foreignpolicy--2020-09-03--To Fight the Coronavirus, Myanmar Needs a Cease-Fire in Rakhine

Myanmar has reported only six deaths from COVID-19 so far , but its limited health infrastructure raises concerns about its potential ability to control a larger outbreak .
Three years ago , a brutal military campaign pushed more than 700,000 members of the Rohingya Muslim minority to flee across the border to Bangladesh .
Since late 2018 , the state has faced another crisis : the escalating conflict between the rebel Arakan Army , which seeks autonomy for Rakhine , and Myanmar ’ s armed forces , known as the Tatmadaw .
By July , the violence—which has spread to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 200,000 people , according to the Rakhine Ethnics Congress , an organization monitoring the conflict .
The pandemic has not slowed the fighting : The Rakhine state government reported that nearly 82,000 people were displaced between March 16 and July 6 .
Coronavirus cases are now rising alongside civilian casualties and displacement , and Rakhine state ’ s health infrastructure could easily become overwhelmed .
The state government has limited access for humanitarian organizations to some conflict-affected populations since early 2019 .
And for more than a year , the national government has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rakhine and Chin states—restricting access to information for more than 1 million people .
In response to the Rakhine outbreak , the Myanmar government has imposed strict prevention and control measures and sent doctors to Sittwe .
But in the context of the ongoing conflict , the response may fall short of what is needed to avert a public health disaster .
The Arakan Army , established in 2009 , seeks self-determination for the Arakanese , a predominantly Buddhist population in Rakhine state .
Arakanese grievances toward central governance date to the late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invaded the Arakan kingdom based in Mrauk U , which for three centuries was a prosperous trading hub .
Today , Rakhine state is one of Myanmar ’ s poorest .
The armed conflict between the Arakan Army and the Tatmadaw has taken a high civilian toll .
On Aug. 31 , Radio Free Asia reported that 620 people had been injured and 282 killed since December 2018 , when the fighting escalated .
An Amnesty International briefing , based on data collected in May and June , documented ongoing indiscriminate airstrikes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of villages , and the arbitrary detention and torture of civilians .
Myanmar ’ s government has made it difficult for non-state actors to monitor the conflict and alleged human rights violations .
In addition to the internet restrictions , the government has blocked access to several websites , including two ethnic Rakhine media outlets reporting on the conflict , for allegedly distributing “ fake news.
” In March , the government also designated the Arakan Army as a terrorist organization , after which two local media editors were charged with violating a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group .
The increase in violence in Rakhine comes as most of the world is focused on fighting COVID-19 .
On March 23 , U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres issued an appeal for a global cease-fire , citing the vulnerability of conflict-affected and displaced populations to both the effects of violence and the virus .
Civil society organizations , foreign ambassadors , and ethnic parties called for the Tatmadaw to heed Guterres ’ s appeal , while several ethnic armed organizations , including the Arakan Army and its allies , extended cease-fire offers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cease-fire until May 9 , which was recently extended to the end of September .
But it excludes areas where state-designated terrorist organizations including the Arakan Army operate—effectively leaving out Rakhine and southern Chin .
The Arakan Army and its allies extended cease-fire offers to the Tatmadaw on June 1 and Sept. 1 , with the stated aim of initiating political dialogue toward a lasting peace agreement and combating the coronavirus outbreak .
The Tatmadaw rejected the June bid and has not yet issued a response to the September request .
The ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response in Rakhine .
While domestic air travel was suspended in April , all test samples from Rakhine state were sent to Yangon via car .
On April 20 , a marked World Health Organization ( WHO ) vehicle transporting samples came under fire , killing the driver and injuring another WHO staff member .
The Arakan Army and the Tatmadaw blamed each other .
Now most test samples are sent to Yangon on commercial flights—but the flights do not run daily , creating obstacles to timely testing , a government health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the condition of anonymity .
He said that despite their best efforts , health care workers are struggling to manage contact tracing in the state .
The government restored 2G internet in August , but a shutdown of 3G and 4G services in eight townships still leaves conflict-affected populations with scant access to real-time information about the pandemic .
In a statement published in April , the government said that in areas with suspended internet data , it was providing information via SMS and audio announcements , “ with a view to ensuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Meanwhile , the government has sought to silence dissent over the restrictions .
On Sept. 4 , a court will for an activist charged in relation to a banner hung in June reading , “ Is the internet being shut down to hide war crimes and killing people ?
” Nine other student activists were briefly jailed following demonstrations in February .
Kyaw Lynn , one of the jailed students , said a full restoration of services is urgently needed to protect the health and safety of civilians in Rakhine .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of transparency created by the internet shutdown causes insecurity , ” he said .
Citing security , the Rakhine state government has restricted most non-governmental organizations and U.N. agencies from traveling to rural areas and six conflict-affected townships since early 2019 .
The Tatmadaw has also at times blocked aid shipments to displaced populations .
Local organizations and volunteer groups have stepped up to fill the void , and monastery compounds and other informal sites have taken in large numbers of IDPs .
Conflict-displaced populations are particularly at risk of contracting the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Mrauk U Youth Association , told Foreign Policy that locals are running several IDP camps in Mrauk U , which hosts more than 18,000 IDPs .
Yet community donations to provide this support are diminishing , and IDPs have few options to support their basic needs , he said .
In addition to government restrictions on aid , the pandemic has further disrupted the flow of aid to the region , and local media have recently reported food shortages in some IDP camps .
Conflict-displaced populations are particularly at risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IDP camps make social distancing difficult , while soap and clean water are in some cases in short supply .
While testing among IDPs remains limited , aid workers from international humanitarian organizations who had recently traveled to IDP camps in three townships in Rakhine state have tested positive for COVID-19 .
But Min Bar Chay , the director of the Arakan Civil Society Organization Network in Sittwe , said he hoped to see more from the government .
Civil society organizations are taking an active role in the response , providing quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those under government-run quarantine , and raising awareness about virus prevention , he said .
“ We are taking responsibility and action for the COVID-19 response due to the government ’ s insufficient accountability and responsibility , ” Min Bar Chay said .
In addition to the ongoing restrictions on humanitarian access and the internet , Myanmar excluded the Arakan Army from national-level peace talks held in August , extinguishing optimism for constructive dialogue in the near future .
The government should restore full internet services and allow humanitarian access.But it is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Rakhine .
The government should engage in public messaging that shows an unequivocal commitment to ending the conflict , allow journalists to report freely on the situation in Rakhine without fear of arrest , and grant independent rights monitors unrestricted access .
Both sides of the conflict should also condemn violence against civilians and commit to protecting civilian lives .
For the Myanmar government , this includes holding the Tatmadaw accountable for abuses .
The government has emphasized its efforts to ensure no one is left behind in its COVID-19 response in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ending the armed conflict to address humanitarian needs .
To slow the spread of the coronavirus , the warring parties should agree to a cease-fire , and the government should restore full internet services and allow humanitarian access .
There is no time to lose in halting the violence in Rakhine state .
While lasting peace and reconciliation may be a distant hope , this should not stand in the way of the pandemic response .
This story was made possible with support from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting .

People prepare dinner at the Shitthaung camp for displaced people in Mrauk U, Myanmar, on Aug. 20. International humanitarian access to the township has been largely blocked since early 2019, and many camps are run by local civil society organizations and community volunteers. Hkun Lat for Foreign Policy
YANGON, Myanmar—On Aug. 16, Myanmar’s health ministry announced the country’s first locally transmitted COVID-19 case in a month in Sittwe, the capital of Rakhine state. By Sept. 1, the number of confirmed cases across the state had risen to 393, while as of Sept. 3, the whole country has recorded 1,111 cases since the coronavirus pandemic began.
Myanmar has reported only six deaths from COVID-19 so far, but its limited health infrastructure raises concerns about its potential ability to control a larger outbreak. Three years ago, a brutal military campaign pushed more than 700,000 members of the Rohingya Muslim minority to flee across the border to Bangladesh. Since late 2018, the state has faced another crisis: the escalating conflict between the rebel Arakan Army, which seeks autonomy for Rakhine, and Myanmar’s armed forces, known as the Tatmadaw.
By July, the violence—which has spread to a neighboring state, Chin—had displaced nearly 200,000 people, according to the Rakhine Ethnics Congress, an organization monitoring the conflict. The pandemic has not slowed the fighting: The Rakhine state government reported that nearly 82,000 people were displaced between March 16 and July 6.
Coronavirus cases are now rising alongside civilian casualties and displacement, and Rakhine state’s health infrastructure could easily become overwhelmed. The state government has limited access for humanitarian organizations to some conflict-affected populations since early 2019. And for more than a year, the national government has blocked high-speed internet in eight townships in Rakhine and Chin states—restricting access to information for more than 1 million people.
In response to the Rakhine outbreak, the Myanmar government has imposed strict prevention and control measures and sent doctors to Sittwe. But in the context of the ongoing conflict, the response may fall short of what is needed to avert a public health disaster.
People sit on a hill to search for a 3G signal in Mrauk-U, Myanmar, on Aug. 20. The government has blocked high-speed internet in the township since June 2019.
Rakhine state has experienced conflict and instability for much of the last decade. In addition to the violence against the Rohingya in 2017, for which Myanmar now faces genocide charges at the International Court of Justice at the Hague, sectarian violence in 2012 resulted in the confinement of around 130,000 Rohingya to internally displaced person (IDP) camps in Sittwe, where they remain without freedom of movement.
The Arakan Army, established in 2009, seeks self-determination for the Arakanese, a predominantly Buddhist population in Rakhine state. Arakanese grievances toward central governance date to the late 18th century, when the Burmese empire invaded the Arakan kingdom based in Mrauk U, which for three centuries was a prosperous trading hub. Today, Rakhine state is one of Myanmar’s poorest.
The armed conflict between the Arakan Army and the Tatmadaw has taken a high civilian toll. On Aug. 31, Radio Free Asia reported that 620 people had been injured and 282 killed since December 2018, when the fighting escalated. An Amnesty International briefing, based on data collected in May and June, documented ongoing indiscriminate airstrikes and shelling of civilian areas, the destruction of villages, and the arbitrary detention and torture of civilians.
Myanmar’s government has made it difficult for non-state actors to monitor the conflict and alleged human rights violations. In addition to the internet restrictions, the government has blocked access to several websites, including two ethnic Rakhine media outlets reporting on the conflict, for allegedly distributing “fake news.” In March, the government also designated the Arakan Army as a terrorist organization, after which two local media editors were charged with violating a counter-terrorism law for publishing interviews with the group.
The increase in violence in Rakhine comes as most of the world is focused on fighting COVID-19. On March 23, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres issued an appeal for a global cease-fire, citing the vulnerability of conflict-affected and displaced populations to both the effects of violence and the virus. Civil society organizations, foreign ambassadors, and ethnic parties called for the Tatmadaw to heed Guterres’s appeal, while several ethnic armed organizations, including the Arakan Army and its allies, extended cease-fire offers.
The Tatmadaw did not declare a nationwide cease-fire until May 9, which was recently extended to the end of September. But it excludes areas where state-designated terrorist organizations including the Arakan Army operate—effectively leaving out Rakhine and southern Chin. The Arakan Army and its allies extended cease-fire offers to the Tatmadaw on June 1 and Sept. 1, with the stated aim of initiating political dialogue toward a lasting peace agreement and combating the coronavirus outbreak. The Tatmadaw rejected the June bid and has not yet issued a response to the September request.
The ongoing conflict presents severe obstacles to the COVID-19 response in Rakhine. While domestic air travel was suspended in April, all test samples from Rakhine state were sent to Yangon via car. On April 20, a marked World Health Organization (WHO) vehicle transporting samples came under fire, killing the driver and injuring another WHO staff member. The Arakan Army and the Tatmadaw blamed each other.
Now most test samples are sent to Yangon on commercial flights—but the flights do not run daily, creating obstacles to timely testing, a government health care professional in Rakhine told Foreign Policy on the condition of anonymity. He said that despite their best efforts, health care workers are struggling to manage contact tracing in the state.
The government restored 2G internet in August, but a shutdown of 3G and 4G services in eight townships still leaves conflict-affected populations with scant access to real-time information about the pandemic. In a statement published in April, the government said that in areas with suspended internet data, it was providing information via SMS and audio announcements, “with a view to ensuring that no one is left uncared for.”
Meanwhile, the government has sought to silence dissent over the restrictions. On Sept. 4, a court will deliver a verdict for an activist charged in relation to a banner hung in June reading, “Is the internet being shut down to hide war crimes and killing people?” Nine other student activists were briefly jailed following demonstrations in February.
Kyaw Lynn, one of the jailed students, said a full restoration of services is urgently needed to protect the health and safety of civilians in Rakhine. “Especially in conflict-affected areas, the lack of transparency created by the internet shutdown causes insecurity,” he said.
Citing security, the Rakhine state government has restricted most non-governmental organizations and U.N. agencies from traveling to rural areas and six conflict-affected townships since early 2019. The Tatmadaw has also at times blocked aid shipments to displaced populations. Local organizations and volunteer groups have stepped up to fill the void, and monastery compounds and other informal sites have taken in large numbers of IDPs.
Conflict-displaced populations are particularly at risk of contracting the coronavirus. Khine Murn Chun, the president of the Mrauk U Youth Association, told Foreign Policy that locals are running several IDP camps in Mrauk U, which hosts more than 18,000 IDPs. Yet community donations to provide this support are diminishing, and IDPs have few options to support their basic needs, he said. In addition to government restrictions on aid, the pandemic has further disrupted the flow of aid to the region, and local media have recently reported food shortages in some IDP camps.
Conflict-displaced populations are particularly at risk of contracting the coronavirus. Overcrowded conditions in IDP camps make social distancing difficult, while soap and clean water are in some cases in short supply. While testing among IDPs remains limited, aid workers from international humanitarian organizations who had recently traveled to IDP camps in three townships in Rakhine state have tested positive for COVID-19.
On Aug. 28, the Rakhine chief minister said the state government had so far spent 1 billion kyats, or around $748,000, on fighting the spread of the coronavirus, while Myanmar’s civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi guaranteed sufficient food and financial assistance across the state.
But Min Bar Chay, the director of the Arakan Civil Society Organization Network in Sittwe, said he hoped to see more from the government. Civil society organizations are taking an active role in the response, providing quarantine facilities, collecting food and blankets for those under government-run quarantine, and raising awareness about virus prevention, he said.
“We are taking responsibility and action for the COVID-19 response due to the government’s insufficient accountability and responsibility,” Min Bar Chay said.
In addition to the ongoing restrictions on humanitarian access and the internet, Myanmar excluded the Arakan Army from national-level peace talks held in August, extinguishing optimism for constructive dialogue in the near future.
The government should restore full internet services and allow humanitarian access.But it is not too late to work toward sustainable peace in Rakhine. The government should engage in public messaging that shows an unequivocal commitment to ending the conflict, allow journalists to report freely on the situation in Rakhine without fear of arrest, and grant independent rights monitors unrestricted access. Both sides of the conflict should also condemn violence against civilians and commit to protecting civilian lives. For the Myanmar government, this includes holding the Tatmadaw accountable for abuses.
The government has emphasized its efforts to ensure no one is left behind in its COVID-19 response in Rakhine state, highlighting the importance of ending the armed conflict to address humanitarian needs. To slow the spread of the coronavirus, the warring parties should agree to a cease-fire, and the government should restore full internet services and allow humanitarian access. There is no time to lose in halting the violence in Rakhine state.
While lasting peace and reconciliation may be a distant hope, this should not stand in the way of the pandemic response.
This story was made possible with support from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.


foreignpolicy--2020-09-03--Trump’s Vaccine Can’t Be Trusted

Trump’s Vaccine Can’t Be Trusted

State and territorial governors across America have received a letter dated Aug. 27 from the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , Robert Redfield , instructing them to grant facilities and licensing to a private contractor , McKesson Co. , for mass immunizations .
“ CDC urgently requests your assistance in expediting applications for these distribution facilities , ” Redfield wrote , “ and , if necessary , asks that you consider waiving requirements that would prevent these facilities from becoming fully operational by November 1 , 2020.
” With that mass vaccination date @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not coincidentally , two days before the national elections—states must scramble to submit their immunization scheme to the CDC for approval by Oct. 1 .
This must cover everything from logistics and personnel to public education and recruitment .
The pace required here is astounding , dramatically more rapid than any prior drug or vaccine rollout in history .
Though officials insist no corners are being cut , the timetable is simply too short for full safety analysis of any vaccine .
It is hard to comprehend the decision as anything but an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican National Convention last month , President Donald Trump vowed , “ We are delivering lifesaving therapies , and will produce a vaccine before the end of the year , or maybe even sooner !
We will defeat the virus , end the pandemic , and emerge stronger than ever before.
” Determined to prove that he has COVID-19 under control , Trump and his supporters are consistently using past-tense verbiage when talking about the American epidemic , which has to date [ Sept. 3 , 2020 ] caused 6.3 million American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
The United States is counting about 42,000 new cases per day , down from the 60,000/day high of July , but still well-above the late March daily tallies of 8,000-10,000 .
Let ’ s be crystal clear about this : No American or European putative vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus has completed Phase 3 clinical safety and efficacy trials .
Even the front-runners , such as products in development by AstraZeneca in the UK or by American companies Pfizer , Moderna , Novavax , or Johnson & Johnson , are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which are expected to involve at least 30,000 people per potential vaccine .
Having a vaccine adequately tested and ready for review on Oct. 22 , when the Food and Drug Administration ’ s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee plans to meet , will be a heavy lift for all companies .
Even if a company is able by that date to prove that people who received its product were fully protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection , it can ’ t possibly guarantee safety , as many complications may be extremely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in a quick sampling of healthy adults .
This is why vaccine clinical trials usually last for several months , and involve far more volunteers than have been recruited for the COVID-19 products .
For example , the last mad rush to vaccinate , in 2009 against H1N1 swine flu , led to a bad batch of vaccine that , among other things , caused Guillain-Barré paralysis in 62 people , or 6.2 per 10 million patients who received the vaccine .
A side effect that rare is unlikely to be seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthy adults , only half of whom get a vaccine ( the other half , a placebo ) .
In 1955 , a company called Cutter made the first batch of Salk polio vaccines , which were contaminated , paralyzing thousands and killing at least five children .
A small , but cautionary list of vaccines that were rushed to market , inadequately tested , should inform this moment .
In a pell-mell rush to get COVID-19 treatments , tests , policies , and vaccines out before the November election , the credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually trusted health agencies has been undermined .
Under direct pressure from Peter Navarro , Assistant to the President , Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy , and the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator , as well as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , Vice President Mike Pence and the president himself , agency directors have buckled , going against their own scientific expertise to yield to White House demands .
There is little reason remaining for the American people to trust pandemic guidelines or policy decisions handed down by the Food and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) .
On Aug. 22 , Trump attacked Steve Hahn , the man he appointed to head up the FDA , tweeting , “ The deep state , or whoever , over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics .
Obviously , they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd .
Must focus on speed , and saving lives !
” Two days later , Hahn and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warp Speed vaccine approval will be rapid , but “ will meet standards for safety.
” The list of credibility-defying public health agency actions extends much longer .
From the EPA , came an Aug. 24 “ major game-changing announcement , ” as Administrator Andrew Wheeler put it , that SurfaceWise2 , made by Allied BioScience , was a safe , 100 percent-effective disinfectant that airlines should use to clean SARS-CoV-2 from aircraft .
But the compound , which is an eye and skin irritant , was never submitted to a human health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Airlines immediately embraced the chemical , hoping its “ clean commitment ” might lure customers back to the skies after the company ’ s second-quarter $ 2.1 billion losses .
The CDC ’ s credibility has taken the biggest hit .
In July , four former directors of the CDC were already so exasperated by the COVID policy reversals and vacillations on opening schools , mask-wearing , and safe business operations made by the agency that they jointly wrote in the Washington Post : “ The administration is undermining public health.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shocked public health advocates by announcing it was no longer wise to COVID-test individuals showing no disease symptoms .
The agency ’ s decision was defended from inside the White House by Brett Giroir , the pediatrician and assistant secretary for health , who lashed out at critics .
But the ranks of the critical simply expanded , eventually including the President of the American Medical Association , Susan Bailey .
At least half of all transmission of the virus—perhaps more—involves spread from people who have no symptoms , so cutting them from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the disease , the critics argued .
The CDC backed off , modifying its guidelines to suggest that yes , asymptomatic people who believe they might have been in contact with an infected person should get tested .
But the FDA appears to be the agency under the greatest pressure from the White House .
After Trump profusely praised the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine , the FDA , despite any clear evidence that the drug countered COVID-19 , granted it an Emergency Use Approval ( EUA ) on March 28 , ignoring concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was reversed weeks later when large studies showed the drug had no benefit , and might be harmful .
In May , the agency granted an EUA for use of an anti-Ebola drug on COVID-19 patients , remdesivir , which was initially touted as a life-saving treatment .
But in August , a review of remdesivir use in 105 hospitals worldwide found no clear benefits from the drug—definitely no mortality impact .
Nevertheless , the FDA expanded the EUA , allowing broader use of the drug in COVID-19 cases , drawing outrage from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar stripped the FDA of authority to approve , or deny , licensing of COVID tests .
The FDA toiled to keep test makers relatively honest—a tough task given hundreds of companies of all sizes , from all over the world , want to cash in on the American appetite for the tests .
By late August , the agency had issued emergency approvals for 35 SARS-CoV-2 tests .
But Azar ’ s office felt the FDA was slowing access to innovative COVID tests , and insisted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to regulate the market .
On Aug. 25 , HHS stopped FDA engagement in the arena , and greenlighted new rapid assays that immediately benefited on the stock market .
And then , of course , there is the shameful situation involving convalescent plasma therapy .
In mid-August , Navarro berated a group of FDA officials , saying , “ You are all Deep State , and you need to get on Trump Time.
” The sin that drew Navarro ’ s wrath was the FDA ’ s decision to put off approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , despite some 90,000 people worldwide having received transfusions of antibody-filled plasma from COVID survivors to boost their own immune systems ’ ability to fight off the virus .
The FDA was , for its part , merely following the advice of top scientists at the National Institutes of Health , including Anthony Fauci , who concluded there was no evidence the therapy actually worked .
The NIH leaders told their counterparts at FDA that the Mayo Clinic surveyed clinical results on 35,322 transfused patients , only finding weak evidence that patients receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared to patients that never got transfusions .
The FDA agreed , until Navarro ’ s and Trump ’ s interventions .
“ There should absolutely be no controversy about convalescent plasma , ” Navarro , who is not a scientist , said .
“ The odds of it hurting you are close to zero .
The odds of it helping you are close to 100 percent.
” So , on Aug. 23 the FDA reversed itself , giving plasma therapy an EUA green light , and on the eve of the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press conference Trump announced “ a very historic breakthrough ” against COVID-19 , that “ would save countless lives.
” FDA Commissioner Hahn told reporters that the plasma therapy results were spectacular .
“ We dream in drug development of something like a 35 percent mortality reduction .
This is a major advance in the treatment of patients .
This is a major advance…a 35 percent improvement in survival is a pretty substantial clinical benefit .
What that means is — and if the data continue to pan out — [ of ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 35 would have been saved because of the admission of plasma.
” Eric Topol , an American cardiologist and scientist , retorted , “ Every part of that statement is incorrect and a blatant misrepresentation of the data.
” Topol , who is director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla , California , continued , “ Dear Commissioner Hahn : Tell the Truth or Resign.
” Realizing he ’ d made a rookie mistake in interpreting the Mayo Clinic paper , Hahn tweeted a mea culpa ; “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday night about the benefits of convalescent plasma .
The criticism is entirely justified .
What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction , ” of 35 percent mortality .
Hahn conceded the treatment didn ’ t work .
But Hahn did not rescind the FDA ’ s emergency approval of the treatment .
Instead , three communications officers at the agency were fired for failing to give the Commissioner proper talking points .
By the end of August , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loud , warning that the agency appeared politically compromised , and might not be trustworthy to properly handle assessment of COVID-19 vaccines .
And now , here we are , with formal FDA assessment of vaccine candidates only weeks away .
In early August , 417 vaccine experts sent a letter to the FDA ’ s Hahn , expressing concern that Operation Warp Speed—the Trump administration ’ s multibillion-dollar vaccine campaign—was overly politicizing the effort and corners might be cut in safety and efficacy screening .
Others have noted that release of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanently eroding public trust in the entire process , leading to the populace ’ s refusal to immunize .
That ’ s worrying because Americans , regardless of their political affiliations , already think the vaccine process is overly politicized , and are highly suspicious of claims regarding product safety , according to a recent Harris Poll .
In a lengthy pre-print released this week , three prominent vaccine experts from the Weill Cornell Medical College in New York surveyed in detail what is known about the top COVID vaccines worldwide , reaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue , no two companies are testing their would-be vaccines the same way , and the FDA has never laid out a clear standard against which to measure their efficacy .
As a result , they say , it is nearly impossible to compare the performance of one vaccine to another .
And secondly , “ there is almost no information available ” about the roles the various arms of the human immune system play in battling SARS-CoV-2 , especially T-cell responses , making it next to impossible to say what type of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for how long .
Internationally , the World Health Organization has tried to set vaccine aspirations , laying out standards a product should achieve before being put into widespread use .
As a start , it should be at least strong enough to protect half the vaccinated people against infection—the FDA standard for COVID is to allow approval of vaccines that work “ in the majority ” of people .
“ Funders , vaccine developers , researchers , and government institutions have signed an international statement of collaboration in vaccine research , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Several of these developers and more than 250 research sites intend to join the WHO Solidarity Vaccines Trial in the hope of bringing forward the time when the world will move beyond the widespread disease , death , and disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic.
” That WHO Solidarity effort is part of a 172-nation commitment , the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility , or COVAX , which aims to hasten collaboration worldwide for creation of a vaccine for all of humanity .
“ Our only way out of this pandemic is together , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an Aug. 24 COVAX press event in Geneva .
But the White House announced on Sept. 2nd that the United States will refuse to join in , or cooperate with , COVAX .
“ The United States will continue to engage our international partners to ensure we defeat this virus , but we will not be constrained by multilateral organizations influenced by the corrupt World Health Organization and China , ” said White House spokesman Judd Deere .
Instead , the Trump administration plans to usher a vaccine into the arms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the very experimental products made from the genetic material—the DNA or RNA—of the virus .
This material , it turns out , is so fragile that it must be stored at a -80 degree F temperature , well below anything a standard freezer can handle .
So , in order to comply with the CDC ’ s request that they have a vaccine plan ready by Oct. 1 , governors are going to have to explain how they plan to move ultra-deep-freezing units around .
Whether the public will be interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under these circumstances is another question .
What is clear is that there ’ s little rational reason to trust America ’ s public health agencies any more—the Trump administration has seen to that .
On April 3 , Trump scoffed at CDC recommendations that Americans wear masks to avoid viral spread , smirking that he wouldn ’ t be covering his face .
With that , he polarized mask-wearing , and most of his followers have followed their leader , shunning masks .
By rushing vaccine approval to meet a pre-elections deadline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for political polarity .
Those lines of Americans two days before the election , queued for immunization , may well be Trump ’ s most ardent followers , wearing MAGA hats and no masks , fully confident that their leader has found a way to protect them from the 21st-century plague .

True to the president’s word—or threat, perhaps—the United States government is preparing to roll out a COVID-19 vaccine on, or before, Nov. 1, even though none of the more than 150 vaccines in the research pipeline worldwide have completed Phase 3 safety and efficacy clinical trials. In its mad sprint to Election Day, the White House has funneled billions of dollars into drug companies and ordered government agencies to execute their public health duties at breakneck speeds that defy credulity. Like most experts closely watching these developments, I have no confidence that a safe, effective vaccine will be ready for use by Halloween. Worse, I can no longer recommend that anyone retain faith in any public health pronouncements issued by government agencies.
True to the president’s word—or threat, perhaps—the United States government is preparing to roll out a COVID-19 vaccine on, or before, Nov. 1, even though none of the more than 150 vaccines in the research pipeline worldwide have completed Phase 3 safety and efficacy clinical trials. In its mad sprint to Election Day, the White House has funneled billions of dollars into drug companies and ordered government agencies to execute their public health duties at breakneck speeds that defy credulity. Like most experts closely watching these developments, I have no confidence that a safe, effective vaccine will be ready for use by Halloween. Worse, I can no longer recommend that anyone retain faith in any public health pronouncements issued by government agencies.
State and territorial governors across America have received a letter dated Aug. 27 from the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Robert Redfield, instructing them to grant facilities and licensing to a private contractor, McKesson Co., for mass immunizations. “CDC urgently requests your assistance in expediting applications for these distribution facilities,” Redfield wrote, “and, if necessary, asks that you consider waiving requirements that would prevent these facilities from becoming fully operational by November 1, 2020.”
With that mass vaccination date less than 58 days away—and, surely not coincidentally, two days before the national elections—states must scramble to submit their immunization scheme to the CDC for approval by Oct. 1. This must cover everything from logistics and personnel to public education and recruitment. The pace required here is astounding, dramatically more rapid than any prior drug or vaccine rollout in history. Though officials insist no corners are being cut, the timetable is simply too short for full safety analysis of any vaccine.
It is hard to comprehend the decision as anything but an election maneuver. In his speech to the Republican National Convention last month, President Donald Trump vowed, “We are delivering lifesaving therapies, and will produce a vaccine before the end of the year, or maybe even sooner! We will defeat the virus, end the pandemic, and emerge stronger than ever before.”
Determined to prove that he has COVID-19 under control, Trump and his supporters are consistently using past-tense verbiage when talking about the American epidemic, which has to date [Sept. 3, 2020] caused 6.3 million American cases of COVID-19, killing 186,000 of them. The United States is counting about 42,000 new cases per day, down from the 60,000/day high of July, but still well-above the late March daily tallies of 8,000-10,000.
Let’s be crystal clear about this: No American or European putative vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus has completed Phase 3 clinical safety and efficacy trials. Even the front-runners, such as products in development by AstraZeneca in the UK or by American companies Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax, or Johnson&Johnson, are still signing up volunteers for their clinical trials, which are expected to involve at least 30,000 people per potential vaccine. Having a vaccine adequately tested and ready for review on Oct. 22, when the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee plans to meet, will be a heavy lift for all companies.
Even if a company is able by that date to prove that people who received its product were fully protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection, it can’t possibly guarantee safety, as many complications may be extremely rare, even if life-threatening—and not show up in a quick sampling of healthy adults. This is why vaccine clinical trials usually last for several months, and involve far more volunteers than have been recruited for the COVID-19 products. For example, the last mad rush to vaccinate, in 2009 against H1N1 swine flu, led to a bad batch of vaccine that, among other things, caused Guillain-Barré paralysis in 62 people, or 6.2 per 10 million patients who received the vaccine. A side effect that rare is unlikely to be seen in a clinical trial involving just 30,000 healthy adults, only half of whom get a vaccine (the other half, a placebo). In 1955, a company called Cutter made the first batch of Salk polio vaccines, which were contaminated, paralyzing thousands and killing at least five children. A small, but cautionary list of vaccines that were rushed to market, inadequately tested, should inform this moment.
In a pell-mell rush to get COVID-19 treatments, tests, policies, and vaccines out before the November election, the credibility of America’s most vital and usually trusted health agencies has been undermined. Under direct pressure from Peter Navarro, Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator, as well as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Vice President Mike Pence and the president himself, agency directors have buckled, going against their own scientific expertise to yield to White House demands. There is little reason remaining for the American people to trust pandemic guidelines or policy decisions handed down by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the CDC, or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) .
On Aug. 22, Trump attacked Steve Hahn, the man he appointed to head up the FDA, tweeting, “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd. Must focus on speed, and saving lives!” Two days later, Hahn and his FDA associates published assurances that Operation Warp Speed vaccine approval will be rapid, but “will meet standards for safety.”
The list of credibility-defying public health agency actions extends much longer. From the EPA, came an Aug. 24 “major game-changing announcement,” as Administrator Andrew Wheeler put it, that SurfaceWise2, made by Allied BioScience, was a safe, 100 percent-effective disinfectant that airlines should use to clean SARS-CoV-2 from aircraft. But the compound, which is an eye and skin irritant, was never submitted to a human health review by the agency. Nevertheless, American Airlines immediately embraced the chemical, hoping its “clean commitment” might lure customers back to the skies after the company’s second-quarter $2.1 billion losses.
The CDC’s credibility has taken the biggest hit. In July, four former directors of the CDC were already so exasperated by the COVID policy reversals and vacillations on opening schools, mask-wearing, and safe business operations made by the agency that they jointly wrote in the Washington Post: “The administration is undermining public health.” Then, in mid-August, the agency shocked public health advocates by announcing it was no longer wise to COVID-test individuals showing no disease symptoms. The agency’s decision was defended from inside the White House by Brett Giroir, the pediatrician and assistant secretary for health, who lashed out at critics. But the ranks of the critical simply expanded, eventually including the President of the American Medical Association, Susan Bailey. At least half of all transmission of the virus—perhaps more—involves spread from people who have no symptoms, so cutting them from the testing ranks would allow wider spread of the disease, the critics argued. The CDC backed off, modifying its guidelines to suggest that yes, asymptomatic people who believe they might have been in contact with an infected person should get tested.
But the FDA appears to be the agency under the greatest pressure from the White House. After Trump profusely praised the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, the FDA, despite any clear evidence that the drug countered COVID-19, granted it an Emergency Use Approval (EUA) on March 28, ignoring concerns raised by agency scientists. That EUA was reversed weeks later when large studies showed the drug had no benefit, and might be harmful.
In May, the agency granted an EUA for use of an anti-Ebola drug on COVID-19 patients, remdesivir, which was initially touted as a life-saving treatment. But in August, a review of remdesivir use in 105 hospitals worldwide found no clear benefits from the drug—definitely no mortality impact. Nevertheless, the FDA expanded the EUA, allowing broader use of the drug in COVID-19 cases, drawing outrage from top physicians.
More recently, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar stripped the FDA of authority to approve, or deny, licensing of COVID tests. The FDA toiled to keep test makers relatively honest—a tough task given hundreds of companies of all sizes, from all over the world, want to cash in on the American appetite for the tests. By late August, the agency had issued emergency approvals for 35 SARS-CoV-2 tests. But Azar’s office felt the FDA was slowing access to innovative COVID tests, and insisted that the agency had no clear legal mandate to regulate the market. On Aug. 25, HHS stopped FDA engagement in the arena, and greenlighted new rapid assays that immediately benefited on the stock market.
And then, of course, there is the shameful situation involving convalescent plasma therapy. In mid-August, Navarro berated a group of FDA officials, saying, “You are all Deep State, and you need to get on Trump Time.” The sin that drew Navarro’s wrath was the FDA’s decision to put off approval of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 treatment, despite some 90,000 people worldwide having received transfusions of antibody-filled plasma from COVID survivors to boost their own immune systems’ ability to fight off the virus. The FDA was, for its part, merely following the advice of top scientists at the National Institutes of Health, including Anthony Fauci, who concluded there was no evidence the therapy actually worked. The NIH leaders told their counterparts at FDA that the Mayo Clinic surveyed clinical results on 35,322 transfused patients, only finding weak evidence that patients receiving the treatment were more likely to survive compared to patients that never got transfusions.
The FDA agreed, until Navarro’s and Trump’s interventions. “There should absolutely be no controversy about convalescent plasma,” Navarro, who is not a scientist, said. “The odds of it hurting you are close to zero. The odds of it helping you are close to 100 percent.”
So, on Aug. 23 the FDA reversed itself, giving plasma therapy an EUA green light, and on the eve of the Republican National Convention in an unusual Sunday evening press conference Trump announced “a very historic breakthrough” against COVID-19, that “would save countless lives.” FDA Commissioner Hahn told reporters that the plasma therapy results were spectacular. “We dream in drug development of something like a 35 percent mortality reduction. This is a major advance in the treatment of patients. This is a major advance…a 35 percent improvement in survival is a pretty substantial clinical benefit. What that means is — and if the data continue to pan out — [of] 100 people who are sick with COVID-19, 35 would have been saved because of the admission of plasma.”
Eric Topol, an American cardiologist and scientist, retorted, “Every part of that statement is incorrect and a blatant misrepresentation of the data.” Topol, who is director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, California, continued, “Dear Commissioner Hahn: Tell the Truth or Resign.”
Realizing he’d made a rookie mistake in interpreting the Mayo Clinic paper, Hahn tweeted a mea culpa; “I have been criticized for remarks I made Sunday night about the benefits of convalescent plasma. The criticism is entirely justified. What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction,” of 35 percent mortality. Hahn conceded the treatment didn’t work. But Hahn did not rescind the FDA’s emergency approval of the treatment. Instead, three communications officers at the agency were fired for failing to give the Commissioner proper talking points.
By the end of August, the chorus of FDA critics was large and loud, warning that the agency appeared politically compromised, and might not be trustworthy to properly handle assessment of COVID-19 vaccines. And now, here we are, with formal FDA assessment of vaccine candidates only weeks away.
In early August, 417 vaccine experts sent a letter to the FDA’s Hahn, expressing concern that Operation Warp Speed—the Trump administration’s multibillion-dollar vaccine campaign—was overly politicizing the effort and corners might be cut in safety and efficacy screening. Others have noted that release of a poorly effective or side-effect-inducing COVID vaccine risks permanently eroding public trust in the entire process, leading to the populace’s refusal to immunize. That’s worrying because Americans, regardless of their political affiliations, already think the vaccine process is overly politicized, and are highly suspicious of claims regarding product safety, according to a recent Harris Poll.
In a lengthy pre-print released this week, three prominent vaccine experts from the Weill Cornell Medical College in New York surveyed in detail what is known about the top COVID vaccines worldwide, reaching two crucial conclusions. First, they argue, no two companies are testing their would-be vaccines the same way, and the FDA has never laid out a clear standard against which to measure their efficacy. As a result, they say, it is nearly impossible to compare the performance of one vaccine to another. And secondly, “there is almost no information available” about the roles the various arms of the human immune system play in battling SARS-CoV-2, especially T-cell responses, making it next to impossible to say what type of immunity will actually protect a person, and for how long.
Internationally, the World Health Organization has tried to set vaccine aspirations, laying out standards a product should achieve before being put into widespread use. As a start, it should be at least strong enough to protect half the vaccinated people against infection—the FDA standard for COVID is to allow approval of vaccines that work “in the majority” of people. “Funders, vaccine developers, researchers, and government institutions have signed an international statement of collaboration in vaccine research,” the WHO leaders note. “Several of these developers and more than 250 research sites intend to join the WHO Solidarity Vaccines Trial in the hope of bringing forward the time when the world will move beyond the widespread disease, death, and disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic.”
That WHO Solidarity effort is part of a 172-nation commitment, the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility, or COVAX, which aims to hasten collaboration worldwide for creation of a vaccine for all of humanity. “Our only way out of this pandemic is together,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in an Aug. 24 COVAX press event in Geneva. But the White House announced on Sept. 2nd that the United States will refuse to join in, or cooperate with, COVAX. “The United States will continue to engage our international partners to ensure we defeat this virus, but we will not be constrained by multilateral organizations influenced by the corrupt World Health Organization and China,” said White House spokesman Judd Deere.
Instead, the Trump administration plans to usher a vaccine into the arms of Americans first. It will likely be one of the very experimental products made from the genetic material—the DNA or RNA—of the virus. This material, it turns out, is so fragile that it must be stored at a -80 degree F temperature, well below anything a standard freezer can handle. So, in order to comply with the CDC’s request that they have a vaccine plan ready by Oct. 1, governors are going to have to explain how they plan to move ultra-deep-freezing units around.
Whether the public will be interested in taking a vaccine produced and distributed under these circumstances is another question. What is clear is that there’s little rational reason to trust America’s public health agencies any more—the Trump administration has seen to that.
On April 3, Trump scoffed at CDC recommendations that Americans wear masks to avoid viral spread, smirking that he wouldn’t be covering his face. With that, he polarized mask-wearing, and most of his followers have followed their leader, shunning masks. By rushing vaccine approval to meet a pre-elections deadline, the president is also setting immunization up for political polarity. Those lines of Americans two days before the election, queued for immunization, may well be Trump’s most ardent followers, wearing MAGA hats and no masks, fully confident that their leader has found a way to protect them from the 21st-century plague.


foreignpolicy--2020-09-03--A Biden-Harris Administration Would Mean a Harder Eye on Kashmir

A Biden-Harris Administration Would Mean a Harder Eye on Kashmir Kamala Harris isn ’ t especially known for foreign policy .
The first-term U.S. senator from California and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ’ s running mate doesn ’ t serve on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and never made international affairs her raison d ’ être in the Senate as others have .
Yet .
there is one issue on which Harris has been unusually outspoken : Kashmir .
On Aug. 5 , 2019 , Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi ’ s government revoked Article 370 , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave Kashmir a certain amount of autonomy relative to other Indian states—the ability to select a flag but also the ability to apply a different set of laws .
The revocation of the article has been a longtime goal of Modi ’ s ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) , but it was both a deeply unpopular move in Kashmir and a slap in the face to Pakistan , which disputes ownership of parts of the region .
Immediately on the heels of the decision came a massive lockdown that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the arrests of thousands of local political leaders—among them were multiple former chief ministers of Kashmir .
A month later , in September 2019 , Harris was asked about the unrest in Kashmir during a campaign event for her own presidential bid .
She stated that “ we are all watching , ” and she implicitly attacked the Modi government ’ s handling of the issue up to that point by calling out human rights abuses inflicted by India .
This was a relative rarity among the pool of candidates at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who made statements on the issue were Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
But Harris ’ s ethnic heritage—her mother was an Indian immigrant to the United States—gave her stance more weight among Indian Americans .
The Indian American community has had mixed political views in recent years—though many of them pulled the lever for Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton , they did so while backing much more nationalistic parties in India .
Harris also got involved in another U.S.-India scuffle over Kashmir a few months later .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ external affairs minister , Subrahmanyam Jaishankar , visited the United States for meetings with the administration along with congressional leaders .
One of the meetings with House Foreign Affairs Chair Eliot Engel ended up being canceled , however , since the meeting would have included Pramila Jayapal , another Indian American lawmaker who holds very strong views about Kashmir .
In early December , Jayapal planned to introduce a resolution in the House of Representatives in which she urged the Indian government to end the internet restrictions within Kashmir , address mass imprisonment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this resolution , Jaishankar decided he didn ’ t want to meet with Jayapal , but Engel wouldn ’ t allow the meeting without her presence and so it never happened .
Harris decried Jaishankar ’ s actions and went out of her way to stand with Jayapal , further signifying a willingness to criticize the Indian government .
But while Harris and Jayapal draw more attention because of their ethnicity , a Biden administration is likely to take a tough stance if he wins the presidency this November—especially compared to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of State Mike Pompeo , who reportedly didn ’ t bring up Kashmir at all in an Aug. 6 phone call with Jaishankar .
Former Vice President Biden himself has also been willing to criticize Indian political decisions .
On Biden ’ s “ Agenda for Muslim-American Communities , ” Biden stated that the “ Indian government should take all necessary steps to restore rights for all the people of Kashmir ” and , further , that restrictions akin to the ones seen in the region weaken democracy .
Biden and Harris , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a very different Modi government than President Obama did .
Between 2014 , when Modi became prime minister , and early 2017 , when Obama ’ s presidency ended , the Modi government played down the Hindu nationalist angle that is the animating spirit of the BJP .
The two leaders seemed to strike up a sort of friendship—and in response to Modi ’ s victory , Obama ’ s State Department lifted the visa restrictions placed on Modi by President George W. Bush ’ s State Department in response to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 2014 election , the two leaders met multiple times in India and the United States .
Modi ’ s first priority wasn ’ t pursuing Hindu nationalist goals—it was increasing foreign investment , and this was a project Obama was happy to help with .
Despite Modi ’ s opposition to foreign direct investment during his time as Gujarat chief minister , he sang a very different tune as prime minister—opening up new avenues for investment .
As then-Ambassador to India Richard Verma pointed out in 2016 , Indo-U.S. trade continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in India in total from 2014 to 2016 went up around 500 percent .
Actions like this helped cement the relationship between Modi and Obama .
The two leaders may not have had too much in common politically speaking , but they both saw the value of FDI and a closer U.S.-India relationship , and they were willing to work together to those ends developing something of a friendship along the way .
Biden is unlikely to repeat that pattern .
Obama was careful to avoid direct criticism of the Indian government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Republic Day celebrations , he spoke about how “ religion has been used to tap into those darker impulses as opposed to the light of God ” and that “ we have to guard against any efforts to divide ourselves along sectarian lines or any other lines ” though the then-president was careful to not take direct shots at either Modi or the ruling BJP .
For Biden , that ship has long since sailed .
Kashmir is not the only issue where Biden has raised concerns much more so than those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden has also strongly come out against the Citizenship Amendment Act as well as the National Register of Citizens—both projects of the Modi-led government that critics charge will make it easier to discriminate against and ultimately kick out Muslims from India .
Biden is clearly more willing to criticize allies than his old boss was .
And that leaves open the question of the future of the Indian American vote .
Traditionally , this highly educated group votes strongly Democratic—but they are also often Modi supporters .
Modi has made no secret of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inverse is true as well—each hosted the other at massive rallies in Gujarat and Texas , respectively .
However , the increasingly nationalistic policy tacks of Trump and the Republican Party make a political switch unlikely .
A Biden administration may not turn a blind eye to Modi—but it ’ s also very likely to lift the Trumpian visa and immigration restrictions that hit Indian American lives directly .

Kamala Harris isn’t especially known for foreign policy. The first-term U.S. senator from California and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s running mate doesn’t serve on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and never made international affairs her raison d’être in the Senate as others have. Yet. there is one issue on which Harris has been unusually outspoken: Kashmir.
Kamala Harris isn’t especially known for foreign policy. The first-term U.S. senator from California and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s running mate doesn’t serve on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and never made international affairs her raison d’être in the Senate as others have. Yet. there is one issue on which Harris has been unusually outspoken: Kashmir.
On Aug. 5, 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government revoked Article 370, a core part of the India-Kashmir relationship that gave Kashmir a certain amount of autonomy relative to other Indian states—the ability to select a flag but also the ability to apply a different set of laws. The revocation of the article has been a longtime goal of Modi’s ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), but it was both a deeply unpopular move in Kashmir and a slap in the face to Pakistan, which disputes ownership of parts of the region. Immediately on the heels of the decision came a massive lockdown that included suspensions of communications, strict curfews, and the arrests of thousands of local political leaders—among them were multiple former chief ministers of Kashmir.
A month later, in September 2019, Harris was asked about the unrest in Kashmir during a campaign event for her own presidential bid. She stated that “we are all watching,” and she implicitly attacked the Modi government’s handling of the issue up to that point by calling out human rights abuses inflicted by India. This was a relative rarity among the pool of candidates at the time; other than Harris, those who made statements on the issue were Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But Harris’s ethnic heritage—her mother was an Indian immigrant to the United States—gave her stance more weight among Indian Americans. The Indian American community has had mixed political views in recent years—though many of them pulled the lever for Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, they did so while backing much more nationalistic parties in India.
Harris also got involved in another U.S.-India scuffle over Kashmir a few months later. In December 2019, India’s external affairs minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, visited the United States for meetings with the administration along with congressional leaders. One of the meetings with House Foreign Affairs Chair Eliot Engel ended up being canceled, however, since the meeting would have included Pramila Jayapal, another Indian American lawmaker who holds very strong views about Kashmir.
In early December, Jayapal planned to introduce a resolution in the House of Representatives in which she urged the Indian government to end the internet restrictions within Kashmir, address mass imprisonment, and more. As a result of this resolution, Jaishankar decided he didn’t want to meet with Jayapal, but Engel wouldn’t allow the meeting without her presence and so it never happened. Harris decried Jaishankar’s actions and went out of her way to stand with Jayapal, further signifying a willingness to criticize the Indian government.
But while Harris and Jayapal draw more attention because of their ethnicity, a Biden administration is likely to take a tough stance if he wins the presidency this November—especially compared to the one under President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who reportedly didn’t bring up Kashmir at all in an Aug. 6 phone call with Jaishankar. Former Vice President Biden himself has also been willing to criticize Indian political decisions. On Biden’s “Agenda for Muslim-American Communities,” Biden stated that the “Indian government should take all necessary steps to restore rights for all the people of Kashmir” and, further, that restrictions akin to the ones seen in the region weaken democracy.
Biden and Harris, if elected, will have to deal with a very different Modi government than President Obama did. Between 2014, when Modi became prime minister, and early 2017, when Obama’s presidency ended, the Modi government played down the Hindu nationalist angle that is the animating spirit of the BJP. The two leaders seemed to strike up a sort of friendship—and in response to Modi’s victory, Obama’s State Department lifted the visa restrictions placed on Modi by President George W. Bush’s State Department in response to the 2002 riots in Gujarat.
After Modi’s 2014 election, the two leaders met multiple times in India and the United States. Modi’s first priority wasn’t pursuing Hindu nationalist goals—it was increasing foreign investment, and this was a project Obama was happy to help with. Despite Modi’s opposition to foreign direct investment during his time as Gujarat chief minister , he sang a very different tune as prime minister—opening up new avenues for investment. As then-Ambassador to India Richard Verma pointed out in 2016, Indo-U.S. trade continued to shatter records—to that end, FDI in India in total from 2014 to 2016 went up around 500 percent.
Actions like this helped cement the relationship between Modi and Obama. The two leaders may not have had too much in common politically speaking, but they both saw the value of FDI and a closer U.S.-India relationship, and they were willing to work together to those ends developing something of a friendship along the way. Biden is unlikely to repeat that pattern.
Obama was careful to avoid direct criticism of the Indian government. In his 2015 speech at India’s Republic Day celebrations, he spoke about how “religion has been used to tap into those darker impulses as opposed to the light of God” and that “we have to guard against any efforts to divide ourselves along sectarian lines or any other lines” though the then-president was careful to not take direct shots at either Modi or the ruling BJP.
For Biden, that ship has long since sailed. Kashmir is not the only issue where Biden has raised concerns much more so than those ever raised by his former boss. Biden has also strongly come out against the Citizenship Amendment Act as well as the National Register of Citizens—both projects of the Modi-led government that critics charge will make it easier to discriminate against and ultimately kick out Muslims from India.
Biden is clearly more willing to criticize allies than his old boss was. And that leaves open the question of the future of the Indian American vote. Traditionally, this highly educated group votes strongly Democratic—but they are also often Modi supporters. Modi has made no secret of his love for Trump, and the inverse is true as well—each hosted the other at massive rallies in Gujarat and Texas, respectively. However, the increasingly nationalistic policy tacks of Trump and the Republican Party make a political switch unlikely. A Biden administration may not turn a blind eye to Modi—but it’s also very likely to lift the Trumpian visa and immigration restrictions that hit Indian American lives directly.


foreignpolicy--2020-09-03--U.S. Envoy Says Former Officials’ Call for Russia Rethink Is ‘Shameful’

U.S .
Envoy Says Former Officials ’ Call for Russia Rethink Is ‘ Shameful ’ A group of foreign-policy heavyweights who served in the Trump administration , including President Donald Trump ’ s former ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman and Fiona Hill , the former European and Russia head at the National Security Council , wrote an open letter last month warning that U.S.-Russia relations are “ at a dangerous dead end ” and urging a “ serious and sustained strategic dialogue ” with Russia that balances “ deterrence and détente.
” Former senior officials from both Republican and Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Shultz , former Defense Secretary William Perry , and former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn were among the 103 experts who signed the letter , published in Politico .
“ This open letter is wrong .
It should be rejected , and I ’ m embarrassed that , frankly , these 103 people even signed on to it , ” said James Gilmore , Trump ’ s ambassador to the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe , in an interview with Foreign Policy .
He referred to the signatories as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many of whom I know personally.
” “ When I read it , particularly when I saw the signatures by very legitimate people , I was simply infuriated , because this letter is the Russian message .
This letter is the Russian message here in Vienna , and it ’ s wrong , ” he added .
The sharp backlash to the letter reflects a fierce and ongoing debate in Washington over how to manage relations with Russia .
A decade after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to hit the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington is still trying to figure out how to deal with a country that went from Cold War foe to potential partner to a revisionist and revanchist power .
Russia already held a central place in Washington ’ s foreign-policy calculus , but it has come to dominate Western foreign-policy debates since its invasion of eastern Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 .
Since Trump ’ s 2016 election , which was marked by extensive Russian interference , Moscow has loomed large over domestic politics , too .
A nearly 1,000-page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last month detailed extensive links between members of the Trump campaign and advisors with individuals with close ties to the Kremlin .
The report from the Republican-led committee did not conclude that Trump allies had knowingly sought to collude with Russian operatives .
Now , Western leaders are closely eyeing how Russia will respond to a wave of pro-democracy protests in Belarus , an Eastern European country long aligned with Moscow that has been called “ Europe ’ s last dictatorship.
” Gilmore said he remains “ deeply concerned ” about the prospect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s embattled authoritarian leader , Aleksandr Lukashenko , who is clinging to power after claiming victory last month in an election widely seen as a sham .
Last week Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that he had created a reserve police force that was ready to intervene in Belarus at Lukashenko ’ s request .
“ What we have [ to do ] right now is to try to persuade Lukashenko that he can not be the president of a country under these circumstances .
He thinks that a fraudulent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people is good enough , ” Gilmore said .
Despite Trump ’ s repeated warm personal overtures to Putin , Congress and his administration have taken a hard-line stance toward the country ’ s former Cold War rival , including calling out Russian overtures on Belarus .
Under Trump , the United States has tightened economic sanctions on Moscow , withdrawn from a key arms control treaty and the Open Skies Treaty , pushed to scupper a major Russian natural gas pipeline project to Germany , confronted Russian troops and mercenaries in Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the country .
The experts who wrote the open letter , including some who helped implement such policies in the Trump administration , warned that the United States was backing itself into a corner and risked stoking a conflict with Russia .
“ We are drifting toward a fraught nuclear arms race , with our foreign-policy arsenal reduced mainly to reactions , sanctions , public shaming and congressional resolutions , ” they wrote .
They urged the two countries to restore normal diplomatic contacts and extend New START , a major nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in February 2021 unless both sides agree to extend it .
“ We would be unwise to think that we have no choice but to stick with current policy .
We must deal with Russia as it is , not as we wish it to be , fully utilizing our strengths but open to diplomacy , ” the signatories wrote .
The experts also called on the White House and Congress to “ restore flexibility to our sanctions regime , focusing on targeted sanctions that can be eased quickly in exchange for Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of outstanding conflicts.
” “ You can ’ t have flexibility in the sanctions regime as long as the Russians continue their wrongdoing , ” Gilmore said in response .
“ We have a right to hold Russia up to the proper standards of conduct of international relations and foreign policy.
” “ It is a letter that basically mouths … the Russian message that we see here in Vienna , which is : Never mind our attempt to conquer Crimea .
Never mind our misuse of diplomatic situations in various countries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Skies Agreement or the [ Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces ] Treaty , never mind any of these kinds of things .
We now need to engage in dialogue , ” Gilmore said .
The chorus of hawkish criticisms on Russia have sharpened in the wake of the poisoning of Alexei Navalny , a prominent Russian opposition leader and Putin critic .
Gilmore issued a statement condemning the poisoning as “ completely reprehensible ” and “ an act of domestic terrorism , ” and called for a thorough investigation .
The Politico letter prompted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including several former U.S. ambassadors and intelligence officers , who argued that now is not the time for another reset .
“ Rather , the actions and behavior of Vladimir Putin ’ s regime pose a threat to American interests and values , requiring strong pushback , ” the respondents wrote .
The authors of the rebuttal argued that when it comes to Russia , there has been “ merely confusion , not a coherent strategy ” during Trump ’ s tenure .
While in many ways the administration has taken a tough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing lethal weapons to Ukraine and strengthening the U.S. military presence in Eastern Europe , that has been undermined by Trump ’ s refusal to challenge Putin over election interference or Russian bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan , they argued .
Writing in Foreign Policy , former Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker noted that arguments to reinvigorate relations with Moscow have resurfaced across successive administrations .
President George W. Bush famously said he got a “ sense of his soul ” after meeting Putin in 2001 .
Clinton literally pressed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 2009 , months after Russia invaded U.S. ally Georgia .
In a harbinger of things to come , the word “ reset ” on the button was mistranslated into Russian .
Instead , it read “ overload .
”

A senior Trump administration diplomat slammed a group of experts, including several of his former colleagues, who urged the United States to normalize ties with Russia, calling the open letter they signed a “shameful document” that parrots Russian government talking points.
A senior Trump administration diplomat slammed a group of experts, including several of his former colleagues, who urged the United States to normalize ties with Russia, calling the open letter they signed a “shameful document” that parrots Russian government talking points.
A group of foreign-policy heavyweights who served in the Trump administration, including President Donald Trump’s former ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman and Fiona Hill, the former European and Russia head at the National Security Council, wrote an open letter last month warning that U.S.-Russia relations are “at a dangerous dead end” and urging a “serious and sustained strategic dialogue” with Russia that balances “deterrence and détente.” Former senior officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations, including former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn were among the 103 experts who signed the letter, published in Politico.
“This open letter is wrong. It should be rejected, and I’m embarrassed that, frankly, these 103 people even signed on to it,” said James Gilmore, Trump’s ambassador to the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, in an interview with Foreign Policy. He referred to the signatories as “people who are very smart people, that many of whom I know personally.”
“When I read it, particularly when I saw the signatures by very legitimate people, I was simply infuriated, because this letter is the Russian message. This letter is the Russian message here in Vienna, and it’s wrong,” he added.
The sharp backlash to the letter reflects a fierce and ongoing debate in Washington over how to manage relations with Russia. A decade after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to hit the “reset” button on U.S.-Russian relations, Washington is still trying to figure out how to deal with a country that went from Cold War foe to potential partner to a revisionist and revanchist power.
Russia already held a central place in Washington’s foreign-policy calculus, but it has come to dominate Western foreign-policy debates since its invasion of eastern Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Since Trump’s 2016 election, which was marked by extensive Russian interference, Moscow has loomed large over domestic politics, too. A nearly 1,000-page report published by the Senate Intelligence Committee last month detailed extensive links between members of the Trump campaign and advisors with individuals with close ties to the Kremlin. The report from the Republican-led committee did not conclude that Trump allies had knowingly sought to collude with Russian operatives.
Now, Western leaders are closely eyeing how Russia will respond to a wave of pro-democracy protests in Belarus, an Eastern European country long aligned with Moscow that has been called “Europe’s last dictatorship.” Gilmore said he remains “deeply concerned” about the prospect of Russian intervention in Belarus to back the country’s embattled authoritarian leader, Aleksandr Lukashenko, who is clinging to power after claiming victory last month in an election widely seen as a sham. Last week Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that he had created a reserve police force that was ready to intervene in Belarus at Lukashenko’s request.
“What we have [to do] right now is to try to persuade Lukashenko that he cannot be the president of a country under these circumstances. He thinks that a fraudulent election followed by brutal suppression of the people is good enough,” Gilmore said.
Despite Trump’s repeated warm personal overtures to Putin, Congress and his administration have taken a hard-line stance toward the country’s former Cold War rival, including calling out Russian overtures on Belarus. Under Trump, the United States has tightened economic sanctions on Moscow, withdrawn from a key arms control treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, pushed to scupper a major Russian natural gas pipeline project to Germany, confronted Russian troops and mercenaries in Syria, and expelled dozens of Russian diplomats from the country.
The experts who wrote the open letter, including some who helped implement such policies in the Trump administration, warned that the United States was backing itself into a corner and risked stoking a conflict with Russia. “We are drifting toward a fraught nuclear arms race, with our foreign-policy arsenal reduced mainly to reactions, sanctions, public shaming and congressional resolutions,” they wrote.
They urged the two countries to restore normal diplomatic contacts and extend New START, a major nuclear arms treaty that is set to expire in February 2021 unless both sides agree to extend it. “We would be unwise to think that we have no choice but to stick with current policy. We must deal with Russia as it is, not as we wish it to be, fully utilizing our strengths but open to diplomacy,” the signatories wrote.
The experts also called on the White House and Congress to “restore flexibility to our sanctions regime, focusing on targeted sanctions that can be eased quickly in exchange for Russian steps that advance negotiations toward acceptable resolutions of outstanding conflicts.”
“You can’t have flexibility in the sanctions regime as long as the Russians continue their wrongdoing,” Gilmore said in response. “We have a right to hold Russia up to the proper standards of conduct of international relations and foreign policy.”
“It is a letter that basically mouths … the Russian message that we see here in Vienna, which is: Never mind our attempt to conquer Crimea. Never mind our misuse of diplomatic situations in various countries, never mind our violation of the Open Skies Agreement or the [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty, never mind any of these kinds of things. We now need to engage in dialogue,” Gilmore said.
The chorus of hawkish criticisms on Russia have sharpened in the wake of the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, a prominent Russian opposition leader and Putin critic. Gilmore issued a statement condemning the poisoning as “completely reprehensible” and “an act of domestic terrorism,” and called for a thorough investigation.
The Politico letter prompted a sharp response from other Russia experts, including several former U.S. ambassadors and intelligence officers, who argued that now is not the time for another reset.
“Rather, the actions and behavior of Vladimir Putin’s regime pose a threat to American interests and values, requiring strong pushback,” the respondents wrote. The authors of the rebuttal argued that when it comes to Russia, there has been “merely confusion, not a coherent strategy” during Trump’s tenure. While in many ways the administration has taken a tough stance on Russia, for instance by providing lethal weapons to Ukraine and strengthening the U.S. military presence in Eastern Europe, that has been undermined by Trump’s refusal to challenge Putin over election interference or Russian bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan, they argued.
Writing in Foreign Policy, former Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker noted that arguments to reinvigorate relations with Moscow have resurfaced across successive administrations. President George W. Bush famously said he got a “sense of his soul” after meeting Putin in 2001. Clinton literally pressed a reset button with her Russian counterpart in March 2009, months after Russia invaded U.S. ally Georgia.
In a harbinger of things to come, the word “reset” on the button was mistranslated into Russian. Instead, it read “overload.”