronavirus crisis .
In his conversation with Maas , Jaishankar said , “ We believe multilateralism should be recognized , it should be preserved , it should be protected.
” These sentiments are not shared by the Trump administration , which has heaped scorn on major multilateral organizations ( NATO , the United Nations ) and withdrawn from some of the international community ’ s signature products ( the Paris climate accords , the Iran nuclear deal ) .
Still , there is an opportunity here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Pompeo spoke to Jaishankar by phone on March 14 about how the two countries can work together to combat the coronavirus .
This came just a few weeks after President Donald Trump ’ s visit to India , which produced a joint statement that called for the two sides to increase cooperation on managing disease outbreaks .
If the coronavirus provides any geopolitical silver lining for Washington , it ’ s the possibility for more partnership with New Delhi .
With the Trump administration shrugging off multilateralism as a vehicle to combat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a bilateral approach—especially one that encourages a global response that isn ’ t dominated by a shared Chinese rival .

On March 13, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted an intriguing offer. “I would like to propose that the leadership of SAARC nations chalk out a strong strategy to fight Coronavirus,” he said, using the acronym for the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. “We could discuss, via video conferencing, ways to keep our citizens healthy. Together, we can set an example to the world, and contribute to a healthier planet.”
On March 13, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted an intriguing offer. “I would like to propose that the leadership of SAARC nations chalk out a strong strategy to fight Coronavirus,” he said, using the acronym for the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. “We could discuss, via video conferencing, ways to keep our citizens healthy. Together, we can set an example to the world, and contribute to a healthier planet.”
It was a striking proposal. Most national leaders haven’t made pitches for regional or more broadly global responses to the pandemic, mainly because they’re too preoccupied with the complex emergency it poses at home. Yet here was Modi doing just that—even as his country confronts a coronavirus challenge that medical experts there warn could produce a “national disaster” in a matter of weeks.
The Indian leader is trying to do two heavy lifts at once: positioning India as a leader in crafting global responses to the coronavirus even while attempting to combat it at home.
Modi convened the SAARC videoconference on March 15 and with participation from all SAARC states—including India’s bitter rival Pakistan. Modi called for the formation of a rapid response team of medical personnel, and he announced an initial $10 million Indian contribution for a new coronavirus emergency fund.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Then, on March 17, Modi spoke by phone with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the current G-20 chair, to broach the possibility of replicating the SAARC videoconference, only this time with the G-20 leadership. (Modi had earlier pitched the idea to Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia, another G-20 member.) The online G-20 session took place on March 26.
But this will be a difficult balancing act to pull off, especially with the number of new coronavirus cases rising rapidly in India. Modi has the right idea to be pushing for more global coordination, but the obstacles he faces underscore the limit of multilateralism today—even amid a rapidly spreading pandemic that badly requires a global response.
Modi’s globally focused approach makes a certain sense. New Delhi is keen to assert its importance and place in the world. India is often criticized for punching below its weight—with the implication that it doesn’t do enough operationally to demonstrate that it should be taken seriously as a rising power. By projecting India as a leader in crafting global responses to the coronavirus when others are not stepping up to the plate, Modi can demonstrate that his country is not a global actor to be taken lightly. More broadly, New Delhi can telegraph a message that India is a responsible and collaborative global player with the capacity to spearhead global cooperation to address shared threats.
China, meanwhile, looms large. New Delhi frequently competes with Beijing, its top strategic rival. Since getting the virus under control at home, Beijing has been one of the few governments leading the charge to combat the pandemic abroad. It has provided tens of thousands of supplies to European states and sent medical teams to Iran. It has combined this assistance with robust diplomacy that aims, as described by Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi in a recent Foreign Affairs essay, “to convene dozens of countries and hundreds of officials, generally by videoconference, to share information about the pandemic and lessons from China’s own experience battling the disease.”
India’s global outreach is decidedly more modest than China’s, but it’s more credible—given that it’s bereft of the propagandistic tone, amplified in China’s state-run media, of Beijing’s we-beat-the-virus-and-here’s-how-you-can-too approach. And of course, New Delhi did not suppress information about the virus and enable its spread overseas.
India is quietly trying to make a case for having the capacity to galvanize a global response in the same way as China—as a convener but also a goods provider. Last month, India sent 15 tons of medical supplies to—ironically—China when Beijing was still getting hit hard. This month, it dispatched doctors to the Maldives and more recently Nepal. On the heels of the SAARC videoconference, it is also sending supplies to Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka. India’s foreign affairs ministry says it is considering aid requests from Iran and Italy, two of the world’s hardest-hit countries. And Israeli media report that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu requested Indian masks and other supplies during a call with Modi in mid-March.
Modi’s efforts to spark international responses to the coronavirus may also be rooted in a desire to alter the way his government is perceived abroad. New Delhi has suffered blow after blow to its global image in recent months following a series of controversial policy moves. These include the revocation of the autonomy of India-administered Kashmir; the passage of a new citizenship law that critics believe discriminates against Muslims; and the government’s silence in the face of India’s most deadly communal violence in several decades. This has garnered negative international media coverage and criticism from political leaders around the world who fear New Delhi is taking the world’s largest democracy in an authoritarian direction.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
Accordingly, the Indian government’s efforts to facilitate global collaboration can be read as a desire to recoup goodwill that international critics believe it has squandered. This is nothing to sneeze at for an Indian prime minister who rehabilitated his global image in a big way during his first term as prime minister after many years of being perceived as a pariah because of his alleged involvement in deadly riots in the state of Gujarat, where he was chief minister, in 2002.
But Modi’s efforts are likely to fall short. While his regional initiative has enjoyed some forward movement, thanks to several SAARC states having pledged modest contributions to the new emergency fund and India’s deployment of assistance to South Asian states, it will inevitably be hobbled by the India-Pakistan spat. During the videoconference, Pakistani Health Minister Zafar Mirza called on India to change its policies in Kashmir in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus there—a comment that didn’t sit well with New Delhi. (The sour look on Modi’s face as Mirza spoke was telling.)
Meanwhile, Modi’s push for the G-20 videoconference could end up benefiting Beijing—a G-20 member with more capital and resources for global outreach than India—by giving it a high-powered forum to amplify its messaging. Furthermore, Modi’s efforts to this point haven’t gone beyond SAARC and the G-20.
More broadly, Modi will struggle to get traction for his global appeals because most countries are understandably too focused on the coronavirus at home to focus on coordinated responses abroad.
In fact, India’s own worsening coronavirus situation could prompt Modi to abandon his global outreach and focus exclusively on the homefront. New Delhi has taken robust measures to curb the transmission of the virus from abroad, including suspending most foreign visas and halting incoming international flights. However, India’s fast-rising increase in new cases in recent days suggests that community transmission has begun.
India presents the perfect storm for the spread of the coronavirus: It suffers from poor public health infrastructure and is densely populated, which makes social distancing difficult to enforce. On March 22, Modi announced that 75 districts in India—comprising some of its most densely populated and hard-hit areas—would be placed under lockdown. On March 23, New Delhi announced that domestic air travel would be grounded. And then, on March 24, Modi declared a three-week, nationwide lockdown—a bold move meant to stem the spread of the virus but also a move that will prove immensely difficult to enforce in a nation of 1.3 billion people.
Against this backdrop of deep coronavirus vulnerability at home, Modi incurs significant risks—in terms of potential economic, public health, and political costs—if he accords too much policy space to global responses. He could end up being Nero fiddling abroad while Rome burns at home. Already, critics of Modi claim his let’s-work-together pitch to the world is merely a public relations stunt to place the prime minister in the global spotlight.
Even though Modi’s efforts may fall short, they’re significant because they underscore his government’s support for pursuing multilateralism in a world where it is sorely lacking.
On Feb. 20, India’s foreign minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, spoke to his German counterpart, Heiko Maas, and commended him for the Alliance for Multilateralism—a German-led forum initiated in 2019 and comprising several dozen countries but conspicuously silent throughout the coronavirus crisis. In his conversation with Maas, Jaishankar said, “We believe multilateralism should be recognized, it should be preserved, it should be protected.”
These sentiments are not shared by the Trump administration, which has heaped scorn on major multilateral organizations (NATO, the United Nations) and withdrawn from some of the international community’s signature products (the Paris climate accords, the Iran nuclear deal). Still, there is an opportunity here for Washington. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke to Jaishankar by phone on March 14 about how the two countries can work together to combat the coronavirus. This came just a few weeks after President Donald Trump’s visit to India, which produced a joint statement that called for the two sides to increase cooperation on managing disease outbreaks.
If the coronavirus provides any geopolitical silver lining for Washington, it’s the possibility for more partnership with New Delhi. With the Trump administration shrugging off multilateralism as a vehicle to combat the pandemic, the next best option is a bilateral approach—especially one that encourages a global response that isn’t dominated by a shared Chinese rival.