foreignpolicy--2020-06-05--New Anti-Terrorism Law Would Enhance Duterte’s Power

Welcome to While You Weren ’ t Looking , Foreign Policy ’ s weekly newsletter focused on non-coronavirus news .
Here ’ s what we ’ re watching this week : New counterterrorism laws in the Philippines could fuel an already brutal crackdown on dissent , a renegade Libyan general ends his bid to capture Tripoli , and India turns its back on Chinese apps as border tensions simmer .
If you would like to receive While You Weren ’ t Looking in your inbox on Fridays , please sign up here .
On Wednesday , the Philippines ’ House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endow the authorities with a dizzying degree of power to arrest and detain government critics—under the guise of fighting terrorism .
The new legislation , which is expected to be signed into law by President Rodrigo Duterte shortly , creates a new counterterrorism council appointed by the president with the authority to designate individuals and organizations as terrorists , absent any legal or independent oversight .
Critics fear that the vaguely worded law will enable the government to detain its opponents for up to 24 days without charge .
Since he came to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a war on independent media and freedom of speech , arresting journalists and social media users for criticizing the government .
Despite a ban on mass gatherings due to the coronavirus , hundreds of Filipinos took to the streets to protest the bill on Thursday .
The authorities have exploited the pandemic to crack down further , arresting several social media users for allegedly spreading fake news and ordering the country ’ s largest broadcaster , ABS-CBN , off the air .
Duterte ’ s war .
Underscoring concerns about the amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the United Nations high commissioner for human rights released a damning report on Thursday that found that tens of thousands of Filipinos may have been killed by the police in the president ’ s drug war since he was elected in 2016 .
Government figures state that 8,663 have been killed , but the U.N. report states that other estimates believe the death toll could be three times higher .
The report cautions that the human rights situation in the Philippines had been marked by an “ overarching focus on public order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kill 100,000 criminals during his first six months in office , promising that “ fish will grow fat ” on the bodies dumped in Manila Bay .
Police brutality undermines U.S. standing .
The world looked on in shock this week as police across the United States violently cracked down on the protests against police brutality that began after George Floyd , a black man , died after being violently pinned down by a white police officer in Minneapolis last Monday .
EU diplomatic chief Josep Borrell said that Europe was “ shocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump to refrain from “ excessive force.
” Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo said that black people around the world are “ shocked and distraught ” by the killing , and the Australian Embassy in Washington has opened an investigation after Australian journalists were attacked by U.S. Park Police live on air .
The crackdown has undermined long-standing efforts to position the United States as a global defender of democracy and human rights , as Foreign Policy ’ s Robbie Gramer and Colum Lynch report .
“ The erosion of U.S. global leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a senior European diplomat told FP .
A general ’ s retreat in Libya .
Renegade Libyan Gen. Khalifa Haftar has withdrawn his troops from the outskirts of Tripoli—15 months after he launched a brutal campaign to capture the capital .
The conflict between Haftar and the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord ( GNA ) quickly became a proxy war as a number of international players have waded into the conflict .
Haftar received weapons and support from Russia , Egypt , and the United Arab Emirates .
When Turkey sent troops in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tipped the balance of power in favor of the Tripoli government .
Libya has been plagued by conflict since longtime ruler Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi was toppled in 2011 .
While Haftar ’ s forces are in retreat , there is little optimism that peace will follow .
Some experts caution that Libya risks becoming an intractable quagmire as foreign powers vie for influence in the oi- rich country .
Erdogan ’ s crackdown continues .
Three Turkish opposition politicians were expelled from office on Thursday , stripping them of their parliamentary immunity as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges .
The detentions of Leyla Guven and Musa Farisogullari , members of the pro-Kurdish Peoples ’ Democratic party , and Enis Berberoglu—of the main opposition Republican People ’ s Party—is the latest in a crackdown on dissent that began after the failed coup attempt against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ’ s government in 2016 .
As the pandemic batters the Turkish economy and support for Erdogan ’ s ruling Justice and Development Party slides , snap elections could be called in an attempt to shore up the party ’ s grip on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay in power .
On Monday , Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that a referendum on proposed changes to the Russian constitution that would keep him in power until 2036 will be held on July 1 .
Putin ’ s four-term limit runs out in 2024 , and speculation about what might happen next has gripped the country ’ s chattering classes since his reelection in 2018 .
The proposed constitutional amendments , unveiled in January , would extend the limit by two terms .
Other proposed changes would give Russian law primacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights—and would codify marriage as between a man and woman in a bid to curry favor with Russia ’ s conservative voters .
The referendum , previously scheduled for April , was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic .
More from Russia this week .
The Russian government declared a state of emergency in northern Siberia after 20,000 tons of diesel fuel leaked from a power plant fuel tanker into a river near the city of Norilsk on May 29 .
It is believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modern Russian history , posing a significant threat to the local environment .
Greenpeace Russia compared it to the Exxon Valdez tanker spill in Alaska in 1989 .
Workers on the tanker , owned by a subsidiary of the world ’ s largest nickel producer , spent two days trying to clean up the spill themselves before alerting authorities .
“ So what , we are going to learn about emergencies from social media now ?
” Putin said on Wednesday , chiding the regional governor and plant managers .
India and China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simmer between India and China over their undemarcated border in the Himalayas , Indians have found a novel way to hit back at Beijing : boycotting Chinese-made apps .
Since it launched last month , an app called Remove Chinese Apps was downloaded 4 million times from the Google Play Store before the U.S. tech giant had it removed for violating the company ’ s rules on targeting third-party apps .
Jaipur-based One Touch Labs , which developed the app , said that it was a step toward a “ self-reliant India , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s calls for the country to become less reliant on the world economy post-pandemic .
“ We ought to hit them where it hurts most , ” a spokesperson for Modi ’ s Bharatiya Janata Party said on Twitter , using the hashtag # BoycottChineseProducts .
A boycott of Chinese apps in India would be consequential for the economies of both countries .
ByteDance , the Chinese developer behind the wildly popular TikTok app , announced last year that it hoped to invest $ 1 billion in India .
Well , that settles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine , Ruslan Ryaboshapka , told Reuters this week that while he was in office , an audit of old case files relating to Hunter Biden ’ s work in Ukraine found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the former U.S. vice president ’ s son .
As the impeachment investigation of Trump ramped up in October 2019 , Ryaboshapka ordered prosecutors to audit old cases as part of a wider review .
Among them were case files on the gas company Burisma , where Hunter Biden was a member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden had sought to shield his son ’ s work from scrutiny were at the heart of a scheme by Trump ’ s allies to pressure Ukrainian officials to open corruption investigations into the Bidens in a bid to uncover potentially damaging information .
The claims have been debunked by former U.S. officials , Ukraine experts , and now the former prosecutor general .
But there ’ s every chance they will resurface as the 2020 election campaign heats up .
That ’ s it for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe here , or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or corrections to newsletters @ foreignpolicy.com .

Welcome to While You Weren’t Looking, Foreign Policy’s weekly newsletter focused on non-coronavirus news.
Here’s what we’re watching this week: New counterterrorism laws in the Philippines could fuel an already brutal crackdown on dissent, a renegade Libyan general ends his bid to capture Tripoli, and India turns its back on Chinese apps as border tensions simmer.
If you would like to receive While You Weren’t Looking in your inbox on Fridays, please sign up here.
The Philippines Passes Strict Anti-Terrorism Law
On Wednesday, the Philippines’ House of Representatives passed antiterrorism legislation that would endow the authorities with a dizzying degree of power to arrest and detain government critics—under the guise of fighting terrorism. The new legislation, which is expected to be signed into law by President Rodrigo Duterte shortly, creates a new counterterrorism council appointed by the president with the authority to designate individuals and organizations as terrorists, absent any legal or independent oversight.
Critics fear that the vaguely worded law will enable the government to detain its opponents for up to 24 days without charge. Since he came to power in 2016, Duterte has waged a war on independent media and freedom of speech, arresting journalists and social media users for criticizing the government. Despite a ban on mass gatherings due to the coronavirus, hundreds of Filipinos took to the streets to protest the bill on Thursday. The authorities have exploited the pandemic to crack down further, arresting several social media users for allegedly spreading fake news and ordering the country’s largest broadcaster, ABS-CBN, off the air.
Duterte’s war. Underscoring concerns about the amount of unchecked power the bill could give Duterte, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights released a damning report on Thursday that found that tens of thousands of Filipinos may have been killed by the police in the president’s drug war since he was elected in 2016. Government figures state that 8,663 have been killed, but the U.N. report states that other estimates believe the death toll could be three times higher.
The report cautions that the human rights situation in the Philippines had been marked by an “overarching focus on public order and national security.” Duterte vowed to kill 100,000 criminals during his first six months in office, promising that “fish will grow fat” on the bodies dumped in Manila Bay.
What We’re Following
Police brutality undermines U.S. standing. The world looked on in shock this week as police across the United States violently cracked down on the protests against police brutality that began after George Floyd, a black man, died after being violently pinned down by a white police officer in Minneapolis last Monday. EU diplomatic chief Josep Borrell said that Europe was “shocked and appalled,” urging U.S. President Donald Trump to refrain from “excessive force.” Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo said that black people around the world are “shocked and distraught” by the killing, and the Australian Embassy in Washington has opened an investigation after Australian journalists were attacked by U.S. Park Police live on air.
The crackdown has undermined long-standing efforts to position the United States as a global defender of democracy and human rights, as Foreign Policy’s Robbie Gramer and Colum Lynch report. “The erosion of U.S. global leadership has been faster than expected,” a senior European diplomat told FP.
A general’s retreat in Libya. Renegade Libyan Gen. Khalifa Haftar has withdrawn his troops from the outskirts of Tripoli—15 months after he launched a brutal campaign to capture the capital. The conflict between Haftar and the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) quickly became a proxy war as a number of international players have waded into the conflict. Haftar received weapons and support from Russia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. When Turkey sent troops in January to bolster the GNA, it tipped the balance of power in favor of the Tripoli government.
Libya has been plagued by conflict since longtime ruler Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi was toppled in 2011. While Haftar’s forces are in retreat, there is little optimism that peace will follow. Some experts caution that Libya risks becoming an intractable quagmire as foreign powers vie for influence in the oi- rich country.
Erdogan’s crackdown continues. Three Turkish opposition politicians were expelled from office on Thursday, stripping them of their parliamentary immunity as authorities detained them on terrorism and espionage charges. The detentions of Leyla Guven and Musa Farisogullari, members of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic party, and Enis Berberoglu—of the main opposition Republican People’s Party—is the latest in a crackdown on dissent that began after the failed coup attempt against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government in 2016.
As the pandemic batters the Turkish economy and support for Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party slides, snap elections could be called in an attempt to shore up the party’s grip on power.
Keep an Eye On
Putin’s efforts to stay in power. On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that a referendum on proposed changes to the Russian constitution that would keep him in power until 2036 will be held on July 1. Putin’s four-term limit runs out in 2024, and speculation about what might happen next has gripped the country’s chattering classes since his reelection in 2018. The proposed constitutional amendments, unveiled in January, would extend the limit by two terms.
Other proposed changes would give Russian law primacy over international law—a shot across the bow at bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights—and would codify marriage as between a man and woman in a bid to curry favor with Russia’s conservative voters. The referendum, previously scheduled for April, was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic.
More from Russia this week. The Russian government declared a state of emergency in northern Siberia after 20,000 tons of diesel fuel leaked from a power plant fuel tanker into a river near the city of Norilsk on May 29. It is believed to be the second-largest such accident in modern Russian history, posing a significant threat to the local environment. Greenpeace Russia compared it to the Exxon Valdez tanker spill in Alaska in 1989.
Workers on the tanker, owned by a subsidiary of the world’s largest nickel producer, spent two days trying to clean up the spill themselves before alerting authorities. “So what, we are going to learn about emergencies from social media now?” Putin said on Wednesday, chiding the regional governor and plant managers.
India and China’s digital dispute. As tensions simmer between India and China over their undemarcated border in the Himalayas, Indians have found a novel way to hit back at Beijing: boycotting Chinese-made apps. Since it launched last month, an app called Remove Chinese Apps was downloaded 4 million times from the Google Play Store before the U.S. tech giant had it removed for violating the company’s rules on targeting third-party apps. Jaipur-based One Touch Labs, which developed the app, said that it was a step toward a “self-reliant India,” echoing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s calls for the country to become less reliant on the world economy post-pandemic.
“We ought to hit them where it hurts most,” a spokesperson for Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party said on Twitter, using the hashtag #BoycottChineseProducts. A boycott of Chinese apps in India would be consequential for the economies of both countries. ByteDance, the Chinese developer behind the wildly popular TikTok app, announced last year that it hoped to invest $1 billion in India.
Well, that settles it. The former prosecutor general of Ukraine, Ruslan Ryaboshapka, told Reuters this week that while he was in office, an audit of old case files relating to Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the former U.S. vice president’s son. As the impeachment investigation of Trump ramped up in October 2019, Ryaboshapka ordered prosecutors to audit old cases as part of a wider review. Among them were case files on the gas company Burisma, where Hunter Biden was a member of the board until April 2019.
Allegations that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden had sought to shield his son’s work from scrutiny were at the heart of a scheme by Trump’s allies to pressure Ukrainian officials to open corruption investigations into the Bidens in a bid to uncover potentially damaging information. The claims have been debunked by former U.S. officials, Ukraine experts, and now the former prosecutor general. But there’s every chance they will resurface as the 2020 election campaign heats up.
That’s it for this week.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to newsletters@foreignpolicy.com.


foreignpolicy--2020-06-05--The United States Will Learn Nothing From the Pandemic

The United States Will Learn Nothing From the Pandemic If there is anything Americans have learned since 9/11 , it is to be deeply skeptical of leaders who begin a sentence with : “ If we have learned anything from the attacks on 9/11.
” The assertion that follows is rarely informed by any actual factual lessons on the causes and consequences of those catastrophic attacks .
Rather , “ 9/11 ” is typically employed to justify any policy the leader preferred in the first place—often increased military spending , expansive surveillance of citizens , torture of terrorist suspects , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ The inability for most political and military leaders to sincerely learn from the national crisis 19 years ago is relevant for how the United States chooses to learn from the slowly unfolding COVID-19 pandemic .
With an estimated nearly 2 million confirmed cases , 110,000 fatalities , and widespread societal and economic disruption , the virus offers a focusing event from which political leaders and government officials can have a ( roughly ) shared understanding of what happened , why it happened , who is accountable , and how can it be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to capture the key findings and ensure that they are learned , remembered , and then utilized in developing policies into the future .
If the United States collectively fails to do this regarding its latest crisis , “ COVID-19 ” will rhetorically become another “ 9/11 ” —a hollow justification for anything and everything , no matter how unrelated , unethical , or costly .
The suffering experienced by the millions of casualties and sacrifices made by tens of millions of health care professionals will be in vain and forgotten , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking and policies in the future .
Yet there will be tremendous challenges to the nation ’ s collective learning due to the unique nature of the pandemic .
In the present moment , all Americans to varying degrees are living in real time with the political , economic , societal , and personal impacts of COVID-19 .
They listen to government briefings to find out about business openings , read the news for any reports of progress on cocktail treatments or miracle vaccines , and monitor the trends in infection rates and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 surrounds them and their hopes and expectations for the future .
This national crisis will likely dissipate and recede from collective memory faster than one would expect .
By comparison , even the most basic facts related to 9/11 were quickly forgotten : Within three years , 1 in 5 Americans surveyed could not recall how many civilian aircraft were involved ( it was four ) ; within six , 41 percent contended that Saddam Hussein “ was directly involved in planning , financing , or carrying out ” the attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2019 , 23 percent strongly or somewhat believed “ in the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job ” ( it was not ) .
Large numbers of adults forgot , misremembered , or—fueled by slick YouTube videos or a general distrust of government—adapted wholly new and false beliefs about the catastrophe .
While 9/11 was a one-day event with unimaginable imagery and emotional intensity , the COVID-19 pandemic has been a half-year gradually emerging experience that has affected Americans very differently , at different times , and in different geographic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event that became ( somewhat ) etched in people ’ s minds , the latter an invisible menace that ebbs and flows , in part , based on factors over which people have limited control—such as whether they are required to work in close proximity to co-workers or customers .
In addition , while several celebrities and public figures have announced their infections , most of them have thankfully recovered—as is true for the vast majority of people infected .
But there is no “ face ” for COVID-19 victims , and fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far away from the spotlight , in nursing homes and assisted living facilities .
This matters because individual stories imprint deeper on people ’ s memories , and we have very few of them and even fewer memorable sounds or images of their final moments .
Whereas 9/11 is a date leaders of both parties pledge to never forget , COVID-19 could become a partisan argument of selective , faceless statistics .
For all these reasons , it is likely that the country will forget or misremember COVID-19 even faster and to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unfortunately , this will enable politicians and government officials even wider latitude to deploy “ COVID-19 ” thoughtlessly in defense of completely unrelated policies and programs .
We already see this with the Trump administration ’ s decision to prohibit lawful immigration from Canada or Mexico—two countries with far lower per capita COVID-19 infection rates than the United States .
White House officials had championed this extreme border sealing long before the outbreak of the pandemic ; now they have used the fear-based argument to authorize its implementation .
There are two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn from COVID-19 and ensure its lessons are remembered over time .
First , President Donald Trump must be defeated in November .
As I wrote in my last column : Once Trump “ believes absolutely anything—no matter how poorly thought-out , ill-informed , or inaccurate—he remains completely anchored to that initial impression or judgment.
” Even worse , his initial impressions are adopted and promulgated by every advisor and cabinet member .
Because Trump has decided he is completely blameless for COVID-19 , in a second term his administration—and by extension all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any investigation .
Since Trump can not learn , America will not learn if he is reelected president .
Second , Joe Biden , if elected and on entering office , must publicly endorse an authentically bipartisan commission that is allowed to study , compile , and present all of the relevant facts surrounding COVID-19 .
This will require ruthlessly evaluating the public health records of previous administrations—much as the 9/11 Commission correctly apportioned blame for the terrorist attacks on every president dating to Ronald Reagan .
A President Biden will have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortcomings that occurred when he was vice president , and work with Congress to pass legislation and authorize funding based on the commission ’ s recommendations , in order to reduce the probability of government inaction in the face of future mass outbreaks .
Either way , whether it succeeds or fails , how the United States remembers this national crisis will be hugely consequential .
The shared remembrance it arrives at will inform who Americans are and what they permit their leaders to do , for better or worse .

If there is anything Americans have learned since 9/11, it is to be deeply skeptical of leaders who begin a sentence with: “If we have learned anything from the attacks on 9/11.” The assertion that follows is rarely informed by any actual factual lessons on the causes and consequences of those catastrophic attacks. Rather, “9/11” is typically employed to justify any policy the leader preferred in the first place—often increased military spending, expansive surveillance of citizens, torture of terrorist suspects, ramped-up airstrikes, or indefinite troop deployments.’
If there is anything Americans have learned since 9/11, it is to be deeply skeptical of leaders who begin a sentence with: “If we have learned anything from the attacks on 9/11.” The assertion that follows is rarely informed by any actual factual lessons on the causes and consequences of those catastrophic attacks. Rather, “9/11” is typically employed to justify any policy the leader preferred in the first place—often increased military spending, expansive surveillance of citizens, torture of terrorist suspects, ramped-up airstrikes, or indefinite troop deployments.’
The inability for most political and military leaders to sincerely learn from the national crisis 19 years ago is relevant for how the United States chooses to learn from the slowly unfolding COVID-19 pandemic. With an estimated nearly 2 million confirmed cases, 110,000 fatalities, and widespread societal and economic disruption, the virus offers a focusing event from which political leaders and government officials can have a (roughly) shared understanding of what happened, why it happened, who is accountable, and how can it be avoided.
The objectives going forward should be to capture the key findings and ensure that they are learned, remembered, and then utilized in developing policies into the future. If the United States collectively fails to do this regarding its latest crisis, “COVID-19” will rhetorically become another “9/11”—a hollow justification for anything and everything, no matter how unrelated, unethical, or costly. The suffering experienced by the millions of casualties and sacrifices made by tens of millions of health care professionals will be in vain and forgotten, offering little guidance on America’s thinking and policies in the future.
Yet there will be tremendous challenges to the nation’s collective learning due to the unique nature of the pandemic. In the present moment, all Americans to varying degrees are living in real time with the political, economic, societal, and personal impacts of COVID-19. They listen to government briefings to find out about business openings, read the news for any reports of progress on cocktail treatments or miracle vaccines, and monitor the trends in infection rates and deaths across the country. The phenomenon of COVID-19 surrounds them and their hopes and expectations for the future.
This national crisis will likely dissipate and recede from collective memory faster than one would expect. By comparison, even the most basic facts related to 9/11 were quickly forgotten: Within three years, 1 in 5 Americans surveyed could not recall how many civilian aircraft were involved (it was four); within six, 41 percent contended that Saddam Hussein “was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out” the attacks (he was not); and in 2019, 23 percent strongly or somewhat believed “in the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job” (it was not). Large numbers of adults forgot, misremembered, or—fueled by slick YouTube videos or a general distrust of government—adapted wholly new and false beliefs about the catastrophe.
While 9/11 was a one-day event with unimaginable imagery and emotional intensity, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a half-year gradually emerging experience that has affected Americans very differently, at different times, and in different geographic locations. The former was a flashbulb event that became (somewhat) etched in people’s minds, the latter an invisible menace that ebbs and flows, in part, based on factors over which people have limited control—such as whether they are required to work in close proximity to co-workers or customers.
In addition, while several celebrities and public figures have announced their infections, most of them have thankfully recovered—as is true for the vast majority of people infected. But there is no “face” for COVID-19 victims, and fully 42 percent of all deaths have occurred far away from the spotlight, in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. This matters because individual stories imprint deeper on people’s memories, and we have very few of them and even fewer memorable sounds or images of their final moments. Whereas 9/11 is a date leaders of both parties pledge to never forget, COVID-19 could become a partisan argument of selective, faceless statistics.
For all these reasons, it is likely that the country will forget or misremember COVID-19 even faster and to a far greater degree than they have 9/11. Unfortunately, this will enable politicians and government officials even wider latitude to deploy “COVID-19” thoughtlessly in defense of completely unrelated policies and programs. We already see this with the Trump administration’s decision to prohibit lawful immigration from Canada or Mexico—two countries with far lower per capita COVID-19 infection rates than the United States. White House officials had championed this extreme border sealing long before the outbreak of the pandemic; now they have used the fear-based argument to authorize its implementation.
There are two practical ways that the United States can learn from COVID-19 and ensure its lessons are remembered over time. First, President Donald Trump must be defeated in November. As I wrote in my last column: Once Trump “believes absolutely anything—no matter how poorly thought-out, ill-informed, or inaccurate—he remains completely anchored to that initial impression or judgment.” Even worse, his initial impressions are adopted and promulgated by every advisor and cabinet member. Because Trump has decided he is completely blameless for COVID-19, in a second term his administration—and by extension all serving Republicans—will refuse to cooperate faithfully with any investigation. Since Trump cannot learn, America will not learn if he is reelected president.
Second, Joe Biden, if elected and on entering office, must publicly endorse an authentically bipartisan commission that is allowed to study, compile, and present all of the relevant facts surrounding COVID-19. This will require ruthlessly evaluating the public health records of previous administrations—much as the 9/11 Commission correctly apportioned blame for the terrorist attacks on every president dating to Ronald Reagan. A President Biden will have to endorse the key findings, acknowledge the shortcomings that occurred when he was vice president, and work with Congress to pass legislation and authorize funding based on the commission’s recommendations, in order to reduce the probability of government inaction in the face of future mass outbreaks.
Either way, whether it succeeds or fails, how the United States remembers this national crisis will be hugely consequential. The shared remembrance it arrives at will inform who Americans are and what they permit their leaders to do, for better or worse.


foreignpolicy--2020-06-05--Hundreds of Former National Security Officials Condemn Trump’s Response to Protests

Hundreds of Former National Security Officials Condemn Trump ’ s Response to Protests More than 280 former senior U.S. diplomats and military leaders rebuked President Donald Trump over his plans to use U.S. military units to control protests across the country in a letter shared with Foreign Policy on Friday .
The participants joined a chorus of high-ranking current and former officials who already have condemned the commander in chief after police forcibly cleared protesters near the White House this week for a photo opportunity .
The letter was drafted by Douglas Silliman , the president ’ s former ambassador @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served as U.S. ambassador to Lithuania during the Obama administration ; and Thomas Countryman , a veteran diplomat who served as the State Department ’ s top arms control official .
“ Many of us served across the globe , including in war zones , diplomats and military officers working side by side to advance American interests and values .
We called out violations of human rights and the authoritarian regimes that deployed their military against their own citizens , ” the former high-ranking officials wrote .
“ We condemn all criminal acts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not agree that responding to these acts is beyond the capabilities of local and state authorities.
” “ There is no role for the U.S. military in dealing with American citizens exercising their constitutional right to free speech , however uncomfortable that speech may be for some , ” the signatories added , condemning the use of National Guard helicopters in a so-called “ rotor wash ” low-flying action against protesters near the White House on Monday night .
On Thursday , Defense Secretary Mark Esper ordered as many as 700 soldiers with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Division that were on high alert to respond to protests back home , leaving under 1,000 active-duty U.S. troops nearby , mostly from military police units .
Speaking to reporters on Friday , Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy confirmed that Esper had given the 91st Military Police Battalion “ vocal instructions ” to depart the Washington , D.C. , area immediately and that it was the Pentagon ’ s intention to send home any other remaining troops “ as soon as possible.
” “ The decision to bring the active forces in on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we did not have enough people here , ” McCarthy said at a Pentagon gaggle today .
“ Sunday was an incredibly challenging night for us : The Lincoln Monument was defaced , we had five soldiers hit in the head with a brick , obviously St. John ’ s was burned .
Inside of Lafayette Square , [ we ] definitely lost control , to the point they were on the north fence.
” Lawmakers and former members of Trump ’ s own administration , including former Defense Secretary James Mattis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to flood the nation ’ s capital with more than 4,500 National Guard troops—mostly from other U.S. states .
Trump has yet to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act that allows the U.S. military to respond to riots , and active-duty units ordered on standby did not enter Washington , D.C. , city limits .
But even the deployments of reservists and Justice Department personnel , who have been seen concealing their badge numbers and other identifying information , have stoked ire from local officials , after protests proceeded peacefully throughout much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump on Thursday , D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told the president that she had ended the city ’ s state of emergency for demonstrations and asked for National Guard troops to demobilize .
“ The protestors have been peaceful , and last night , the Metropolitan Police Department did not make a single arrest , ” Bowser wrote .
“ Therefore , I am requesting that you withdraw all extraordinary federal law enforcement and military presence from Washington , DC.
” Bowser accelerated her protests of Trump ’ s response on Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Lives Matter Plaza ” next to the White House after the city hired a crew to paint the adjoining intersection with a stenciled tribute to the movement .
The walling off of the White House and use of unidentified Justice Department personnel to patrol Washington ’ s streets has prompted outcry from Capitol Hill , including from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , who has demanded that those units make their badge numbers visible .
“ It ’ s the concept that you don ’ t know who these people are , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department official during the Obama administration and now a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution .
“ You don ’ t want the military to be going against the American people.
” But the stern pushback has done little to curb nationwide deployments of National Guard troops in response to the protests , according to figures released by the Defense Department on Friday .
As of Friday morning , governors in 33 states and Washington , D.C. , had activated 41,500 National Guardsmen to respond to reports of civil unrest surrounding the demonstrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops from Thursday .

More than 280 former senior U.S. diplomats and military leaders rebuked President Donald Trump over his plans to use U.S. military units to control protests across the country in a letter shared with Foreign Policy on Friday.
More than 280 former senior U.S. diplomats and military leaders rebuked President Donald Trump over his plans to use U.S. military units to control protests across the country in a letter shared with Foreign Policy on Friday.
The participants joined a chorus of high-ranking current and former officials who already have condemned the commander in chief after police forcibly cleared protesters near the White House this week for a photo opportunity.
The letter was drafted by Douglas Silliman, the president’s former ambassador to Iraq; Deborah McCarthy, who served as U.S. ambassador to Lithuania during the Obama administration; and Thomas Countryman, a veteran diplomat who served as the State Department’s top arms control official.
“Many of us served across the globe, including in war zones, diplomats and military officers working side by side to advance American interests and values. We called out violations of human rights and the authoritarian regimes that deployed their military against their own citizens,” the former high-ranking officials wrote. “We condemn all criminal acts against persons and property, but cannot agree that responding to these acts is beyond the capabilities of local and state authorities.”
“There is no role for the U.S. military in dealing with American citizens exercising their constitutional right to free speech, however uncomfortable that speech may be for some,” the signatories added, condemning the use of National Guard helicopters in a so-called “rotor wash” low-flying action against protesters near the White House on Monday night. On Thursday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper ordered as many as 700 soldiers with the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division that were on high alert to respond to protests back home, leaving under 1,000 active-duty U.S. troops nearby, mostly from military police units.
Speaking to reporters on Friday, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy confirmed that Esper had given the 91st Military Police Battalion “vocal instructions” to depart the Washington, D.C., area immediately and that it was the Pentagon’s intention to send home any other remaining troops “as soon as possible.”
“The decision to bring the active forces in on Monday was largely due to the fact that we did not have enough people here,” McCarthy said at a Pentagon gaggle today. “Sunday was an incredibly challenging night for us: The Lincoln Monument was defaced, we had five soldiers hit in the head with a brick, obviously St. John’s was burned. Inside of Lafayette Square, [we] definitely lost control, to the point they were on the north fence.”
Lawmakers and former members of Trump’s own administration, including former Defense Secretary James Mattis, have criticized the White House’s decision to flood the nation’s capital with more than 4,500 National Guard troops—mostly from other U.S. states. Trump has yet to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act that allows the U.S. military to respond to riots, and active-duty units ordered on standby did not enter Washington, D.C., city limits.
But even the deployments of reservists and Justice Department personnel, who have been seen concealing their badge numbers and other identifying information, have stoked ire from local officials, after protests proceeded peacefully throughout much of the week. In a letter sent to Trump on Thursday, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told the president that she had ended the city’s state of emergency for demonstrations and asked for National Guard troops to demobilize.
“The protestors have been peaceful, and last night, the Metropolitan Police Department did not make a single arrest,” Bowser wrote. “Therefore, I am requesting that you withdraw all extraordinary federal law enforcement and military presence from Washington, DC.” Bowser accelerated her protests of Trump’s response on Friday, unveiling a street sign for “Black Lives Matter Plaza” next to the White House after the city hired a crew to paint the adjoining intersection with a stenciled tribute to the movement.
The walling off of the White House and use of unidentified Justice Department personnel to patrol Washington’s streets has prompted outcry from Capitol Hill, including from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has demanded that those units make their badge numbers visible.
“It’s the concept that you don’t know who these people are,” said Bonnie Jenkins, a former State Department official during the Obama administration and now a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution. “You don’t want the military to be going against the American people.”
But the stern pushback has done little to curb nationwide deployments of National Guard troops in response to the protests, according to figures released by the Defense Department on Friday. As of Friday morning, governors in 33 states and Washington, D.C., had activated 41,500 National Guardsmen to respond to reports of civil unrest surrounding the demonstrations, an increase of more than 9,000 troops from Thursday.


foreignpolicy--2020-06-05--As U.S. Injustices Rage, China’s Condemnation Reeks of Cynicism

As U.S .
Injustices Rage , China ’ s Condemnation Reeks of Cynicism The protests across the United States triggered by the killing of George Floyd in police custody have inspired a wave of demonstrations around the globe .
Protesters in Australia , Brazil , Germany , the United Kingdom , and many other countries are gathering en masse to denounce racism and police violence in the United States .
Amid this global support for the U.S. Black Lives Matter movement is an unusual new ally : the Chinese government .
The People ’ s Daily , the Chinese Communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cartoon portraying a White House tainted in blood and covered in tear gas .
Standing on top of it is a crumbling Statue of Liberty , revealing her true identity as the police officer who kneeled on Floyd ’ s neck and now faces murder charges for suffocating him to death .
A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson , Zhao Lijian , told reporters in a press conference , “ The current situation reflects once more the severity of the problems of racism and police violence in the U.S. ” Another bellicose spokesperson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign criticism of China ’ s handling of the coronavirus outbreak , Uighur concentration camps , and brutal police violence against Hong Kong protesters—joined the international outcry over Floyd ’ s death by tweeting , “ I can ’ t breathe.
” Underneath Beijing ’ s commentary on the U.S. unrest is a deeply cynical voice that asks : If the U.S. authorities can do it , why shouldn ’ t we ?
Beijing ’ s criticism of the United States , however , differs from that seen around the globe .
China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a genuine concern for universal human rights and the well-being of African Americans .
The Chinese people have not been given any opportunity to protest in solidarity with Americans—or against the abuses of black residents in China itself .
Anti-black racism remains rampant on the Chinese internet , untouched by censors who seek to crush opinions the government dislikes .
Its motivation is simply to tell the United States , and everybody else , to stop criticizing China over its own human rights abuses .
Underneath Beijing ’ s commentary on the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asks : If the U.S. authorities can do it , why shouldn ’ t we ?
Last Friday afternoon , Trump held a press conference to denounce China ’ s plan to devise a national security law to crack down on Hong Kong ’ s dissents .
He threatened to end U.S. recognition of Hong Kong ’ s special trading status and to sanction Chinese officials hurting Hong Kong ’ s freedom .
It is going to bring real damage to Chinese companies and wealthy elites who have been using Hong Kong as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign capital , sensitive technology , and channels to relocate their wealth overseas .
That night , after Trump ’ s speech , major cities across the United States were engulfed in flames , National Guards were mobilized , and protesters clashed with riot police near the White House .
The president reportedly hid briefly in a bunker .
The Chinese authorities have been heavily criticized for their crackdown on Hong Kong protests , for the Uighur concentration camps , and for the arrests of rights lawyers .
Beijing must be delighted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its problems of racism and police brutality are brought into the spotlight .
It would be surprising if Beijing did not seize the moment to criticize the double standards of the White House .
This cynicism underlines Beijing ’ s response to criticism of its bullying behavior in the international arena .
When an international tribunal in The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines against Chinese claims of sovereignty over the South China Sea in 2016 , Beijing made it clear it would not abide by the ruling .
It pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the time and , hypocritically , hadn ’ t even acceded to the relevant U.N. convention itself .
Such rhetoric has grown common over the last few decades , as the Chinese Communist Party gradually abandoned its appeal for a more just social system and world order .
Instead , the party has become increasingly explicit in referring to the global domination by Western powers as a license for its own imperial ambition .
Jiang Shigong , an influential official scholar who advises the Chinese government on Hong Kong policy and global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should “ absorb the skills and achievements ” of the British and American empires to construct its own “ world empire ” for the sake of the Chinese people and the world .
For those in the United States and elsewhere who aspire for more equality , justice , and liberty , it is a mistake to see Beijing as an exotic progressive force with which to ally .
Beijing points to the violence and injustice of the United States to exonerate itself from its own egregious violence and injustices .
Police brutality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unimaginably horrific .
But U.S. authorities today are not using these protests as an excuse to arrest dissenting legislators and professors , to wholly outlaw peaceful assembly and rights organizations , to pressure companies and universities to fire employees sympathetic with the protesters , to arrest people for criticizing the government on social media , or to lock up 1 million minorities in reeducation camps .
These abuses are routine in China and becoming routine in Hong Kong .
Perhaps global anti-racist protesters should take this opportunity to educate Beijing that the global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the world ’ s denunciation of Uighur concentration camps do emanate from a genuine passion for universal human rights instead of some malicious intent to “ hold back China ” —an accusation that Beijing often levels against its critics .
Global civil society criticizes the U.S. authorities as much as the Chinese government when either inflicts violence and racism against its people .
This is the polar opposite of a double standard .
We are increasingly living in a world of competing bullies , who emulate one another in bad behaviors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race to the bottom in rights and justices , we should stand together to hold all bullies to the same standard of scrutiny , not letting them take advantage of others ’ embarrassment to advance their repression .

The protests across the United States triggered by the killing of George Floyd in police custody have inspired a wave of demonstrations around the globe. Protesters in Australia, Brazil, Germany, the United Kingdom, and many other countries are gathering en masse to denounce racism and police violence in the United States.
The protests across the United States triggered by the killing of George Floyd in police custody have inspired a wave of demonstrations around the globe. Protesters in Australia, Brazil, Germany, the United Kingdom, and many other countries are gathering en masse to denounce racism and police violence in the United States.
Amid this global support for the U.S. Black Lives Matter movement is an unusual new ally: the Chinese government. The People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece, published a cartoon portraying a White House tainted in blood and covered in tear gas. Standing on top of it is a crumbling Statue of Liberty, revealing her true identity as the police officer who kneeled on Floyd’s neck and now faces murder charges for suffocating him to death. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Zhao Lijian, told reporters in a press conference, “The current situation reflects once more the severity of the problems of racism and police violence in the U.S.” Another bellicose spokesperson, Hua Chunying—known for her aggressive pushback against foreign criticism of China’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak, Uighur concentration camps, and brutal police violence against Hong Kong protesters—joined the international outcry over Floyd’s death by tweeting, “I can’t breathe.”
Underneath Beijing’s commentary on the U.S. unrest is a deeply cynical voice that asks: If the U.S. authorities can do it, why shouldn’t we? Beijing’s criticism of the United States, however, differs from that seen around the globe. China’s critique does not stem from a genuine concern for universal human rights and the well-being of African Americans. The Chinese people have not been given any opportunity to protest in solidarity with Americans—or against the abuses of black residents in China itself. Anti-black racism remains rampant on the Chinese internet, untouched by censors who seek to crush opinions the government dislikes. Its motivation is simply to tell the United States, and everybody else, to stop criticizing China over its own human rights abuses. Underneath Beijing’s commentary on the U.S. unrest is a deeply cynical voice that asks: If the U.S. authorities can do it, why shouldn’t we?
Last Friday afternoon, Trump held a press conference to denounce China’s plan to devise a national security law to crack down on Hong Kong’s dissents. He threatened to end U.S. recognition of Hong Kong’s special trading status and to sanction Chinese officials hurting Hong Kong’s freedom. It is going to bring real damage to Chinese companies and wealthy elites who have been using Hong Kong as a back door to gain access to foreign capital, sensitive technology, and channels to relocate their wealth overseas.
That night, after Trump’s speech, major cities across the United States were engulfed in flames, National Guards were mobilized, and protesters clashed with riot police near the White House. The president reportedly hid briefly in a bunker. The Chinese authorities have been heavily criticized for their crackdown on Hong Kong protests, for the Uighur concentration camps, and for the arrests of rights lawyers. Beijing must be delighted to see the U.S. global reputation tarnished as its problems of racism and police brutality are brought into the spotlight. It would be surprising if Beijing did not seize the moment to criticize the double standards of the White House.
This cynicism underlines Beijing’s response to criticism of its bullying behavior in the international arena. When an international tribunal in The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines against Chinese claims of sovereignty over the South China Sea in 2016, Beijing made it clear it would not abide by the ruling. It pointed out that the United States violated international law all the time and, hypocritically, hadn’t even acceded to the relevant U.N. convention itself.
Such rhetoric has grown common over the last few decades, as the Chinese Communist Party gradually abandoned its appeal for a more just social system and world order. Instead, the party has become increasingly explicit in referring to the global domination by Western powers as a license for its own imperial ambition. Jiang Shigong, an influential official scholar who advises the Chinese government on Hong Kong policy and global governance, even wrote recently that China should “absorb the skills and achievements” of the British and American empires to construct its own “world empire” for the sake of the Chinese people and the world.
For those in the United States and elsewhere who aspire for more equality, justice, and liberty, it is a mistake to see Beijing as an exotic progressive force with which to ally. Beijing points to the violence and injustice of the United States to exonerate itself from its own egregious violence and injustices. Police brutality and racism in the United States are unimaginably horrific. But U.S. authorities today are not using these protests as an excuse to arrest dissenting legislators and professors, to wholly outlaw peaceful assembly and rights organizations, to pressure companies and universities to fire employees sympathetic with the protesters, to arrest people for criticizing the government on social media, or to lock up 1 million minorities in reeducation camps. These abuses are routine in China and becoming routine in Hong Kong.
Perhaps global anti-racist protesters should take this opportunity to educate Beijing that the global support for Hong Kong protesters last year and the world’s denunciation of Uighur concentration camps do emanate from a genuine passion for universal human rights instead of some malicious intent to “hold back China”—an accusation that Beijing often levels against its critics. Global civil society criticizes the U.S. authorities as much as the Chinese government when either inflicts violence and racism against its people. This is the polar opposite of a double standard.
We are increasingly living in a world of competing bullies, who emulate one another in bad behaviors, domestically and internationally. To stop this race to the bottom in rights and justices, we should stand together to hold all bullies to the same standard of scrutiny, not letting them take advantage of others’ embarrassment to advance their repression.


foreignpolicy--2020-06-05--No-Deal Brexit Looks Likelier Than Ever After the Pandemic

No-Deal Brexit Looks Likelier Than Ever After the Pandemic Talks between Britain and the European Union over their future relationship are going absolutely nowhere , with the EU ’ s chief negotiator saying Friday that the two sides made “ no substantial progress ” in their latest round of discussions and lambasting what he called Britain ’ s “ backtracking.
” “ In all areas , the U.K. continues to backtrack on the commitments it has undertaken , ” said Michel Barnier , Brussels ’ s point man for the talks , at a press conference .
Almost four years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU , and nearly five months after it finally did , Britain now looks closer than ever to crashing out with no deal—an outcome actually made more likely by the COVID-19 pandemic .
The pandemic has disrupted an already abbreviated schedule for talks , distracted political leaders , eroded trust in the British government—giving it even less political leeway to ask for a much-needed extension—and created an economic upheaval that many pro-Brexit people figure will mask any pain from the departure , making a no-deal exit seem relatively less painful .
Warnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future without any clearly defined trade relationship with Europe are now starting to come fast and furious .
Nissan , the big automaker , this week warned that its huge plant in Sunderland probably won ’ t make economic sense if cars it makes there face import tariffs on the continent .
The head of the Bank of England warned banks to start taking the prospect of a no-deal departure more seriously .
The British pound is weakening as investors start to weigh the risk of a no-deal exit by the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the latest round of talks , which concluded Friday , only underscores how far off a deal remains—with time running out to even find common ground , let alone get a final trade agreement ratified .
“ We are stuck in an impasse here .
The positions of the two sides are far apart and for the moment irreconcilable , ” said Anand Menon , the director of the U.K. in a Changing Europe , a research outfit focused on U.K.-EU relations .
If the two sides can ’ t reach a deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Menon ’ s think tank estimated that departing without a new trade agreement could lead to a reduction of between 3 percent and 8 percent of British GDP over the next decade ; services , which make up the bulk of the British economy , would be hammered even if a deal is reached .
And unlike the pandemic , whose economic damage is deep but short-lived , perhaps encouraging some British officials to risk bailing out now while supply chains and firms are already in disarray , “ the impacts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps for years , ” Menon said .
There are several obstacles .
One is simply the gulf between what the EU has said must be present in any future agreement with the U.K. and what Britain is willing to accept .
Europe insists , for instance , on “ level playing field ” provisions to avoid unfair competition from a big and nearby economy , as well as a continuation of Europe-wide fisheries policy that would ensure EU access to British waters ; for a Britain that sold Brexit as a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brussels , neither is acceptable .
The top U.K. negotiator , David Frost , laid into Europe and its demands in an icy letter last month .
For the EU , the frustration is that Britain did seem to agree to many of those demands when it signed the political declaration last year outlining mutual commitments on future cooperation in areas like trade , state aid , fishing , and security .
Now , British negotiators are walking that back , Barnier again charged .
It ’ s essentially a continuation of British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ cakeism ” —wanting to have the cake and eat it too , by enjoying most of the benefits of closer ties with Europe while accepting few of the obligations .
“ We can not accept this backtracking from the political declaration , ” Barnier said , calling it “ the only valid reference ” for talks between the two sides .
That retreat doesn ’ t just create tensions over the areas in question , Menon said , but creates a lack of trust that bleeds into all other areas of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the government has been willing to revisit the things it signed up to , so the EU no longer trusts it , ” he said .
“ It has an impact on other areas of the talks : The EU says , ‘ If you signed up to that last year , and now you say you ’ re not going to do it , how can we take you on your word for your other future commitments ?
’ ” The whole dispute is further complicated by the impossibly tight deadline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and formally agree on all the aspects of their future relationship , from trade and tariffs to agricultural inspections to cross-border police and judicial cooperation .
The so-called transition period , where EU rules still apply , ends at the end of this year .
The two sides could extend that transition—but only if they agree to do so by the end of June .
Despite Barnier ’ s reiterated offer of a one- or two-year extension to win more time to reach a final agreement , the British government has repeatedly ruled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even outlawed the prospect of one through legislation .
And any wiggle room to backtrack on that and seek an extension is vanishing as the government comes in for criticism of its handling of the pandemic .
“ I don ’ t see that we ’ re going to get an extension in June .
That would be a U-turn too far for the U.K. government , ” said David Henig , the director of the U.K. Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy .
But if there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no-deal departure even more likely .
Experts like Henig figure that the future agreement needs to be completed by mid-October to allow time for ratification by EU member states ; Barnier himself said a deal must essentially be reached by the end of October at the very latest .
That leaves just five months to bridge a fundamental chasm , soured further by a lack of trust on both sides .
“ Normally , talks like this take place over several years .
This concentrated time scale accentuates the lack of trust because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and time for tradeoffs , ” Henig said .
The two sides have a few near-term opportunities to get the talks back on track .
Later this month , Johnson will meet with Ursula von der Leyen , the president of the European Commission .
Barnier said he hoped to restart face-to-face trade negotiations next month ; the COVID-19 pandemic has turned the talks so far into virtual affairs , making it even harder to bridge the divide .
But experts see little prospect for any big breakthrough unless political leaders get directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic and haven ’ t had the bandwidth to engage in the discussions .
“ You need engagement from political principals , but they have better things to be doing , ” Menon said .
“ They are needed to unlock the issues that are causing problems , ” he added , noting that the EU can ’ t budge much on the question of fisheries until leaders of fishing states , like French President Emmanuel Macron , get involved .
Likewise , to get over the impasse of Britain ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson needs to get involved .
Most importantly , making trade-offs across various issues to reach agreement—say , trading some fisheries access for continued British financial services in Europe—requires high-level involvement .
But the big question ultimately remains whether Johnson , who delivered the Brexit he promised , is willing to accept the risks of a no-deal departure—as many of his advisors seem happy to do—or if he will seek to make some compromises to ensure some trade and financial security for a Britain already hard-hit by the pandemic .
“ Johnson probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around him don ’ t want anything to do with the EU , ” Henig said .
“ So does he follow those people or decide he needs a deal ?
”

Talks between Britain and the European Union over their future relationship are going absolutely nowhere, with the EU’s chief negotiator saying Friday that the two sides made “no substantial progress” in their latest round of discussions and lambasting what he called Britain’s “backtracking.”
Talks between Britain and the European Union over their future relationship are going absolutely nowhere, with the EU’s chief negotiator saying Friday that the two sides made “no substantial progress” in their latest round of discussions and lambasting what he called Britain’s “backtracking.”
“In all areas, the U.K. continues to backtrack on the commitments it has undertaken,” said Michel Barnier, Brussels’s point man for the talks, at a press conference.
Almost four years after the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, and nearly five months after it finally did, Britain now looks closer than ever to crashing out with no deal—an outcome actually made more likely by the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has disrupted an already abbreviated schedule for talks, distracted political leaders, eroded trust in the British government—giving it even less political leeway to ask for a much-needed extension—and created an economic upheaval that many pro-Brexit people figure will mask any pain from the departure, making a no-deal exit seem relatively less painful.
Warnings that Britain needs to prepare for a future without any clearly defined trade relationship with Europe are now starting to come fast and furious. Nissan, the big automaker, this week warned that its huge plant in Sunderland probably won’t make economic sense if cars it makes there face import tariffs on the continent. The head of the Bank of England warned banks to start taking the prospect of a no-deal departure more seriously. The British pound is weakening as investors start to weigh the risk of a no-deal exit by the end of the year.
The acrimonious end to the latest round of talks, which concluded Friday, only underscores how far off a deal remains—with time running out to even find common ground, let alone get a final trade agreement ratified.
“We are stuck in an impasse here. The positions of the two sides are far apart and for the moment irreconcilable,” said Anand Menon, the director of the U.K. in a Changing Europe, a research outfit focused on U.K.-EU relations.
If the two sides can’t reach a deal, the economic costs could be significant. Menon’s think tank estimated that departing without a new trade agreement could lead to a reduction of between 3 percent and 8 percent of British GDP over the next decade; services, which make up the bulk of the British economy, would be hammered even if a deal is reached.
And unlike the pandemic, whose economic damage is deep but short-lived, perhaps encouraging some British officials to risk bailing out now while supply chains and firms are already in disarray, “the impacts of Brexit will keep on being felt, perhaps for years,” Menon said.
There are several obstacles. One is simply the gulf between what the EU has said must be present in any future agreement with the U.K. and what Britain is willing to accept. Europe insists, for instance, on “level playing field” provisions to avoid unfair competition from a big and nearby economy, as well as a continuation of Europe-wide fisheries policy that would ensure EU access to British waters; for a Britain that sold Brexit as a way to “take back control” from Brussels, neither is acceptable. The top U.K. negotiator, David Frost, laid into Europe and its demands in an icy letter last month.
For the EU, the frustration is that Britain did seem to agree to many of those demands when it signed the political declaration last year outlining mutual commitments on future cooperation in areas like trade, state aid, fishing, and security. Now, British negotiators are walking that back, Barnier again charged. It’s essentially a continuation of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s famous “cakeism”—wanting to have the cake and eat it too, by enjoying most of the benefits of closer ties with Europe while accepting few of the obligations.
“We cannot accept this backtracking from the political declaration,” Barnier said, calling it “the only valid reference” for talks between the two sides.
That retreat doesn’t just create tensions over the areas in question, Menon said, but creates a lack of trust that bleeds into all other areas of the talks.
“There is no doubt that the government has been willing to revisit the things it signed up to, so the EU no longer trusts it,” he said. “It has an impact on other areas of the talks: The EU says, ‘If you signed up to that last year, and now you say you’re not going to do it, how can we take you on your word for your other future commitments?’”
The whole dispute is further complicated by the impossibly tight deadline the two sides have to hash out and formally agree on all the aspects of their future relationship, from trade and tariffs to agricultural inspections to cross-border police and judicial cooperation. The so-called transition period, where EU rules still apply, ends at the end of this year.
The two sides could extend that transition—but only if they agree to do so by the end of June. Despite Barnier’s reiterated offer of a one- or two-year extension to win more time to reach a final agreement, the British government has repeatedly ruled out the idea of any extension and even outlawed the prospect of one through legislation. And any wiggle room to backtrack on that and seek an extension is vanishing as the government comes in for criticism of its handling of the pandemic.
“I don’t see that we’re going to get an extension in June. That would be a U-turn too far for the U.K. government,” said David Henig, the director of the U.K. Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy.
But if there’s no extension, that makes a no-deal departure even more likely. Experts like Henig figure that the future agreement needs to be completed by mid-October to allow time for ratification by EU member states; Barnier himself said a deal must essentially be reached by the end of October at the very latest. That leaves just five months to bridge a fundamental chasm, soured further by a lack of trust on both sides.
“Normally, talks like this take place over several years. This concentrated time scale accentuates the lack of trust because it doesn’t allow the space and time for tradeoffs,” Henig said.
The two sides have a few near-term opportunities to get the talks back on track. Later this month, Johnson will meet with Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission. Barnier said he hoped to restart face-to-face trade negotiations next month; the COVID-19 pandemic has turned the talks so far into virtual affairs, making it even harder to bridge the divide. But experts see little prospect for any big breakthrough unless political leaders get directly involved—but they have spent months distracted by the pandemic and haven’t had the bandwidth to engage in the discussions.
“You need engagement from political principals, but they have better things to be doing,” Menon said. “They are needed to unlock the issues that are causing problems,” he added, noting that the EU can’t budge much on the question of fisheries until leaders of fishing states, like French President Emmanuel Macron, get involved. Likewise, to get over the impasse of Britain’s adherence to level playing field rules, Johnson needs to get involved. Most importantly, making trade-offs across various issues to reach agreement—say, trading some fisheries access for continued British financial services in Europe—requires high-level involvement.
But the big question ultimately remains whether Johnson, who delivered the Brexit he promised, is willing to accept the risks of a no-deal departure—as many of his advisors seem happy to do—or if he will seek to make some compromises to ensure some trade and financial security for a Britain already hard-hit by the pandemic.
“Johnson probably wants a deal, but the people around him don’t want anything to do with the EU,” Henig said. “So does he follow those people or decide he needs a deal?”


foreignpolicy--2020-06-05--Could the Pandemic Kill the United Kingdom?

Could the Pandemic Kill the United Kingdom ?
The latest round of trade negotiations over the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union commenced on June 2 , but British officials might have bigger problems at home .
U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his government ’ s underwhelming response to the coronavirus pandemic has been sharply criticized across the political spectrum , possibly giving further impetus to the Scottish independence and Irish unification movements .
For many nationalists in Northern Ireland , the pandemic has exposed the folly of running two separate health and political administrations on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , this strengthens their demand for unification .
“ The behavior and the interests of the British government have caused a whole raft of people to think and review and analyze whether their best interests were served by that , ” said Niall O Donnghaile , the spokesman on uniting Ireland and Brexit for the pro-unification party Sinn Fein .
“ All of this is certainly pointing toward a bigger manifestation of an argument for unity.
” In Scotland , a YouGov poll conducted in January already found a narrow majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time since 2015 .
Every district in Scotland voted to remain as part of the European Union in 2016 , and Brexit has forced some to change their minds on the question of Scottish independence .
With support for independence on a knife-edge , even a marginal change in public opinion brought about by the pandemic could prove to be decisive .
Even so , plans to hold a second vote on the issue in 2020 have been put on hold for now , and the Scottish first minister , Nicola Sturgeon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate the public health issue from the constitutional issue , ” said Nicola McEwen , a professor of territorial politics at the University of Edinburgh and a co-director of the Centre on Constitutional Change.The U.K. government was roundly criticized for appearing not to take the public ’ s health seriously .
The United Kingdom documented its first confirmed case of COVID-19 on Jan. 31 , but the government was slow to implement an effective response .
Even as neighboring countries were closing public spaces and enforcing social distancing regulations , London opted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving the country open in order to deliberately infect a section of the public , thereby allowing the population to develop herd immunity over time .
This idea was dispensed with after a startling report from epidemiologists at Imperial College London predicted that without mitigation measures , the virus could kill over half a million people in the U.K. alone .
The government was roundly criticized for appearing not to take the public ’ s health seriously , and it eventually gave in to the pressure .
On March 23 , Johnson announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , putting it in line with much of the rest of Europe , but only after a prolonged delay that may have been fatal .
The recent row over Dominic Cummings—one of the prime minister ’ s closest confidants whom Johnson refused to push out of office after it was revealed he had deliberately flouted the government ’ s own coronavirus guidelines—emphasized London ’ s lack of seriousness and reinforced the image of an incompetent British government bumbling its way through another crisis .
On the night of St. Patrick ’ s Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minister , assured “ all those living in the shadow of what is to come—we are with you ” in a widely celebrated address to the nation that received praise from across the political spectrum .
Even Jamie Bryson , a leading loyalist activist known for his hard-line opposition to Irish unity , offered reserved praise for the leader , calling it “ a ‘ fight them on the beaches ’ level speech .
Decisive strong leadership .
A rallying call to those in his country.
” Public health is a devolved matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falls under the purview of local authorities in Scotland , Wales , and Northern Ireland .
But without clear direction coming from London , Northern Irish parties were left divided over how best to respond to the outbreak , taking stances that were strongly influenced by their respective views on the country ’ s disputed constitutional question .
Sinn Fein—the country ’ s largest nationalist party , which seeks to unify Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—urged the administration to adopt Dublin ’ s approach .
The Democratic Unionist Party—the country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to maintain the union with Britain—deferred to the British government .
The result was a confused , disjointed approach that was only resolved when London finally took action .
The Northern Irish public ’ s attitude to the British government ’ s response has been overwhelmingly negative .
According to a recent LucidTalk poll , 65 percent of respondents believed the U.K. government has been managing the emergency badly .
“ People were really frustrated with the slowness of the British government ’ s approach , ” said Cliona McCarney , a communications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour Party .
“ We always thought it was going to be kind of bad , but it ’ s probably been worse than we could ’ ve anticipated.
” By contrast , polls show that large majorities of the public admired both the Irish government ’ s response and Varadkar ’ s leadership , figures that include substantial numbers of unionists .
But experts told Foreign Policy that one should be cautious about ascribing too much meaning to the public ’ s reaction to the coronavirus .
“ There ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Dawn Walsh , a professor of politics at University College Dublin and an expert on Northern Ireland , “ between having a friendly and cooperative relationship with your neighbors and having a change of idea as to whether you would like to secede from your current political union and join your neighbors.
” Unionists , she said , have been cultivating a close working relationship with the Irish government for years now.The pandemic is part of a wider trend that seems to suggest the public is warming to the idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is part of a wider trend that seems to suggest the public is warming to the idea of unity .
Northern Ireland voted by a slim majority to remain in the European Union in the June 2016 Brexit referendum , fueling calls for unification with the republic as a way of preserving the country ’ s EU membership .
In the U.K. general election in December 2019 , nationalist politicians won more seats than unionists for the first time in the country ’ s history , and in February , Sinn Fein gained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat of becoming the largest party in the Irish parliament .
It will now likely lead the opposition to the next government in Dublin .
Polls paint an ambiguous picture about the level of support for Irish unity , and the results of different surveys can depend strongly on a variety of factors , including how the question is framed .
A poll conducted by the University of Liverpool in December 2019 showed that only 28.3 percent of respondents believed that unification should be the long-term policy of Northern Ireland .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote if a border poll ( referendum on Irish unity ) were held the next day in a LucidTalk poll , 45.4 percent said they would vote for a united Ireland .
The pandemic is better understood as one part of a broader paradigm shift , rather than as an agent for change on its own .
“ There is an increased chance that there would be a border poll and that a border poll would pass particularly since the Brexit referendum , the rise of English nationalism , and Boris Johnson becoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As O Donnghaile , the Sinn Fein spokesman , put it : “ When you look at Brexit , when you look at [ the British government ’ s ] response to COVID , how could you not be going back and reevaluating some pretty fundamental things ?
” As the U.K. slowly begins to emerge from lockdown , its devolved parliaments and assemblies in Wales , Northern Ireland , and Scotland all proved to be more cautious than Westminster .
In May , when Johnson announced that restrictions would begin to ease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was beginning to fall , Sturgeon urged people in Scotland to stay home .
As in Northern Ireland , opinion polls have revealed that Scots hold a dim view of Johnson ’ s handling of the pandemic .
While 78 percent of people in Scotland think that the government in Edinburgh has handled the crisis well , just 34 percent say the same about Westminster .
Comparing the performance of their respective leaders , the gulf widens further still , as 82 percent believe Sturgeon has handled the pandemic well , compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson .
The Scottish public has always rated its own government higher than the one in Westminster .
“ It ’ s Scotland ’ s own government , it has a bit of a halo around it , ” said John Curtice , a politics professor at the University of Strathclyde , but the disparity suggests that the actions of the Scottish government have hewed closer to public opinion .
Experts who spoke to Foreign Policy said it ’ s too soon to tell how this could shape public attitudes toward Scottish independence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything is about the constitution in Scotland , ” McEwen , the University of Edinburgh professor.The Scottish public has always rated its own government higher than the one in Westminster .
But it ’ s already becoming clear how the pandemic and the looming economic crisis could provide fodder to argue both for and against Scottish independence .
Supporters may argue that had Scotland been independent , a lockdown could have been implemented sooner , while those in favor of remaining in the United Kingdom can point to the economic benefits of remaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pandemic escalate .
“ It will be argued by those on the unionist side that the abilities of the U.K. to throw large amounts of government resources to keep the economy afloat would have been much more difficult for Scotland to achieve , ” Curtice said .
Fears of economic uncertainty proved to be decisive in the 2014 independence referendum in which 55 percent of voters opted to remain as part of the United Kingdom .
As the global economy teeters on the edge of catastrophe , it could be even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break away from Westminster ’ s “ broad shoulders.
” “ For the most part , dire economic circumstances are not the best basis for mounting an independence campaign , ” McEwen said .
“ That would be under normal circumstances but of course we have Brexit on the horizon too.
” The United Kingdom is second only to the United States in its number of coronavirus fatalities , and bereaved relatives and doctors have already called for an inquiry into the government ’ s response .
But as missteps were made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limits to the extent that devolved governments can point the blame at Westminster .
“ All governments have a difficult track record to defend , ” Curtice said .
The Scottish government was criticized for its handling of an outbreak at a conference in Edinburgh in February organized by the sports brand Nike .
Twenty-five attendees were later confirmed to have the virus , but details of the outbreak were not made public out of respect for patient privacy .
According to the BBC , public health authorities in Scotland were made aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the Scottish government held off on banning mass gatherings until March 16 and didn ’ t go into lockdown until March 23 , the same day as restrictions were announced by the U.K. government .
Westminster ’ s bungled response to the pandemic has fueled disillusionment with the Conservative government in Westminster .
With no end in sight to the public health crisis , it ’ s too soon to tell if voters will take out their frustration against Johnson ’ s party in the next election or if it will fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Scottish independence and Irish unity .
Coupled with Brexit negotiations and a global economic downturn , the coming years could fundamentally alter the way people in Scotland and Northern Ireland view their relationship with the United Kingdom .

The latest round of trade negotiations over the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union commenced on June 2, but British officials might have bigger problems at home. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his government’s underwhelming response to the coronavirus pandemic has been sharply criticized across the political spectrum, possibly giving further impetus to the Scottish independence and Irish unification movements.
The latest round of trade negotiations over the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union commenced on June 2, but British officials might have bigger problems at home. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his government’s underwhelming response to the coronavirus pandemic has been sharply criticized across the political spectrum, possibly giving further impetus to the Scottish independence and Irish unification movements.
For many nationalists in Northern Ireland, the pandemic has exposed the folly of running two separate health and political administrations on the same island, and, to them, this strengthens their demand for unification. “The behavior and the interests of the British government have caused a whole raft of people to think and review and analyze whether their best interests were served by that,” said Niall O Donnghaile, the spokesman on uniting Ireland and Brexit for the pro-unification party Sinn Fein. “All of this is certainly pointing toward a bigger manifestation of an argument for unity.”
In Scotland, a YouGov poll conducted in January already found a narrow majority of Scots in favor of independence for the first time since 2015. Every district in Scotland voted to remain as part of the European Union in 2016, and Brexit has forced some to change their minds on the question of Scottish independence. With support for independence on a knife-edge, even a marginal change in public opinion brought about by the pandemic could prove to be decisive.
Even so, plans to hold a second vote on the issue in 2020 have been put on hold for now, and the Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has “been at pains to separate the public health issue from the constitutional issue,” said Nicola McEwen, a professor of territorial politics at the University of Edinburgh and a co-director of the Centre on Constitutional Change.The U.K. government was roundly criticized for appearing not to take the public’s health seriously.
The United Kingdom documented its first confirmed case of COVID-19 on Jan. 31, but the government was slow to implement an effective response. Even as neighboring countries were closing public spaces and enforcing social distancing regulations, London opted for a laissez-faire approach; it reportedly favored leaving the country open in order to deliberately infect a section of the public, thereby allowing the population to develop herd immunity over time. This idea was dispensed with after a startling report from epidemiologists at Imperial College London predicted that without mitigation measures, the virus could kill over half a million people in the U.K. alone.
The government was roundly criticized for appearing not to take the public’s health seriously, and it eventually gave in to the pressure. On March 23, Johnson announced the immediate closure of all nonessential businesses, putting it in line with much of the rest of Europe, but only after a prolonged delay that may have been fatal. The recent row over Dominic Cummings—one of the prime minister’s closest confidants whom Johnson refused to push out of office after it was revealed he had deliberately flouted the government’s own coronavirus guidelines—emphasized London’s lack of seriousness and reinforced the image of an incompetent British government bumbling its way through another crisis.
The Irish government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic stood in sharp contrast to Britain’s. Less than two weeks after reporting its first confirmed case of COVID-19 on Feb. 29, officials moved swiftly to close all schools, universities, and child care facilities. Days later, they canceled all St. Patrick’s Day festivities across the country, and leaders canceled their annual high-profile holiday visit to Washington. Authorities have enforced strict social distancing regulations throughout the crisis.
On the night of St. Patrick’s Day, Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister, assured “all those living in the shadow of what is to come—we are with you” in a widely celebrated address to the nation that received praise from across the political spectrum. Even Jamie Bryson, a leading loyalist activist known for his hard-line opposition to Irish unity, offered reserved praise for the leader, calling it “a ‘fight them on the beaches’ level speech. Decisive strong leadership. A rallying call to those in his country.”
Public health is a devolved matter in the United Kingdom, meaning it falls under the purview of local authorities in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. But without clear direction coming from London, Northern Irish parties were left divided over how best to respond to the outbreak, taking stances that were strongly influenced by their respective views on the country’s disputed constitutional question.
Sinn Fein—the country’s largest nationalist party, which seeks to unify Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—urged the administration to adopt Dublin’s approach. The Democratic Unionist Party—the country’s largest unionist party, which seeks to maintain the union with Britain—deferred to the British government. The result was a confused, disjointed approach that was only resolved when London finally took action.
The Northern Irish public’s attitude to the British government’s response has been overwhelmingly negative. According to a recent LucidTalk poll, 65 percent of respondents believed the U.K. government has been managing the emergency badly. “People were really frustrated with the slowness of the British government’s approach,” said Cliona McCarney, a communications worker for the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party. “We always thought it was going to be kind of bad, but it’s probably been worse than we could’ve anticipated.”
By contrast, polls show that large majorities of the public admired both the Irish government’s response and Varadkar’s leadership, figures that include substantial numbers of unionists.
But experts told Foreign Policy that one should be cautious about ascribing too much meaning to the public’s reaction to the coronavirus. “There’s a very important distinction to be made,” said Dawn Walsh, a professor of politics at University College Dublin and an expert on Northern Ireland, “between having a friendly and cooperative relationship with your neighbors and having a change of idea as to whether you would like to secede from your current political union and join your neighbors.” Unionists, she said, have been cultivating a close working relationship with the Irish government for years now.The pandemic is part of a wider trend that seems to suggest the public is warming to the idea of Irish unity.
Still, the pandemic is part of a wider trend that seems to suggest the public is warming to the idea of unity. Northern Ireland voted by a slim majority to remain in the European Union in the June 2016 Brexit referendum, fueling calls for unification with the republic as a way of preserving the country’s EU membership.
In the U.K. general election in December 2019, nationalist politicians won more seats than unionists for the first time in the country’s history, and in February, Sinn Fein gained international attention when it pulled within one seat of becoming the largest party in the Irish parliament. It will now likely lead the opposition to the next government in Dublin.
Polls paint an ambiguous picture about the level of support for Irish unity, and the results of different surveys can depend strongly on a variety of factors, including how the question is framed. A poll conducted by the University of Liverpool in December 2019 showed that only 28.3 percent of respondents believed that unification should be the long-term policy of Northern Ireland. However, when asked in February how they would vote if a border poll (referendum on Irish unity) were held the next day in a LucidTalk poll, 45.4 percent said they would vote for a united Ireland.
The pandemic is better understood as one part of a broader paradigm shift, rather than as an agent for change on its own. “There is an increased chance that there would be a border poll and that a border poll would pass particularly since the Brexit referendum, the rise of English nationalism, and Boris Johnson becoming prime minister,” Walsh said.
As O Donnghaile, the Sinn Fein spokesman, put it: “When you look at Brexit, when you look at [the British government’s] response to COVID, how could you not be going back and reevaluating some pretty fundamental things?”
The pandemic has also thrown into sharp relief the difference in leadership styles exhibited by Johnson and Sturgeon. The British prime minister has been criticized for his confused messaging and breezy approach in the crucial early days of the pandemic, missing five meetings of the U.K. government’s emergency committee. Sturgeon, in contrast, has appeared solemn but resolute in her public comments, thanking the public for their collective efforts to help slow the spread of the virus.
As the U.K. slowly begins to emerge from lockdown, its devolved parliaments and assemblies in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland all proved to be more cautious than Westminster. In May, when Johnson announced that restrictions would begin to ease in England as the rate of infection was beginning to fall, Sturgeon urged people in Scotland to stay home.
As in Northern Ireland, opinion polls have revealed that Scots hold a dim view of Johnson’s handling of the pandemic. While 78 percent of people in Scotland think that the government in Edinburgh has handled the crisis well, just 34 percent say the same about Westminster. Comparing the performance of their respective leaders, the gulf widens further still, as 82 percent believe Sturgeon has handled the pandemic well, compared to 30 percent who say the same about Johnson.
The Scottish public has always rated its own government higher than the one in Westminster. “It’s Scotland’s own government, it has a bit of a halo around it,” said John Curtice, a politics professor at the University of Strathclyde, but the disparity suggests that the actions of the Scottish government have hewed closer to public opinion.
Experts who spoke to Foreign Policy said it’s too soon to tell how this could shape public attitudes toward Scottish independence, if at all. “Not everything is about the constitution in Scotland,” McEwen, the University of Edinburgh professor.The Scottish public has always rated its own government higher than the one in Westminster.
But it’s already becoming clear how the pandemic and the looming economic crisis could provide fodder to argue both for and against Scottish independence. Supporters may argue that had Scotland been independent, a lockdown could have been implemented sooner, while those in favor of remaining in the United Kingdom can point to the economic benefits of remaining in the union as the economic consequences of the pandemic escalate.
“It will be argued by those on the unionist side that the abilities of the U.K. to throw large amounts of government resources to keep the economy afloat would have been much more difficult for Scotland to achieve,” Curtice said.
Fears of economic uncertainty proved to be decisive in the 2014 independence referendum in which 55 percent of voters opted to remain as part of the United Kingdom. As the global economy teeters on the edge of catastrophe, it could be even more difficult to persuade voters in Scotland to break away from Westminster’s “broad shoulders.”
“For the most part, dire economic circumstances are not the best basis for mounting an independence campaign,” McEwen said. “That would be under normal circumstances but of course we have Brexit on the horizon too.”
The United Kingdom is second only to the United States in its number of coronavirus fatalities, and bereaved relatives and doctors have already called for an inquiry into the government’s response. But as missteps were made across the country, there may be limits to the extent that devolved governments can point the blame at Westminster. “All governments have a difficult track record to defend,” Curtice said.
The Scottish government was criticized for its handling of an outbreak at a conference in Edinburgh in February organized by the sports brand Nike. Twenty-five attendees were later confirmed to have the virus, but details of the outbreak were not made public out of respect for patient privacy. According to the BBC, public health authorities in Scotland were made aware of the outbreak by March 2, but the Scottish government held off on banning mass gatherings until March 16 and didn’t go into lockdown until March 23, the same day as restrictions were announced by the U.K. government.
Westminster’s bungled response to the pandemic has fueled disillusionment with the Conservative government in Westminster. With no end in sight to the public health crisis, it’s too soon to tell if voters will take out their frustration against Johnson’s party in the next election or if it will fuel a more dramatic shift, spurring calls for Scottish independence and Irish unity. Coupled with Brexit negotiations and a global economic downturn, the coming years could fundamentally alter the way people in Scotland and Northern Ireland view their relationship with the United Kingdom.