foreignpolicy--2020-03-17--Can India Avert a Health Apocalypse?

Can India Avert a Health Apocalypse?

As India braces for the rapid spread of the coronavirus , its health care system offers limited comfort .
The country spends only 3.66 percent of its GDP on public health , while some of its smaller neighbors such as Nepal ( 6.29 percent ) spend a much higher proportion .
Advanced economies are even further ahead : The United States , for example , spends about 17 percent of its GDP on health care ; Germany and the United Kingdom spend 11.14 percent and 9.76 percent , respectively .
Other indicators are not heartening either .
India has just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living there ; the World Health Organization ( WHO ) recommends at least five .
India averages 0.8 doctors for every 1,000 citizens ; even Italy , which has been badly hit by the coronavirus outbreak , has five times as many doctors per capita .
There is ample reason to fear that if the coronavirus disperses rapidly through a country as densely populated as India—it may already have done so—it could overwhelm the country ’ s medical infrastructure .
Such misgivings are hardly new : Given the hapless quality of public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact understandable .
Yet the Indian state somehow seems to be remarkably resilient when confronted with crises .
Three compelling examples from the past few decades suggest that the country has an ability to mitigate dire health challenges even though it has displayed a lax attitude toward addressing routine public health needs .
When the HIV crisis hit the world in the late 1980s , many experts predicted the virus would severely impact India .
Yet the National AIDS Control Organization managed to prevent a national epidemic , with infection rates showing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an initial spike .
At least two policy initiatives stemmed the spread of HIV .
The government provided free antiretroviral drugs to the afflicted population .
It also made significant outreach efforts to the two most vulnerable population groups—gay men and sex workers—despite having laws at the time that made gay sex illegal .
India ’ s relative success in reducing new infections showed that it was able to adopt a crisis plan despite its laws or subpar health care system .
Then , in 1994 , there was an outbreak of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Gujarat .
After a somewhat confused response , the government nevertheless managed to control the plague before it assumed epidemic proportions .
Surat ’ s officials improved trash collection and street cleaning , and put in place strict standards of hygiene in restaurants—practices that have today made it a public health leader in the country .
There is little doubt that routine access to health care for the vast majority of India ’ s citizenry , especially for the poor , remains abysmal .
More recently , when confronted with the deadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no known cure , Indian health authorities acted promptly to limit its dispersion .
Following the initial outbreak , local health authorities sent a virus sample for testing to the National Institute of Virology in Pune .
They also waived the costs of the tests and promptly imported anti-viral drugs from Australia .
Meanwhile , the National Centre for Disease Control coordinated efforts with local , state , and national health authorities , eventually containing what could have been a far deadlier outbreak .
Despite these relatively successful outcomes , there is little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the vast majority of India ’ s citizenry , especially for the poor , remains abysmal .
A mere 44 percent of the county ’ s population has some form of health insurance .
This is a situation that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi hopes to address as it embarks upon ambitious plans to create a national program to give citizens free health care .
But the reality is that India ’ s health care system has long been unequal .
While the poor suffer , the country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often world-class .
Not surprisingly , India has become a hub of global medical tourism .
The puzzling thing then is that as of March 16 , India recorded just 129 confirmed cases of the coronavirus , with two deaths—a tiny fraction of the country ’ s 1.34 billion population .
What explains these low numbers ?
If one takes the most uncharitable view , it could be argued that the low number of reported cases stems from limited testing of the affected population .
In other words , the actual numbers may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plausible argument , it needs to be tempered , as India has 52 medical centers that can test for the coronavirus spread across the country , and they have been aggressively carrying out tests on those suspected of having come into contact with the virus .
The question , then , is whether it is possible to argue , based on other evidence , that India may yet ride out this health crisis without being engulfed in the coronavirus .
A range of government actions suggest that containing COVID-19 may not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When the first signs of the virus emerged in the country , in early February , Indian authorities moved to drastically limit flights to and from China .
They also quarantined in Kerala several returning Indian students who had been studying in Wuhan province , the epicenter of the outbreak .
The Kerala state government instituted several measures to contain the spread of the coronavirus , for example by rapidly disseminating information , setting up screening centers at ports and airports , and imposing a 28-day quarantine on people it suspected of having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the national government required only 14 days ) .
One errant couple , who with their grown son avoided alerting airport authorities that they had recently been in Italy , traveled to their native village in Kerala .
Once the health authorities learned about this lapse , they immediately sequestered the family and traced those they had come into contact with .
Obviously , all of India ’ s states do not have health care systems that are comparable to that of Kerala .
Nevertheless , the national government seems to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impending crisis and has sought to assist states to cope with it .
To that end , 27,000 individuals in five states bordering Nepal have been placed under surveillance .
The government is also setting up isolation wards in public hospitals.The national government has shown vigor in tackling what has every potential to become a widespread calamity .
Selected other states also seem to have set up some effective measures .
West Bengal , which has several direct flights to China , moved quickly to disseminate information about the risks and dangers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colonial-era Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 , which allows for the enforcement of all government advisories related to the outbreak .
It has also closed all schools until April 15 .
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation , in the state ’ s capital , set up a monitoring committee to track all fliers coming into the city from any affected country ; by early March it had effectively sequestered as many as 1,200 individuals whom it deemed to be at risk .
The national government has shown vigor in tackling what has every potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late January , the Indo-Tibetan Border Police , a paramilitary force , set up a 600-bed facility on the outskirts of New Delhi .
The government has also created another emergency medical center in the neighboring state of Haryana , under the management of the Armed Forces Medical Services .
By early March , more than 600,000 visitors to India had been screened and 3,500 samples tested .
( Admittedly , screenings are not foolproof , because some individuals may well be asymptomatic . )
And in another case of drastic action—with considerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspending most visas to enter India until April 15 , a decision that came shortly after WHO formally declared the coronavirus to represent a pandemic .
India then closed its land border with Myanmar and urged citizens to limit all nonessential travel , with the warning that people returning from abroad would face a 14-day quarantine period .
Despite all the efforts that the government has undertaken to contain the likely dispersion of the virus , it is , of course , entirely possible that an escalating spate of infections will take place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given the cheek by jowl living conditions of India ’ s cities and towns , the disease can sweep across the country like wildfire .
Under those circumstances , India ’ s creaking health infrastructure could well find itself to be overwhelmed .
The question then is whether New Delhi ’ s actions have bought its people enough time—and whether they will do their part by practicing social distancing and taking personal precautions .

As India braces for the rapid spread of the coronavirus, its health care system offers limited comfort. The country spends only 3.66 percent of its GDP on public health, while some of its smaller neighbors such as Nepal (6.29 percent) spend a much higher proportion. Advanced economies are even further ahead: The United States, for example, spends about 17 percent of its GDP on health care; Germany and the United Kingdom spend 11.14 percent and 9.76 percent, respectively.
As India braces for the rapid spread of the coronavirus, its health care system offers limited comfort. The country spends only 3.66 percent of its GDP on public health, while some of its smaller neighbors such as Nepal (6.29 percent) spend a much higher proportion. Advanced economies are even further ahead: The United States, for example, spends about 17 percent of its GDP on health care; Germany and the United Kingdom spend 11.14 percent and 9.76 percent, respectively.
Other indicators are not heartening either. India has just 0.5 hospital beds for every 1,000 people living there; the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends at least five. India averages 0.8 doctors for every 1,000 citizens; even Italy, which has been badly hit by the coronavirus outbreak, has five times as many doctors per capita.
There is ample reason to fear that if the coronavirus disperses rapidly through a country as densely populated as India—it may already have done so—it could overwhelm the country’s medical infrastructure. Such misgivings are hardly new: Given the hapless quality of public health infrastructure in India, they are in fact understandable. Yet the Indian state somehow seems to be remarkably resilient when confronted with crises. Three compelling examples from the past few decades suggest that the country has an ability to mitigate dire health challenges even though it has displayed a lax attitude toward addressing routine public health needs.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
When the HIV crisis hit the world in the late 1980s, many experts predicted the virus would severely impact India. Yet the National AIDS Control Organization managed to prevent a national epidemic, with infection rates showing a substantial drop in the late 1990s after an initial spike. At least two policy initiatives stemmed the spread of HIV. The government provided free antiretroviral drugs to the afflicted population. It also made significant outreach efforts to the two most vulnerable population groups—gay men and sex workers—despite having laws at the time that made gay sex illegal. India’s relative success in reducing new infections showed that it was able to adopt a crisis plan despite its laws or subpar health care system. Then, in 1994, there was an outbreak of the pneumonic plague in the city of Surat in Gujarat. After a somewhat confused response, the government nevertheless managed to control the plague before it assumed epidemic proportions. Surat’s officials improved trash collection and street cleaning, and put in place strict standards of hygiene in restaurants—practices that have today made it a public health leader in the country.
There is little doubt that routine access to health care for the vast majority of India’s citizenry, especially for the poor, remains abysmal.
More recently, when confronted with the deadly Nipah virus, for which there is no known cure, Indian health authorities acted promptly to limit its dispersion. Following the initial outbreak, local health authorities sent a virus sample for testing to the National Institute of Virology in Pune. They also waived the costs of the tests and promptly imported anti-viral drugs from Australia. Meanwhile, the National Centre for Disease Control coordinated efforts with local, state, and national health authorities, eventually containing what could have been a far deadlier outbreak.
Despite these relatively successful outcomes, there is little doubt that routine access to health care for the vast majority of India’s citizenry, especially for the poor, remains abysmal. A mere 44 percent of the county’s population has some form of health insurance. This is a situation that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi hopes to address as it embarks upon ambitious plans to create a national program to give citizens free health care. But the reality is that India’s health care system has long been unequal. While the poor suffer, the country’s rich can afford elite hospitals that are often world-class. Not surprisingly, India has become a hub of global medical tourism.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
The puzzling thing then is that as of March 16, India recorded just 129 confirmed cases of the coronavirus, with two deaths—a tiny fraction of the country’s 1.34 billion population. What explains these low numbers? If one takes the most uncharitable view, it could be argued that the low number of reported cases stems from limited testing of the affected population. In other words, the actual numbers may be far higher. While this is a plausible argument, it needs to be tempered, as India has 52 medical centers that can test for the coronavirus spread across the country, and they have been aggressively carrying out tests on those suspected of having come into contact with the virus.
The question, then, is whether it is possible to argue, based on other evidence, that India may yet ride out this health crisis without being engulfed in the coronavirus.
A range of government actions suggest that containing COVID-19 may not be entirely beyond India’s capabilities. When the first signs of the virus emerged in the country, in early February, Indian authorities moved to drastically limit flights to and from China. They also quarantined in Kerala several returning Indian students who had been studying in Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak. The Kerala state government instituted several measures to contain the spread of the coronavirus, for example by rapidly disseminating information, setting up screening centers at ports and airports, and imposing a 28-day quarantine on people it suspected of having come into contact with the virus (when the national government required only 14 days). One errant couple, who with their grown son avoided alerting airport authorities that they had recently been in Italy, traveled to their native village in Kerala. Once the health authorities learned about this lapse, they immediately sequestered the family and traced those they had come into contact with. Obviously, all of India’s states do not have health care systems that are comparable to that of Kerala. Nevertheless, the national government seems to have taken stock of the gravity of the impending crisis and has sought to assist states to cope with it. To that end, 27,000 individuals in five states bordering Nepal have been placed under surveillance. The government is also setting up isolation wards in public hospitals.
The national government has shown vigor in tackling what has every potential to become a widespread calamity.
Selected other states also seem to have set up some effective measures. West Bengal, which has several direct flights to China, moved quickly to disseminate information about the risks and dangers of the virus. It has invoked the colonial-era Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897, which allows for the enforcement of all government advisories related to the outbreak. It has also closed all schools until April 15. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation, in the state’s capital, set up a monitoring committee to track all fliers coming into the city from any affected country; by early March it had effectively sequestered as many as 1,200 individuals whom it deemed to be at risk.
The national government has shown vigor in tackling what has every potential to become a widespread calamity. In late January, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, a paramilitary force, set up a 600-bed facility on the outskirts of New Delhi. The government has also created another emergency medical center in the neighboring state of Haryana, under the management of the Armed Forces Medical Services. By early March, more than 600,000 visitors to India had been screened and 3,500 samples tested. (Admittedly, screenings are not foolproof, because some individuals may well be asymptomatic.) And in another case of drastic action—with considerable adverse economic consequences—the government announced it was suspending most visas to enter India until April 15, a decision that came shortly after WHO formally declared the coronavirus to represent a pandemic. India then closed its land border with Myanmar and urged citizens to limit all nonessential travel, with the warning that people returning from abroad would face a 14-day quarantine period.
Despite all the efforts that the government has undertaken to contain the likely dispersion of the virus, it is, of course, entirely possible that an escalating spate of infections will take place through community spread. Once that happens, given the cheek by jowl living conditions of India’s cities and towns, the disease can sweep across the country like wildfire. Under those circumstances, India’s creaking health infrastructure could well find itself to be overwhelmed. The question then is whether New Delhi’s actions have bought its people enough time—and whether they will do their part by practicing social distancing and taking personal precautions.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-16--Big Takeaways From the Biden-Sanders Debate

In the Shadow of the Pandemic , It Was Game , Set , and Match The only real drama in the debate was whether former Vice President Joe Biden , through some act of involuntary self-sabotage , might disrupt his near-inevitable march to the Democratic nomination .
It didn ’ t happen .
Not even close .
On the contrary , in the first half of the discussion devoted to the only issue that currently matters to Americans—the coronavirus pandemic—Biden came off strong , competent , and experienced in wielding the powers of government .
He said the country is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be laser-focused to mitigate the damage , both to save lives and to limit the economic devastation wrought on ordinary people .
He focused on ramping up capacity to prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed , including enlisting the full capabilities of the U.S. military and other parts of the government that can provide disaster relief .
He promised that no American would be denied testing or treatment for lack of funds .
No one would lose their jobs for being sick .
No one would be evicted from their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their mortgage .
How exactly all of this would be accomplished and at what cost was left to decide for another day .
Biden ’ s message was that this is war—an existential threat to Americans ’ way of life—and that the United States will do whatever it takes to win and get its people through it .
Biden was especially good in parrying Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s effort to pivot from the coronavirus crisis to his signature proposals of “ Medicare for All ” and the need to radically transform American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this crisis now , Biden implored .
This is not the time to politicize it by indulging in ideological hobbyhorses .
Practical results to help the country survive the next few months , not revolutionary disruption that would exacerbate instability and uncertainty , is what average Americans need from their government , Biden suggested .
Pointing to Italy as a country whose health care system is on the verge of collapse because of the virus , despite having the kind of public health care system backed by Sanders , was particularly effective .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was game , set , and match—especially when coupled with his headline-grabbing commitment to name a woman as his running mate .
The rest of the debate seemed small by comparison to the enormity and urgency of the challenge now thrust upon the nation ( and indeed the world ) by the pandemic .
For the select audience that paid attention to what passed for the foreign-policy section of the debate , my notes read as follows : Sanders ( still ) has a soft spot for leftist authoritarians who may have killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trains run on time .
On both immigration and climate change , Biden needs to be careful about being savaged by the Republicans .
In his understandable effort to reach out to the progressive wing of his party , he runs a serious risk of further alienating a white working-class electorate that moved decisively to President Donald Trump ’ s populist message in 2016 .
An all-out assault on fossil fuels and fracking demonizes an industry that has transformed global energy markets over the past decade to the United States ’ great geopolitical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of average Americans in well-paying jobs .
Declaring war on them may not be wise .
Biden also showed another vulnerability when he , however legitimately , attacked Trump ’ s harsh immigration policies .
Biden needs to be careful that his calls for humanely dealing with the undocumented are coupled with sufficient concern for the necessity of maintaining adequate control of the United States borders—one of the primary responsibilities of any sovereign government .
The failure of repeated U.S. administrations to provide that basic reassurance played a major role in Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploit it again if Biden proves incapable of striking a balanced tone .
He clearly didn ’ t find that tone when he seemed to suggest an equivalence between undocumented migrants surging across the U.S.-Mexican border and the millions of Italians and Irish who immigrated legally a century ago .
But that ’ s all small potatoes at the moment .
Biden sealed the nomination last night .
It ’ s all over except for the exact timing of when Sanders ends his campaign .
Then attention will turn to the critical question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) mobilize his army of impassioned revolutionaries on behalf of Biden ’ s more conventional form of progressivism .
Will they accept half a loaf or stay at home and sulk ?
The country ’ s future may ride on the answer—assuming the coronavirus doesn ’ t ruin us first .
Bernie Sanders ’ answers to questions about the coronavirus pandemic revealed him as an ideologue .
He simply dusted off his familiar “ Medicare for All ” proposal , even as Biden—correctly—pointed out that Italy , Europe ’ s most disastrous victim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders made Biden look presidential , as the latter spoke of coronavirus as a national emergency that calls for extraordinary measures , regardless of health care plans .
The most disappointing exchange was on that Democratic hobbyhorse , climate change .
Both candidates failed to address the reality that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is no short-term project , but requires a sustained long-term effort and an all-of-the-above approach .
Sanders ’ proposed ban on fracking , a technology that has allowed the United States to dramatically reduce emissions by replacing coal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the climate as it reverses the shift away from coal .
And while more research and development is needed , no investment will change near-term reality : The potential of wind and solar power will remain limited until there are more cost-effective ways to store energy .
The transition to a post-petroleum economy will be a slow process .
Smart policies can accelerate it , but both Biden and Sanders seemed to be promising a lot more than anyone can deliver .
Some debate performances are game-changers , and some are game-enders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game-extenders .
Sunday ’ s much-anticipated mano a mano between former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders fell into the last category .
Biden did not finish off Sanders —but as the front-runner , Biden did not have to .
More importantly , Sanders did not inflict a mortal blow on Biden—and he really did need to do that to have any hope of changing the trajectory of the race .
Now , barring some sort of coronavirus-induced surprise , tomorrow ’ s primaries are likely to further cement Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Sanders is fixing to pull out of the race any time soon , he did not hint at that in the debate .
So the Democratic primary is likely to limp along for a few more weeks .
President Donald Trump is the beneficiary of this , for every minute Biden has to position himself for the primary is a minute he does not get to position himself for the general election .
The coronavirus lockdown could , in theory , provide a window of opportunity for Biden to refocus his campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to spend the next few months going through the motions of finishing off the nominating contest .
And woe betide him if he conveys the impression that he is just “ going through the motions , ” because that is one way Sanders could revive , phoenixlike , to be a threat at the convention .
In the meantime , while the debate was far more substantive than previous ones , it was not very revealing on foreign policy and national security—at least not revealing of any surprises .
Sanders showed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the far left ’ s rigid double standard that blames the United States first while winking and nodding at what totalitarian regimes wrought in the previous century .
Biden showed that he , like most Republicans and other Democrats , still can not talk with candor and persuasion about Iraq .
He needs to have a better explanation for his vote in Congress supporting the Iraq War , and former President Barack Obama ’ s administration ’ s role there , since this will be one of the most obvious lines of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , it won ’ t be enough merely to point out that Trump has mishandled Iraq as well—that is true , but it will only land if Biden can better explain what he has learned from several decades of playing a key role in managing Iraq affairs .
One final takeaway : Most observers seemed to agree that the no-crowd format made the debate more substantive and less of a carnival .
I bet that scares the Trump campaign .
Trump emphatically does not do well in such an atmosphere , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would want to accept a format where Trump can not play to a noisy hall .
A shrewd move for the Democratic Party would be to insist on this format going forward .
Even if they can only force Trump to accept it once , that could lay the trap for a game-changing moment in the general election .
Sen. Bernie Sanders was more passionate , but former Vice President Joe Biden held his own .
Biden made two ironclad commitments : to name a woman as vice presidential candidate , and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court .
Sanders made no commitments to speak of .
As often as Sanders harped on his usual targets—the banks , the oil companies , the drug companies , the insurance industry—Biden invoked his years with Obama .
Both men showed their age ; neither could refrain from dredging up his opponent ’ s decades-old votes and statements .
Both studiously avoided addressing their failures in attracting key constituencies : for Biden , young people and Hispanics ; for Sanders , suburban voters and African-Americans .
Biden demonstrated his superior experience in matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders tried to skirt those subjects , except when attacking “ authoritarians.
” After two hours of back and forth , it is unlikely that either man changed anyone ’ s mind .
For free traders , former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s likely nomination is a relief .
While Sen. Bernie Sanders and President Donald Trump are unapologetic protectionists , Biden ’ s record , while mixed , is generally positive .
Given the increasing support free trade enjoys among the American public , Biden has an opening to clearly litigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a senator and then as vice president , Biden supported every major trade initiative—including the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 and the creation of the World Trade Organization the following year .
In 2000 , Biden voted in favor of normalizing trade relations with China , paving the way for China ’ s entry into the World Trade Organization .
As vice president during the administration of former Barack Obama , Biden supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership .
To be sure , Biden ’ s record isn ’ t perfect ; he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trade Agreement , and for quotas on steel imports .
There were other votes that would normally have given free traders pause , but compared to the sprint toward 1930s-style protectionism under Trump , they are minor apostasies .
Trump will surely point to Biden ’ s support of NAFTA and trade with China as a reason voters in the Midwest can ’ t trust the former vice president .
On NAFTA , Biden has no reason to be defensive .
In 2016 , the U.S. International Trade Commission found that NAFTA produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only that , Trump ’ s much-advertised replacement for NAFTA , the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement , is only a minor rewrite of its predecessor .
China is more complicated .
China ’ s entry into the World Trade Organization was a good idea and made sense at the time .
It remains a positive development : Beijing has cut tariffs since joining the World Trade Organization , and the United States has more influence over China ’ s trade policy and practices now that Beijing participates inside the system .
All is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Much of the concern stems from actions taken by Beijing in recent years , including abuse of intellectual property , forced technology transfer as a condition of doing business in China , theft of trade secrets , massive industrial subsidies , and cyberintrusions into commercial networks .
Now is the time for a responsible hawkishness toward China ’ s economic practices .
Even after the so-called “ phase one ” deal between the United States and China , tariffs now cover about 70 percent of imports from China with an average rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war began .
By abandoning negotiations toward a Pacific trade agreement and levying tariffs on imports from China , Trump ’ s irresponsible policies have weakened the United States economically and hurt its ability to influence Beijing ’ s commercial practices .
Biden will need to fully flesh out a China policy , but his instincts toward multilateral engagement are vastly superior to erecting an “ economic Iron Curtain , ” as former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson dubbed the Trump tariffs .
The Candidates Are Ignoring Other Countries ’ Lessons The Democratic presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis and what the United States should do about it .
Yet even as the United States has struggled with a timely response to the pandemic , the candidates did not much address the valuable lessons offered by other countries .
South Korea stabilized its outbreak with free , easily accessible , and unlimited testing , administering more than 250,000 tests at a pace of up to 20,000 per day .
As a result , the number of new cases there peaked on March 3 , and has generally trended downward ever since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without widespread lockdowns .
Hong Kong and Taiwan focused on screening and quarantining travelers from coronavirus hot spots , as well as social distancing , and have managed to keep the rate of infections per capita down to a fraction of that reported by China .
Singapore used technology and big fines to enforce quarantines .
China exercised the state ’ s immense power to enforce massive lockdowns .
While the data from China is less authoritative than from South Korea , new cases appear to have peaked in mid-February , after an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond the numbers : At the moment , China is the only country in the world where Apple stores are open .
So much for the states that appear to be coping .
For now—and much remains to play out—the biggest failures appear to be in Italy and Iran , the two worst-hit countries after China , as measured by the total number of infections .
There , the number of new cases appears still to be accelerating .
They also have much higher infection rates per capita than those reported in China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that the numbers reported in Iran substantially understate the true extent of the outbreak .
What both nations ’ responses seem to have in common is a failure to act quickly .
Once we are past the crisis stage of dealing with the pandemic , various nations ’ strategies will be compared to infer best practices .
Important lessons will be learned .
Perhaps more important , though , will be the debate about how differing political systems responded .
Were China and Russia more successful , or Europe and United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Do transparency and civil liberties matter ?
Or is it optimal when unlimited state power is put to the purpose of public health ?
The coronavirus outbreak is likely so momentous that it will be the leitmotif of the debates sparked by China ’ s rise over which political systems are most effective at advancing the health and prosperity of their people , and so which should be emulated .
The pandemic is , therefore , a matter of international security on several levels , and its consequences will last far longer @ @ @ @

No live audience, podiums spaced wide apart, elbow bumps between the candidates—the unfolding coronavirus pandemic was front and center at Sunday’s primary debate between former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The Elephants in the Room team offers their expert analysis on the first direct matchup between the two main contenders left in the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
In the Shadow of the Pandemic, It Was Game, Set, and Match
by John Hannah
The only real drama in the debate was whether former Vice President Joe Biden, through some act of involuntary self-sabotage, might disrupt his near-inevitable march to the Democratic nomination. It didn’t happen. Not even close.
On the contrary, in the first half of the discussion devoted to the only issue that currently matters to Americans—the coronavirus pandemic—Biden came off strong, competent, and experienced in wielding the powers of government. He said the country is at war against the virus and needs to be laser-focused to mitigate the damage, both to save lives and to limit the economic devastation wrought on ordinary people. He focused on ramping up capacity to prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed, including enlisting the full capabilities of the U.S. military and other parts of the government that can provide disaster relief. He promised that no American would be denied testing or treatment for lack of funds. No one would lose their jobs for being sick. No one would be evicted from their homes for not being able to make their mortgage. How exactly all of this would be accomplished and at what cost was left to decide for another day. Biden’s message was that this is war—an existential threat to Americans’ way of life—and that the United States will do whatever it takes to win and get its people through it.
Biden was especially good in parrying Sen. Bernie Sanders’s effort to pivot from the coronavirus crisis to his signature proposals of “Medicare for All” and the need to radically transform American capitalism. We need to deal with this crisis now, Biden implored. This is not the time to politicize it by indulging in ideological hobbyhorses. Practical results to help the country survive the next few months, not revolutionary disruption that would exacerbate instability and uncertainty, is what average Americans need from their government, Biden suggested. Pointing to Italy as a country whose health care system is on the verge of collapse because of the virus, despite having the kind of public health care system backed by Sanders, was particularly effective.
Biden’s performance on the coronavirus was game, set, and match—especially when coupled with his headline-grabbing commitment to name a woman as his running mate. The rest of the debate seemed small by comparison to the enormity and urgency of the challenge now thrust upon the nation (and indeed the world) by the pandemic.
For the select audience that paid attention to what passed for the foreign-policy section of the debate, my notes read as follows: Sanders (still) has a soft spot for leftist authoritarians who may have killed and imprisoned millions, but made the trains run on time. On both immigration and climate change, Biden needs to be careful about being savaged by the Republicans. In his understandable effort to reach out to the progressive wing of his party, he runs a serious risk of further alienating a white working-class electorate that moved decisively to President Donald Trump’s populist message in 2016. An all-out assault on fossil fuels and fracking demonizes an industry that has transformed global energy markets over the past decade to the United States’ great geopolitical advantage, while employing tens of thousands of average Americans in well-paying jobs. Declaring war on them may not be wise.
Biden also showed another vulnerability when he, however legitimately, attacked Trump’s harsh immigration policies. Biden needs to be careful that his calls for humanely dealing with the undocumented are coupled with sufficient concern for the necessity of maintaining adequate control of the United States borders—one of the primary responsibilities of any sovereign government. The failure of repeated U.S. administrations to provide that basic reassurance played a major role in Trump’s ascendance. Trump will no doubt exploit it again if Biden proves incapable of striking a balanced tone. He clearly didn’t find that tone when he seemed to suggest an equivalence between undocumented migrants surging across the U.S.-Mexican border and the millions of Italians and Irish who immigrated legally a century ago.
But that’s all small potatoes at the moment. Biden sealed the nomination last night. It’s all over except for the exact timing of when Sanders ends his campaign. Then attention will turn to the critical question of whether Sanders can (and will) mobilize his army of impassioned revolutionaries on behalf of Biden’s more conventional form of progressivism. Will they accept half a loaf or stay at home and sulk? The country’s future may ride on the answer—assuming the coronavirus doesn’t ruin us first.
Wrong Prescriptions on Health Care and Climate Change
by Robert A. Manning
Bernie Sanders’ answers to questions about the coronavirus pandemic revealed him as an ideologue. He simply dusted off his familiar “Medicare for All” proposal, even as Biden—correctly—pointed out that Italy, Europe’s most disastrous victim, enjoys public healthcare for all. Sanders made Biden look presidential, as the latter spoke of coronavirus as a national emergency that calls for extraordinary measures, regardless of health care plans.
The most disappointing exchange was on that Democratic hobbyhorse, climate change. Both candidates failed to address the reality that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is no short-term project, but requires a sustained long-term effort and an all-of-the-above approach. Sanders’ proposed ban on fracking, a technology that has allowed the United States to dramatically reduce emissions by replacing coal with cleaner-burning natural gas, would be worse for the climate as it reverses the shift away from coal. And while more research and development is needed, no investment will change near-term reality: The potential of wind and solar power will remain limited until there are more cost-effective ways to store energy. The transition to a post-petroleum economy will be a slow process. Smart policies can accelerate it, but both Biden and Sanders seemed to be promising a lot more than anyone can deliver.
A Game-Extending Debate Whose Format Could Hurt Trump
by Peter Feaver
Some debate performances are game-changers, and some are game-enders. Most, however, are just game-extenders. Sunday’s much-anticipated mano a mano between former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders fell into the last category. Biden did not finish off Sanders —but as the front-runner, Biden did not have to. More importantly, Sanders did not inflict a mortal blow on Biden—and he really did need to do that to have any hope of changing the trajectory of the race. Now, barring some sort of coronavirus-induced surprise, tomorrow’s primaries are likely to further cement Biden’s grip on the nomination. Yet if Sanders is fixing to pull out of the race any time soon, he did not hint at that in the debate.
So the Democratic primary is likely to limp along for a few more weeks. President Donald Trump is the beneficiary of this, for every minute Biden has to position himself for the primary is a minute he does not get to position himself for the general election. The coronavirus lockdown could, in theory, provide a window of opportunity for Biden to refocus his campaign on Trump, but not if he has to spend the next few months going through the motions of finishing off the nominating contest. And woe betide him if he conveys the impression that he is just “going through the motions,” because that is one way Sanders could revive, phoenixlike, to be a threat at the convention.
In the meantime, while the debate was far more substantive than previous ones, it was not very revealing on foreign policy and national security—at least not revealing of any surprises. Sanders showed that he still can’t break free from the far left’s rigid double standard that blames the United States first while winking and nodding at what totalitarian regimes wrought in the previous century. Biden showed that he, like most Republicans and other Democrats, still cannot talk with candor and persuasion about Iraq. He needs to have a better explanation for his vote in Congress supporting the Iraq War, and former President Barack Obama’s administration’s role there, since this will be one of the most obvious lines of attack from the Trump team. For Biden, it won’t be enough merely to point out that Trump has mishandled Iraq as well—that is true, but it will only land if Biden can better explain what he has learned from several decades of playing a key role in managing Iraq affairs.
One final takeaway: Most observers seemed to agree that the no-crowd format made the debate more substantive and less of a carnival. I bet that scares the Trump campaign. Trump emphatically does not do well in such an atmosphere, and I doubt very much that his campaign would want to accept a format where Trump cannot play to a noisy hall. A shrewd move for the Democratic Party would be to insist on this format going forward. Even if they can only force Trump to accept it once, that could lay the trap for a game-changing moment in the general election.
Ironclad Commitments
by Dov Zakheim
Sen. Bernie Sanders was more passionate, but former Vice President Joe Biden held his own. Biden made two ironclad commitments: to name a woman as vice presidential candidate, and to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. Sanders made no commitments to speak of. As often as Sanders harped on his usual targets—the banks, the oil companies, the drug companies, the insurance industry—Biden invoked his years with Obama.
Both men showed their age; neither could refrain from dredging up his opponent’s decades-old votes and statements. Both studiously avoided addressing their failures in attracting key constituencies: for Biden, young people and Hispanics; for Sanders, suburban voters and African-Americans. Biden demonstrated his superior experience in matters of national security and foreign policy. Sanders tried to skirt those subjects, except when attacking “authoritarians.” After two hours of back and forth, it is unlikely that either man changed anyone’s mind.
Biden’s Lead is Good News for Trade
by Clark Packard
For free traders, former Vice President Joe Biden’s likely nomination is a relief. While Sen. Bernie Sanders and President Donald Trump are unapologetic protectionists, Biden’s record, while mixed, is generally positive. Given the increasing support free trade enjoys among the American public, Biden has an opening to clearly litigate the case against Trump.
First as a senator and then as vice president, Biden supported every major trade initiative—including the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 and the creation of the World Trade Organization the following year. In 2000, Biden voted in favor of normalizing trade relations with China, paving the way for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. As vice president during the administration of former Barack Obama, Biden supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
To be sure, Biden’s record isn’t perfect; he voted against the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, and for quotas on steel imports. There were other votes that would normally have given free traders pause, but compared to the sprint toward 1930s-style protectionism under Trump, they are minor apostasies.
Trump will surely point to Biden’s support of NAFTA and trade with China as a reason voters in the Midwest can’t trust the former vice president.
On NAFTA, Biden has no reason to be defensive. In 2016, the U.S. International Trade Commission found that NAFTA produced small but significant economic gains. Not only that, Trump’s much-advertised replacement for NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, is only a minor rewrite of its predecessor.
China is more complicated. China’s entry into the World Trade Organization was a good idea and made sense at the time. It remains a positive development: Beijing has cut tariffs since joining the World Trade Organization, and the United States has more influence over China’s trade policy and practices now that Beijing participates inside the system. All is not well with U.S.-China commercial relations, though. Much of the concern stems from actions taken by Beijing in recent years, including abuse of intellectual property, forced technology transfer as a condition of doing business in China, theft of trade secrets, massive industrial subsidies, and cyberintrusions into commercial networks.
Now is the time for a responsible hawkishness toward China’s economic practices. Even after the so-called “phase one” deal between the United States and China, tariffs now cover about 70 percent of imports from China with an average rate 6.3 times higher than when the trade war began.
By abandoning negotiations toward a Pacific trade agreement and levying tariffs on imports from China, Trump’s irresponsible policies have weakened the United States economically and hurt its ability to influence Beijing’s commercial practices. Biden will need to fully flesh out a China policy, but his instincts toward multilateral engagement are vastly superior to erecting an “economic Iron Curtain,” as former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson dubbed the Trump tariffs.
The Candidates Are Ignoring Other Countries’ Lessons
by William Tobey
The Democratic presidential debate last night led with the coronavirus crisis and what the United States should do about it. Yet even as the United States has struggled with a timely response to the pandemic, the candidates did not much address the valuable lessons offered by other countries.
South Korea stabilized its outbreak with free, easily accessible, and unlimited testing, administering more than 250,000 tests at a pace of up to 20,000 per day. As a result, the number of new cases there peaked on March 3, and has generally trended downward ever since. Seoul has apparently turned the corner without widespread lockdowns. Hong Kong and Taiwan focused on screening and quarantining travelers from coronavirus hot spots, as well as social distancing, and have managed to keep the rate of infections per capita down to a fraction of that reported by China. Singapore used technology and big fines to enforce quarantines. China exercised the state’s immense power to enforce massive lockdowns. While the data from China is less authoritative than from South Korea, new cases appear to have peaked in mid-February, after an initially slow response. One small indicator beyond the numbers: At the moment, China is the only country in the world where Apple stores are open. So much for the states that appear to be coping.
For now—and much remains to play out—the biggest failures appear to be in Italy and Iran, the two worst-hit countries after China, as measured by the total number of infections. There, the number of new cases appears still to be accelerating. They also have much higher infection rates per capita than those reported in China. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the numbers reported in Iran substantially understate the true extent of the outbreak. What both nations’ responses seem to have in common is a failure to act quickly.
Once we are past the crisis stage of dealing with the pandemic, various nations’ strategies will be compared to infer best practices. Important lessons will be learned. Perhaps more important, though, will be the debate about how differing political systems responded. Were China and Russia more successful, or Europe and United States? Did democracy or dictatorship do better? Do transparency and civil liberties matter? Or is it optimal when unlimited state power is put to the purpose of public health? The coronavirus outbreak is likely so momentous that it will be the leitmotif of the debates sparked by China’s rise over which political systems are most effective at advancing the health and prosperity of their people, and so which should be emulated. The pandemic is, therefore, a matter of international security on several levels, and its consequences will last far longer than the outbreaks.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-18--Will the White House Send Cash to All Americans?

Will the White House Send Cash to All Americans ?
Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : The White House pushes a massive stimulus package , EU leaders vote on travel ban , and China bans U.S. journalists .
We welcome your feedback at morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .
Washington is considering a stimulus plan totaling $ 1.2 trillion to deal with the economic fallout caused by the coronavirus outbreak .
Part of the package would involve distributing cash to every American , with a number above $ 1,000 expected .
“ Americans need cash now , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And I mean now , in the next two weeks , ” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said .
According to the White House plan , other measures would include $ 300 billion in small business loans , and a further $ 200 billion in stabilization funds .
Will Republicans support it ?
U.S .
Senators are under pressure to pass a separate bill that would provide paid leave and increase medical spending .
The bill , which was negotiated by House Democrats and the White House , has already passed in the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my members think there are considerable shortcomings in the House bill .
My counsel to them is to gag and vote for it anyway , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said .
The willingness of a Republican administration to embrace the idea of direct cash transfers surprised many observers , given the party ’ s staunch opposition to the expansion of most social programs .
But even libertarians are now advocating strong government-led measures given the scale of the crisis .
Writing in the Washington Post , Megan McArdle urged the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that “ those are hard words for a libertarian to say.
” Given the risk to the economy and the lives of Americans , “ the government will need novel , creative policymaking to minimize the damage—and not just the same old predigested ideological programs , ” she wrote .
How has Europe responded ?
The United Kingdom has announced a package of business loan guarantees and fiscal support worth about $ 400 billion .
France has made $ 50 billion available in assistance for small businesses , a further $ 330 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has even promised to nationalize industries if necessary .
Spain ’ s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez promised a suspension of mortgage payments for workers affected by the coronavirus as well as $ 100 billion in loan guarantees .
Will any of these stimulus plans work ?
In Foreign Policy , Keith Johnson explains the stimulus options available—from mailing checks to an airline bailout—and whether they ’ ll have an impact .
Is it enough to stave off a recession ?
Not according to economists at two of the world ’ s biggest banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have joined a growing chorus of experts pointing to a global recession .
So far , they predict a contraction worse than 2001 but not as bad as the world experienced in 2009 .
Don ’ t have a Foreign Policy subscription yet ?
We ’ re providing these essential coronavirus reads free for everyone .
EU Approves Closing Borders .
Most of the 26 members of the European Schengen travel area have now agreed to close their external borders for 30 days , while still allowing some travel within the bloc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU , too .
Austria has closed its borders with Italy , Switzerland , and Luxembourg ; Switzerland has closed its borders with Germany , Austria , and France ; and Portugal has partially sealed its border with Spain .
The border closure will likely soon include those Schengen zone countries not in the EU .
The travel ban will not include Ireland , as the country has a passport-free travel arrangement with the United Kingdom .
An Irish government spokesman said Ireland would consult with Britain on any implementation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struck Baghdad ’ s “ Green Zone , ” an area including Iraq ’ s seat of government and a number of foreign embassies .
A U.S. spokesman said the rockets landed 1.2 miles away from the U.S. embassy and there were no reports of casualties .
It ’ s now the fourth rocket attack on international targets in the Baghdad area in just one week .
China blocks U.S. journalists .
China has rescinded the press credentials of American journalists working in China at three major U.S. newspapers : the Washington Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Wall Street Journal .
It also named the newspapers , along with TIME magazine and Voice of America as instruments of the U.S. government .
China ’ s foreign ministry said the moves “ were entirely necessary and reciprocal countermeasures ” following February ’ s move by the Trump administration to designate many Chinese media outlets operating in the United States as tools of Beijing and enacting employment restrictions .
Bolsonaro tested again .
President Jair Bolsonaro was tested a second time for the coronavirus as members of his inner circle continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test was reportedly negative .
Meanwhile , Brazil has now recorded its first coronavirus-related death .
Coronavirus spread uncovered .
A new study , published in Science magazine , has attempted to shed light on the rapid spread of the coronavirus after it was first discovered in Wuhan .
The joint study from experts in China , the United States , the United Kingdom , and Hong Kong estimated that 86 percent of infections were not documented in the two weeks before Wuhan was eventually locked down .
The study says that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of people with only low-level symptoms .
A possible cure ?
A drug developed by the Japanese company Fujifilm Holdings could be effective against COVID-19 , according to the Chinese government .
Beijing has started recommending the drug favipiravir , sold under the brand name Avigan .
“ It is very safe and clearly effective , ” said Zhang Xinmin , director of the science ministry ’ s China National Center for Biotechnology Development , in a news conference .
Clinical trials were conducted on 200 patients at hospitals in Wuhan and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received the drug tested negative in a comparatively short time , while pneumonia symptoms were markedly reduced .
On Wednesday , shares in Fujifilm shot up 15.4 percent in Tokyo in the afternoon session .
Iraq ’ s new prime minister .
Adnan al-Zurfi , the former governor of Najaf , has been named prime minister-designate by Iraqi President Barham Salih .
He now has 30 days to form a government .
Zurfi is the second prime-minister designate following the resignation of Adel Abdul Mahdi in November and already his appointment has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s parliament , “ He ’ s an American joker and we reject him ” , one lawmaker told Reuters .
Hundreds of prisoners in four of Brazil ’ s low-security semi-open prisons have escaped .
The mass breakout occurred when inmates were told that planned Easter holidays would be cancelled over fears of spreading the coronavirus .
“ These prisoners were unhappy about the decision that suspended the Easter leave , ” said Lincoln Gakiya , a prosecutor in São Paulo state .
“ The prisoners were told and in some units @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe here , or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or corrections to morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .

Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: The White House pushes a massive stimulus package, EU leaders vote on travel ban, and China bans U.S. journalists.
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday, please sign up here.
White House Proposes $1.2 Trillion in Stimulus Plan
Washington is considering a stimulus plan totaling $1.2 trillion to deal with the economic fallout caused by the coronavirus outbreak. Part of the package would involve distributing cash to every American, with a number above $1,000 expected. “Americans need cash now, and the president wants to give cash now. And I mean now, in the next two weeks,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said. According to the White House plan, other measures would include $300 billion in small business loans, and a further $200 billion in stabilization funds.
Will Republicans support it? U.S. Senators are under pressure to pass a separate bill that would provide paid leave and increase medical spending. The bill, which was negotiated by House Democrats and the White House, has already passed in the House of Representatives. “A number of my members think there are considerable shortcomings in the House bill. My counsel to them is to gag and vote for it anyway,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said.
The willingness of a Republican administration to embrace the idea of direct cash transfers surprised many observers, given the party’s staunch opposition to the expansion of most social programs. But even libertarians are now advocating strong government-led measures given the scale of the crisis. Writing in the Washington Post, Megan McArdle urged the government to “subsidize everything” despite the fact that “those are hard words for a libertarian to say.” Given the risk to the economy and the lives of Americans, “the government will need novel, creative policymaking to minimize the damage—and not just the same old predigested ideological programs,” she wrote.
How has Europe responded? The United Kingdom has announced a package of business loan guarantees and fiscal support worth about $400 billion. France has made $50 billion available in assistance for small businesses, a further $330 billion in business loan guarantees, and has even promised to nationalize industries if necessary. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez promised a suspension of mortgage payments for workers affected by the coronavirus as well as $100 billion in loan guarantees.
Will any of these stimulus plans work? In Foreign Policy, Keith Johnson explains the stimulus options available—from mailing checks to an airline bailout—and whether they’ll have an impact.
Is it enough to stave off a recession? Not according to economists at two of the world’s biggest banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who have joined a growing chorus of experts pointing to a global recession. So far, they predict a contraction worse than 2001 but not as bad as the world experienced in 2009.
Don’t have a Foreign Policy subscription yet? We’re providing these essential coronavirus reads free for everyone.
What We’re Following Today
EU Approves Closing Borders. Most of the 26 members of the European Schengen travel area have now agreed to close their external borders for 30 days, while still allowing some travel within the bloc, although there have been closures inside the EU, too. Austria has closed its borders with Italy, Switzerland, and Luxembourg; Switzerland has closed its borders with Germany, Austria, and France; and Portugal has partially sealed its border with Spain.
The border closure will likely soon include those Schengen zone countries not in the EU. The travel ban will not include Ireland, as the country has a passport-free travel arrangement with the United Kingdom. An Irish government spokesman said Ireland would consult with Britain on any implementation of the ban.
Another Baghdad attack. Rockets struck Baghdad’s “Green Zone,” an area including Iraq’s seat of government and a number of foreign embassies. A U.S. spokesman said the rockets landed 1.2 miles away from the U.S. embassy and there were no reports of casualties. It’s now the fourth rocket attack on international targets in the Baghdad area in just one week.
China blocks U.S. journalists. China has rescinded the press credentials of American journalists working in China at three major U.S. newspapers: the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. It also named the newspapers, along with TIME magazine and Voice of America as instruments of the U.S. government. China’s foreign ministry said the moves “were entirely necessary and reciprocal countermeasures” following February’s move by the Trump administration to designate many Chinese media outlets operating in the United States as tools of Beijing and enacting employment restrictions.
Keep an Eye On
Bolsonaro tested again. President Jair Bolsonaro was tested a second time for the coronavirus as members of his inner circle continue to contract the disease. His first test was reportedly negative. Meanwhile, Brazil has now recorded its first coronavirus-related death.
Coronavirus spread uncovered. A new study, published in Science magazine, has attempted to shed light on the rapid spread of the coronavirus after it was first discovered in Wuhan. The joint study from experts in China, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong estimated that 86 percent of infections were not documented in the two weeks before Wuhan was eventually locked down. The study says that the spread was likely facilitated by a high number of people with only low-level symptoms.
A possible cure? A drug developed by the Japanese company Fujifilm Holdings could be effective against COVID-19, according to the Chinese government. Beijing has started recommending the drug favipiravir, sold under the brand name Avigan. “It is very safe and clearly effective,” said Zhang Xinmin, director of the science ministry’s China National Center for Biotechnology Development, in a news conference. Clinical trials were conducted on 200 patients at hospitals in Wuhan and Shenzhen. Results showed that patients who received the drug tested negative in a comparatively short time, while pneumonia symptoms were markedly reduced. On Wednesday, shares in Fujifilm shot up 15.4 percent in Tokyo in the afternoon session.
Iraq’s new prime minister. Adnan al-Zurfi, the former governor of Najaf, has been named prime minister-designate by Iraqi President Barham Salih. He now has 30 days to form a government. Zurfi is the second prime-minister designate following the resignation of Adel Abdul Mahdi in November and already his appointment has been denounced by Shiite groups in Iraq’s parliament, “He’s an American joker and we reject him”, one lawmaker told Reuters.
Odds and Ends
Hundreds of prisoners in four of Brazil’s low-security semi-open prisons have escaped. The mass breakout occurred when inmates were told that planned Easter holidays would be cancelled over fears of spreading the coronavirus. “These prisoners were unhappy about the decision that suspended the Easter leave,” said Lincoln Gakiya, a prosecutor in São Paulo state. “The prisoners were told and in some units, rebelled.”
That’s it for today.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-18--The Coronavirus Shutdown Slashed China’s Household Finances

COVID-19 spreads fast , and it spreads easily—through kisses , cash , and hospitals .
But in China , fear spread even faster than the virus—resulting in a mass lockdown of villages , towns and cities .
That made new cases drop sharply , but the economy ground to a halt , with no workers to produce goods , no logistics to transport them , and no customers to buy them .
This gave President Xi Jinping , the general secretary of the Communist Party , a capitalist migraine : If the government kept implementing draconian measures to reduce infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party , which rules on the promise of economic prosperity .
But as the goverment sends people back to work , it risks the virus spreading even further .
It is no surprise then , that the state-run Xinhua News Agency described leaders as saying it would be “ a major test of China ’ s system and capacity for governance.
” That test comes back not just to the virus , but to the government ’ s credit—financial and political .
And it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be facing in a few weeks , if the initial strategy of containment works but the economy falters .
Faced with a stark choice , the central authorities have warned local officials not to let virus containment measures harm the economy .
That ’ s a risky measure , given the number of unknowns surrounding virus transmission and infection rates , and one tough to implement when entire communities are gripped by fear .
Xi also reiterated that China will strive to achieve this year ’ s development targets—and above all else to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ product from 2010 to 2020 .
That arbitrary goal was set by the CPC in 2012 , but Xi , who from the start promised “ a moderately prosperous society , ” is determined to stick to the timeline .
Most critically , though , as the country gets back to work and the virus seems contained—for the moment—Chinese households currently face grimmer financial prospects than medical threats .
While bodies turn to ash , China ’ s leaders are managing the crisis in Zhongnanhai , close to the mummified body of Mao @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and adorns every note on the renminbi , “ the people ’ s currency.
” Yet the leaders preside over a financial system looking mummified itself .
Stalled reform has left capital markets and a banking sector on hold since 2013 .
State banks are reluctant to lend to the private sector , so stimulus will not reach it .
The policy of inclusive finance , designed to support small businesses and provide poverty relief , lies buried under the 2018 peer-to-peer industry collapse , when hundreds of platforms went bust following fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and medium-size enterprises contribute nearly two-thirds of the country ’ s economic output and employ 8 out of 10 urban workers .
The same money system that diverts bank savings to the Communist Party ’ s projects and vested interests is the one that binds the people to it .
Households and businesses are financial institutions in their own right , ones which connect to the wider system through cash flows .
For the vast majority of people , the goal more pressing than freedom of speech is meeting the daily “ survival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial economist Hyman Minsky : the assurance that their cash inflows are sufficient to meet their cash outflows .
In China ’ s age of hypernormalization , when government and citizens are resigned to maintaining the pretense that all is well , people place their faith in the money system , which means faith in the party .
The party underpins national credit—and the financial well-being of a country that has only just adjusted to ( some ) people being well-off .
That , more than anything else , is what keeps people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party forces upon them ; they have too much to lose .
But if financial credit starts to fall apart , the party ’ s credit goes with it .
Usually outsiders are not privy to how the Chinese government handles a financial crisis , but a financial system is money in motion—when it stops during a lockdown , it is difficult for the government to mask the impending crash .
As the chains of cash snap , the financial system breaks .
Real estate sales in major cities plummeted 83 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent , and the Caixin/Markit services purchasing managers ’ index collapsed to 26.5 from 51.8 in January , the first contraction in China ’ s service sector since the survey began in 2005 .
The first response in a crisis is to spend any cash balances , but firms and households are highly leveraged and living on borrowed time .
In a joint Tsinghua University and Peking University survey of 995 companies , 34 percent of respondents said they can survive for only one month with their current savings ; 33 percent said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and only 18 percent said they can last three months .
The central government is pushing small- and medium-size enterprises to resume business and hire recent graduates to soak up unemployment pressure .
In echoes of the Great Leap Forward , ghost staff “ clock in ” and machines buzz in empty offices , in order to maintain the illusion of economic activity .
That will push people to borrow , but from whom ?
China ’ s banking system is already laden with bad loans , and funding liquidity for small businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Bank of China liquidity stress test revealed that 7.7 percent of lenders were unable to withstand a light shock , while 13.6 percent were at high risk if a financial crisis hit .
Like the virus , a financial panic is indiscriminate : Companies good and bad become untouchable as lenders retreat to safe-haven assets .
S & P Global Ratings estimates the virus outbreak will add 5.6 trillion yuan ( $ 800 billion ) in nonperforming bank loans .
People will try to sell assets , but to whom ?
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a company ’ s reserves consist of face masks , their asset values are more likely to drop during a crisis .
Market liquidity dries up , which triggers a death spiral of falling asset prices and collateral values , weakening refinancing abilities .
As Walter Bagehot advised after the Panic of 1866 , and Perry Mehrling after the 2008 global financial crisis , the central bank ’ s response should be to lend early and lend freely .
This relaxes the survival constraint and allows firms and households to delay the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survival constraint grows into a long-term solvency constraint , requiring mass bailouts .
To preserve funding liquidity , the People ’ s Bank of China has executed liquidity injections and special lending to the banking system , while the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission has ordered bank loans at ultralow rates , quick approvals for anti-virus bonds , and loan rollovers for companies struggling to repay their debts as a result of the outbreak .
To protect market liquidity , the securities regulator has urged stockbrokers to limit short-selling activities , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut net equity positions .
The Ministry of Commerce is also coordinating efforts to maintain the flow of key products and commodities .
Some companies have reconfigured production lines to produce masks , and e-commerce sites are banning price gouging on medical products .
These emergency policies are supported by the propaganda machine ’ s call for a “ people ’ s war ” —and by the world ’ s largest surveillance system .
If all else fails , the threat of imprisonment for “ disrupting social order ” encourages market support .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis exposes Chinese companies ’ reliance on speculative finance , by which cash flows can only cover loan interest repayments ( not the loan principal ) and firms must rely on new loans to pay off the old .
The China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission ’ s response has been to instruct banks not to include late loan repayments in statistics , and to relax standards for nonperforming loans .
But back in reality , firms ’ responses have been to cut wages and lay off staff .
The Chinese middle class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long as they didn ’ t cross political red lines .
The last few years have already squeezed that idea ; the betrayals and quarantines of the coronavirus may shatter it .
If the economy goes , an even greater pillar of trust in the government goes with it .
For Chinese people bereft of wealth , the opportunity cost of protesting will diminish , and crowds will begin swelling outside government offices .
That is what the party fears most , and why Xi is calling everyone back to work , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @

COVID-19 spreads fast, and it spreads easily—through kisses, cash, and hospitals. But in China, fear spread even faster than the virus—resulting in a mass lockdown of villages, towns and cities. That made new cases drop sharply, but the economy ground to a halt, with no workers to produce goods, no logistics to transport them, and no customers to buy them.
COVID-19 spreads fast, and it spreads easily—through kisses, cash, and hospitals. But in China, fear spread even faster than the virus—resulting in a mass lockdown of villages, towns and cities. That made new cases drop sharply, but the economy ground to a halt, with no workers to produce goods, no logistics to transport them, and no customers to buy them.
This gave President Xi Jinping, the general secretary of the Communist Party, a capitalist migraine: If the government kept implementing draconian measures to reduce infection rates, it would risk the economy and legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party, which rules on the promise of economic prosperity. But as the goverment sends people back to work, it risks the virus spreading even further.
It is no surprise then, that the state-run Xinhua News Agency described leaders as saying it would be “a major test of China’s system and capacity for governance.” That test comes back not just to the virus, but to the government’s credit—financial and political. And it’s a problem that Western countries are going to be facing in a few weeks, if the initial strategy of containment works but the economy falters.
Faced with a stark choice, the central authorities have warned local officials not to let virus containment measures harm the economy. That’s a risky measure, given the number of unknowns surrounding virus transmission and infection rates, and one tough to implement when entire communities are gripped by fear.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Xi also reiterated that China will strive to achieve this year’s development targets—and above all else to meet its goal of doubling gross domestic product from 2010 to 2020. That arbitrary goal was set by the CPC in 2012, but Xi, who from the start promised “a moderately prosperous society,” is determined to stick to the timeline. Most critically, though, as the country gets back to work and the virus seems contained—for the moment—Chinese households currently face grimmer financial prospects than medical threats.
While bodies turn to ash, China’s leaders are managing the crisis in Zhongnanhai, close to the mummified body of Mao Zedong, whose image validates the party and adorns every note on the renminbi, “the people’s currency.” Yet the leaders preside over a financial system looking mummified itself. Stalled reform has left capital markets and a banking sector on hold since 2013. State banks are reluctant to lend to the private sector, so stimulus will not reach it. The policy of inclusive finance, designed to support small businesses and provide poverty relief, lies buried under the 2018 peer-to-peer industry collapse, when hundreds of platforms went bust following fraud and mismanagement. This matters when small- and medium-size enterprises contribute nearly two-thirds of the country’s economic output and employ 8 out of 10 urban workers.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
The same money system that diverts bank savings to government projects via financial repression is the one that binds the people to it. Households and businesses are financial institutions in their own right, ones which connect to the wider system through cash flows. For the vast majority of people, the goal more pressing than freedom of speech is meeting the daily “survival constraint,” a term coined by financial economist Hyman Minsky: the assurance that their cash inflows are sufficient to meet their cash outflows.
People place their faith in the money system, which means faith in the party. The party underpins national credit—and the financial well-being of a country that has only just adjusted to (some) people being well-off. That, more than anything else, is what keeps people from protesting the many iniquities and annoyances the party forces upon them; they have too much to lose. But if financial credit starts to fall apart, the party’s credit goes with it.
Usually outsiders are not privy to how the Chinese government handles a financial crisis, but a financial system is money in motion—when it stops during a lockdown, it is difficult for the government to mask the impending crash. As the chains of cash snap, the financial system breaks. Real estate sales in major cities plummeted 83 percent in February, car sales dropped 80 percent, and the Caixin/Markit services purchasing managers’ index collapsed to 26.5 from 51.8 in January, the first contraction in China’s service sector since the survey began in 2005.
The first response in a crisis is to spend any cash balances, but firms and households are highly leveraged and living on borrowed time. In a joint Tsinghua University and Peking University survey of 995 companies, 34 percent of respondents said they can survive for only one month with their current savings; 33 percent said they can survive for two months; and only 18 percent said they can last three months. The central government is pushing small- and medium-size enterprises to resume business and hire recent graduates to soak up unemployment pressure. In echoes of the Great Leap Forward, ghost staff “clock in” and machines buzz in empty offices, in order to maintain the illusion of economic activity.
That will push people to borrow, but from whom? China’s banking system is already laden with bad loans, and funding liquidity for small businesses is tight. A 2019 People’s Bank of China liquidity stress test revealed that 7.7 percent of lenders were unable to withstand a light shock, while 13.6 percent were at high risk if a financial crisis hit. Like the virus, a financial panic is indiscriminate: Companies good and bad become untouchable as lenders retreat to safe-haven assets. S&P Global Ratings estimates the virus outbreak will add 5.6 trillion yuan ($800 billion) in nonperforming bank loans.
People will try to sell assets, but to whom? Not all assets are shiftable, and unless a company’s reserves consist of face masks, their asset values are more likely to drop during a crisis. Market liquidity dries up, which triggers a death spiral of falling asset prices and collateral values, weakening refinancing abilities.
As Walter Bagehot advised after the Panic of 1866, and Perry Mehrling after the 2008 global financial crisis, the central bank’s response should be to lend early and lend freely. This relaxes the survival constraint and allows firms and households to delay the day of reckoning. Otherwise, a temporary survival constraint grows into a long-term solvency constraint, requiring mass bailouts.
To preserve funding liquidity, the People’s Bank of China has executed liquidity injections and special lending to the banking system, while the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission has ordered bank loans at ultralow rates, quick approvals for anti-virus bonds, and loan rollovers for companies struggling to repay their debts as a result of the outbreak.
To protect market liquidity, the securities regulator has urged stockbrokers to limit short-selling activities, and mutual-fund companies have been told not to cut net equity positions. The Ministry of Commerce is also coordinating efforts to maintain the flow of key products and commodities. Some companies have reconfigured production lines to produce masks, and e-commerce sites are banning price gouging on medical products.
These emergency policies are supported by the propaganda machine’s call for a “people’s war”—and by the world’s largest surveillance system. If all else fails, the threat of imprisonment for “disrupting social order” encourages market support.
Following years of slowing growth, the crisis exposes Chinese companies’ reliance on speculative finance, by which cash flows can only cover loan interest repayments (not the loan principal) and firms must rely on new loans to pay off the old. The China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission’s response has been to instruct banks not to include late loan repayments in statistics, and to relax standards for nonperforming loans. But back in reality, firms’ responses have been to cut wages and lay off staff.
The Chinese middle class once believed that their freedoms were expanding—as long as they didn’t cross political red lines. The last few years have already squeezed that idea; the betrayals and quarantines of the coronavirus may shatter it. If the economy goes, an even greater pillar of trust in the government goes with it. For Chinese people bereft of wealth, the opportunity cost of protesting will diminish, and crowds will begin swelling outside government offices. That is what the party fears most, and why Xi is calling everyone back to work.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-18--If Trump Hates Obama’s Nuclear Deal, Why Is He Letting Up on Iran?

If Trump Hates Obama ’ s Nuclear Deal , Why Is He Letting Up on Iran ?
After nearly two years of stunning success imposing maximum pressure on Iran , U.S. President Donald Trump has been holding back on delivering a final blow and abolishing the ill-fated Iran nuclear deal .
If he waits too long , he may inadvertently breathe new life into a deal he pledged to dismantle four years ago .
Ever since last summer , when Iran first exceeded the nuclear limits established by the 2015 agreement , Trump supporters in Congress have urged the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to respond to Iran ’ s transgression by restoring all United Nations restrictions on its nuclear , missile , and conventional arms programs .
This right to fully restore sanctions , known as “ snapback , ” was marketed by former President Barack Obama at the time as an accountability fail-safe to ensure that the United States could always deny Iran the strategic benefits of the nuclear deal should the regime breach its own commitments .
By late fall , with the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) reporting that Iran was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undeclared nuclear material and activities inside the country , the furor on Capitol Hill grew more intense .
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz held up Stephen Biegun ’ s nomination for deputy secretary of state until the State Department confirmed in writing what legal experts had already opined : The United States can use its right to snapback at any time.The Trump administration ’ s hesitation to unilaterally snap back sanctions allowed Iran to have its cake and eat it , too .
Despite this acknowledgement , the Trump administration opted for a surprising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snapback prerogative .
Instead , the focus shifted to fixing another piece of the Iran deal : the scheduled end of the United Nations arms embargo .
The IAEA ’ s report this month that Iran has tripled its stockpile of enriched uranium since November demonstrated that the Trump administration ’ s hesitation to unilaterally snap back sanctions allowed Iran to have its cake and eat it , too—that is , to fully breach the agreement while remaining on track to reap strategic benefits far beyond the end of the arms embargo .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to snap back sanctions and permanently end Obama ’ s nuclear deal , he received it when the IAEA reported that Iran had also denied inspectors access to multiple sites connected to undeclared nuclear material and activities .
That put Iran not only in breach of the agreement but in breach of its most basic safeguard obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons , to which it is a signatory .
But instead of leveraging the IAEA reports to press for snapback , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , remained focused on trans-Atlantic coalition politics—building support for a new United Nations Security Council resolution to extend the arms embargo on Iran this summer .
Though well-intentioned , the strategy won ’ t work .
Russia has already declared its intent to veto any new Security Council resolution to extend the embargo .
Pompeo recently testified before Congress that Russia is preparing to sell advanced arms to Iran the minute the embargo expires.The snapback mechanism was designed to protect the rights of the United States and its European allies from attempts by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block sanctions .
Even if Pompeo could persuade Russia to support a temporary extension of the arms embargo , that alone would not be worth allowing the rest of the Obama nuclear deal to survive—because the deal gives Iran potential pathways to nuclear weapons as key restrictions expire .
On the other hand , if America snaps back sanctions at the Security Council , all restrictions on Iran return indefinitely : the arms embargo , missiles , nuclear restrictions , and the demand that Iran halt all enrichment activities on its own soil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no veto power over snapback since the mechanism was designed to protect the rights of the United States and its European allies from attempts by Iran , Russia , or China to block the reimposition of sanctions .
Pompeo , for his part , may be concerned by reports that Russia would challenge America ’ s right to snapback , reinterpreting the plain language of the existing Security Council resolution to claim the United States forfeited its rights when it withdrew from the agreement .
This concern echoes warnings issued by the Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any future fight over snapback would be a political struggle , not a legal one .
What , after all , is the practical effect of a snapback that is not recognized as legitimate by the rest of the Security Council ?
The Trump administration ’ s strategy then might be to avoid a showdown inside a divided Security Council and , instead , do all it can to pressure European allies to take the final step .
In that context , the administration ’ s focus on the arms embargo might make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to agree that extending the arms embargo is a trans-Atlantic security priority and , following an inevitable Russian veto , make the case that snapback is the only remaining option .
If one of the European countries that are party to the deal with Iran triggers the snapback , most of the Security Council and , more importantly , the U.N. Secretariat may be more likely to recognize its legitimacy in the face of Russian and Chinese objections .
If the Secretariat affirms that snapback occurred , it will have to resuscitate prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be posted on the U.N. website for all nations to observe .
Russia and China might still reject snapback , but Washington ’ s response to Moscow ’ s and Beijing ’ s actions would be anchored in binding Security Council resolutions .
European leaders , however , have done all they can to wait out the Trump administration in the hopes a new president will arrive in 2021 and return to the original deal .
On the heels of a surprise coronavirus travel ban aimed at Europe , these leaders aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favors .
Waiting until mid-summer to call a vote on an arms embargo resolution only to see the Europeans balk on snapback leaves little time for the administration to respond before the November election .
The snapback process takes 30 days to complete—a period that will be filled with loud threats from an Iranian regime desperate to undermine Trump ’ s chances of reelection.The period will be filled with loud threats from an Iranian regime desperate to undermine Trump ’ s chances of reelection .
Does anyone believe the president ’ s political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Election Day ?
The outcome , then , may be not only the expiration of the arms embargo , but the survival of the nuclear deal with all its flaws—a result that would greatly undermine the past two years of maximum pressure and decrease the incentive for Iran to negotiate a new deal .
If Pompeo believes that Europe , for its own internal politics , must see a vote to extend the arms embargo fail before agreeing to snapback , then he should schedule that vote and proceed to snapback without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just lost a British soldier to an Iranian proxy attack in Iraq , may be willing to act sooner than later .
We must not waste another moment to save the United States—and the world—from what Trump rightly calls the worst deal ever made .

After nearly two years of stunning success imposing maximum pressure on Iran, U.S. President Donald Trump has been holding back on delivering a final blow and abolishing the ill-fated Iran nuclear deal. If he waits too long, he may inadvertently breathe new life into a deal he pledged to dismantle four years ago.
After nearly two years of stunning success imposing maximum pressure on Iran, U.S. President Donald Trump has been holding back on delivering a final blow and abolishing the ill-fated Iran nuclear deal. If he waits too long, he may inadvertently breathe new life into a deal he pledged to dismantle four years ago.
Ever since last summer, when Iran first exceeded the nuclear limits established by the 2015 agreement, Trump supporters in Congress have urged the president to exercise the United States’ right to respond to Iran’s transgression by restoring all United Nations restrictions on its nuclear, missile, and conventional arms programs. This right to fully restore sanctions, known as “snapback,” was marketed by former President Barack Obama at the time as an accountability fail-safe to ensure that the United States could always deny Iran the strategic benefits of the nuclear deal should the regime breach its own commitments.
By late fall, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reporting that Iran was not cooperating with an investigation into possible undeclared nuclear material and activities inside the country, the furor on Capitol Hill grew more intense. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz held up Stephen Biegun’s nomination for deputy secretary of state until the State Department confirmed in writing what legal experts had already opined: The United States can use its right to snapback at any time.The Trump administration’s hesitation to unilaterally snap back sanctions allowed Iran to have its cake and eat it, too.
Despite this acknowledgement, the Trump administration opted for a surprising strategy: not making use of the snapback prerogative. Instead, the focus shifted to fixing another piece of the Iran deal: the scheduled end of the United Nations arms embargo.
The IAEA’s report this month that Iran has tripled its stockpile of enriched uranium since November demonstrated that the Trump administration’s hesitation to unilaterally snap back sanctions allowed Iran to have its cake and eat it, too—that is, to fully breach the agreement while remaining on track to reap strategic benefits far beyond the end of the arms embargo.
If Trump was waiting for more justification to snap back sanctions and permanently end Obama’s nuclear deal, he received it when the IAEA reported that Iran had also denied inspectors access to multiple sites connected to undeclared nuclear material and activities. That put Iran not only in breach of the agreement but in breach of its most basic safeguard obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to which it is a signatory.
But instead of leveraging the IAEA reports to press for snapback, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook, remained focused on trans-Atlantic coalition politics—building support for a new United Nations Security Council resolution to extend the arms embargo on Iran this summer.
Though well-intentioned, the strategy won’t work. Russia has already declared its intent to veto any new Security Council resolution to extend the embargo. Pompeo recently testified before Congress that Russia is preparing to sell advanced arms to Iran the minute the embargo expires.The snapback mechanism was designed to protect the rights of the United States and its European allies from attempts by Iran, Russia, or China to block sanctions.
Even if Pompeo could persuade Russia to support a temporary extension of the arms embargo, that alone would not be worth allowing the rest of the Obama nuclear deal to survive—because the deal gives Iran potential pathways to nuclear weapons as key restrictions expire.
On the other hand, if America snaps back sanctions at the Security Council, all restrictions on Iran return indefinitely: the arms embargo, missiles, nuclear restrictions, and the demand that Iran halt all enrichment activities on its own soil. Another bonus: Russia would have no veto power over snapback since the mechanism was designed to protect the rights of the United States and its European allies from attempts by Iran, Russia, or China to block the reimposition of sanctions.
Pompeo, for his part, may be concerned by reports that Russia would challenge America’s right to snapback, reinterpreting the plain language of the existing Security Council resolution to claim the United States forfeited its rights when it withdrew from the agreement. This concern echoes warnings issued by the Iran deal’s opponents in 2015 that any future fight over snapback would be a political struggle, not a legal one. What, after all, is the practical effect of a snapback that is not recognized as legitimate by the rest of the Security Council?
The Trump administration’s strategy then might be to avoid a showdown inside a divided Security Council and, instead, do all it can to pressure European allies to take the final step. In that context, the administration’s focus on the arms embargo might make sense. The logic: get Europe to agree that extending the arms embargo is a trans-Atlantic security priority and, following an inevitable Russian veto, make the case that snapback is the only remaining option.
If one of the European countries that are party to the deal with Iran triggers the snapback, most of the Security Council and, more importantly, the U.N. Secretariat may be more likely to recognize its legitimacy in the face of Russian and Chinese objections. If the Secretariat affirms that snapback occurred, it will have to resuscitate prior resolutions and sanctions committees governing Iran—changes that will be posted on the U.N. website for all nations to observe. Russia and China might still reject snapback, but Washington’s response to Moscow’s and Beijing’s actions would be anchored in binding Security Council resolutions.
European leaders, however, have done all they can to wait out the Trump administration in the hopes a new president will arrive in 2021 and return to the original deal. On the heels of a surprise coronavirus travel ban aimed at Europe, these leaders aren’t looking to do Trump any favors. Waiting until mid-summer to call a vote on an arms embargo resolution only to see the Europeans balk on snapback leaves little time for the administration to respond before the November election.
The snapback process takes 30 days to complete—a period that will be filled with loud threats from an Iranian regime desperate to undermine Trump’s chances of reelection.The period will be filled with loud threats from an Iranian regime desperate to undermine Trump’s chances of reelection. Does anyone believe the president’s political advisers will favor a snapback that close to Election Day?
The outcome, then, may be not only the expiration of the arms embargo, but the survival of the nuclear deal with all its flaws—a result that would greatly undermine the past two years of maximum pressure and decrease the incentive for Iran to negotiate a new deal.
If Pompeo believes that Europe, for its own internal politics, must see a vote to extend the arms embargo fail before agreeing to snapback, then he should schedule that vote and proceed to snapback without delay. The United Kingdom, having just lost a British soldier to an Iranian proxy attack in Iraq, may be willing to act sooner than later. We must not waste another moment to save the United States—and the world—from what Trump rightly calls the worst deal ever made.