foreignpolicy--2020-04-20--Privacy and the Pandemic: Time for a Digital Bill of Rights

Privacy and the Pandemic : Time for a Digital Bill of Rights In the United States , the coronavirus ’ s spread is rapidly undermining fundamental norms .
Barely month ago , China ’ s lockdown seemed a draconian imposition by an authoritarian state .
Now even the most libertarian-leaning U.S. states are implementing similar measures out of necessity .
While severe outbreaks have likely peaked in parts of the country , the nation as a whole is set to endure what will be a lasting pandemic .
Jerome Adams , the U.S. surgeon general , has warned that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be akin to Pearl Harbor or 9/11 .
As was the case following both of those catastrophes , a rapid restriction of civil liberties may seem necessary as governments fight to control the situation .
The coronavirus pandemic has already caused public-health imperatives to collide with democratic principles as core as the freedom of movement .
More limitations on civil liberties are likely to come—most crucially in the digital sphere .
But history shows that there is little reason to believe that the end of the immediate threat will result in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations , and leaders must therefore start working to create a bill of digital rights—now , before things get any worse and individuals permanently lose control of their online data .
The pandemic will likely endure longer than the public can tolerate a lockdown .
The shutdown has already generated 22 million unemployment claims in the United States and necessitated a $ 2.2 trillion federal stimulus package , possibly the first of several .
Yet vaccines or other treatments are unlikely to materialize before the middle of 2021—so governments need to start adapting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that appears effective in containing the spread of the virus in a partially reopened economy is a combination of extensive testing , the widespread use of personal protection equipment , and the deployment of surveillance technology .
The governments of Hong Kong , Singapore , South Korea , and Taiwan have all managed to avoid prolonged lockdowns—some even keeping open businesses , restaurants , and schools—by applying this combined approach .
The United States and a number of European nations are now considering a similar effort on the grand scale , in partnership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has begun sharing some of its vast collection of location data with public health researchers and epidemiologists to help model the movement of its users .
A team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has developed a proximity-tracking application to trace those who have had contact with COVID-19 patients .
Google and Apple have announced the introduction of Android and iOS application programming interfaces to facilitate voluntary contact tracing via Bluetooth Low Energy transmissions .
For its part , Washington is now exploring the widespread use of such data-driven methodologies .
Public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are three necessities vital to all democratic societies .
But they require trade-offs .
In thinking them through , keeping a few principles in mind can help countries strike the right balance .
First , any surveillance measures taken must be reversible , strictly proportionate , and fully transparent .
To ensure that they don ’ t outlive the emergency , the process for their removal must be defined at the moment they are implemented .
The recent past has shown that such arrangements may be difficult to undo .
For instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the temporary Patriot Act have been routinely reauthorized by Congress since 2005 and were most recently extended just last month .
To track potentially infected individuals , South Korea collects not only localization data from cell phones and GPS , but also public transport data , credit card data , immigration records , and so on .
If the United States is to copy that model , the government should require the app ’ s developers to demonstrate how each piece of information collected can help counter the spread of the coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to collect or process localization or proximity contact data for months to fight a virus with a two-week incubation period .
The holders of these records will also be tempted to use this invaluable data for purposes other than fighting the virus—purposes that range from the public-minded to the profit-seeking .
Make no mistake : This data will be of immense value , including for the common good , for example to improve public transport , health care infrastructures , and so on .
To preserve public trust , however , government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for unrelated ends , even if its use appears to be for the greater good .
Efficiency alone can not justify every policy .
In China , a smartphone app that aggregates an individual ’ s health data and assigns a color code ( green , yellow , or red ) reflecting that person ’ s health status is required to enter a shopping mall or to board a train .
Americans must be wary of this level of social control .
It is too liable to be applied unevenly , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unrelated to containing the virus .
Finally , political leaders must address a structural problem : the age-old texts , norms , and institutions that underpin democracy function clumsily in the digital world .
This is not a new problem , and digital policy experts have long foreseen a crisis that fundamentally disrupts the balance between digital technologies and individual freedoms .
Western political leaders have simply lacked the political will to plan proactively .
Their general unpreparedness for the pandemic itself should be warning enough that a failure to anticipate policy challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic countries , such a protective legal framework already exists in the realm of some civil liberties : Few citizens of democracies fear that the freedoms of movement or assembly will remain permanently restricted once the coronavirus pandemic subsides .
There is no such level of certainty when it comes to digital rights , where matters are much murkier and fears arise that accepting emergency provisions might lead to mass surveillance becoming the new normal .
Many of these rights are implied and assumed , but have not yet been enshrined in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as more information emerges about the extent to which public data is collected and manipulated by the tech giants , activists have pushed to ensure that the use of data is in line with democratic values .
The digital response to COVID-19 magnifies this necessity .
In October 2019 , at the Global Forum on Artificial Intelligence for Humanity , French President Emmanuel Macron called for experts and governments to define collectively a new bill of rights guaranteeing fundamental protections in the digital world , stressing that “ what is at stake is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The United States should heed this call and help organize an international coalition of like-minded policymakers , experts , public advocacy groups , and concerned corporations .
Such a bill could clearly outline how digital rights and privacy should be guaranteed to prevent any lasting infringement post-crisis , and , as any fundamental rights , balanced by other rights and social goods—such as public safety and health .
The questions we face today reveal why the current approach of placing the onus of privacy solely on users is incomplete .
Arguments for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to balance the respect for privacy with the mutual obligations we all have to one another—in this case , to restrict the spread the virus .
To strike a meaningful balance , letting each individual opt in or opt out is insufficient .
Personal data generates externalities .
These are beneficial when it comes to containing a pandemic .
They are detrimental when they lead to massive troves of personal data that lend power to the private or public actors that wield them to monitor our daily activities and infringe on our privacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not be improvised in the middle of a crisis : It requires a full democratic discussion .
While most policymakers and governments are currently focused on the immediate needs of battling the pandemic , no one should lose sight of the trade-offs involved .
To prevent taking steps that are hard to reverse , democratic societies should act now to codify digital rights and pass laws to protect them .

Dipayan Ghosh, Adrien Abecassis and Jack Loveridge

In the United States, the coronavirus’s spread is rapidly undermining fundamental norms. Barely month ago, China’s lockdown seemed a draconian imposition by an authoritarian state. Now even the most libertarian-leaning U.S. states are implementing similar measures out of necessity. While severe outbreaks have likely peaked in parts of the country, the nation as a whole is set to endure what will be a lasting pandemic. Jerome Adams, the U.S. surgeon general, has warned that the surge in deaths on the East Coast will be akin to Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
In the United States, the coronavirus’s spread is rapidly undermining fundamental norms. Barely month ago, China’s lockdown seemed a draconian imposition by an authoritarian state. Now even the most libertarian-leaning U.S. states are implementing similar measures out of necessity. While severe outbreaks have likely peaked in parts of the country, the nation as a whole is set to endure what will be a lasting pandemic. Jerome Adams, the U.S. surgeon general, has warned that the surge in deaths on the East Coast will be akin to Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
As was the case following both of those catastrophes, a rapid restriction of civil liberties may seem necessary as governments fight to control the situation. The coronavirus pandemic has already caused public-health imperatives to collide with democratic principles as core as the freedom of movement. More limitations on civil liberties are likely to come—most crucially in the digital sphere. But history shows that there is little reason to believe that the end of the immediate threat will result in a loosening of those strictures.
Citizens, corporations, and leaders must therefore start working to create a bill of digital rights—now, before things get any worse and individuals permanently lose control of their online data. The pandemic will likely endure longer than the public can tolerate a lockdown. The shutdown has already generated 22 million unemployment claims in the United States and necessitated a $2.2 trillion federal stimulus package, possibly the first of several. Yet vaccines or other treatments are unlikely to materialize before the middle of 2021—so governments need to start adapting.
To date, the only model that appears effective in containing the spread of the virus in a partially reopened economy is a combination of extensive testing, the widespread use of personal protection equipment, and the deployment of surveillance technology. The governments of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan have all managed to avoid prolonged lockdowns—some even keeping open businesses, restaurants, and schools—by applying this combined approach.
The United States and a number of European nations are now considering a similar effort on the grand scale, in partnership with the big technology firms. Google has begun sharing some of its vast collection of location data with public health researchers and epidemiologists to help model the movement of its users. A team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has developed a proximity-tracking application to trace those who have had contact with COVID-19 patients. Google and Apple have announced the introduction of Android and iOS application programming interfaces to facilitate voluntary contact tracing via Bluetooth Low Energy transmissions. For its part, Washington is now exploring the widespread use of such data-driven methodologies.
Public health, privacy rights, and economic prosperity are three necessities vital to all democratic societies. But they require trade-offs. In thinking them through, keeping a few principles in mind can help countries strike the right balance.
First, any surveillance measures taken must be reversible, strictly proportionate, and fully transparent. To ensure that they don’t outlive the emergency, the process for their removal must be defined at the moment they are implemented. The recent past has shown that such arrangements may be difficult to undo. For instance, many of the sweeping surveillance provisions of the temporary Patriot Act have been routinely reauthorized by Congress since 2005 and were most recently extended just last month.
To track potentially infected individuals, South Korea collects not only localization data from cell phones and GPS, but also public transport data, credit card data, immigration records, and so on. If the United States is to copy that model, the government should require the app’s developers to demonstrate how each piece of information collected can help counter the spread of the coronavirus. For instance, there is no legitimate reason to collect or process localization or proximity contact data for months to fight a virus with a two-week incubation period.
The holders of these records will also be tempted to use this invaluable data for purposes other than fighting the virus—purposes that range from the public-minded to the profit-seeking. Make no mistake: This data will be of immense value, including for the common good, for example to improve public transport, health care infrastructures, and so on. To preserve public trust, however, government must restrict the repurposing of this data for unrelated ends, even if its use appears to be for the greater good.
Efficiency alone cannot justify every policy. In China, a smartphone app that aggregates an individual’s health data and assigns a color code (green, yellow, or red) reflecting that person’s health status is required to enter a shopping mall or to board a train. Americans must be wary of this level of social control. It is too liable to be applied unevenly, in a discriminatory manner, and for purposes completely unrelated to containing the virus.
Finally, political leaders must address a structural problem: the age-old texts, norms, and institutions that underpin democracy function clumsily in the digital world. This is not a new problem, and digital policy experts have long foreseen a crisis that fundamentally disrupts the balance between digital technologies and individual freedoms. Western political leaders have simply lacked the political will to plan proactively. Their general unpreparedness for the pandemic itself should be warning enough that a failure to anticipate policy challenges can be disastrous for society.
In democratic countries, such a protective legal framework already exists in the realm of some civil liberties: Few citizens of democracies fear that the freedoms of movement or assembly will remain permanently restricted once the coronavirus pandemic subsides. There is no such level of certainty when it comes to digital rights, where matters are much murkier and fears arise that accepting emergency provisions might lead to mass surveillance becoming the new normal. Many of these rights are implied and assumed, but have not yet been enshrined in an enforceable capacity.
In recent years, as more information emerges about the extent to which public data is collected and manipulated by the tech giants, activists have pushed to ensure that the use of data is in line with democratic values. The digital response to COVID-19 magnifies this necessity.
In October 2019, at the Global Forum on Artificial Intelligence for Humanity, French President Emmanuel Macron called for experts and governments to define collectively a new bill of rights guaranteeing fundamental protections in the digital world, stressing that “what is at stake is absolutely critical and core for our democracies.” The United States should heed this call and help organize an international coalition of like-minded policymakers, experts, public advocacy groups, and concerned corporations.
Such a bill could clearly outline how digital rights and privacy should be guaranteed to prevent any lasting infringement post-crisis, and, as any fundamental rights, balanced by other rights and social goods—such as public safety and health. The questions we face today reveal why the current approach of placing the onus of privacy solely on users is incomplete. Arguments for deploying surveillance tools hinge upon the need to balance the respect for privacy with the mutual obligations we all have to one another—in this case, to restrict the spread the virus. To strike a meaningful balance, letting each individual opt in or opt out is insufficient. Personal data generates externalities. These are beneficial when it comes to containing a pandemic. They are detrimental when they lead to massive troves of personal data that lend power to the private or public actors that wield them to monitor our daily activities and infringe on our privacy. Deciding where to strike this balance should not be improvised in the middle of a crisis: It requires a full democratic discussion.
While most policymakers and governments are currently focused on the immediate needs of battling the pandemic, no one should lose sight of the trade-offs involved. To prevent taking steps that are hard to reverse, democratic societies should act now to codify digital rights and pass laws to protect them.


foreignpolicy--2020-04-20--Beijing’s Propaganda Is Finding Few Takers

Humanitarian disasters offer an illusion of global cooperation .
On the surface , alleviating human suffering becomes the world ’ s focus , while competition and rivalries take a back seat .
But in reality , a crisis never goes unused .
The coronavirus pandemic is no exception .
As the virus rages , Taiwan—a democracy long relegated to diplomatic backrooms under Chinese pressure—is shrewdly boosting its global clout by donating medical supplies worldwide .
Russia , Singapore , South Korea , and , of course , the United States are all making similar efforts .
But few have made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) .
The regime whose incompetence allowed the virus to spread from Wuhan to the world is now cynically making its own case for global leadership .
Chinese propaganda contrasts the West ’ s struggles with the CCP ’ s apparent strength , emphasizing China ’ s highly publicized donations of medical materials worldwide .
It ’ s unclear whether such efforts are having their intended effect .
Many of the so-called donations have been proven to actually be sales .
Many of the materials , meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of leaders , particularly those in the developing world , have seen through the CCP ’ s veneer of humanitarianism—and are seeking to hold the regime accountable .
If the CCP ’ s public relations campaign continues to miss the mark , it could spoil China ’ s big shot at global leadership .
Over the past seven years , China has drawn developing countries closer by offering rhetorical South-South partnerships and investing in them through the Belt and Road Initiative , Beijing ’ s Marshall Plan-like economic and marketing campaign .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries , many of which are vital to the transport of energy , and seeks the establishment of military facilities .
Such influence also allows for the continued creation of a Beijing-aligned international order to challenge American hegemony .
In contrast to the Washington Consensus , China also offers a more appealing model of governance of authoritarian capitalism , noninterference , and self-determination—the so-called Beijing Consensus—to the global south .
It ’ s not hard to see why China ’ s offers of economic investment with no human rights or democratic strings attached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Hun Sen , Thailand ’ s Prayut Chan-o-cha , and Venezuela ’ s Nicolás Maduro .
But China ’ s investments often take the form of loans that leave recipients trapped .
After Sri Lanka could not pay its debts , it coughed up a port to China for 99 years .
Djibouti , Kyrgyzstan , Laos , the Maldives , Mongolia , Pakistan , and Tajikistan each owe more than 45 percent of their GDPs to China over Belt and Road projects and are at risk of similarly ceding control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these countries , along with the other two dozen that owe at least 20 percent of their GDPs to China , the economic calamity caused by the coronavirus poses a tangible threat to their sovereignty .
And while U.S. intellectuals debate the merits of blaming the CCP for the outbreak or using terms like the “ Wuhan virus ” and “ Chinese virus , ” some political and civil leaders in developing countries––those most in Beijing ’ s clutches and with the most to lose—are no longer shying away from using such rhetoric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s origins and the CCP ’ s culpability .
The president of South Africa ’ s Mining Forum recently declared on Twitter : “ The South African economy has already lost billions of rands due to [ the ] Wuhan Virus .
The Chinese [ government ] must cancel the debt owed by South Africa as a sign of remorse.
” A prominent Nigerian televangelist called on China to “ cancel all debts owed [ to ] them ” as recompense for causing the outbreak ; a popular Nigerian media personality echoed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s former finance minister .
A member of Kenya ’ s Parliament and the country ’ s former vice president both said China should write off all of Kenya ’ s debts .
Opposition figures in China-friendly countries have long been comfortable using anti-Chinese language to bolster public support .
But what should alarm Beijing is that those in office are now joining this chorus of criticism , if on more diplomatic terms .
Ghana ’ s finance minister declared that China must “ come on stronger ” on debt relief .
Nigeria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The leaders of Ethiopia , Senegal , and South Africa have called on the international community , including China , to enact immediate debt relief for the continent .
African countries , which account for half of the top 50 nations most indebted to China , have been hit particularly hard by coronavirus-caused economic distress .
Yet China made no promises in response to Ghana ’ s request for relief—probably because offering a debt jubilee would seriously threaten both China ’ s financial sustainability and the operations of Chinese companies overseas at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already staggering .
Rather than offer tangible financial help , China has pushed claims of benevolence and falsehoods about the virus ’ s purported Italian or U.S. origins , as well as created an official ( and likely fictitious ) timeline of the CCP ’ s response to the outbreak .
Anti-Chinese sentiment was already rampant in the developing world before the coronavirus , thanks to issues as varied as rising debt , aggressively hostile media and online fights , and China ’ s mass imprisonment of Muslim Uighurs .
The CCP ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic ’ s outbreak has added fuel to the fire .
In India , many are furious with China for its mishandling of the virus .
Indian television news anchors , political cartoonists , and policymakers have all focused intently on the CCP ’ s role in enabling the pandemic .
A cartoon depicting World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus as beholden to China was widely shared on Indian social media—the actor Amitabh Bachchan tweeted the image to his 41 million Twitter followers .
The coronavirus “ has dispelled the myths around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gokhale , who this year retired as India ’ s foreign secretary .
“ Try as the Chinese authorities might to showcase their system as having efficiently tackled a national emergency , even the remotest nation on earth has learned about their failure.
” Amid such failings , New Delhi is now looking to deepen ties with Taipei .
China ’ s actions are missing the mark elsewhere .
As part of a wider crackdown on foreigners , now blamed for bringing the virus back to China , police have targeted Africans in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing around African students and expatriates , evicting them from hotels , and forcing them to sleep on the street have reverberated across the continent—igniting a firestorm of criticism .
The backlash to this incident has already begun , deeply undermining China ’ s attempted “ mask diplomacy.
” A Kenyan member of parliament demanded that Chinese nationals leave Kenya .
“ It is only fair that all Chinese nationals leave the country with immediate effect , ” he said .
“ How do you blame Africans for a virus you manufactured in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Ghana ’ s minister of foreign affairs and regional integration summoned the Chinese ambassador to discuss the maltreatment of Africans in China .
Nigeria ’ s foreign affairs minister summoned Beijing ’ s representative in his country to express his “ extreme concern at allegations of maltreatment of Nigerians in Guangzhou.
” The speaker of Nigeria ’ s House of Representatives then read the Chinese ambassador the riot act , telling him : “ It is almost undiplomatic the way I ’ m talking , but it ’ s because I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing.
” The governments of Nigeria , Ghana , South Africa , Kenya , and Uganda , as well as the African Union , have each pressed China on the issue .
In response , Chinese officials have made visits to quarantined Africans , offering flowers and food—with television cameras in tow , of course .
Chinese diplomats have assured their African counterparts that they will address “ misunderstandings ” and establish “ an effective communication mechanism with African Consulates-General in Guangzhou.
” Even as they flounder with their first propaganda campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a second propaganda push .
China ’ s current PR campaigns might quell the chorus of criticism for a bit , but it is unlikely to last long .
Anti-Chinese sentiment has long been bubbling in many of these countries .
As the coronavirus continues to spread , China will have to offer more than pretty words .

Humanitarian disasters offer an illusion of global cooperation. On the surface, alleviating human suffering becomes the world’s focus, while competition and rivalries take a back seat. But in reality, a crisis never goes unused.
Humanitarian disasters offer an illusion of global cooperation. On the surface, alleviating human suffering becomes the world’s focus, while competition and rivalries take a back seat. But in reality, a crisis never goes unused.
The coronavirus pandemic is no exception. As the virus rages, Taiwan—a democracy long relegated to diplomatic backrooms under Chinese pressure—is shrewdly boosting its global clout by donating medical supplies worldwide. Russia, Singapore, South Korea, and, of course, the United States are all making similar efforts.
But few have made as hard a diplomatic play as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The regime whose incompetence allowed the virus to spread from Wuhan to the world is now cynically making its own case for global leadership. Chinese propaganda contrasts the West’s struggles with the CCP’s apparent strength, emphasizing China’s highly publicized donations of medical materials worldwide.
It’s unclear whether such efforts are having their intended effect. Many of the so-called donations have been proven to actually be sales. Many of the materials, meanwhile, have major defects. And a number of leaders, particularly those in the developing world, have seen through the CCP’s veneer of humanitarianism—and are seeking to hold the regime accountable. If the CCP’s public relations campaign continues to miss the mark, it could spoil China’s big shot at global leadership.
Over the past seven years, China has drawn developing countries closer by offering rhetorical South-South partnerships and investing in them through the Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing’s Marshall Plan-like economic and marketing campaign. In return, China secures influence in these countries, many of which are vital to the transport of energy, and seeks the establishment of military facilities. Such influence also allows for the continued creation of a Beijing-aligned international order to challenge American hegemony.
In contrast to the Washington Consensus, China also offers a more appealing model of governance of authoritarian capitalism, noninterference, and self-determination—the so-called Beijing Consensus—to the global south. It’s not hard to see why China’s offers of economic investment with no human rights or democratic strings attached are attractive to authoritarians like Cambodia’s Hun Sen, Thailand’s Prayut Chan-o-cha, and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro.
But China’s investments often take the form of loans that leave recipients trapped. After Sri Lanka could not pay its debts, it coughed up a port to China for 99 years. Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, the Maldives, Mongolia, Pakistan, and Tajikistan each owe more than 45 percent of their GDPs to China over Belt and Road projects and are at risk of similarly ceding control of areas of interest to Beijing. For these countries, along with the other two dozen that owe at least 20 percent of their GDPs to China, the economic calamity caused by the coronavirus poses a tangible threat to their sovereignty.
And while U.S. intellectuals debate the merits of blaming the CCP for the outbreak or using terms like the “Wuhan virus” and “Chinese virus,” some political and civil leaders in developing countries––those most in Beijing’s clutches and with the most to lose—are no longer shying away from using such rhetoric nor from pointing out both the virus’s origins and the CCP’s culpability.
The president of South Africa’s Mining Forum recently declared on Twitter: “The South African economy has already lost billions of rands due to [the] Wuhan Virus. The Chinese [government] must cancel the debt owed by South Africa as a sign of remorse.” A prominent Nigerian televangelist called on China to “cancel all debts owed [to] them” as recompense for causing the outbreak; a popular Nigerian media personality echoed him, as did the country’s former finance minister. A member of Kenya’s Parliament and the country’s former vice president both said China should write off all of Kenya’s debts.
Opposition figures in China-friendly countries have long been comfortable using anti-Chinese language to bolster public support. But what should alarm Beijing is that those in office are now joining this chorus of criticism, if on more diplomatic terms.
Ghana’s finance minister declared that China must “come on stronger” on debt relief. Nigeria is seeking a similar respite from China. The leaders of Ethiopia, Senegal, and South Africa have called on the international community, including China, to enact immediate debt relief for the continent.
African countries, which account for half of the top 50 nations most indebted to China, have been hit particularly hard by coronavirus-caused economic distress. Yet China made no promises in response to Ghana’s request for relief—probably because offering a debt jubilee would seriously threaten both China’s financial sustainability and the operations of Chinese companies overseas at a time when the Chinese economy is already staggering.
Rather than offer tangible financial help, China has pushed claims of benevolence and falsehoods about the virus’s purported Italian or U.S. origins, as well as created an official (and likely fictitious) timeline of the CCP’s response to the outbreak.
Anti-Chinese sentiment was already rampant in the developing world before the coronavirus, thanks to issues as varied as rising debt, aggressively hostile media and online fights, and China’s mass imprisonment of Muslim Uighurs. The CCP’s demonstrably poor initial response to the pandemic’s outbreak has added fuel to the fire.
In India, many are furious with China for its mishandling of the virus. Indian television news anchors, political cartoonists, and policymakers have all focused intently on the CCP’s role in enabling the pandemic. A cartoon depicting World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus as beholden to China was widely shared on Indian social media—the actor Amitabh Bachchan tweeted the image to his 41 million Twitter followers.
The coronavirus “has dispelled the myths around the Beijing consensus,” wrote Vijay Gokhale, who this year retired as India’s foreign secretary. “Try as the Chinese authorities might to showcase their system as having efficiently tackled a national emergency, even the remotest nation on earth has learned about their failure.”
Amid such failings, New Delhi is now looking to deepen ties with Taipei.
China’s actions are missing the mark elsewhere. As part of a wider crackdown on foreigners, now blamed for bringing the virus back to China, police have targeted Africans in particular. The images of Chinese officials pushing around African students and expatriates, evicting them from hotels, and forcing them to sleep on the street have reverberated across the continent—igniting a firestorm of criticism.
The backlash to this incident has already begun, deeply undermining China’s attempted “mask diplomacy.” A Kenyan member of parliament demanded that Chinese nationals leave Kenya. “It is only fair that all Chinese nationals leave the country with immediate effect,” he said. “How do you blame Africans for a virus you manufactured in a Wuhan laboratory? Go back home.”
Ghana’s minister of foreign affairs and regional integration summoned the Chinese ambassador to discuss the maltreatment of Africans in China. Nigeria’s foreign affairs minister summoned Beijing’s representative in his country to express his “extreme concern at allegations of maltreatment of Nigerians in Guangzhou.” The speaker of Nigeria’s House of Representatives then read the Chinese ambassador the riot act, telling him: “It is almost undiplomatic the way I’m talking, but it’s because I am actually upset about what you’re doing.”
The governments of Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda, as well as the African Union, have each pressed China on the issue. In response, Chinese officials have made visits to quarantined Africans, offering flowers and food—with television cameras in tow, of course. Chinese diplomats have assured their African counterparts that they will address “misunderstandings” and establish “an effective communication mechanism with African Consulates-General in Guangzhou.” Even as they flounder with their first propaganda campaign, Beijing’s latest missteps are informing a second propaganda push.
China’s current PR campaigns might quell the chorus of criticism for a bit, but it is unlikely to last long. Anti-Chinese sentiment has long been bubbling in many of these countries. As the coronavirus continues to spread, China will have to offer more than pretty words.


foreignpolicy--2020-04-20--If a Torturer Switches Sides, Does He Deserve Mercy?

If a Torturer Switches Sides , Does He Deserve Mercy ?
In September 2012 , a year and a half into the Syrian uprising , the opposition movement decided to help regime officials defect abroad , in hopes of accelerating the fall of President Bashar al-Assad .
One such official was Anwar Raslan .
He headed the investigations team of Branch 251 , a notorious intelligence directorate prison on Baghdad Street in Damascus .
It was one of the most feared addresses in the capital , run by a feared man .
At capacity , it could detain and torture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but as the protests picked up , the number of prisoners reached four times that number , as the building became stuffed with political prisoners who were beaten unconscious , electrocuted , and hung by their wrists under Raslan ’ s command .
And then , in 2013 , the opposition received word Raslan wanted to defect .
He was an important enough target for the opposition that they dispatched one of their own to pretend to be Raslan ’ s driver and escort him through Damascus , a city lined with soldiers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , he was smuggled to neighboring Jordan .
There , he joined the opposition .
Over the next two years , Raslan ingratiated himself with several opposition leaders and in 2014 even got a ticket to represent the rebellion in Geneva at U.N.-organized peace talks .
The about-face paid off when he flew to Germany in the summer that year and sought asylum .
He successfully settled with his family in northeast Berlin and started afresh , without anyone mentioning the torture chamber he once oversaw .
Branch 251 , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seemed to have faded away .
But the truth caught up with him in February of last year when Raslan was apprehended by German police .
He was charged with committing crimes against humanity and will be the first regime official to be tried in court .
The German prosecutor ’ s indictment says that during April 2011 and September 2012 , while Raslan was in charge of Branch 251 , at least 4,000 people were tortured there , 59 died as a result , and at least one person was raped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court of Koblenz is conducting the trial under Germany ’ s principle of universal jurisdiction , which allows prosecutors to investigate and try international crimes committed on a foreign territory by foreign nationals .
( Prosecuting Assad officials in the International Criminal Court has been impossible , because of veto power held by China and Russia . )
Despite the pandemic lockdown , the trial is expected to go on as scheduled on April 23 .
However , the peculiarity of Raslan ’ s case has caused a split among anti-regime Syrians .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gearing up to confront him in the courtroom , but organized opposition groups find themselves in a more difficult position , as they formally cooperated with him during his defection .
They would like to see justice , too , but want to avoid getting tainted by the association with him .
In pursuit of that end , members of the opposition have adopted differing arguments .
Some claim his defection should mitigate his guilt for earlier crimes and warn against deterring other officials from abandoning the regime .
Another defector who worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s intelligence infrastructure , speaking only on the condition of anonymity , backed Raslan fully .
“ It was a brave decision by Anwar to defect , keeping in mind his rank and sensitive nature of the job , ” the former intelligence officer said .
“ Had he been caught , he and his family , even extended relatives , would have been killed in cold blood.
” Others attempt to cast guilt on Raslan by amplifying doubts about the sincerity of his affiliation with the opposition .
Some even claim ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punishment because he was a double agent who kept in touch with Syrian intelligence agencies after his defection .
Wael al-Khalid , a prominent opposition activist who helped Raslan defect , told Foreign Policy that Raslan had struck a deal with the rebels , agreeing to hand over the files of over 20,000 detainees , with information about what happened to them and on whose orders , in exchange for his extraction .
But he never shared anything of substance .
Khalid said that once out of Syria , Raslan was more interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition .
“ He said he had an invitation from Qatar , but he wanted to move to Germany .
We got him his Syrian passport by bribing regime officials , but even then he did not deliver us the promised documents , ” Khalid said .
“ Every time I insisted , he said he will deliver the files to the United Nations , or to the CIA .
I knew he was bluffing us.
” Foreign Policy checked with at least five senior opposition leaders of the time , and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantial information about the Syrian regime from Raslan .
Everyone in the opposition seems to agree that the war crimes should be prosecuted in a way that manages to absolve their own side—but those arguments are sometime tenuous .
Hadi al-Bahra , the chief negotiator of the Syrian opposition in 2014 , evaded questions about Raslan ’ s exact role in the Geneva talks .
He admitted he had seen Raslan there but perplexingly added he didn ’ t quite know what Raslan was there for .
“ I don ’ t remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he was neither our spokesperson nor a part of the delegation.
” But Col. Qassim Saad al-Din , an officer who defected from the Syrian Air Force and joined the opposition , contradicted Hadi .
He recounted a conversation with Ahmad Jarba , the chief of the opposition ’ s coalition in 2014 , about Raslan .
“ Jarba said he didn ’ t know him but other officers had put in a good word and convinced him that Anwar must be sent as a part of the delegation , ” Din @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Raslan , prosecuting lawyers said his defection will have a limited legal impact , if any at all , on their own legal strategy .
Anwar al-Bunni , a Syrian lawyer based in Berlin who has been assisting the prosecution , was himself arrested in 2006 in Syria on Raslan ’ s orders , back when he led Branch 285 of the general intelligence directorate in Damascus .
“ If he defected or if he changed his political views , that does not give him amnesty , ” Bunni said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t care about a criminal ’ s political position.
” Steve Kostas , a lawyer with the Open Society Justice Initiative , which has built dossiers against a dozen regime officials including Raslan , said that Raslan ’ s culpability would be judged according to the rule of law and “ not by the politics of the conflict.
” The state believes its case is watertight .
The Commission for International Justice and Accountability ( CIJA ) , an NGO investigating crimes against humanity in Syria , has shared a pile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s command and control of Branch 251 .
Even more significantly , perhaps , CIJA has shared photographs from a Syrian military defector code-named Caesar who fled the country in 2013 with a heap of over 50,000 images , over half of which are of detainees killed inside the state ’ s prisons .
Nerma Jelacic , the director of external affairs at CIJA , said that among those photographs at least 145 are of those who were killed in the prison of Branch 251 and over a hundred while Raslan was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case may be focused on one individual right now , the evidence at trial will reveal a chain of command that leads all the way up to Bashar al-Assad .
“ It will be the first time the evidence presented will be able to show how the heinous crimes that have been and are being committed in the regime-held detention facilities are not isolated incidents but rather part and parcel of a wider and systematic crackdown on the protests , ” she said , “ by the highest-ranking members of Assad ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is out of bounds for now .
The lawyers and the humanitarians acknowledge there are no available avenues to hold him accountable until he is out of power .
Raslan , meanwhile , seems to have fewer options at his disposal .

In September 2012, a year and a half into the Syrian uprising, the opposition movement decided to help regime officials defect abroad, in hopes of accelerating the fall of President Bashar al-Assad. One such official was Anwar Raslan. He headed the investigations team of Branch 251, a notorious intelligence directorate prison on Baghdad Street in Damascus. It was one of the most feared addresses in the capital, run by a feared man. At capacity, it could detain and torture a hundred people at a time, but as the protests picked up, the number of prisoners reached four times that number, as the building became stuffed with political prisoners who were beaten unconscious, electrocuted, and hung by their wrists under Raslan’s command.
In September 2012, a year and a half into the Syrian uprising, the opposition movement decided to help regime officials defect abroad, in hopes of accelerating the fall of President Bashar al-Assad. One such official was Anwar Raslan. He headed the investigations team of Branch 251, a notorious intelligence directorate prison on Baghdad Street in Damascus. It was one of the most feared addresses in the capital, run by a feared man. At capacity, it could detain and torture a hundred people at a time, but as the protests picked up, the number of prisoners reached four times that number, as the building became stuffed with political prisoners who were beaten unconscious, electrocuted, and hung by their wrists under Raslan’s command.
And then, in 2013, the opposition received word Raslan wanted to defect. He was an important enough target for the opposition that they dispatched one of their own to pretend to be Raslan’s driver and escort him through Damascus, a city lined with soldiers, to rebel-held eastern Ghouta. Within days, he was smuggled to neighboring Jordan. There, he joined the opposition.
Over the next two years, Raslan ingratiated himself with several opposition leaders and in 2014 even got a ticket to represent the rebellion in Geneva at U.N.-organized peace talks. The about-face paid off when he flew to Germany in the summer that year and sought asylum. He successfully settled with his family in northeast Berlin and started afresh, without anyone mentioning the torture chamber he once oversaw. Branch 251, and the screams of thousands of people brought there, seemed to have faded away.
But the truth caught up with him in February of last year when Raslan was apprehended by German police. He was charged with committing crimes against humanity and will be the first regime official to be tried in court. The German prosecutor’s indictment says that during April 2011 and September 2012, while Raslan was in charge of Branch 251, at least 4,000 people were tortured there, 59 died as a result, and at least one person was raped and sexually assaulted. The Higher Regional Court of Koblenz is conducting the trial under Germany’s principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows prosecutors to investigate and try international crimes committed on a foreign territory by foreign nationals. (Prosecuting Assad officials in the International Criminal Court has been impossible, because of veto power held by China and Russia.) Despite the pandemic lockdown, the trial is expected to go on as scheduled on April 23.
However, the peculiarity of Raslan’s case has caused a split among anti-regime Syrians. Some of those who were tortured are gearing up to confront him in the courtroom, but organized opposition groups find themselves in a more difficult position, as they formally cooperated with him during his defection. They would like to see justice, too, but want to avoid getting tainted by the association with him.
In pursuit of that end, members of the opposition have adopted differing arguments. Some claim his defection should mitigate his guilt for earlier crimes and warn against deterring other officials from abandoning the regime. Another defector who worked at a different branch of Syria’s intelligence infrastructure, speaking only on the condition of anonymity, backed Raslan fully. “It was a brave decision by Anwar to defect, keeping in mind his rank and sensitive nature of the job,” the former intelligence officer said. “Had he been caught, he and his family, even extended relatives, would have been killed in cold blood.”
Others attempt to cast guilt on Raslan by amplifying doubts about the sincerity of his affiliation with the opposition. Some even claim (without any evidence) that he deserves punishment because he was a double agent who kept in touch with Syrian intelligence agencies after his defection.
Wael al-Khalid, a prominent opposition activist who helped Raslan defect, told Foreign Policy that Raslan had struck a deal with the rebels, agreeing to hand over the files of over 20,000 detainees, with information about what happened to them and on whose orders, in exchange for his extraction. But he never shared anything of substance. Khalid said that once out of Syria, Raslan was more interested in moving to Germany than helping the opposition. “He said he had an invitation from Qatar, but he wanted to move to Germany. We got him his Syrian passport by bribing regime officials, but even then he did not deliver us the promised documents,” Khalid said. “Every time I insisted, he said he will deliver the files to the United Nations, or to the CIA. I knew he was bluffing us.” Foreign Policy checked with at least five senior opposition leaders of the time, and all of them say they never received any substantial information about the Syrian regime from Raslan.
Everyone in the opposition seems to agree that the war crimes should be prosecuted in a way that manages to absolve their own side—but those arguments are sometime tenuous. Hadi al-Bahra, the chief negotiator of the Syrian opposition in 2014, evaded questions about Raslan’s exact role in the Geneva talks. He admitted he had seen Raslan there but perplexingly added he didn’t quite know what Raslan was there for. “I don’t remember exactly,” he said, “but he was neither our spokesperson nor a part of the delegation.” But Col. Qassim Saad al-Din, an officer who defected from the Syrian Air Force and joined the opposition, contradicted Hadi. He recounted a conversation with Ahmad Jarba, the chief of the opposition’s coalition in 2014, about Raslan. “Jarba said he didn’t know him but other officers had put in a good word and convinced him that Anwar must be sent as a part of the delegation,” Din said.
Whatever the opposition may think of Raslan, prosecuting lawyers said his defection will have a limited legal impact, if any at all, on their own legal strategy. Anwar al-Bunni, a Syrian lawyer based in Berlin who has been assisting the prosecution, was himself arrested in 2006 in Syria on Raslan’s orders, back when he led Branch 285 of the general intelligence directorate in Damascus. “If he defected or if he changed his political views, that does not give him amnesty,” Bunni said. “He is a criminal, and I don’t care about a criminal’s political position.” Steve Kostas, a lawyer with the Open Society Justice Initiative, which has built dossiers against a dozen regime officials including Raslan, said that Raslan’s culpability would be judged according to the rule of law and “not by the politics of the conflict.”
The state believes its case is watertight. The Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA), an NGO investigating crimes against humanity in Syria, has shared a pile of documents with prosecutors establishing Raslan’s command and control of Branch 251. Even more significantly, perhaps, CIJA has shared photographs from a Syrian military defector code-named Caesar who fled the country in 2013 with a heap of over 50,000 images, over half of which are of detainees killed inside the state’s prisons. Nerma Jelacic,the director of external affairs at CIJA, said that among those photographs at least 145 are of those who were killed in the prison of Branch 251 and over a hundred while Raslan was in charge.
She added that while the case may be focused on one individual right now, the evidence at trial will reveal a chain of command that leads all the way up to Bashar al-Assad. “It will be the first time the evidence presented will be able to show how the heinous crimes that have been and are being committed in the regime-held detention facilities are not isolated incidents but rather part and parcel of a wider and systematic crackdown on the protests,” she said, “by the highest-ranking members of Assad’s regime.”
Assad himself, however, is out of bounds for now. The lawyers and the humanitarians acknowledge there are no available avenues to hold him accountable until he is out of power. Raslan, meanwhile, seems to have fewer options at his disposal.


foreignpolicy--2020-04-20--Brazil’s Health System Isn’t Ready for the Coronavirus

RIO DE JANEIRO—Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro made the move to fire his health minister just as cities and states in the country ’ s poorer northern regions began to run out of critical care beds , their public health care systems crumbling under the weight of the novel coronavirus .
While other world leaders have called for urgent action , Brazil ’ s far-right populist leader has dismissed the deadly virus as a “ little flu.
” He has railed against lockdowns , shaken hands at rallies , and encouraged people to return to normal life .
In recent weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta , who defied Bolsonaro and urged Brazilians to self-isolate .
It is still too early to tell if Brazil will shift its strategy on the coronavirus following the departure of the popular minister last Thursday .
Mandetta ’ s replacement , Nelson Teich—a respected doctor and entrepreneur—said he was “ fully aligned ” with the president but assured Brazilians he would not make radical changes .
But the shake-up left many wondering if Brazil could afford to waste any more time cobbling together a response to a health crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Despite Bolsonaro ’ s fervent denial of the severity of the coronavirus outbreak , his stance has been a lonely one .
Governors and mayors in much of Brazil have scrambled to counter the president ’ s denialism by shutting nonessential businesses and telling citizens to stay home .
But the mixed messaging seems to have had an impact .
“ The problem was that the discourse was so contradictory , ” said Cecilia Machado , an economist and professor at the Fundação Getúlio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro .
“ So the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been as potent.
” Data showed the number of people complying with social isolation in São Paulo fell from a peak of nearly 70 percent on March 22 to just 47 percent on April 15 , undermining efforts to slow the spread of the virus and ease pressure on the health system .
Scientific studies show that roughly 70 percent compliance is needed for social distancing to be effective .
For the millions of Brazilians working in the informal sector the lockdowns have been painful .
Suddenly unable to earn a living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many poorer Brazilians have seen their economic frustrations echoed in Bolsonaro ’ s lambasting of social distancing measures .
“ The tone at the top matters , ” said Brian Winter , the vice president for policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas .
“ Bolsonaro , through his own rhetoric , has greatly wounded the efforts of governors and mayors to buy Brazil some time.
” The coronavirus has infected more than 38,000 Brazilians and claimed the lives of some 2,400—although a woeful lack of testing means the true toll is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Ceará , intensive care unit ( ICU ) beds have already run out , and authorities are projecting 250 deaths per day in the state capital next month .
In Rio de Janeiro state , public hospitals are at 88 percent ICU capacity , and the system is expected to collapse this month .
In São Paulo—the epicenter of the crisis in Brazil—more than 80 percent of ICU beds in public hospitals are full .
The crisis has further tested an already stretched public health care system in many parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , public hospitals have just 0.8 beds per 10,000 people , data from Brazil ’ s Federal Council of Medicine shows .
In the northern state of Amapá , one of Brazil ’ s poorest , there are just 0.33 beds per 10,000 people .
This is compared to an already low national average of just one public ICU bed per 10,000 .
“ All the public hospitals , they are struggling already , ” said João Amadera , a doctor and professor at the University of São Paulo Medical School .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning of the curve ” for patients who contracted the coronavirus in the community .
The fragmented response by states may also ultimately be hurting the battle against the coronavirus by preventing effective coordination , Machado noted .
Without a unified approach , for instance , it is difficult to shift ICU beds or ventilators from less needy states to ones overwhelmed with cases .
Such resource sharing has been deployed in Europe , where German hospitals have absorbed some Italian and French patients , providing relief for health care systems in those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coordination .
We need a national policy in some way , ” Machado said .
Brazil has not been the only country with a sluggish response to COVID-19 .
Elsewhere , including in the United States , a slow mobilization by authorities has had a devastating effect .
But experts warn that the delay may be even more costly in Latin America , where overburdened health care systems are plagued by deep inequality .
Investment in public health care has plummeted since former President Michel Temer ’ s government ushered in an austerity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for two decades .
The coronavirus crisis also comes at a time of year when public hospitals are already typically grappling with high rates of hospitalizations for other illnesses like dengue fever and influenza .
So far this year , Brazil has reported nearly twice as many cases of dengue—a mosquito-borne viral disease that typically reaches peak transmission between January and May—compared with the same period in 2019 .
Sharp cuts to health spending in recent years are partly what has put Brazil on the back foot .
Investment in public health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s government ushered in an austerity package in 2016 , freezing public spending for two decades .
Meanwhile , private health care—once intended to supplement the public system—has boomed , widening the disparity in the care available to Brazilians .
Brazil has one of the largest free universal health care systems in the world , which operates alongside a vast private sector accessible to Brazilians with insurance plans or those willing to pay out of pocket .
Although some lower-income Brazilians have access to additional health insurance , the country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients at private hospitals .
Now , as the country prepares for the peak of the crisis , the gap has come into sharp focus .
About half of all ICU beds in Brazil are in private hospitals that serve just a quarter of the population .
In these facilities , there are four for every 10,000 , data from the Federal Council of Medicine shows .
Disparities are even more stark between rural and urban settings and between the poorer northern states and the wealthier southern ones , noted Carmem Leitão , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ceará ’ s public health department .
In northeastern Brazil , just 12 percent of people have access to private health care—and the number drops to just 6 percent for those living in rural areas , data from Brazil ’ s National Agency for Supplementary Health .
By comparison , 35 percent of Brazilians in the wealthier southeast have access to private health care .
The shortages in critical care beds are most likely to impact the most vulnerable Brazilians who rely on the public system .
“ We are confronting this pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of inequality socially and economically , ” Leitão said .
“ And the availability of critical care beds is clear proof of the inequality that we have within our health care system.
” Private hospitals , meanwhile , are already facing less pressure as the first wave of patients—many of whom were wealthier Brazilians who contracted the coronavirus while traveling abroad—is cured and discharged .
“ The curve of those patients peaked , so the private hospitals are already beginning to see these cases diminish , ” Amadera said .
“ And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are getting full.
” Brazil has struggled to source equipment , including ventilators , from abroad amid fierce competition with the United States and other affected countries .
For weeks , health authorities have been mulling how to integrate the two systems , with some states looking to contract ICU beds from private hospitals .
Under such a scheme , public hospital patients who need critical care would be allocated to ICU beds in some designated private hospitals .
But the process has lagged , and the two systems are yet to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government announced only on April 9 that it would start requiring both public and private hospitals to record coronavirus cases into the same system , streamlining communication .
Still , this only extends to facilities that already serve some public patients , and it does not include hospitals that exclusively serve private patients .
Similarly , the federal government struck its first deal for the domestic manufacturing of 6,500 ventilators on a national scale only in early April , more than six weeks after the first case of the coronavirus was confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to source equipment , including ventilators , from abroad amid fierce competition with the United States and other affected countries .
As the number of cases climbs at a dizzying speed , the crucial test on Brazil ’ s health care system will come when the virus begins spreading within informal settlements in major cities—known as favelas—which are made all the more vulnerable by crowded housing , poor sanitation , and lack of running water .
“ Once it hits the favelas , it is going to be a major disaster , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the full effect of the crisis .
”

RIO DE JANEIRO—Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro made the move to fire his health minister just as cities and states in the country’s poorer northern regions began to run out of critical care beds, their public health care systems crumbling under the weight of the novel coronavirus.
RIO DE JANEIRO—Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro made the move to fire his health minister just as cities and states in the country’s poorer northern regions began to run out of critical care beds, their public health care systems crumbling under the weight of the novel coronavirus.
While other world leaders have called for urgent action, Brazil’s far-right populist leader has dismissed the deadly virus as a “little flu.” He has railed against lockdowns, shaken hands at rallies, and encouraged people to return to normal life. In recent weeks, he repeatedly clashed with ousted Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta, who defied Bolsonaro and urged Brazilians to self-isolate.
It is still too early to tell if Brazil will shift its strategy on the coronavirus following the departure of the popular minister last Thursday. Mandetta’s replacement, Nelson Teich—a respected doctor and entrepreneur—said he was “fully aligned” with the president but assured Brazilians he would not make radical changes. But the shake-up left many wondering if Brazil could afford to waste any more time cobbling together a response to a health crisis that is already in full swing.
Despite Bolsonaro’s fervent denial of the severity of the coronavirus outbreak, his stance has been a lonely one. Governors and mayors in much of Brazil have scrambled to counter the president’s denialism by shutting nonessential businesses and telling citizens to stay home.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic.]
But the mixed messaging seems to have had an impact. “The problem was that the discourse was so contradictory,” said Cecilia Machado, an economist and professor at the Fundação Getúlio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro. “So the efficacy of the social isolation may not have been as potent.”
Data showed the number of people complying with social isolation in São Paulo fell from a peak of nearly 70 percent on March 22 to just 47 percent on April 15, undermining efforts to slow the spread of the virus and ease pressure on the health system. Scientific studies show that roughly 70 percent compliance is needed for social distancing to be effective.
For the millions of Brazilians working in the informal sector the lockdowns have been painful. Suddenly unable to earn a living as street vendors or domestic workers, many poorer Brazilians have seen their economic frustrations echoed in Bolsonaro’s lambasting of social distancing measures.
“The tone at the top matters,” said Brian Winter, the vice president for policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas. “Bolsonaro, through his own rhetoric, has greatly wounded the efforts of governors and mayors to buy Brazil some time.”
The coronavirus has infected more than 38,000 Brazilians and claimed the lives of some 2,400—although a woeful lack of testing means the true toll is likely much higher. In the northeastern state of Ceará, intensive care unit (ICU) beds have already run out, and authorities are projecting 250 deaths per day in the state capital next month. In Rio de Janeiro state, public hospitals are at 88 percent ICU capacity, and the system is expected to collapse this month. In São Paulo—the epicenter of the crisis in Brazil—more than 80 percent of ICU beds in public hospitals are full.
The crisis has further tested an already stretched public health care system in many parts of the country. In the northeast, for instance, public hospitals have just 0.8 beds per 10,000 people, data from Brazil’s Federal Council of Medicine shows. In the northern state of Amapá, one of Brazil’s poorest, there are just 0.33 beds per 10,000 people. This is compared to an already low national average of just one public ICU bed per 10,000.
“All the public hospitals, they are struggling already,” said João Amadera, a doctor and professor at the University of São Paulo Medical School. “And that’s just the beginning of the curve” for patients who contracted the coronavirus in the community.
The fragmented response by states may also ultimately be hurting the battle against the coronavirus by preventing effective coordination, Machado noted. Without a unified approach, for instance, it is difficult to shift ICU beds or ventilators from less needy states to ones overwhelmed with cases. Such resource sharing has been deployed in Europe, where German hospitals have absorbed some Italian and French patients, providing relief for health care systems in those harder-hit countries. “We need some coordination. We need a national policy in some way,” Machado said.
Brazil has not been the only country with a sluggish response to COVID-19. Elsewhere, including in the United States, a slow mobilization by authorities has had a devastating effect. But experts warn that the delay may be even more costly in Latin America, where overburdened health care systems are plagued by deep inequality.
Investment in public health care has plummeted since former President Michel Temer’s government ushered in an austerity package in 2016, freezing public spending for two decades.
The coronavirus crisis also comes at a time of year when public hospitals are already typically grappling with high rates of hospitalizations for other illnesses like dengue fever and influenza. So far this year, Brazil has reported nearly twice as many cases of dengue—a mosquito-borne viral disease that typically reaches peak transmission between January and May—compared with the same period in 2019.
Sharp cuts to health spending in recent years are partly what has put Brazil on the back foot. Investment in public health care has plummeted since former President Michel Temer’s government ushered in an austerity package in 2016, freezing public spending for two decades. Meanwhile, private health care—once intended to supplement the public system—has boomed, widening the disparity in the care available to Brazilians.
Brazil has one of the largest free universal health care systems in the world, which operates alongside a vast private sector accessible to Brazilians with insurance plans or those willing to pay out of pocket. Although some lower-income Brazilians have access to additional health insurance, the country’s wealthier citizens make up the majority of patients at private hospitals.
Now, as the country prepares for the peak of the crisis, the gap has come into sharp focus. About half of all ICU beds in Brazil are in private hospitals that serve just a quarter of the population. In these facilities, there are four for every 10,000, data from the Federal Council of Medicine shows.
Disparities are even more stark between rural and urban settings and between the poorer northern states and the wealthier southern ones, noted Carmem Leitão, a professor in the Federal University of Ceará’s public health department.
In northeastern Brazil, just 12 percent of people have access to private health care—and the number drops to just 6 percent for those living in rural areas, data from Brazil’s National Agency for Supplementary Health. By comparison, 35 percent of Brazilians in the wealthier southeast have access to private health care.
The shortages in critical care beds are most likely to impact the most vulnerable Brazilians who rely on the public system. “We are confronting this pandemic within a difficult context, with a lot of inequality socially and economically,” Leitão said. “And the availability of critical care beds is clear proof of the inequality that we have within our health care system.”
Private hospitals, meanwhile, are already facing less pressure as the first wave of patients—many of whom were wealthier Brazilians who contracted the coronavirus while traveling abroad—is cured and discharged. “The curve of those patients peaked, so the private hospitals are already beginning to see these cases diminish,” Amadera said. “And at the same time, public hospitals are getting full.”
Brazil has struggled to source equipment, including ventilators, from abroad amid fierce competition with the United States and other affected countries.
For weeks, health authorities have been mulling how to integrate the two systems, with some states looking to contract ICU beds from private hospitals. Under such a scheme, public hospital patients who need critical care would be allocated to ICU beds in some designated private hospitals.
But the process has lagged, and the two systems are yet to be integrated, according to Amadera. The federal government announced only on April 9 that it would start requiring both public and private hospitals to record coronavirus cases into the same system, streamlining communication. Still, this only extends to facilities that already serve some public patients, and it does not include hospitals that exclusively serve private patients.
Similarly, the federal government struck its first deal for the domestic manufacturing of 6,500 ventilators on a national scale only in early April, more than six weeks after the first case of the coronavirus was confirmed in the country. Brazil has struggled to source equipment, including ventilators, from abroad amid fierce competition with the United States and other affected countries.
As the number of cases climbs at a dizzying speed, the crucial test on Brazil’s health care system will come when the virus begins spreading within informal settlements in major cities—known as favelas—which are made all the more vulnerable by crowded housing, poor sanitation, and lack of running water.
“Once it hits the favelas, it is going to be a major disaster,” Amadera said. “Then we will see the full effect of the crisis.”


foreignpolicy--2020-04-21--Earth Day at 50 Reveals What’s Missing in Climate Change Fight

For wonks like me , figuring out how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions involves studying a byzantine set of regulations , incentives , taxes , and subsidies—and myriad technological eureka moments to fundamentally reshape every nook and cranny of how we power our economy .
Yet as we commemorate the 50th annual Earth Day this week , the most important lesson of the environmental movement ’ s success over the past half-century is that none of this is possible without an underlying social movement and cultural awakening to the urgency of climate change that , sadly , still eludes us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of out every 10 Americans came together for a series of rallies , speeches , and teach-ins to tell their leaders they were no longer willing to put up with toxic air and poisoned water .
Since then , the event has been held each year in many countries around the world .
Most Americans today take clean air and water for granted , with important exceptions such as the residents of Flint , Michigan .
Yet it was not always so .
In 1970 , after two decades of soaring automobile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thick carpet of smog blanketed cities .
Huge fish kills were common in stinking lakes and rivers marked by signs warning they were too dangerous for swimming .
Dangerous pesticides such as DDT , about which the author Rachel Carson warned in her famous book , Silent Spring , polluted rivers and made their way up the food chain to kill bald eagles .
In 1969 , two events catalyzed Americans into coming out en masse to declare that they could no longer live this way .
In January , an oil spill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California ’ s coastline , highlighting the lack of federal regulation of offshore drilling at the time .
In June , the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire when oil and chemicals on its surface ignited .
While it was not the first fire on that river or others near industrial sites , the dramatic photos in Time magazine sparked national outrage .
The 20 million Americans who came together the following year for the first Earth Day were from all walks of life—urban , suburban , and rural ; young and old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not the politically polarizing issue it is today .
Indeed , President Richard Nixon focused his 1970 State of the Union address on the environment , created the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) , and signed the United States ’ landmark environmental statutes—the Clean Water Act , Clean Air Act , Endangered Species Act , and National Environmental Policy Act .
Far from being a tree-hugger , Nixon was compelled to act by “ the political significance of the environmental issue , ” according to the chairman of Nixon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The 50th anniversary of Earth Day is an occasion to celebrate the great successes of these laws .
Since 1970 , emissions of the six most common pollutants have dropped by more than 70 percent in the United States , preventing hundreds of thousands of premature deaths.Since 1970 , emissions of the six most common pollutants have dropped by more than 70 percent in the United States , preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths .
The Clean Water Act has dramatically reduced the amount of toxins discharged into lakes , rivers , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swimming or fishing when the act was signed in 1972 .
EPA policies have removed the acid from rain , taken the lead out of gasoline that was causing millions of children to develop cognitive problems and other effects of lead poisoning , and cleaned up thousands of contaminated sites through its Superfund program .
Today , the EPA is often decried as “ job-killing ” and has been hollowed out by the Trump administration .
The agency may be a victim of its own success , as many Americans have forgotten just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and water quality have been since the EPA ’ s creation—even as GDP , consumption , and the standard of living have continued to soar .
The environmental movement ’ s success in the last half-century , however , offers some sobering lessons for how to solve today ’ s environmental challenge of climate change .
First , what motivated Americans to come together 50 years ago was widespread and visible ecological damage already suffered , yet climate change demands a preemptive response .
After the EPA implemented environmental protection rules and programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites , the air and waterways began to clear up in the years that followed .
Today , the Cuyahoga River is full of rowers and paddlers , and the fish are safe to eat .
Climate change , however , results from the total stock of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere .
Once emitted , CO2 persists for centuries or longer .
Some CO2 can be removed , although today that cost is still high .
If we wait until the climate damage is done to mobilize and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late .
Second , climate change is more challenging to solve because it is a global problem .
Every ton of greenhouse gas contributes equally to climate change regardless of where it is emitted , posing wicked collective-action and free-rider challenges .
If one nation decarbonizes but no one else does , it will make little difference , but if everyone else does , any individual nation can reap those benefits even if it takes no action itself .
That is why climate change demands not only aggressive domestic policies , as were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also global cooperation and diplomacy .
Unfortunately , populism , protectionism , and unilateralism are on the rise , with the United States among the worst offenders under President Donald Trump .
Finally , and most importantly , reflections on this historic Earth Day teach us that action on climate change will not be possible until a cultural groundswell demands it .
As Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said , “ The central conservative truth is that it is culture , not politics , that determines the success of a society .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can change a culture and save it from itself.
” Curbing carbon emissions requires policies to change economic incentives and drive the necessary systemic shifts in how millions of firms and individuals produce and consume energy for all cars and trucks , factories and industrial plants , homes and businesses , and more .
City and state leadership is welcome but insufficient , as are voluntary actions to carpool , use public transport , fly less , or otherwise go green .
Yet political action remains elusive , and even those policies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington shifts would still fall far short of the needed scope and scale .
Changing what is politically possible requires the sort of mobilization seen on the first Earth Day .
Today , a cultural awakening about the urgency of climate change is percolating—as students take to the streets in school strikes , major corporations pledge action , and some cities and states lead the way—but we ’ re not there yet .
The public ’ s concern about climate change still falls far short of the urgency that mobilized 20 million people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is because unlike air and water quality , climate change does not affect daily life in the same way as the seminal moments of the environmental movement .
Love Canal , for example , became a symbol of the hazards of toxic waste in the late 1970s , when a community near Niagara Falls became concerned that they were suffering miscarriages and their children were sick from the effects of chemicals dumped in the unfinished waterway decades earlier .
The impacts of climate change are less direct and tangible .
They will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s .
And they will cause greater suffering in poor nations than in the United States .
Unlike the pollution of the 1970s , therefore , elevating society ’ s sense of urgency on climate change requires an ethical awakening , not just greater awareness of how it worsens the droughts , storms , floods , heatwaves , and wildfires that harm Americans today .
The 50th anniversary of Earth Day is an occasion to take stock and celebrate the dramatic progress in cleaning the United States ’ lakes , rivers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also a moment to remember that this could not have happened without a robust role for the federal government and without strong regulation , which turned out to be far less costly than opponents feared .
It also provides a cautionary lesson , however , that policy is insufficient .
Social movements are necessary .
Sadly , the COVID-19 pandemic precludes the sort of in-person , mass mobilization of the first Earth Day .
Yet even if it did not , the lack of a broad-based cultural awareness of the urgency of climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lesson of that first Earth Day is that climate solutions will remain out of reach until that changes .

For wonks like me, figuring out how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions involves studying a byzantine set of regulations, incentives, taxes, and subsidies—and myriad technological eureka moments to fundamentally reshape every nook and cranny of how we power our economy. Yet as we commemorate the 50th annual Earth Day this week, the most important lesson of the environmental movement’s success over the past half-century is that none of this is possible without an underlying social movement and cultural awakening to the urgency of climate change that, sadly, still eludes us.
For wonks like me, figuring out how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions involves studying a byzantine set of regulations, incentives, taxes, and subsidies—and myriad technological eureka moments to fundamentally reshape every nook and cranny of how we power our economy. Yet as we commemorate the 50th annual Earth Day this week, the most important lesson of the environmental movement’s success over the past half-century is that none of this is possible without an underlying social movement and cultural awakening to the urgency of climate change that, sadly, still eludes us.
On April 22, 1970, one of out every 10 Americans came together for a series of rallies, speeches, and teach-ins to tell their leaders they were no longer willing to put up with toxic air and poisoned water. Since then, the event has been held each year in many countries around the world.
Most Americans today take clean air and water for granted, with important exceptions such as the residents of Flint, Michigan. Yet it was not always so. In 1970, after two decades of soaring automobile use and unregulated industrial growth, a thick carpet of smog blanketed cities. Huge fish kills were common in stinking lakes and rivers marked by signs warning they were too dangerous for swimming. Dangerous pesticides such as DDT, about which the author Rachel Carson warned in her famous book, Silent Spring, polluted rivers and made their way up the food chain to kill bald eagles.
In 1969, two events catalyzed Americans into coming out en masse to declare that they could no longer live this way. In January, an oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara damaged California’s coastline, highlighting the lack of federal regulation of offshore drilling at the time. In June, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire when oil and chemicals on its surface ignited. While it was not the first fire on that river or others near industrial sites, the dramatic photos in Time magazine sparked national outrage.
The 20 million Americans who came together the following year for the first Earth Day were from all walks of life—urban, suburban, and rural; young and old; Republican and Democrat. Environmental protection was not the politically polarizing issue it is today. Indeed, President Richard Nixon focused his 1970 State of the Union address on the environment, created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and signed the United States’ landmark environmental statutes—the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act. Far from being a tree-hugger, Nixon was compelled to act by “the political significance of the environmental issue,” according to the chairman of Nixon’s own Task Force on Environmental Policy.
The 50th anniversary of Earth Day is an occasion to celebrate the great successes of these laws. Since 1970, emissions of the six most common pollutants have dropped by more than 70 percent in the United States, preventing hundreds of thousands of premature deaths.Since 1970, emissions of the six most common pollutants have dropped by more than 70 percent in the United States, preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths. The Clean Water Act has dramatically reduced the amount of toxins discharged into lakes, rivers, and coastal waters—two-thirds of which were unsafe for swimming or fishing when the act was signed in 1972. EPA policies have removed the acid from rain, taken the lead out of gasoline that was causing millions of children to develop cognitive problems and other effects of lead poisoning, and cleaned up thousands of contaminated sites through its Superfund program.
Today, the EPA is often decried as “job-killing” and has been hollowed out by the Trump administration. The agency may be a victim of its own success, as many Americans have forgotten just how dramatic the improvements in their air and water quality have been since the EPA’s creation—even as GDP, consumption, and the standard of living have continued to soar.
The environmental movement’s success in the last half-century, however, offers some sobering lessons for how to solve today’s environmental challenge of climate change.
First, what motivated Americans to come together 50 years ago was widespread and visible ecological damage already suffered, yet climate change demands a preemptive response. After the EPA implemented environmental protection rules and programs like Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites, the air and waterways began to clear up in the years that followed. Today, the Cuyahoga River is full of rowers and paddlers, and the fish are safe to eat. Climate change, however, results from the total stock of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Once emitted, CO2 persists for centuries or longer. Some CO2 can be removed, although today that cost is still high. If we wait until the climate damage is done to mobilize and begin decarbonizing, it might be too late.
Second, climate change is more challenging to solve because it is a global problem. Every ton of greenhouse gas contributes equally to climate change regardless of where it is emitted, posing wicked collective-action and free-rider challenges. If one nation decarbonizes but no one else does, it will make little difference, but if everyone else does, any individual nation can reap those benefits even if it takes no action itself. That is why climate change demands not only aggressive domestic policies, as were enacted after the first Earth Day, but also global cooperation and diplomacy. Unfortunately, populism, protectionism, and unilateralism are on the rise, with the United States among the worst offenders under President Donald Trump.
Finally, and most importantly, reflections on this historic Earth Day teach us that action on climate change will not be possible until a cultural groundswell demands it. As Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”
Curbing carbon emissions requires policies to change economic incentives and drive the necessary systemic shifts in how millions of firms and individuals produce and consume energy for all cars and trucks, factories and industrial plants, homes and businesses, and more. City and state leadership is welcome but insufficient, as are voluntary actions to carpool, use public transport, fly less, or otherwise go green. Yet political action remains elusive, and even those policies that may be possible if the landscape in Washington shifts would still fall far short of the needed scope and scale.
Changing what is politically possible requires the sort of mobilization seen on the first Earth Day. Today, a cultural awakening about the urgency of climate change is percolating—as students take to the streets in school strikes, major corporations pledge action, and some cities and states lead the way—but we’re not there yet. The public’s concern about climate change still falls far short of the urgency that mobilized 20 million people to rally 50 years ago.
Perhaps that is because unlike air and water quality, climate change does not affect daily life in the same way as the seminal moments of the environmental movement. Love Canal, for example, became a symbol of the hazards of toxic waste in the late 1970s, when a community near Niagara Falls became concerned that they were suffering miscarriages and their children were sick from the effects of chemicals dumped in the unfinished waterway decades earlier.
The impacts of climate change are less direct and tangible. They will also affect future generations more than today’s. And they will cause greater suffering in poor nations than in the United States. Unlike the pollution of the 1970s, therefore, elevating society’s sense of urgency on climate change requires an ethical awakening, not just greater awareness of how it worsens the droughts, storms, floods, heatwaves, and wildfires that harm Americans today.
The 50th anniversary of Earth Day is an occasion to take stock and celebrate the dramatic progress in cleaning the United States’ lakes, rivers, land, and air. It is also a moment to remember that this could not have happened without a robust role for the federal government and without strong regulation, which turned out to be far less costly than opponents feared. It also provides a cautionary lesson, however, that policy is insufficient. Social movements are necessary. Sadly, the COVID-19 pandemic precludes the sort of in-person, mass mobilization of the first Earth Day. Yet even if it did not, the lack of a broad-based cultural awareness of the urgency of climate change would stymie such mobilization. The lesson of that first Earth Day is that climate solutions will remain out of reach until that changes.